Talk:Michael Flynn

woefully inadequate

In a sentencing memorandum released on December 4, 2018, the Mueller investigation stated Flynn "deserves credit for accepting responsibility in a timely fashion and substantially assisting the government" and should receive little or no jail time.[136]

There is far more to the content of the memorandum than that, and it obsoletes much of the other discussion on the page of what Flynn did, which looks like a whitewash at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibal (talk • contribs)

Michael Flynn has filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

The beginning of the article states that Flynn is a convicted felon based on his guilty plea, but his lawyer filed for a motion to withdraw his plea. This makes him no longer a convicted felon and that should be changed.

In addition, the section on his ongoing legal case does not mention the plea withdrawal motion. The New York Times has published this story. .

75.80.196.129 (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

No, he filed a motion, but judge Sullivan decides whether to accept it. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Makes no difference what the judge says, he filed his documentation of what they all did to him. And it was his ex-lawyers who told him to plead guilty or else. Did you not read his appeal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F0D0:7BA0:6814:3117:AB24:770C (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

Change Michael Flynn's party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Timothy Aslin (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

See the sources in Michael_Flynn#Political_views. If you find better or more recent sources you can point to them. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Trump full pardon (potential), add?

Trump is “strongly considering” a full pardon for Flynn, who pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about the nature of his conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to Trump’s inauguration.

Trump tweeted shortly after the Justice Department initiated a review of the criminal case against Flynn “After destroying his life & the life of his wonderful family (and many others also), the FBI, working in conjunction with the Justice Department, has ‘lost’ the records of General Michael Flynn.” “How convenient,” he added. “I am strongly considering a Full Pardon!” Flynn is currently attempting to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct during his initial trial.

Some refs:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-hes-strongly-considering-pardoning-michael-flynn/2020/03/15/9137ddfe-66e4-11ea-9923-57073adce27c_story.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/us/politics/trump-flynn-pardon.html
• https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/15/trump-considering-full-pardon-of-former-national-security-advisor-michael-flynn.html
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/15/politics/trump-michael-flynn-pardon-tweet/

X1\ (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Pardon? It is possible after you have been convicted. He was not and withdraw the plea. The same about Assange and Snowden, BTW. Wow, how many people do not know that. 91.79.174.204 (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW. Wow, do you not know what "potential" means, 91.79.174.204? X1\ (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is the section on the new news that Flynn was targeted by the FBI

It is all over the Conservative media about disclosure of hand written notes from Priestap that they were trying to trick Flynn into a lie. I do not list any of them here because, as we all know, only far left sources are accepted here, sources that are shown to have a bias and have to correct themselves almost daily after they do the damage they are trying to do. Notice the sources below, NONE are conservative. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Conservative Twitter was all in a titter over this last night. But, as is often the case (left wing Twitter too), they're jumping the gun on what those notes do and do not prove. So, we will adhere to our cautious approach since this is a BLP. Please provide some sources as there are none. You mistakenly put this above the sources in the above section from March 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn't being covered only by the far right. Why not use the objective Washington Post article, "The Michael Flynn revelation: Bombshell or business as usual?" or The New York Times "Flynn Lawyers Seize on Newly Released F.B.I. Documents" or CNN's "Handwritten note shows how FBI official approached key Michael Flynn interview" or any major news outlet's coverage? YoPienso (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yopienso, no, it's not being covered only by the far right. That was not what I meant with what I said, so I see I was not clear. I meant that it got reported and right wing Twitter jumped on it as though it's a total exoneration of Flynn. It seems that it is not. I haven't read those above sources, but this one I just did read: Trump calls Flynn case 'scam' after new docs released, but experts say they change little, from NBC's San Antonio affiliate. One particular line in the FBI notes is being cherrypicked as evidence of entrapment, but it is not as such. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

My point is, there's no reason not to add this to the BLP. YoPienso (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Based on what some of the experts are saying, these notes seem Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill for these kind of interrogations, and adding them can provide the erroneous perception that the FBI entrapped Flynn. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a sham though that this article even fails to mention he is still not convicted/sentenced, lol. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/judge-delays-michael-flynns-sentence-again.html 91.79.174.204 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The article mentions that he has not been sentenced. What in the article is inaccurate? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia article in inaccurate. Lets also add Crossfire Razor, FBI codename as "Other Names" in the box like we did with CT. 91.79.174.204 (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Just another article that shows the left bias of Wikipedia editors in charge. On Joe Biden, the requirement is "Must have multiple sources" here, there are multiple sources yet no mention. AND, I also wrote about how if it is bad news on a republican, immediately it is added, bad news for a democrat, must be vetted for MONTHS. Then that statement, IN TALK, gets memory holed, and I have a feeling it was an editor who cannot see their bias, as they are here doing the same thing. Just because you do not like the info, does not mean it is wrong. Finally, I will be glad when this article is forced to be rewritten when he is exonerated. And when he is, will he have the right to sue all of the editors that painted him in the worst light and only allowed left wing sources worst light?173.172.158.168 (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I just added a paragraph about the entrapment allegations to the intro, hopefully in an evenhanded way. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

My attempt to balance this addition with sourced facts has been reverted - therefore I object to its insertion and request that it be discussed and consensus gained before any attempt is made to reinsert it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Korney, do you REALLY think that a biased far left "pedia" will allow any information that will show someone in the Trump Administration to stand until they are forced to? My hope is that Gen. Flynn will sue Wikipedia for defamation with it's left biased write up on him. That would include editors who made the article show the darkest light on him. Like, there are plenty of articles that show he pleaded guilty because the corrupt FBI officials and SC lawyers threatened his son after they bankrupted him. But, hey, the NYT says Joe B. has no evidence against him. This is getting ridiculous. There are plenty of articles now that prove he was railroaded, but SOMEONE does not want that added to this article. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

YES add the information that he was entrapped. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

