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 94.29.3.116 (talk) at 17:54, 3 June 2020 (→‎AP fact-check on unmasking). 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)

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]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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.[1] 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)[reply]
Are you saying the FBI does not do things inappropriately? Judge Sullivan OVERTURNED THE CONVICTION OF TED STEVENS for precisely that reason, seems they have not changed their tactics. I will bet there was a big "Ah $%^&" sigh when he was chosen to oversee the sentencing of Flynn and an even BIGGER ONE when he demanded they turn over any exculpatory evidence from the FBI AFTER THE CONVICTION on plea. Especially now that we know that Strzok transcript of his text was just released that he altered the 302 extensively trying to write it in the voice of the original agent to influence an investigation which is a Felony punishable for 20 years.173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC) [1][reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Something along those lines would probably be fine, after changing the word personal to person. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inflammatory or no (and accurate or no), the phrase "perjury trap" has been used by quite a few people to describe the Flynn case, including, a few days ago, Attorney General Barr. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the only reason the question is asked is in the hope that the person will lie (or at least say something false), then yes, that's a trick - and if that's done when the person is under oath, then it's what's known as a perjury trap. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And so what if it is a perjury trap? From our article on it: No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap.[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know - maybe that's worth including in this article as well. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain that? O3000 (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what there is to explain. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - regarding [3] I must say that I object to (1) the usage of opinion sources (Wall Street Journal editorial board) for the introduction of such content, and (2) the usage of the National Review and the New York Post per WP:RSP, as there is no consensus that either is reliable. Courtesy ping of Korny O'Near, who wrote it. starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think those citations are fine, since they're mostly being used to cite opinion, rather than factual content; but it makes more sense to talk about this once the RfC is closed. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Korny O'Near: - if your best citations for this controversial material are opinion pieces and sources of questionable reliability, I might as well vote No. We have to have appropriate reliable sources to satisfy WP:DUE. starship.paint (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not up to me alone to find citations, and I'm sure others can find more, but I think the citations I did find are fine, and a lot of them are from straight news sources, including The Washington Post and CBS News. Which is not surprising, since the "perjury trap" theory has been advocated by both the Attorney General and Flynn's lawyers, among others. (You would think that a theory held by both the prosecution and the defense of the USA v. Flynn case merits obvious inclusion in an article about Michael Flynn, but clearly some people disagree.) Korny O'Near (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to both. The 1st part gives false impression that FBI did something wrong & the 2nd gives the false impression that the FBI did something illegal. There is no evidence that the FBI did anything wrong in questioning Flynn and no evidence the FBI did anything illegal by questioning Flynn. Flynn willingly chose to lie to the FBI [4] & then Flynn chose (twice) to plead guilty to lying to the FBI & then Flynn chose to testify, under oath, that he is guilty of lying to the FBI. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras asked Flynn "“Do you plead guilty or not guilty?” Flynn replied “Guilty, your Honor." There is no such thing as a "perjury trap." It is common & legal for law enforcement to know the answers to questions they ask suspects in advance, without telling the suspect that they already know the answer. It is the burden of the suspect to tell the truth, no matter what law enforcement knows in advance of questioning. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to both. This is a selective release of material. The person who made this comment says so himself (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/politics/bill-priestap-michael-flynn.html). Casprings (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean for something to be "selectively" released? And is there a rule that such selectively-released material should not be reported on on Wikipedia? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean they declassified one part of an internal debate to create a false narrative.Casprings (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize there was a rule on Wikipedia against mentioning partially-declassified information. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, but one cannot blindly include a false narrative that is part of a cover-up as if it's the whole truth. We do not do that here. When dealing with fringe and false narratives, such as conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, we always give more weight to the factual mainstream view, not to the fringe/false view, even when it comes from the now-sitting government of the USA. Nothing coming from Trump's Justice Department, FBI, CIA, anything, can be trusted. We do not give fringe views more weight than they deserve. -- Valjean (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

In what way is it out of date? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the charges were dropped. That changes the entire nature of this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s just a run of the mill undue update though, isn’t it? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Ernie, remember to WP:AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of good faith, how about changing your vote? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
So... your opinion on this has not changed 180 degrees, then? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As of May 11 2020, DOJ has announced its intention to file a motion to dismiss. Until this is ruled on by the judge, Flynn remains. convicted felon based on his guilty plea accepted in court. Judge will rule on DOJ motion in court. Until that time, Flynn remains convicted of a felony. Joey.J (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case has not been “dropped” until judge rules on the motion to dismiss. It may be denied. Joey.J (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Unarchived

I have requested a formal closure of this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. starship.paint (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If there is a consensus, it is not a strong one. Several commenters simply stated a preference without making any policy based arguments. - MrX 🖋 11:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: FBI agents spotted no deception in body language?

