Jump to content

Talk:Michael Flynn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 21:52, 14 April 2021 (→‎Conspiracy theorist: final warning/s (logged)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

One might consider the name of Flynn's current attorney to be important information as well; Sidney Powell

RfC: FBI agents spotted no deception in body language?

Wow, this is almost a year old. The yes's and no's seem to be evenly split (incidentally with equal numbers of sockpuppets voting on both sides). Looking at the arguments, being reliably sourced is not, by itself, sufficient reason to include something, and there's no consensus here that this note about body language is WP:DUE or even meaningful.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

~Awilley (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article include a sentence about how the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said they did not spot any physical signs of deception in Flynn's tone and body language?[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • No. It lends credence to the pseudoscience of being able to spot deception from just looking at someone. It's nothing short of mind-reading. It adds nothing of value to the article, except misleads some uninformed readers that there is evidence that Flynn did not lie in his FBI interviews. To summarize, inclusion serves the purpose of propping up a pseudoscience and impairing readers' understanding of the topic. Also, could you imagine adding content to a BLP where we say that law enforcement judged a BLP to be deceptive through body language? Is that some kind of precedent that should be introduced? Of course not – it's absolute BS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. (Here is the news article currently cited for this fact, by the way.) Body language of potential suspects is a standard piece of evidence used by law enforcement around the world, I believe - see Body language#Law enforcement, for example. I doubt it's ever enough to convict or acquit on its own, and I'm sure that it can be faked and misinterpreted, but still it's considered useful information. Clearly the FBI agents thought it was relevant, or they wouldn't have reported it in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the relevance of the YouTube videos, posted by the IP, as sources for this discussion. The first one is obviously meant to be humorous (not a reliable source and irrelevant). The second one does not discuss the usefulness or lack of usefulness of body language in discerning deception (irrelevant). And YouTube videos are not usually considered reliable sources anyway. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:ORIGINAL research/ WP:SYNTH. Unless you have a reliable source that actually says Comey's testimony is based on pseudoscience then we can include his attributed testimony.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTH do not apply to talk pages/discussion threads, and reasons for not including something in an article don't need to be justified with reliable sources.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: It isn't the point that I want to emphasize and therefore everyone should ignore it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To Display name 99 - I voted on the survey question; I do not give you permission to strike my so do not ever strike my vote again. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BetsyRMadison, I could not care less whether you gave me permission to strike it or not. Your second vote was illegitimate. Hence, I did the right thing. I'd have no reason to strike a vote of yours at this time considering the fact that my strike caused you to remove your second vote. Display name 99 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To Display name 99 - I have made myself clear. Do not tamper with my vote ever again & do not tamper with my comments to my votes ever again. And do not personally attack me by telling other editors to "ignore" my comments just because you either do not like, or cannot understand my comment WP:CIVILITY "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BetsyRMadison, I will once again tamper with a vote that you make if that vote ever happens to be an illegitimate second vote like the one that you just made. Also, I did not tell anyone to ignore your comments. Rather, the simpler version of what you had written was to say that you felt people should ignore what the FBI agents said about Flynn because it did not reinforce the single piece of information which you wished to emphasize, that being his conviction. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not put words into other editors' mouths. WP:CIV O3000 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's clearly what they meant. By the way, BetsyRMadison, I see you've voted twice in this RfC. No editor has the right to do that. It gives the impression to an editor who is not reading extremely carefully that there are more votes a certain way than there actually are. Therefore, I've decided to strike your second response. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To Display name 99 - I do not give you permission to strike my votes nor to strike my comments to my votes. If you see that I have accidentally voted more than once, then, you should assume good faith and tell me so that I can make the necessary corrections. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accidentally? How do you accidentally vote more than once? Anyhow, I did not assume that it was intentional, but I did strike it so that other editors would know not to count it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Not enough coverage to establish noteworthy for something that would normally be considered essentially irrelevant. --Aquillion (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes-Standard evidence on potential criminal suspects should be included. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. When a suspect acts guilty, that can be notable. When they don't, it's not notable. It's easy to train oneself to act this way. --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as long as it's properly sourced I'm not sure if that statement is true, but if a trustworthy source says that that is true then it's fine to add. Otherwise it shouldn't be added. Smith0124 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - but only with the proper context I agree with including this but only on strong conditions. As others mentioned, this is an indicator used by law enforcement agencies (but not necessarily evidence). It is irrelevant for the inclusion of this if Mr. Flynn managed to fake/lie or not. However, it is extremely relevant that the full context is included. This detail should not be presented separate from the context if that context is already present - and if not present then it should too be added along this. It is important, if included, to underline that this is just a piece of the puzzle (one among many evidence/indicators) that the FBI put together based on the principle of convergence of evidence. So, unless it is stated by a WP:RS that this was indeed a crucial piece of evidence, it should not be emphasized as such (thus the need for context).Cealicuca (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes' - it happened, it's real, it is cited to a RS, we include it. Atsme Talk 📧 22:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He said he looked like he was lying. The man who killed Ahmaud Arbery said he instinctively knew that he was a bad person. This kind of crap does not belong in an encyclopedia, or anywhere -- unless it is added as evidence of seriously poor reasoning. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this just shows Michael Flynn is comfortable lying & lies with a straight face. So far, Flynn has lied to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded guilty two times to lying to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded to the court that he lied to the court with his two guilty pleas, then said his 1st lawyer's made him lie to the court, and then said the FBI made him lie to them. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Cealicuca. Springee (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I initially was okay with including this as some sort of compromise, but have come to recognize that it's wrong. FBI agents may not have "detected deception", but they're historically not good at detecting deception. Here is an FBI agent writing in Psychology Today about how we're no better at detecting deception than we would be if we flipped a coin and say "heads he's lying, tails he's telling the truth". And here's one on the FBI's website that also shows how difficult it is to detect deception. For instance: Twenty-three out of 24 peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals reporting experiments on eye behavior as an indicator of lying have rejected this hypothesis. Flynn lied, and admitted it under oath in court. Whether or not the FBI agents who interviewed him "detected deception" is really a moot point, even though it is reliably sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I don't think it belongs on Flynn's page. However, if we create a new page for U.S. v Flynn, it could be mentioned there, as it's discussed in some of the briefs and exhibits. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per WP:RS and WP:DUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close?