IP, you're skirting around our policy of Wikipedia:NOLEGALTHREATS. If you continue to make legal threats, even suggesting that Flynn should sue Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not threatening anything. Hoping that someone who has been ambushed here with a biased article that only left wing sources can be cited gets justice, how is that a bad thing if it brings changes here that are balanced? It would make this "pedia" better, and less prone to professors to tell their students not to rely on it for their citations. Don't you want that?173.172.158.168 (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof - was the paragraph really unbalanced? It described Flynn's views, and noted that Trump agrees with him. Yes, some people have described his views as a conspiracy theory - and it would be good for the article to state that too - but the article should also make it clear that those descriptions predate the latest evidence, as the person who reverted your changes alluded to. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That "evidence" is not widely viewed as actual evidence of "entrapment." See, say, this non-opinion mainstream source or this non-opinion mainstream source. There are certainly many partisan right-wing columnists and outlets proclaiming that this is some sort of massive bombshell exonerating Flynn, but those are of no value to Wikipedia in interpreting how to factually present an issue. The judicial system will ultimately provide the final say here. We cannot present Flynn's claims as if they are unchallenged fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not widely viewed by whom? Left wing news sources and editors? 173.172.158.168 (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

And to be more specific - the Quartz source Korny O'Near cited discussed the fact that Flynn explicitly told the judge in his case that he was not entrapped and that he knew it was against the law to lie to the FBI, and described the view that he was "entrapped" as a conspiracy theory. If we are to present Flynn's new claims, we must of course put them in context of what reliable mainstream news sources have said about the case, and the known facts of how Flynn has discussed the issue previously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Great - we agree that the new evidence that has come out is not concrete evidence of entrapment. Thankfully, that's not what the article paragraph stated: it said that Flynn, Trump and some others believe he was entrapped, and have said so more consistently since the new information came out a few days ago. It would be good to include the opposing view - though it would be better to cite opposing views that have come out since April 29 or so, rather than from 2018. And it's especially important, if you include incendiary phrases like "conspiracy theory", to note the date and source of those statements. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post is NOT OPINIONATED? Really? The NYT which has NOT ENDORSED A REPUBLICAN for 80 years? No one believes they are not biased any longer, you know it just as well as I do. They just fit your bias. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, they don't fit your bias. Editorial pages, which make political endorsements, are independent from investigative journalists at any newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? They sure are forced to retract a LOT of stories from their "investigative journalists" that 95% of the time are against conservatives. I think you are biased to believe them. I admit I am conservative, will you admit you are liberal? When I edit an article here, usually grammar corrections, but if it is an edit in regards to adding to information of an article, I pass it by a couple of other editors that do not have my bias to make sure it contains no POV. This article has POV, it won't allow evidence he was railroaded by their threatening his son with jail time. But it WILL, eventually, it will have to,IMHO.173.172.158.168 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Is there a citation for the figure that 95% of WaPo articles are "against conservatives"? All newspapers issue corrections. Well, reputable ones do. No publication is perfect. Yes, I am left wing. I've never denied it. But, there's no evidence that Flynn was "railroaded". Flynn Jr was facing jail time for a reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Is Newsmax considered a reliable source here? They are on radio stations as the national news source at the top and bottom of the hour across the US. Just heard their reports on a station today, like FOX, CBS, Salem Radio Network, etc. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, Newsmax is not a reliable source; they are barely one step above InfoWars on the unreliability scale. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So anything that is right of left wing CBS is not allowed because they may not tow the liberal bias that is shown in all political articles in Wikipedia. That is what I thought. They are a national radio news outlet. BUT they are infowars. I see. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC) I see they are doing investigations into Strzok substantially rewriting a 302 in another agent's voice. Why would he do that? But you will not accept this because a left wing biased source like the WaPo will not report on it, YET. Interesting.173.172.158.168 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're calling CBS "left wing", and implying that Infowars is in any way reliable, there's no hope for us to see eye to eye. You'd probably feel more at home on Conservapedia, where they edit with a specific bias (yours) in mind. Here, we adhere to neutral point of view. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I never said Infowars is reliable.173.172.158.168 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I said "if you're ... implying". I'm glad we're on the same page about Infowars not being reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Support - We can not hide facts on Wikipedia. Eternal Father (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Support We should at least add information about Crossfire Razor is his codename. But yes, the fact as somebody said above this wikipedia article even fails to mention he was not FOUND GUILTY, i.e. was not convicted is rather strange. 2A00:1370:812C:9562:9450:C202:4986:EA75 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The article says that he pled guilty and then sought to withdraw his guilty plea. Which is accurate. His FBI code name is not relevant as far as I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Potentially exculpatory details, such as a codename used in recently unsealed documents, would be relevant to this case. He did seek to withdraw his plea, and there's either entrapment or at least brady violations that may very well see him acquitted. Eternal Father (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The FBI likes to use code names. What makes you think Flynn's code name is in any way exculpatory? Entrapment and Brady violations remain unproven and possible acquittal is WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the guy meant that Crossfire Razor, just like Crossfire Latitude for Donald J Trump and Crossfire Typhoon for George Popadopulus (that is already edited in info box oh his page) can be used to search on Twitter, e.g., LOL, you really do not understand it? Maybe you should try to search Jeffrey Wiseman. Hah. So crazy what FBI did using that guy... "that he pled guilty " That is the point! It is not standard for guilty plea not to lead to conviction but that happens and we must show it here. As I understand it FBI itself said that he did not lie, that is why this did not lead to conviction. 2A00:1370:812C:9562:F124:BA0C:5534:D536 (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like two users, Muboshgu and NorthBySouthBaranof, are preventing any information about the new evidence released about the Flynn investigation from getting added to this article. So now we're in the curious situation where the Wikipedia article about Flynn, a good 30% of which relates to his 2017 FBI investigation, contains no mention of the little fact that Flynn now says he's innocent - as do his lawyers, the President of the United States, and a variety of right-wing media. One would think that at least mentioning this fact would be uncontroversial across the political spectrum, but apparently not. The justification that these two users have provided every time for removing the information is that there's no "consensus" for it - though as far as I can tell, they haven't attempted to generate any consensus. So, Muboshgu and NorthBySouthBaranof, let me ask you directly: what's the endgame here? Are you happy with the article as it currently stands? If not, how do you want it changed? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, the article covers all of the important details, including Flynn withdrawing his guilty plea. There is no consensus to add some of the more recent items that Right Wing Twitter is misreading as exonerating evidence. There would need to be a consensus supporting it to add it, not whatever you're suggesting. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, we've established that you think there's no consensus; you don't need to keep repeating it here. Regardless of one's interpretation of this new evidence - which is, of course, a matter of opinion - surely you would agree that it's noteworthy to mention it in this article, given (a) how much media attention it has gotten, and (b) that Flynn, Trump and others have made public statements relating to it? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We don't automatically add WP:BREAKING news, we assess its importance. The release of documents is pretty standard and WP:ROTM. That Trump and others are misinterpreting the document release is meaningless for our purposes. Trump says lots of things that aren't true. Yes, if Flynn says he's innocent it should be there. Isn't it? I don't think that whole section is written that well. That's probably the result.of one report being added haphazardly after another. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That WP:BREAKING guideline doesn't seem relevant here - it's about creating new articles, not adding information to existing articles. I don't think WP:ROTM applies here either. Yes, government documents get released every day, but I don't think most of them lead to hundreds of articles, opinion pieces, etc. in mainstream news sources. And Flynn now says more than that he's innocent: his lawyers say that he was "deliberately set up", which is not something I think he or they were saying before. I do agree with you that much of the article content that covers his post-2017 legal troubles is too detailed and blow-by-blow. Unfortunately, you and NorthBySouthBaranof don't seem to be doing anything to improve the situation, but hopefully that will change. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP requires that the material reverted recently by Muboshgu be re-instated. The current page does not accurately reflect the situation which has drastically changed since before the release of the FBI notes and the US Attorney investigation. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, ha lol no it doesn't. Not at all. Nothing has changed with the release of these notes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, per this comment I am reinstating the reverted editors. There is clear consensus that the material should go in. Only 2 editors are against, while 6+ support. The wording is very neutral, and simply updates readers on recent developments. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is Crossfire Razor in the box? 2A00:1370:812C:9562:4C22:3085:2D74:9E11 (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, consensus is more than a vote tally. And additional opposition coming in afterwards anwyay makes that point moot. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose section, per Muboshgu. Until there is more coverage in reliable sources elucidating this matter's importance, then it really does seem rather undue to add this kind of run-of-the-mill reporting.