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?[5] 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]
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]

Political rhetoric

This edit [11] was added to the Trump administration transition section, based on this source [12]. First, it is inaccurate because it was Sean Spicer who reportedly asked or mentioned the question during a press briefing - not the Trump Administration. Second, this merely serves to throw shade [13] on the Obama Administration.

Third, it is political rhetoric used by Spicer, designed to deflect away from reporters questions about why Flynn was hired in the first place, after emphatic warnings from President Obama to Trump during their face to face transition meeting, which is in the same source. So this seems to be also cherry picking. Fourth, it is irrelevant because it came up in the context of a press conference and press questions and has no discernible impact.

It is essentially fluff. I think it needs to be removed (reverted). Per UNDUE.---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is not it obvious? I mean, Obama used Flynn to throw shade on Trump. Why you put a link to a dictionary, lol? There is that same idiom in most languages. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:C448:C2D1:34E6:F0DD (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to a dictionary because some people at certain age groups might not be "hip" [14]and understand the latest "cool" jargon. :0) But I really don't have any reliable data on this phenomenon that backs up that assertion. Can you dig it? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be removed, but I've at least made it so it's faithful to the source. Sean Spicer's opinion on this is not objective and it's certainly not suitable for placement in an encyclopedia biography. - MrX 🖋 01:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: really good copy edit. I'm glad you noticed the best parts were left out :o) I don't mind having it in the article now. At least it's truthful. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Remove the following sections

Due to the fact we now have transcripts that prove General Flynn did not discuss the sanctions and Kysliac was the only one to mention them, these sections are MOOT, and are full of falsehoods and need to be removed immediately. After talking to McFarland, Flynn immediately proceeded to call Kisylak.[123] Flynn, in discussing the recent sanctions, gave advice to Kislyak that the Russian government should not escalate the situation, avoiding a "tit for tat".[125][126][127] After talking to Kisylak, Flynn informed McFarland of what he had discussed with Kisylak.[114][119] The December 29 conversation between Flynn and Kislyak was intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies who routinely monitor Kislyak.[113] Transcripts of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations exist, but the Department of Justice under the Trump administration declined to make them public as of June 2019.[128] On January 12, columnist David Ignatius, writing for The Washington Post, made public that Flynn had called Kislyak on December 29, citing a "senior U.S. government official". Ignatius pointed out that this was the same day that the U.S. announced the sanctions against Russia, and questioned if Flynn had said anything to "undercut the U.S. sanctions".[135][136][137] According to the Mueller Report, the following events happened: Trump reacted angrily to the article by The Washington Post. Trump's incoming chief-of-staff, Reince Priebus, told Flynn of this, stating: "Kill the story". Flynn instructed aide McFarland to lie to The Washington Post that Flynn had not discussed the sanctions with Kislyak on December 29. McFarland knew this was false, but followed Flynn's instructions.[127] Accordingly, The Washington Post reported the denial.[135] According to the Mueller Report, in the following days, Flynn proceeded to lie about not discussing the sanctions with Kislyak to incoming chief-of-staff Reince Priebus, incoming press secretary Sean Spicer, and vice president-elect Mike Pence. The trio publicly parroted Flynn's falsehood to the media, not knowing that it was false.[127][138] On January 13, Spicer said that the Flynn-Kisylak call was only "centered on the logistics" of setting up a Trump-Putin call after Trump became president.[137] On January 15, Priebus said: "I have talked to General Flynn. None of that came up, and the subject matter of sanctions or the actions taken by the Obama administration did not come up in the conversation."[137] On January 15, Pence said that he had discussed the matter with Flynn, and that the Flynn-Kisylak call "did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia".[127] As a result, the Obama administration officials feared that these publicly stated falsehoods would result in "a compromise situation for Flynn because the Department of Justice assessed that the Russian government could prove Flynn lied", stated the Mueller Report.[138]

