Michael Flynn Developments

[Marvin the Martian]

Seriously mark? Do you really see taking the oath and testifying before a grand jury the same as meeting "a couple of guys" in your office with no stated purpose?

A couple guys? Is that how these documents purported the FBI showed up not saying they were the FBI, they were just a couple guys wanting to shoot the breeze?

True or false, a police officer walks up to me and asks me to identify myself and I lie, am I subject to being arrested? It is easy for me to google that and see lawyers telling me I may have the right to not answer (and may not have that right as it turns out) but that under no circumstances could I lie. Why in Hell would Flynn think lying to the FBI is any different?

 

[DrHoops]

I don't understand the controversy here. Flynn was fired by both Presidents Obama and Trump. He lied to the FBI and pleaded (as awkward as it sounds, the proper form) guilty and was sentenced.

It's amazing to me that seemingly smart people are hitching their wagon to this idiot.

A couple guys? Is that how these documents purported the FBI showed up not saying they were the FBI, they were just a couple guys wanting to shoot the breeze?

True or false, a police officer walks up to me and asks me to identify myself and I lie, am I subject to being arrested? It is easy for me to google that and see lawyers telling me I may have the right to not answer (and may not have that right as it turns out) but that under no circumstances could I lie. Why in Hell would Flynn think lying to the FBI is any different?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

A couple guys? Is that how these documents purported the FBI showed up not saying they were the FBI, they were just a couple guys wanting to shoot the breeze?

True or false, a police officer walks up to me and asks me to identify myself and I lie, am I subject to being arrested? It is easy for me to google that and see lawyers telling me I may have the right to not answer (and may not have that right as it turns out) but that under no circumstances could I lie. Why in Hell would Flynn think lying to the FBI is any different?

A few things. First, the lie has to be material to an investigation. Second, any lie must be accompanied by scienter in order to be actionable. Third, there are documents showing the FBI deliberately engaged in a ruse when they met Flynn. Fourth, Director Comey was personally involved with the ruse and bragged about disregarding protocol in the Flynn interview. Fifth, the Mueller team deliberately withheld important information as it negotiated the Flynn plea deal. Sixth, full disclosure of all relevant prosecution evidence is a legal and ethical requirement for plea negotiations.

There is no requirement that law enforcement must always be truthful with a suspect during questioning. But prosecutors have such an obligation during a prosecution and plea negotiations.

The judge will here all of this. So we will see.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The judge will here all of this. So we will see.

That I completely agree with. If a judge declares the FBI acted in bad faith, then the FBI acted in bad faith. If the judge does not, then they didn't.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Seriously marv? Do you really see taking the oath and testifying before a grand jury the same as meeting "a couple of guys" in your office with no stated purpose?

if FBI agents show up to your office and start questioning you about things you know are dicey, do you assume their presence there is just some huge coincidence, and it's ok to lie to them about things with national security implications, especially when you're the nation's new national security advisor?

while this isn't a subject i claim any expertise on, Flynn seems slimy and corrupt as hell, (probably guilty of more things than was charged with), and as far as i can tell he did lie to FBI investigators which he pled guilty to.

and did he not accept $600,000 from the Turkish govt to use his position to try and get a US resident extradited to Turkey, which wouldn't have gone well for said US resident.

that said, are agents questioning bad guys about things they already know the answers to, to see if they lie, not common practice? and when so, are they not often/usually charged with perjury?

if someone with that kind of position is doing really shady/illegal stuff, aren't the FBI supposed to take an "out to get them" approach, and if so, is it not extremely disingenuous to label it as only partisanship.

again, i claim no expertise on this subject, and if i'm missing something here or just wrong on something i said, inform me.

that said, not sure where the Pubs and their media are going with this, other than to get the subject off Covid.

and again, i'm guessing he has done worse sht than he's been sentenced for, and wonder if he would just as soon the Pub media would let this go.

as for the question of "why was Flynn being investigated in the first place", i wonder if Flynn really wants that subject brought back to light.

regardless, not grasping why that matters, and from the little i have read, it doesn't seem unreasonable that he was under investigation, especially considering his new gig at the time.

hopefully any national security advisor who has been getting over a million dollars from other countries in "consulting fees", (often a wash for payoff money), and such, absolutely should be investigated as a matter of due diligence.