Also, I believe that Mr Ernie's revert of Muboshgu's revert is a violation of the DS/WP:ARBAPDS on this article, that You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. Material was added; challenged by Muboshgu, and re-challenged by Mr Ernie. This discussion is still active, hasn't been closed, and I think it's rather inappropriate for Mr Ernie to carry through "consensus" (which doesn't clearly exist) even though Mr Ernie is a participant of said discussion. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure we will get a formal "closure" about this disputed information. At the time I reinserted I saw a clear consensus to add an update reflecting developments in the story. The text could not be more neutral - there is nothing controversial about the disputed text. There's the disclosure of new evidence, Flynn's counsel's response, and responses from legal professionals. There's been several disputed wordings about potential wrongdoings by one side or the other, but the current material doesn't contain any of that information. I'll revert, but opposers please point out explicitly why this particular information [1] is a problem. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the significance, hence why its necessary to pause before we add content. Moreso, it does not seem reasonable that we devote a whole section to a common practice, something mainstream RS have not even adequately articulated its importance. Whilst I do thank and appreciate the fact you've self-reverted, I would like to remind you that the WP:ONUS is actually on you and supporters of this disputed content to establish consensus for its inclusion (which, even prior to me being here, didn't clearly exist). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This is frantic right-wing chatter on the internet. It's died out even on Fox News as of today. Retired judges asked to comment have said this is far removed from what would constitute entrapment sufficient to reverse the judicial process that has convicted Flynn. Per DS on this page, it should not have been restored to the article without consensus. I trust it will be removed so so that sanctions are not necessary. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Have you looked at the reinstated wording? I think if you had then you also would have seen it was self reverted several hours ago. Your comment about the judges is also included. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  "It's died out even on Fox News as of today." Are we watching the same Fox News? Some crazy guy there said he wants to see Comey/Brennan executed and he will even press the botton. Because of Flynn. lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y43BtbDOi9Y 2A00:1370:812C:9562:4C22:3085:2D74:9E11 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - this isn't a poll or RfC, but what the heck, I'll vote anyway. For those who say it's a non-story (!), editorials and opinion pieces who have covered these latest revelations include those in The Wall Street Journal, Reason, National Review, The Hill, Boston Herald, The New York Post and The Providence Journal. And those are just the pro-Flynn ones. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Stop hiding factual information. The update I had made had multiple citations. It was written in a NPOV. The article on Michael Flynn is now woefully out of date. There are reports from POLITCO, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, and the Federalist. The 13th 4postle (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - (1) leave out the opinion pieces. (2) leave out the poorer sources: Washington Examiner, the Federalist. (3) If we are to quote: "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?", then we must also include, "If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it." [2], and "We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing" [3] Context is important, we do not only quote things out of context. We may have to explain the context too, if the sources do so. starship.paint (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I like the inclusion of this quote with Kevin's section. I don't see why we can't add Kevin's section and add future additional edits to that. The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the versions I've seen so far, per my comment below. If someone can propose something concise, factual, and using only high-quality sources, I would be open to reconsidering. - MrX 🖋 13:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

New Section on Release of New Evidence

The new section updates the Michael Flynn article and is written in a Neutral Point of View. It includes multiple citations from credible sources. It simply states how there is new evidence and both sides are now debating the importance thereof. The 13th 4postle (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The 13th 4postle, it includes information that is run of the mill and obfuscates the facts, so no, "multiple citations from credible sources" isn't enough. No "both sides" debating, it's not important. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu This is absolutely not run of the mill information. The new evidence has led to a huge increase in national media attention. This is considered by many legal and law enforcement analysts to be a significant factual update to the case. "Michael Flynn was railroaded by Comey's FBI", "The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the Trump–Russia Probe." One of those was written by ex-FBI agent for 25 years, the other was an Assistant U.S Attorney in the Southern District of NY. There are 4 votes to 2 to support the inclusion of the factual information on the release of new evidence. This is now multiple times that you continue to edit the article to NOT include relevant and updated information. I would like for the information to be included without having to seek arbitration. It is written in a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The 13th 4postle (talk • contribs)