There is only two mentions of sanctions and Kysliak brought them up both times and it seems Flynn did not bite on it from the transcripts. Therefore he did not discuss the sanctions. 67.10.206.161 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for your information "moot" means open for disscussion, so please stop using it in that opposite sense. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:B401:8EF2:7E6:BD04 (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Reliable sources report the opposite of what you 67.10.206.161 are claiming. CNN reports[15], "declassified documents show that Flynn discussed in detail Russia's response to the Obama administration's sanctions, despite public denials at the time from senior Trump administration officials." CNN goes on to report, "The call summaries and transcripts show Flynn asked then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to "reciprocate moderately" in response to the sanctions" during a December 29, 2016, call. "In a follow-up call two days later, Kislyak told Flynn that Russia's response -- in which Russia did not escalate against the US -- was influenced by their earlier conversation." As you can see, that is completely opposite of what you're claiming so I do not support the removal of the section. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is not reading the same transcript I did, and they are twisting it from different sections of the transcript about disparate things. The same "RS" CNN that libeled a school kid because he had a MAGA hat on. CNN is NOT a reliable source when it comes to Trump. I gave a link TO THE TRANSCRIPT, read it for yourself instead of letting it go through a biased spin mill.67.10.206.161 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT SHADOW REMOVE AGAIN Unclassified Transcripts Show that General Flynn Never Mentioned Sanctions With His Call To Ambassador Kysliak

On May 29th 2020 Senator Charles E. Grassley Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee released now declassified phone call transcript between General Flynn and Soviet Ambassador Kislyak. The transcripts show that General Flynn did not mention sanctions on the phone call and only Ambassador Kislyak mentioned them. This shows that the agents of the FBI lied about him discussing sanctions, and falsely accused him of doing so. This exonerates General Flynn of lying, and shows that the FBI and United States Prosecutors forced him into a confession promising him they would leave his son alone and give him a light sentence on their false lying charge. [2]67.10.206.161 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are even more juicy material there, like "Americans did hacked this all". BTW, that is why I do not use voice mail. When you listen to it, it records back everything to ISP. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:B401:8EF2:7E6:BD04 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To 67.10.206.161 - You are mistaken. Reliable sources report the opposite of what you are claiming. "The declassified documents show that Flynn discussed in detail Russia's response to the Obama administration's sanctions," per CNN[16]. CNN goes on to report, "The call summaries and transcripts show Flynn asked then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to "reciprocate moderately" in response to the sanctions, Flynn said on a December 29, 2016, call." BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those were sanctions to USA itself. I mean sending russian diplomats from USA is USA problem not Russian. Kislyak also mentioned sanctions to FSB and GRU but without any answer from Flynn. 2A00:1FA0:452:CFEC:8CC4:66D9:39E6:BF59 (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, 67, we're not going to add material based on your original interpretation of the transcripts. Get a reliable source from WP:RSP saying that - green coloured source. starship.paint (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, 67, this is Fox News [17] Flynn appeared to try to distance the upcoming Trump administration from impending sanctions against Russia imposed by the outgoing Obama administration ... Flynn repeatedly urged Russia only to react to Obama sanctions on a “reciprocal” basis, no more ... Flynn repeatedly told the Russian ambassador that reciprocal action against the sanctions was a good message. starship.paint (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flynn NEVER mentioned the sanctions, the word "Sanction" was only mentioned twice by Kysliak, AND NOTHING that Flynn stated deminished the sanctions that Obama leveled against Russia. Flynn was being a DIPLOMAT is stating that there should not be a raising past what has been done with tit for tat actions, he NEVER stated that the Sanctions would be lifted, but that it is what they had to work with. BESIDES, EVEN IF HE DID MENTION SANCTIONS, which he didn't, he was acting officially for the INCOMING Administration and what he did was NOT illegal, all of the left wing consternation of "it MAY be illegal"(it isn't).67.10.206.161 (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Come back with a reliable source saying that. WP:RSP, green colour. starship.paint (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Now We Know Why All Articles On Conservatives Is Biased

As the head goes so the rest of the body! Jimmy Wales proclaims his left wing grudge against Trump. [3]67.10.206.161 (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which has no influence on editing of content in articles. Bye bye. -- Valjean (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing abnormal about disliking Donald Trump. Rest assured that I do not take my cues from Jimmy Wales. starship.paint (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the Michael Flynn Case: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff...