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

National Review has a good article on what happened to Flynn and why

It is very interesting to check the bias of a site before reading it. It also would be providing full disclose if one would state the site's general bias before referencing it elsewhere. Of course, none of us would ever reference an extreme media now would we? That would be flame bait.

 

[Spartans9312]

It is very interesting to check the bias of a site before reading it. It also would be providing full disclose if one would state the site's general bias before referencing it elsewhere. Of course, none of us would ever reference an extreme media now would we? That would be flame bait.

Do what?

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

Do what?

Not everything one encounters in life is without an agenda. I recommended that one check the bias or political leaning of the media source so that one can use that information in determining if it may or may not be reliable.

Google: Bias check National Review. This comes up in Quora: Today National Review is shaped by far-right political bias and a mixed reputation which is often un-reliable

National Review is the media source of the article you linked. Is it your agenda to spread far-right political bias that is often un-reliable on this thread?

 

[Spartans9312]

Not everything one encounters in life is without an agenda. I recommended that one check the bias or political leaning of the media source so that one can use that information in determining if it may or may not be reliable.

Google: Bias check National Review. This comes up in Quora: Today National Review is shaped by far-right political bias and a mixed reputation which is often un-reliable

National Review is the media source of the article you linked. Is it your agenda to spread far-right political bias that is often un-reliable on this thread?

I appreciate the education.
Did you read the article?
If so, what in the article was false?

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

I appreciate the education.
Did you read the article?
If so, what in the article was false?

Yeah, just reread what you call a good article in the National Review on what happened to Flynn and why.

Well, I find it hard to believe that someone would really say that that is a good article on what happened to Flynn and why. It isn't an article at all. It is an opinion by the Editorial Board of the National Review. One thing National Review does say that rings true is this: "We were never fans of Michael Flynn’s appointment as national-security adviser. How he handled himself in this matter — and especially his work for the government of Turkey while advising Trump in 2016 — shows poor judgment."

But then rhetorically tries to confuse the readers with misinformation and misleading opinions. Why indeed? Well, because the Trump administration has botched so many things that maybe by gaslighting again and again the Mueller investigation, the FBI, etc., they can divert the people from understanding what really is going down.

If you actually read the documents recently given to Flynn's new legal people then you would realize that it discusses, in the draft memo, options on the upcoming Flynn interview. What is discussed is legal and above board. Flynn was compromised, because Russia knew he had lied and therefore had leverage over him. As the NSA, he was in a position to make decisions against the interests of the U.S. Sally Yates recommended the WH remove him. The FBI is supposed to investigate threats against the U.S.

Did you read the "article"? What in it did you think had merit? And why does the Flynn issue get any attention at all from Trump after Trump fired him for lying?

Furthemore, I will counter your rightist wishful thinking National Review with a leftist Talking Points Memo article: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/flynn-entrapment-claims-fbi-notes#EmbedCommentsWrapper

Let me know when you read it.

 

[Spartans9312]

Yeah, just reread what you call a good article in the National Review on what happened to Flynn and why.

Well, I find it hard to believe that someone would really say that that is a good article on what happened to Flynn and why. It isn't an article at all. It is an opinion by the Editorial Board of the National Review. One thing National Review does say that rings true is this: "We were never fans of Michael Flynn’s appointment as national-security adviser. How he handled himself in this matter — and especially his work for the government of Turkey while advising Trump in 2016 — shows poor judgment."

But then rhetorically tries to confuse the readers with misinformation and misleading opinions. Why indeed? Well, because the Trump administration has botched so many things that maybe by gaslighting again and again the Mueller investigation, the FBI, etc., they can divert the people from understanding what really is going down.

If you actually read the documents recently given to Flynn's new legal people then you would realize that it discusses, in the draft memo, options on the upcoming Flynn interview. What is discussed is legal and above board. Flynn was compromised, because Russia knew he had lied and therefore had leverage over him. As the NSA, he was in a position to make decisions against the interests of the U.S. Sally Yates recommended the WH remove him. The FBI is supposed to investigate threats against the U.S.