@The 13th 4postle: - the Washington Examiner and National Review are poor sources. The Washington Examiner one is even an opinion piece. You don't go by counting votes here. starship.paint (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Those were not the sources I used in the new section. Those were sources I used to show that this new evidence is not "Run of the Mill" @ MelbourneStar The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A "huge increase in national media attention" that is much ado about nothing. We don't report on every WP:FART. There is absolutely nothing significant in this document release, and no reason we should include it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This document release has been the focus of dozens of articles and opinion pieces. Many legal scholars have weighed in. Flynn's own lawyers have called for a mistrial. How much more coverage does this need before you'd think that it should be covered in this article? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Significant coverage is not a guarantee of inclusion. His lawyers are basically doing PR for him, so why should we aid them? We're not a PR agency. The idea that these documents represent anything other than S.O.P. for the FBI are WP:FRINGE theories. The level of coverage isn't the issue. We're not a newspaper, so we don't simply regurgitate what the press does. These documents will be proven to be meaningful if they actually alter the prosecution of his case. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Really, you think WP:FRINGE applies here? Let me quote from that guideline: "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view." At least two well-known American legal scholars, Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, have weighed in to say that they agree with Flynn and his lawyers. Conversely, I don't know of any legal scholars who have stated that these latest documents are no big deal. So if any view here is fringe, it might be yours. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe find some that have not worked for Trump in the past 6 months? Just a thought. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not they worked for Trump (I don't think Turley ever did) is not relevant to WP:FRINGE. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not call them fringe. I would say the mainstream considers them compromised partisans, if not pathetic hacks, but just find better content and we'll all move on. I haven't seen any serious well-reasoned and qualified opinion that supports Flynn. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I called it fringe and do think Turley and Dershowitz have put themselves into fringe territory over the years. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, good. I'm glad somebody did. SPECIFICO talk

Your opinions on Turley and Dershowitz, like mine, are irrelevant here. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

My dear Korny, I haven't seen anyone express personal opinions here. (Except your opinion Turley didn't appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing). Just let's find valid sources and get on to the next thing. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any valid sources that talk about this since five days ago. In other words, the 24 hour news cycle has moved on from this because of lack of relevance. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait, I just found this one, but it's also insignificant. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I linked a Boston Globe Herald [h/t Muboshgu] piece from today, albeit an op-ed. It would be interesting to see if anyone covers it if the judge eventually throws the case out. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's an op-ed, so case in point. If the judge throws the case out, then of course we will document why the case was thrown out. But for now, it's wait and see. "The judge in Flynn's case, Emmett Sullivan, later Thursday ordered Flynn's team to halt the piecemeal production of new documents and to only add new information to the court docket once they get everything the U.S. attorney is going to provide."[4] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean the op-ed from the Boston Herald? The Herald is to the Globe as the NY Post is to the NY Times. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that is interesting. I wrote Herald below, after must of having read the URL and Globe here, thinking that was the source since I had told myself "because newspaper in Boston." I didn't realize there were two different newspapers, and that the Herald had such a reputation. Thanks for the heads up. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I figured that was an honest mistake. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - you must have missed when Muboshgu wrote, "I do think Turley and Dershowitz have put themselves into fringe territory over the years". Korny O'Near (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not his opinion. That's thinking. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Deep. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

These are some remarkably specific rules that you seem to be making up here. Apparently, to merit inclusion in this article, a fact has to be covered by media for a week straight - and not just any reliable sources, but the right ones. By that standard, 90% of the contents of this article should be deleted, I would think. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

OK let's wait another 10 days and see if anyone off the talk radio circuit is still pushing this. There's a big difference between a week straight and the past week straight with nothing on the horizon. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected - I thought it was just a week, but apparently a fact has to be discussed in the mainstream media for three weeks straight in order to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. At least, according to these rules you're making up. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that information on the new evidence should be added, though I didn't really like the way that new section was worded (no offense) - too much blow-by-blow stuff that doesn't really matter (no one really cares about the names of Flynn's lawyers). As noted earlier, that's a problem that afflicts this whole article, but that's another story. Anyway, I just added my own attempt at a new section, here. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Korny O'Near no, you don't have consensus to add the disputed content of the previous section (above this one). Gain consensus for its inclusion, and read up on the WP:ARBAPDS applied to this article. Honestly, this whole process is getting a little ridiculous -- do we need WP:RPP? or can editors actually discuss first, come to an agreement, and then edit? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a no consensus that Michael Flynn was entrapped. But why is there no consensus that new evidence shouldn't be included? The new evidence can be presented in a NPOV. It is not run of the mill as I have cited above. The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The 13th 4postle - that's exactly right. MelbourneStar - I agree that this is getting ridiculous, but not for the reasons you think. At the moment, there are a handful of editors who seem to be taking advantage of this article's special "discretionary sanctions" status to keep new information out of it, for who knows what reason. I think you give the game away by repeatedly citing "no consensus" as the reason why you're reverting. I mean, there's no consensus ahead of time for a typo fix either, but you wouldn't revert that change. There's obviously an underlying reason why you don't like these additions, so let's talk about that, instead of the endless circular logic of "I do not consent because there is no consensus". Korny O'Near (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all, you know full well that your edit wasn't a mere "typo fix" so please don't even try minimise it to that. Secondly, consensus is supposed to be clear, which this "consensus" is anything but. I'm certainly not taking advantage of the DS restrictions applied to this article as you've insinuated: if that were the case, I would have opened a discussion here about certain recent edits. Instead, I've opted to keep the active discussion going -- something I've been pretty consistent about. In response to your "underlying reason" comment, my thoughts on the matter are clear in black and white a section above. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I know it wasn't a typo fix - that's my point. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and my point was that you added content that was actively being discussed (still is), without obtaining the necessary consensus. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It's very hard to obtain consensus ahead of time for three paragraphs' worth of text. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"It's very hard to obtain consensus" Ah, sorry? the onus is actually on you to adequately communicate with us what you'd like to add in to the article, especially if its currently under discussion and been challenged. Bypassing discussion is not the way you're going to achieve consensus. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You just linked to a guideline that has no relevance to this discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's part of our verifiability policy, and as it relates to this discussion, I quote: ...all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content (emphasis mine). So If you can't convince others on the significance of the content you wish to add — that's not really my problem. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The versions that I've seen of this so far fall short of our NPOV and RS policies. "...some have argued that Flynn was [[entrapment|entrapped ..." is not encyclopedic phrasing. Quartz, The Washington Examiner, and the WSJ editorial board are not good sources for factual content. Opinions from The Hill, Trump, and Dershowitz should be strictly avoided. Speculation from Fox News should be eschewed. I suggest that those wanting to include this propose something far more factual and succinct on this page, then we can try to get consensus for including it. - MrX 🖋 13:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