Why is this RfC still open? We need to find someone to close it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that there's now a US v. Flynn page, and a lot of the text about the case still needs to be cut from Flynn's page. The RfC predates the creation of the US v Flynn page, and the existence of that page might affect people's opinions. There is some discussion on the US v. Flynn talk page re: having a section addressing partisan debates about the case, including this issue and a bunch of others (e.g., whether there's a "missing" 302, unmasking). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See related discussion on this topic, at #Shorten the section on legal case below. Mathglot (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving time

The article is getting more attention, so I've changed the archive time to 7 days. Anyone disagrees? Even if everyone agrees, when attention dies down, feel free to extend the archive time. starship.paint (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over conviction in first sentence of lead

So by now everyone knows the article is under consensus required right? I have to ask because so far PvOberstein[7], Objective3000[8], and DocRuby[9] have all violated that sanction reinserting new material[10] that was challenged via revision. Anyhow I don't think it should be in the first sentence like that given we dedicate a whole paragraph to it in the lead and the body of the article does not say he was convicted. Mostly because he was not technically convicted, that happens after sentencing which never happened. PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a one-edit IP who removed text with an incorrect edit summary. On your claim that he was not convicted, WaPo [11], BBC [12], CNBC [13], Forbes [14], NBC [15], and LATimes [16] disagree. On the fact that this isn’t in the body, that can be fixed. On weight for the top, this is heavily covered by RS for good reason and most of us would not have heard much about him without the conviction. When is the last time someone in that position was convicted? O3000 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, already covered in a full paragraph in the lead. Does not need to tacked onto the first sentence as well. Leads are generally not written that way unless it is the most notable thing about a person, I have a hard time believing that is the case here. It also does not help that the case was dismissed. Finally as your LA times article says, the pardon wipes the conviction. Also reverting an IP is not an exemption from DS in this case. PackMecEng (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not edited this page since last June and was not aware of this restriction. He was convicted. A pardon does not reverse that. Indeed, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. So far it is four editors adding, and you and two one-edit IPs against. Others are welcome to chime in. O3000 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am just going by the source you mentioned. Also you are ignoring the case was dismissed, with most of the sources coming before the dismissal. To be fair the restriction was in the log since February 2017. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't remember what restriction was added ten months ago on a page I haven't edited in six months; you didn't politely ask me to self-rvt on my TP; and I can't self-rvt since you reverted and then it was yet again reverted. If you have a problem with all this, take it to the appropriate venue as repetition is boring. He was convicted. Conviction applies as soon as a judge accepts a verdict or plea. That happened according to a huge number of RS. A pardon does not erase a conviction. Here's what the judge said about the dismissal: [17]. O3000 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The pardon wipes the conviction from his record, so it doesn’t appear on a background check, but it doesn’t wipe the conviction from well-documented history. It happened, and no pardon changes that. That said, I oppose mentioning anything about it in the first sentence of the lead. soibangla (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your assertion he was technically not "convicted" is incorrect. Guilty plea = convicted. soibangla (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, not sure it is wiped from the record. I don't think there is any mechanism for expunging a federal felony. As for this belonging in the first sentence; I can be convinced either way. I reverted it because the rationale for deletion was incorrect. O3000 (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A pardon does not remove the conviction, or even remove the record of the conviction, | according to the DOJ. A defendant in custody is convicted as soon as the judge accepts their guilty plea, | according to the Eastern VA Federal Public Defender's office, which Flynn's judge did. Flynn is a convicted felon.