Did you read the "article"? What in it did you think had merit? And why does the Flynn issue get any attention at all from Trump after Trump fired him for lying?

Furthemore, I will counter your rightist wishful thinking National Review with a leftist Talking Points Memo article: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/flynn-entrapment-claims-fbi-notes#EmbedCommentsWrapper

Let me know when you read it.

The quote you placed in your post is not present in the Andy McCarthy article in National Review. And yes it is a very good analysis of what happened to Flynn.

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

The quote you placed in your post is not present in the Andy McCarthy article in National Review. And yes it is a very good analysis of what happened to Flynn.

Oh, ok. I read the first thing that came up on that right-wing biased media site. I really don't want to go back and read another. I guess, if you don't want to link something directly then people might just not really know what you are referring to, eh?

Did you read my link?

 

[Spartans9312]

Oh, ok. I read the first thing that came up on that right-wing biased media site. I really don't want to go back and read another. I guess, if you don't want to link something directly then people might just not really know what you are referring to, eh?

Did you read my link?

Yes

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Case against Flynn dropped.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/07/politics/michael-flynn-prosecution/index.html

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

The department said it had concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”

https://apnews.com/ae1ad252bb13490db2ceffc5d17b6d92

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

At least I didn't start a whole thread about something, only to have "nothing to say" when it gets exposed as bullshit.
Carry on with your crop dusting.

I’ll tell you what, sit down and try and come up with something to say that is an original thought instead of spending your time commenting and telling others what is wrong with their thoughts.

You never have anything to say .... it would be nice to know that my tax dollars at least created a couple of functional brain cells between your ears.... I’m eager to hear your take on Flynn.... come on rev that brain cell up and give it a go.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

They weren’t “ordered to” in the original trial when Flynn PLEADED GUILTY all by himself. Nothing the the FBI did was wrong in the least. You’re defending a traitor to the US and a total loser.

This is all about giving Trump cover for pardoning more of his criminal associates. You’re buying it hook, line, and sinker like every other Ill-informed TrumpBot.

How is it so confusing to you that Flynn pleaded GUILTY as charged?

FBI did nothing wrong? Hmmmm..... the main issue as I understand as what the FBI did that was illegal was the setup. The FBI knew the contents of the call with Russia. They knew it was perfectly fine. They wanted to see if he would lie about the call and he did. The problem is, they can’t do that

So the FBI made Flynn lie to the FBI?

Nope but they knew there was no crime because they already knew the contents of the call. They went there just to see if he would lie. He did. You can’t do that...There is a name for it that was stated in the Release but I can’t remember it. There was no crime to investigate because they knew the conversation was legal and fine.

there will be prosecutions for this....

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

You might be a seer. But I'm Pavlolv and you are my dog. I knew I could make you post stupid shit with an easy refutation of your "Flynn lied" post.

Wow....

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I’ll tell you what, sit down and try and come up with something to say that is an original thought instead of spending your time commenting and telling others what is wrong with their thoughts.

You never have anything to say .... it would be nice to know that my tax dollars at least created a couple of functional brain cells between your ears.... I’m eager to hear your take on Flynn.... come on rev that brain cell up and give it a go.

Thank God for Bill Barr.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

At least Flynn didn’t use his personal e-mail !

No but he jerked off in a cigar box

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

A couple guys? Is that how these documents purported the FBI showed up not saying they were the FBI, they were just a couple guys wanting to shoot the breeze?

True or false, a police officer walks up to me and asks me to identify myself and I lie, am I subject to being arrested? It is easy for me to google that and see lawyers telling me I may have the right to not answer (and may not have that right as it turns out) but that under no circumstances could I lie. Why in Hell would Flynn think lying to the FBI is any different?

The two agents were snuck into the White House by Comey and “Andy”... it is disclosed in the reports. The two agents went into his office and had a discussion with him.... pretty shifty

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Here you go.... refusing to turnover evidence in his possession as oredered in 2018 to provide. This prosecutor has withdrawn from Flynn’s case but also was part of the Mueller team. You know those guys that were employed by the DNC and were just fantastically unbiased.... he has been removed from that also.