These are all pretty bold statements. No quoting Wall Street Journal editorials? Can any editorials be quoted in Wikipedia, or is just the WSJ's that are forbidden? And the opinions of legal scholar Alan Dershowitz can't be cited either? Is it all legal scholars, or just him? Finally, the opinions of President Donald Trump cannot be mentioned, about a former member of his administration? I'd love to see the guidelines covering any of this. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

If there's valid content, there will be an abundance of undisputed valid sources. Just show and tell. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

All of this news is about a legal dispute, so I don't know what you mean by "undisputed". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant insisputably valid sources. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are the sources cited in my version of the text. Which of these are not indisputably valid? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think my comments are bold at all. They're pretty bog standard. Dershowitz is a partisan whose opinions are of no relevance here. Maybe there is a case to be made for Trump's viewpoint to be mentioned, but I have not yet seen it. WP:ONUS applies to POTUS too. - MrX 🖋 16:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a "no partisan opinions" guideline. Are you just making up rules? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. - MrX 🖋 17:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be ok to simply add that new information was turned over to Flynn's team and they made some new filings. There doesn't need to be a focus on any governmental misconduct, and it should be sufficient to note that legal experts viewed it as largely not helpful. I feel this is a neutral update in line that is acceptable per NPOV. Regarding the valid concern about RS, here is a Boston Herald article [5] and a piece by NPR [6]. Granted the Boston Herald is an op-ed, but the factual statements about the new developments are confirmed there and elsewhere. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Flynn and his lawyers believe there was governmental misconduct - as do a variety of newspaper editorial boards, legal analysts, and politicians. Why shouldn't this article cover that? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I said there shouldn't be a focus on that. We could include what Flynn's team thinks with their filings, and attribute it to them. That's really for the judge to decide anyway, not RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The NPOV text would also focus on the right wing media fog and on Trump's pandering to Flynn and his supporters. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What's an example of a source that supports that? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Goddammit. Stop arguing about this and include Crossfire Razor name. And BTW, maybe somebody will find a new photo for George Popadopulus page? I tried but failed ;) 2A00:1FA0:427C:81AB:5084:9ED2:41AF:A353 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Why? Why should we add the FBI codename? And address any changes about Papadopoulos' page on Papadopoulos' talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Release of new documents, possible perjury trap

On April 24, 2020, there was a release of previously-unseen documents relating to the investigation of Michael Flynn, including one that shows that, before the meeting with Flynn, one FBI agent had written, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?". Should this article mention this release of documents? And if so, should it be done in the context of allegations that Flynn was the target of a perjury trap? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You can see one attempt at creating a section that does both, here. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This RfC is still ongoing, despite the U.S. Department of Justice dropping its case against Flynn, because there is not yet a clear consensus on this question. Please continue to share your opinions below. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• No Putting that quote in there without context would make it appear as though the FBI did something inappropriate in their interrogation of Flynn, and there is no evidence to suggest that is the case. Legal experts say it does not show entrapment.[7] The release of documents is WP:ROUTINE, WP:ROTM, and this article already appears to suffer from proseline-like additions of each step of the court process. These documents are nothing more than fodder for the WP:FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems that the comment "including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant's supplemental pleadings" from the filing is talking about these notes. So based on that I'm striking my vote. I'm not supporting its inclusion. A whole 'nother process is needed to figure out what we should say. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both. Even if Flynn's view that he was caught in a perjury trap - and that these documents help to prove it - was a completely insane, fringe theory, it would still be worth covering here because it represents his views, and his legal defense: ultimately, this is an article about Michael Flynn. However, it's far from a fringe theory, by Wikipedia standards, since it's shared by a variety of American newspaper editorial boards, legal analysts, and politicians, all of whom have written or talked about it publicly. The evidence for including all of this in the article is pretty overwhelming. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to mentioning the document release, as a major development, widely covered by reliable sources. I don't think we should add "context", unless RS'es do so. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to mentioning the document release and Flynn's subsequent filings, as well as legal expert opinions on their (lack of) significance. Such an addition accurately reflects new developments in the Flynn case and provides needed NPOV to the earlier proceedings. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• No to both. I suspect the reason why the full quote (ie. context) hasn't been recommended by those wishing to add this content in: is because it would then appear be a pretty innocuous practice, and yes, run of the mill reporting. If anything, I'd be curious to see what happens in the next few weeks with respect to this latest "development", and then would reconsider if necessary. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - Per my previous comments. The proposed material is full of partisan talking points, and disproportionate weight given to a ploy by Flynn's lawyers and Flynn's non-law-respecting supporters. I'm open to considering including something, but I would want to see the wording worked out first and it would have to be much more concise and factual. - MrX 🖋 11:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  What about "On April 24, U.S Attorney Timothy J. Shea sent a letter to Flynn's counsel stating that in January 2020, Attorney General Barr had directed U.S Attorney Shea to review reports along with communications and notes by the FBI personal associated with the Michael Flynn Investigation "Crossfire Razor." The letter goes on to state that new evidence in the investigation was found and turned over to the court and opposition counsel under seal." There is no need to focus on the partisan talking points, but a simple and neutral update is appropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Something along those lines would probably be fine, after changing the word personal to person. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• No We don't elevate empty talking points that are disregarded by the mainstream. "Perjury trap" is rare as the Dodo Bird and does not apply to the facts surrounding this event. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes The idea that this was "disregarded by the mainstream" is just not true as the NYT has covered it precisely in the context of an argument over whether or not it was a perjury trap.[8] Per WP:WIKIVOICE, we should do the same. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both Backed by reliable sources. ~ HAL333 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both and to Crossfire Razor. Also you really miss the point, FBI thought he did not lie and wanted to close it (there was even a hidden part in court documents that he is not guilty), that is why the guilty plea did not work. It all was pending for so long because Peter Strzok reopened it and as emails show it was not fancy. Also wanted to tell that https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/judge-delays-michael-flynns-sentence-again.html and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJVc5GSjpSU can also be used as sources (even though the second is opinion). 91.76.22.132 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both since they are supported by substantial sources. Idealigic (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both it gave context to Flynn's defense arguments and is supported by reliable sources Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moot?