Flynn's entire career is distinguished most by his Federal conviction for his actions that forced him to end his career, around which everything else in his career revolves. It's like arguing Nixon's article summary intro shouldn't include the fact that he resigned facing nearly certain impeachment. Nixon's career was far more distinguished by major developments than Flynn's was, but of course he was defined by his resignation facing impeachment. Likewise Flynn's career is defined by his conviction, regardless of whether he was pardoned. DocRuby (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk pages of Dinesh D'Souza and Roger Stone and on WP:BLPN are other discussions about putting "convicted felon" in the first sentence of the lead. Summary = don't. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dinesh D'Souza and Roger Stone were not government officials, D'Souza's crime was minor and Stone's is in the second sentence. Flynn was a US Army lieutenant general who was the 25th United States National Security Advisor with serious convictions for crimes while in office in a famous case. WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stone's conviction is mentioned in some detail in his article's second sentence. D'Souza's Talk discussion is about whether to include the conviction in the article's first sentence; his conviction was a much smaller detail in his life than is Flynn's. The BLPN discussion isn't about this matter. I further note that these examples are all part of the same circle of convicts, which seems like people sympathetic to that circle's members are opposed to these articles telling the truth about these people.
We're talking about this edit and its kin, right? Even if this weren't a situation of slapping a straightforward black-and-white label on what is a gray and messy situation, the descriptor clearly does not belong in the first sentence. (Or, in other words, I agree with PackMecEng.) Possibly there is a case to be made for one sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the form "He plead guilty to [blah] as a result of the Mueller investigation, and was later pardoned by President Trump", accompanied by a significant trimming down of the over-detailed third paragraph. --JBL (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the edit. It's not a gray and messy situation in terms of description. Flynn was convicted when his guilty plea was accepted by his judge. He was pardoned, but pardon's don't erase conviction, they just remove some of the consequences of conviction including sentences. He is a pardoned convicted felon. That status is more significant to his life than most of the details included in the three paragraphs (with 26 footnotes) of intro summary. It should be included in the summary since without it a reader doesn't understand these highly distinguishing characteristics of this person.
What is "messy" is the spin being edited into this article to downplay the legal status of its subject. That mess should not be the basis for editing decisions. Indeed, using the mess in the article edits created by Flynn whitewashers as the reason to whitewash the article is perverse logic. DocRuby (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Append to the first paragraph “He pleaded guilty to and was thus convicted of making false statements to FBI agents, and was awaiting sentencing when he was pardoned by President Donald Trump in December 2020.” Then drop the entire third paragraph to the body. soibangla (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your proposal is that it's not really a summary, because it includes explanation. That's why the summary should include his status of convicted felon, with the main article including some cited details such as you just proposed. DocRuby (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back in December 2017 when Flynn pleaded guilty, we had a similar discussion and similar edit-warring about categorising Flynn, see: Talk:Michael Flynn/Archive 1#Categorization as "People convicted of making false statements". That discussion did not result in consensus of including controversial categories, yet the edit-warring continued even in 2020.
There is much, either direct or indirect, evidence that Flynn was never convicted.
  • "At this point no one has been convicted on any charges arising from the [Mueller] investigation." –CNN, March 2018 – several months after Flynn's guilty plea.
  • "To date, the special counsel has secured seven guilty pleas and one conviction at trial" –NPR, April 2019 – "one conviction" refers to Manafort
  • "All that remains in the case is for Judge Sullivan to sentence Flynn on that count and to enter a judgment of conviction against him." –Marty Lederman, Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center (justsecurity.org, June 2020)
  • "I don't really care much—and I think you shouldn't either—whether Michael Flynn is ultimately convicted ... can appeal if and when the judge denies the motion [to dismiss] and enters a judgment of conviction against him (something that may well not even happen)" –Lederman, July 2020
  • "Because he was never sentenced, Flynn was never actually convicted so there is no conviction to wipe off the record." –NBC News
Most sources simply say that Flynn pleaded guilty. There are several dozens of sources that list people who pleaded guilty or was convicted in the Mueller investigation (e.g. The Wall Street Journal writes, "Seven people have pleaded guilty or been convicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe"). They make a clear distinction between "pleaded guilty" and "convicted". If the terms are synonymous, why the distinction? Moreover, if they are synonymous, why would anyone say in our article that Flynn was "convicted" when "pleaded guilty" is predominantly used in reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flynn's Political Affiliation