“What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about – and didn’t provide to Flynn – was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 "Closing Communication" from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mu...ce-concerning-his-compliance-with-court-order

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The two agents were snuck into the White House by Comey and “Andy”... it is disclosed in the reports. The two agents went into his office and had a discussion with him.... pretty shifty

Do you have a link that shows he was not told they were FBI? It would seem any charge of lying to the FBI would have to include people knowing they were FBI.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Do you have a link that shows he was not told they were FBI? It would seem any charge of lying to the FBI would have to include people knowing they were FBI.

No I never thought that was the case... if I intimated that it was not intentional

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Do you have a link that shows he was not told they were FBI? It would seem any charge of lying to the FBI would have to include people knowing they were FBI.

I will say though having an FBI agent or CIA employee stop by your office is probably as common in the White House as someone from Small Business Lending stopping by my office while i was in banking....

 

[Lucy01]

No but he jerked off in a cigar box

What’s a cigar box

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I guess this means we will never know what the judge would have ruled.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

I guess this means we will never know what the judge would have ruled.

It’s a sad situation for us a country.... our partisanship is dangerously out of hand

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

What’s a cigar box

Big Bill knows which box I’m talking about

 

[DrHoops]

Wrong again. Even beyond the fact that no one told Flynn to lie to the FBI about his Russian communications (first major red flag against the traitor to his country). He then pleaded guilty to the charges. FBI agents can lie even when they know the answer to their questions.

Although police have long been prohibited from using physical force, they are able to use a variety of powerful psychological ploys to extract confessions from criminal suspects, including the use of deception during interrogation. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed police to falsely claim that a suspect's confederate confessed when in fact he had not (Frazier v. Cupp, 1969) and to have found a suspect's fingerprints at a crime scene when there were none (Oregon v. Mathiason, 1977), determining such acts insufficient for rendering the defendant's confession inadmissible. State courts have permitted police to deceive suspects about a range of factual matters, including, for example, falsely stating that incriminating DNA evidence and satellite photography of the crime scene exist (State v. Nightingale, 2012).

As usual you’re wrong.

FBI did nothing wrong? Hmmmm..... the main issue as I understand as what the FBI did that was illegal was the setup. The FBI knew the contents of the call with Russia. They knew it was perfectly fine. They wanted to see if he would lie about the call and he did. The problem is, they can’t do that


Nope but they knew there was no crime because they already knew the contents of the call. They went there just to see if he would lie. He did. You can’t do that...There is a name for it that was stated in the Release but I can’t remember it. There was no crime to investigate because they knew the conversation was legal and fine.

there will be prosecutions for this....

FBI did nothing wrong? Hmmmm..... the main issue as I understand as what the FBI did that was illegal was the setup. The FBI knew the contents of the call with Russia. They knew it was perfectly fine. They wanted to see if he would lie about the call and he did. The problem is, they can’t do that


Nope but they knew there was no crime because they already knew the contents of the call. They went there just to see if he would lie. He did. You can’t do that...There is a name for it that was stated in the Release but I can’t remember it. There was no crime to investigate because they knew the conversation was legal and fine.

there will be prosecutions for this....

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Wrong again. Even beyond the fact that no one told Flynn to lie to the FBI about his Russian communications (first major red flag against the traitor to his country). He then pleaded guilty to the charges. FBI agents can lie even when they know the answer to their questions.

Although police have long been prohibited from using physical force, they are able to use a variety of powerful psychological ploys to extract confessions from criminal suspects, including the use of deception during interrogation. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed police to falsely claim that a suspect's confederate confessed when in fact he had not (Frazier v. Cupp, 1969) and to have found a suspect's fingerprints at a crime scene when there were none (Oregon v. Mathiason, 1977), determining such acts insufficient for rendering the defendant's confession inadmissible. State courts have permitted police to deceive suspects about a range of factual matters, including, for example, falsely stating that incriminating DNA evidence and satellite photography of the crime scene exist (State v. Nightingale, 2012).