I'd say this is pretty moot now that the case against him has been dropped. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this RfC is moot now, which actually helps prove my point that encyclopedias, which are written for a historical perspective, require more patients with WP:BREAKING news. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring that bit of illogic, I'm not sure this RfC is moot (though I hope it is). A big part of the reason why this RfC was necessary is the special protected status of this article, which dictates that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged". Which means that one or a small group of editors can prevent even obvious changes from getting made, on the grounds of "no consensus". You would think that, with this latest news, it would be obvious that Flynn's argument about a perjury trap belong in this article - but then again, it seemed obvious before too, and a handful of editors thought otherwise. So it all depends on whether these specific editors have all changed their minds or not. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No "illogic", if that's even a word. This is why WP:BREAKING was written. We need to take a historical perspective on all events, and legal minutiae that amounts to nothing is WP:UNDUE. If indeed the documents are the impetus for dropping charges, that makes it imperative to include. My opinion on this has changed 180 degrees because the facts on the ground have changed since this RfC was opened. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're unsure if something's a word or not, we have recently created a handy tool called a 'dictionary', where you can look it up - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illogic. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, that snark is not needed. I don't care enough if it's a word to bother looking it up. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)\

It was an appropriately snarky response to your "if that's even a word" comment, which was itself a totally gratuitous and condescending snark. I'm glad my point came across clearly. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the case for including these facts is even stronger now doesn't prove that the case for doing it before was weak. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. That's true. It was my opinion, and the opinion of some of the others who commented, that the case for doing it before was weak. I stand by that. Actual impact (like the DOJ dropping the case, or if the judge had thrown it out) makes for a different situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We will have to see what develops, but I think there will be lots of commentary about how AG Barr may have concluded that the entrapment thing wouldn't fly and didn't want to risk further upsetting his boss. With the opposite, as noted, from the TV judges. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s certainly easier to attack Barr and ignore IG reports and document releases showing potential misconduct in these investigations. Per his statement the decision came from US attorney Jensen. But let’s see how “RS” covers it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course it came from him. Barr's no dummy. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Amending my statement timestamped 19:03, 7 May 2020 above, the RfC isn't "moot", but the question has been rendered out of date somewhat based on the changed situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

In what way is it out of date? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, the charges were dropped. That changes the entire nature of this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That’s just a run of the mill undue update though, isn’t it? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, remember to WP:AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of good faith, how about changing your vote? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

How does one relate to the other? I'm waiting to see more press coverage of the dismissal to see exactly how the FBI notes factor in. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So... your opinion on this has not changed 180 degrees, then? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

When editing an encyclopedia, one should exercise caution. I haven't had a chance to read the dismissal memo. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll say this in your favor: as your opinion keeps changing, your confidence in your own wisdom never falters. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

My opinion only changes with the facts and the coverage of reliable sources. I see the quote " including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant's supplemental pleadings". I can only assume that means the notes? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, given that this RfC still appears to be necessary, anyone should feel free to change their vote if they've changed their opinion on it. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Case dropped

The justice department has dropped the case against Michael Flynn. This article is due for some very drastic updates. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Gotta love it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I hope you mean expansion. Nothing has changed with respect to what's past. Too bad we won't get to hear them argue "perjury trap" before an actual judge. We may be able to get some notewothy content from Judges Pirro and Napolitano, however. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Is that really what you think about this case? I’m still holding my breath for a neutral write up from a RS. If you don’t hear from me for a few days you know what’s happened. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I expect some good neutral sources discussing the impact of a politicized DOJ on the Flynn case. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but also the relevant potential FBI politicization. The Page investigation was riddled with errors and falsehoods. The document release from a few days ago seems to indicate the possibility of the same for Flynn. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