Trying to avoid any discussion on political opinions, but I think Flynn's Political Affiliation should be updated?

This article says Flynn is a Democrat. While he was registered as one for most of his life, I feel his involvement with President Trump's campaign and administration rather clearly shows he is more associated with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party now. KeeperofDusk (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he is a Democrat since no democrat supports QAnon or works with Trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.131.226 (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theorist

information Administrator note: why is there edit warring over this addition, in contravention of the discretionary sanctions? Do you folks really need for an admin to tell you that you need to launch a dispute resolution request (like an RfC) to settle that question? Obviously, the status quo ante version should be the version that gets displayed until this request is properly closed. That isn't optional. The Consensus required rule is in effect for this page. Anyone else found to be contravening it, should expect to face swift sanctions. Thank you. El_C 02:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty big article. Where beyond the first sentence of the introduction does it talk about his career as a conspiracy theorist? Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, 108.7.160.152 first inserted it in the lead sentence on 16 January 2021. The edit summary ("Fixed description") didn't explain but maybe we can guess that it was due to mention elsewhere in the article: "pledged an oath to the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory" (because he added a QAnon hashtag #TakeTheOath on Twitter and said ""Where we go one, we go all"), and "posted links to false articles and conspiracy theories relating to Clinton" (because he tweeted this which had a link to this and because he said Pizzagate hadn't been "proven to be false"). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Update: I removed the Pizzagate clause, that was a different Michael Flynn, but he might have said something.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I now see the stuff you're talking about in the 2016 Presidential election subtopic of the article, but it seems like an awfully thin basis for describing Flynn as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first two lines of his bio. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the time that El C added this thread's warning and protected the page the lead sentence did not have "and conspiracy theorist", so I'm believing that it meant: keep the status quo ante (before 108.7.160.152|108.7.160.152's bold edit on January 16). Therefore the later re-insertions of "and conspiracy theorist" by Willform on 23 February, by NonReproBlue on 12 April, by NorthBySouthBaranof on 12 April, by Billmckern on 12 April appear to me to be not fully consistent with the warning. I may be wrong, but ask those editors to pause until the administrator clarifies. (At the moment "and conspiracy theorist" is out again, after the latest change by User:Korny_O'Near). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Gulutzan: References that call Mike Flynn a conspiracy theorist and explain why in great detail do not mean he's a conspiracy theorist?
If that doesn't do it, then what in the hell would?
Flynn sells QAnon merchandise online. So, yeah, he's a conspiracy theorist.
Billmckern (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willform (diff), NonReproBlue (diff), NorthBySouthBaranof (diff) and Billmckern (diff): please do not add the "conspiracy theorist" descriptor to the opening sentence without securing the consensus to do so, again, preferably as codified by an WP:RFC that is properly closed. I'm reminding participants that WP:ONUS is required here. Those who ignore this second warning will face imminent sanctions. Please alert me to any such violations of the discretionary sanctions, by anyone. I expect everything to be ironed out, not re-adding the contested change haphazardly and sporadically by resuming the edit war. So, I take a dim view of that and am dissapointed that I am forced to repeat myself. To be clear: this is the final warning, there will not be a third one. I am also logging a warning for all four users, who, I note, all seem to meet WP:AWARE requirements. El_C 21:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Flynn&oldid=1017840536"