As usual you’re wrong.

Sir you are making yourself look rediculous.... they can’t be in the office to conduct an investigation or interrogation period. Read about it before talking about it. But I’m sure it won’t stop you.

 

[UncleMark]

I guess this means we will never know what the judge would have ruled.

I'm not so sure about that. I think he still has to rule, or decline to rule. Flynn pleaded guilty. His plea was accepted. IANAL, but I still think how this ends is up to the judge.

Everyone knows this is nothing more than Barr getting Flynn off so Trump won't have to pardon him.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Thank God for Bill Barr.

It wasn’t Barr’s call.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

It wasn’t Barr’s call.

Well, that's probably true.

 

[DrHoops]

Says who?

Sir you are making yourself look rediculous.... they can’t be in the office to conduct an investigation or interrogation period. Read about it before talking about it. But I’m sure it won’t stop you.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

FBI did nothing wrong? Hmmmm..... the main issue as I understand as what the FBI did that was illegal was the setup. The FBI knew the contents of the call with Russia. They knew it was perfectly fine. They wanted to see if he would lie about the call and he did. The problem is, they can’t do that


Nope but they knew there was no crime because they already knew the contents of the call. They went there just to see if he would lie. He did. You can’t do that...There is a name for it that was stated in the Release but I can’t remember it. There was no crime to investigate because they knew the conversation was legal and fine.

there will be prosecutions for this....

This is sort of what I’m wondering. The FBI had transcripts of the Kislyak call. They knew nothing illegal was discussed, yet they still wanted to catch Flynn lying about it.

At that point, what exactly are they investigating?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Do you have a link that shows he was not told they were FBI? It would seem any charge of lying to the FBI would have to include people knowing they were FBI.

How many ways do I need to say that the lie must be material to an investigation and the person being questioned must know about it thus fulfilling the scienter requirement. Knowing they are FBI agents doesn’t mean squat standing alone.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

How many ways do I need to say that the lie must be material to an investigation and the person being questioned must know about it thus fulfilling the scienter requirement. Knowing they are FBI agents doesn’t mean squat standing alone.

We will never find out officially (probably) since DOJ dropped the case.

 

[IUCrazy2]

DOJ dropped the case against a guy they had a "confession" from. That should tell everyone all they need to know about what they thought their chances were when this all came out. Prosecutorial misconduct all over this one.

I also find it disconcerting that so called liberals are all in on allowing prosecutors to cook up a false charge and then threaten a man's possessions, freedom, and family to admit to things that were not true in an effort to save them from prosecution. They then hid that from his attorneys. That is not justice. Obama's people have completely ****ed any trust that people will have in the DOJ or FBI. Hope they enjoyed burning down the justice system because the pussies couldn't handle Hillary losing an election.

Couple that with everything that is coming out that shows this Russian collusion nonsense was a bunch of bull shit and I would think several people on this forum would be ducking their heads whenever believing bull shit conspiracy theories comes up. Many of you have sucked that gas hard core for 3 years.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

DOJ dropped the case against a guy they had a "confession" from. That should tell everyone all they need to know about what they thought their chances were when this all came out. Prosecutorial misconduct all over this one.

I also find it disconcerting that so called liberals are all in on allowing prosecutors to cook up a false charge and then threaten a man's possessions, freedom, and family to admit to things that were not true in an effort to save them from prosecution. They then hid that from his attorneys. That is not justice. Obama's people have completely ****ed any trust that people will have in the DOJ or FBI. Hope they enjoyed burning down the justice system because the pussies couldn't handle Hillary losing an election.

Couple that with everything that is coming out that shows this Russian collusion nonsense was a bunch of bull shit and I would think several people on this forum would be ducking their heads whenever believing bull shit conspiracy theories comes up. Many of you have sucked that gas hard core for 3 years.

I have no idea what the DOJ dropping it says. The president sure has no desire to pursue, and Barr has not shown a great deal of independence.

As to Russia, what is your argument? That Russia did not try to interfere? Or that they did, just without help from Trump's team? The latter has always seemed likely to me, the former seems pretty wrong.