FBI is part of DOJ, yes. And the FBI railroaded Strzok and Page in a similarly political way, yes. That's the best I can figure you mean when you talk about the "Page investigation". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No, Ernie, it indicates the opposite. It indicates Flynn was heading for the slammer and they needed to give cover in the right-wing media when either Barr or Trump let him loose. Maybe there was a coin toss at the White House last night. That could go in the article. Just remember -- people who have been entrapped demonstrate that to the court and are acquitted. That's not what happened here. Yes, there will be a LOT of new content, but little of it is going to support the conspiracy theories about a frame-up. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What a scary thing to actually believe. Thankfully it isn’t rooted in any sort of evidence. I can only assume you support the FBI lying to investigate Americans. I can recall you making NOTFORUM comments to me at other pages for posts far more relevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is it scary? This is a very predicable outcome, given all of the events leading up to this point. Trump's DOJ dropping charges against a Trump operative would be business as usual. - MrX 🖋 22:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you still think the new evidence was “Run of the Mill” @muboshgu? The 13th 4postle (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to frighten you, Squire. Trump said Flynn lied to Pence and the FBI, and then he fired him. Flynn told the court he lied and he pleaded guilty. Who was lying? Trump? Flynn? Pence? FBI is not on the list. You're entitled to an irrelevant remark every now and then. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM digression and IP shouting. Please discuss sourcing and content for article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow, do not misquote Trump. He said "I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!" -- Emphasis mine. So, just like he said Snowden is a traitor and now he says then-DNI Clapper is human scum who lied that NSA is not spying on Americans. Of course that story about Clapper is rather shady, maybe he did not lie as it was another directive about metadata... 91.76.22.132 (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC) The 13th 4postle, as I said above in the RfC thread, if these documents are indeed the impetus for the dropping of charges, then something run of the mill has been made something exceptional, which changes the whole ballgame. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Based on an extensive review of this investigation, including newly discovered and disclosed information attached to the defendant’s supplemental pleadings, see ECF Nos. 181,188-190, the Government has concluded that continued prosecution of Mr. Flynn would not serve the interests of justice." - "Government's Motion TO Dismiss The Criminal Information Against the Defendant Michael T. Flynn" I think personally, you should focus more on adding to Wikipedia in a positive way instead of using it to fight your partisan battles. Instead of refusing to add information to an article because you don't like the new information, you should edit and add on to it to make it as accurate as possible. What you and others have done on this Wikipedia page is honestly disgraceful Muboshgu & SPECIFICO, and your partisanship on display right now on this talk page is too. The 13th 4postle (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC) References The 13th 4postle, I think you should rethink your statement. You've been pushing for the adding of statements by Flynn's lawyers without considering the weight or balance of them. I and others have tried to maintain this, because the release of those documents was insignificant. We're now waiting on the mainstream sources to provide the context on this dismissal so that we can properly characterize it. We don't treat WP:PRIMARY sources as gospel. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC) One more thing on "partisan battles"... I just had a look at the Twitter account you helpfully linked to in your user page. Yeah, you're not here.fighting a "partisan battle"? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Is this really relevant here, its pretty obvious certain users hold opposite positions yet never get called out on it anyway. As long as he's arguing for sensible inclusions this is just a personal attack. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC) False. In the paragraph I had added. I quoted Flynn’s attorney while also quoting sources that said the new evidence was standard practice. But you were so into fighting your political battle on here, that you never actually read what I wrote. The 13th 4postle (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Flynn prosecutor stepping down from the case appears to be a significant event in this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Indeed. I suspect Van Grack needs time to prepare his defence against an inevitable malicious prosecution lawsuit.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC) I am really tied to repeat myself but FBI always said here he did not lie. That is why however guilty he would plead it did not lead to his conviction. Case was dropped in January 2017, but Peter reopened it. Also! Van Grack stepped down from many cases, not just Flynn's. https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1258451997935747073?s=19 Dunno why, but I have an idea ;) 2A00:1370:812C:B802:6D02:8742:7E1E:ED77 (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 2A00:1370:812C:B802:159B:788A:1E5:3A53 (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Nothing in this article about Yates telling the Muller SO investigation that she had concerns of how the FBI was conducting their investigations, that the FBI should have contacted the White House Counsel Office should have been informed. This article CLAIMS Flynn lied when the FBI Agents who DID NOT READ HIM HIS RIGHTS, TOLD HIM HE DID NOT NEED AN ATTORNEY, DID NOT INFORM HIM THAT IF HE LIED TO AN FBI AGENT THAT IT IS A FELONY, AND according to YATES, THEY THOUGHT THAT HE ACTUALLY DID NOT REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT SANCTIONS from how casual he was and did not give any "tells" of lying. Yet THIS article reads like it was written by Representative Adam Schiff as it is NOT NPOV it is written to make him look bad. Yet Yates and others who were stating there was no Russian Collusion in the OSC briefings, were LYING to the audiences of CNN to drum up hatred of Trump and anyone in the Trump administration. These facts were in the interview transcripts that Schiff (although he claims he wanted them to be seen by the public) refused to make public until the Acting DNI stated either Schiff release them of he would do it. Why would Schiff refuse to release these transcripts that had exculpatory information that there was no Russian Collusion, while he stated in public that there was evidence of it from the House Basement investigation? I think because he could claim anything since the evidence was being held captive by him,until this week. Yates stressed she disagreed with the way the FBI was conducting the Flynn investigation while in the private briefing (I have not seen if she was under oath about this, but either way, her private statements were directly opposite of what she said in CNN interviews. The FBI in January 2017 stated they did not believe Flynn was acting as a Russian Agent to the DOJ. His call to a Russian Ambassador is NOT a crime, so why were they interviewing him about it? Could those notes mean what they actually say? That they were trying to trick him to lie so they could charge him with a felony or get him fired. Even STRZOK said he believed Flynn was not lying. Something this article state he did. Question to those editors that want this article to continue to paint him in the worst light, would you want the FBI to lie to you that you do not need a lawyer, and not tell you that you are guilty of a felony if you lie to them even if you have forgotten something or mis-remembered something? https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/yates-other-obama-doj-officials-sounded-alarm-about-fbis-treatment BTW CBS cannot be considered a reliable source since the PURPOSEFULLY faked a story on Coronovirus, caused real patients to be kept from getting tested with their stunt and admitted to it and took down the story. https://www.wsj.com/articles/cbs-says-fake-news-wasnt-theirs-11588789238173.172.158.168 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC) For the people typing about Flynn's alleged innocence in ALL CAPS: 1 - Yes, talking to the Russian ambassador would be a crime if they were discussing foreign policy before the Trump administration took office. Guess what Flynn and Kislyak talked about? US foreign policy towards Russia. 2 - If Flynn was innocent, why'd he lie to the FBI agents who interviewed him? He lied about whether he had talked to Kislyak and what they had talked about. Why lie about what he did if what he did was innocent and legal? 3 - If Flynn is innocent, why did Flynn plead guilty twice and admit his guilt in open court? Why confess that he committed crimes if he was innocent? Billmckern (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC) I do not see anyone typing in ALL caps, I placed some caps on IMPORTANT POINTS. Obviously with your 1,2,3 questions, you did not bother to read what I wrote about pertinent information missing from this article. Your points show POV. Please provide PERTINENT reliable sources for the points you were making that include the now public transcripts of under oath testimony of those who lied when they were not under oath on CNN. Or do you think they were telling the truth to CNN and perjuring themselves while under oath? 1. Please provide proof that a president elect's foreign policy staff cannot talk to other countries. 2. The FBI, which I explained above, and which you apparently did not read, or you would not be pushing the now proven wrong talking point, stated that they did not think he lied. That he honestly did not remember talking about sanctions. 3. He could either watch his son be prosecuted, OR, he could plead guilty to something he did not do. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Reading the references in the article, there is a Washington Post reference # 2, I found it while reading through the article with UNNAMED sources. One of those FBI sources is the now discredited Stefan Halper, who was an informant and a leaker to the the Washington Post's David Ignatius. Halper ADMITTED LYING ABOUT GEN. FLYNN, and was even so bold as to state that he could not be sued for doing so. Why is not he listed as one of the FBI informants in this article? His name should be in it so people can make an informed decision weather to accept his word after he admitted he lied.173.172.158.168 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Heavy dot com not a right wing new source also noted that even though Halper's name has been known, the NYT and Washington Post WILL NOT NAME HIM, WHY? I suspect he is damaged goods and they want their opinion articles to not be called into question for using a source that admitted lying, the same for this article, PLEASE PUT HIS NAME IN THE ARTICLE. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC) All reference article stating that Flynn met with a "Russian Asset" need to come down. Svetlana Lokhova denies and evidence shows that she was not a Russian asset. This was based on Stefan Halper's testimony in which he admits he lied, as seen in the cited articles above. As we now know, Susan Rice, under oath, said that there was no evidence of Russian Collusion, although on TV and in Opinion pieces she says just the opposite, which the federalist article also shows.173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC) References

Flynn's potential near future, add?

Trump and his allies want Flynn to assume a public-facing role during the election campaign. Trump reportedly had made clear that if legal circumstances permitted, he would want Flynn to get “something good” in his political, but it’s unclear if Trump meant a job in the administration, a role for the 2020 campaign, or another position.[9]

X1\ (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Potential anything is not a current fact. Once it happens then add it. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

From ref provided: officials close to President Donald Trump are already gaming out ways to bring the former national security adviser back onto the national political stage is not "potential", 173.172.158.168. X1\ (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Katyal and Geltzer's response(s) to Trump's DoJ dropping charges (after admitted & guilty plea), add?

• Neal K. Katyal and Joshua A. Geltzer, The Appalling Damage of Dropping the Michael Flynn Case; It embeds into official U.S. policy a shockingly extremist view of law enforcement as the enemy of the American people. May 8, 2020 NYT

The authors are law professors at Georgetown.

X1\ (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

NO! This is just a POV add, there are plenty of public figures that have just the opposite view, are we going to add their comments as well, so far this article is not balanced with plenty of cited material that could balance it but the controllers of the article will not add it. I went through many of the now moot articles cited that were based on information that certain politicians and FBI officials would not release to the public and now we know that they are based on false information, but the Controllers of the article will not make those facts be reflected in this article.173.172.158.168 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Who are these public figures? Please post RSs here, 173.172.158.168. X1\ (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Who do you feel the controllers of the article are, 173.172.158.168? X1\ (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• YES! - This viewpoint seems to be common among people who still care about law and order.[10] - MrX 🖋 12:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• YES - This is a reliable source that deserves due mention. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You believe in law and order, like altering 302's? Lying to the FISA court? Using a democrat bought and fake dossier in which THEY colluded with the Russians to sway the election? Full projection mode on this one. BTW why only the liberal side gets into this article. Total POV. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your bias, but this article has to reflect the views of the sources, not the contributors, much less right-wing conspiracies. Given your expressed bias, it is impossible to continue to assume good faith regarding your input. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Is 302 List of FBI forms#FD-302?

And by fake dossier are you referring to the Trump–Russia dossier?

By THEY wp:ALLCAPS, see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND 173.172.158.168.

X1\ (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• YES - Pretty obviously good sources for this, and there are many others. Other viewpoints from reliable sources can also be added -- if they exist. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• No undue opinion piece. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting the premise of the Article is the damage that President Trump is doing to law and order, do those who wrote the piece and those who want it added to the article thing Obama did damage to law and order when he pardoned a general who lied to the FBI as well? I list the liberal NYT so you can't call FACTS into question. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have asked for Dispute Resolution on this Article

Dispute resolution closed as improper filing. WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article displays left wing bias. Those who are guarding it will not allow any change that is balanced. This is to let Muboshgu: Korny O'Near :The 13th 4postle:: MelbourneStar know that I have included you in this as there is much discussion from each of you. I also notice that some of my posts in TALK are removed. All throughout this talk page is those with a left leaning bias can editorialize about those of us who do not share your political views, yet, only those you do not like are removed. Either we go by the guidelines or not. If you choose to make comments directed at those who do not share your opinions, or all of it goes away. I listed new information on the just released documents that prove several source materials as being incorrect and need to be removed, but nothing is done about it. I also asked that the now known FBI sources be named in the article due to their bias against Gen. Flynn, AND one admitting he lied about Flynn and a person who sued because she claims not to be a Russian Agent. You editors who control this article throw "right wing" around a lot, yet you only allow sources that give you confirmation bias. This article needs a total BALANCED rewrite. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC) That's your opinion. Other people have other opinions. We resolve content disputes through discussion and consensus. - MrX 🖋 01:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC) No we don't, only liberal bias is approved. This is NOT suppose to be based on opinion, it is suppose to be based on facts. And not 90% negative facts on Republicans and 90% positive on Democrats, and real negative facts separated into different pages that are not linked to the main article, like Joe Biden Tara Reade is. Name any part of this article that shows any of the new documents that show most of this article is written to cast him in the worst light.173.172.158.168 (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC) How do we request arbitration on this article and those who are not allowing any information except left wing bias? 173.172.158.168 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC) You don't request arbitration for content disputes. - MrX 🖋 01:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Well I filed a request anyway. In the filing it states to let those that are named know, and that is why I started this info to let those who I included know.173.172.158.168 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Michael Flynn it, 173.172.158.168? X1\ (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Add Joseph Misfud and Stefan Halper to the article as the FBI Sources

Washington Post admitted that Joseph Misfud is one of them, and Stefan Halper admitted he lied about Flynn and can't be sued because he was an FBI source.173.172.158.168 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is them, 173.172.158.168?

Stefan Halper and Joseph Mifsud (Joseph Misfud)? X1\ (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

From the article "The New York Times reported on May 18, 2018, that a longtime FBI/CIA informant had met Flynn at an intelligence seminar in Britain six months earlier and became alarmed by Flynn's closeness to a Russian woman there;"

That is Stefan Halper, he stated the woman was a Russian Spy, she sued because she is NOT a Russian Spy. Why is it that Halper's name is so secretive in the article? I could list 30 sources on this, but since only left wing publications are allowed on this talk page, I will only list one. I cannot list the NYT or Washington Post because they write stories on the event, but refuse to name him. The Oligarchs who control this article make sure no information that exonerates Flynn makes it into the article. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Flynn is still convicted and is still a person associated with Russian Interference in the 2016 election

Until the presiding judge agrees to dismiss Flynn's conviction, his status has not changed.[11] Also, there has been no reversal of his involvement with Russians prior to Trump taking office.(Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Michael Flynn)

It is now up to the federal judge in Washington overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan, to decide whether to dismiss it and close off the possibility that Mr. Flynn could be tried again for the same crime. If the judge wants, he could ask for written submissions and hold a hearing on that topic.
— [12]

- MrX 🖋 11:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)