UPDATED Understanding the Michael Flynn Case: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff, and the Proper from the Improper. Updated with analysis of declassified Flynn-Kislyak transcripts

There may well be useful information here. -- Valjean (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean:. This article is really good. I will read through the whole thing shortly. --Steve Quinn (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you'd appreciate it. It's from a subject expert RS we often use. -- Valjean (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no even mentioning Flynn's son in the article, Logan act was never used in court with FLYNN, even FBI understood it is crazy to use never used act. Practically every sentence is a lie, like about interference, Crowstrike said in ODNI transcipts that they do not know if it was russia, so the key part of russian interference is a wrong now, etc. And about trollfarm it looks like it was just zenofobia from people like you. BTW, nice work on fact checking Valjean in Steele dossier article, loved it. I can give a further analysis of that article later. 94.29.3.116 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic. WP:NOTAFORUM Troll behavior
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow, the article is bizzare. Look here "Mr. Flynn, as the incumbent [sic] National Security Advisor", that "sic" means the author knows nothing about how all of it works, remember Ivanka Trump is Incumbent, as noted in Wikipedia article about her! That is important, because if e.g. Trump is Putin's puppet he is still untouchable since the time he is Incumbent. Nothing can be done about him, that is the beauty of this! Better look in this, wow, sane opinion from Washington Times! https://washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/28/editorial-it-time-end-political-prosecution-michae/ 94.29.3.116 (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/judge-lambastes-prosecutors-dismisses-ted-stevens-conviction-1.814451
  2. ^ https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05-29%20ODNI%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20%28Flynn%20Transcripts%29.pdf
  3. ^ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/donald-trump-is-a-lunatic-wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales/articleshow/76073253.cms?utm_source%3Dtwitter_web%26utm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_campaign%3Dsocialsharebuttons

AP fact-check on unmasking

President Donald Trump and his GOP allies are misrepresenting the facts behind the legal case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn as they seek to allege improper behavior during the Obama administration in the presidential campaign season.

Broadly dubbing his allegations “Obamagate,” Trump points to unspecified conspiracies against himself in 2016 and suggests the disclosure of Flynn’s name as part of legal U.S. surveillance of foreign targets was criminal and motivated by partisan politics. There’s no evidence of that.

Trump and his supporters have made the unmasking of Flynn one of their major talking points, claiming that it proves the Obama administration unfairly and illegally targeted Flynn and other Trump associates.

But there is nothing illegal about unmasking. The declassified document also states that the unmasking requests were approved through the National Security Agency’s “standard process.”

[...]

U.S. officials can ask the agency that collected the intelligence to unmask the name if they think it is vital to understanding the intelligence.

While Trump casts unmasking as sinister, the number of identities unmasked in response to such requests has actually increased during the first years of the Trump administration from the final year of the Obama administration.

[18] will be useful. starship.paint (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, can we just post editorials now? Is adding a little parenthetical afterwards enough to get you around WP:NOTAFORUM? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A fact check from the Associated Press is an "editorial" how? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like many pieces in the fact check genre, it's "opinion journalism thinly disguised as straight reporting", as the Wall Street Journal put it a long time ago. (Hey, can I post a long excerpt from that piece too?) Korny O'Near (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can call it what you want, but that doesn't make it any less factual. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts (Moynihan), and when their opinions conflict with the facts in RS, they should bring their opinions into alignment with those facts (Valjean). -- Valjean (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Korny O'Near: - you're using a 2008 article in the Wall Street Journal to discredit a 2020 fact-check by the Associated Press? Impressive. starship.paint (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm not trying to discredit it, just explaining my view that it's opinion masquerading as straight reporting. Interestingly, no one here is defending the actual issue, which is that a long copy-paste like that doesn't belong on a talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the copy-paste the real issue? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"nothing illegal about unmasking." That is false, it is illegal to unmask for political purposes (see testimony of NSA director), especially if you already knew the most of the details but want to know more juicy info to then leak it to President Obama (and Obama leaked it to Yates) (that was done by Chief of Staff of Obama) or to the press (that was done by Biden, even though we know that leaks were also before 12th, Biden I think was the one to leak it). We all know it is very illegal to do so. "The declassified document also states that the unmasking requests were approved through the National Security Agency’s “standard process.”" That is a lie, and a misleading lie at that. NSA form that releases the names who asked for unmasking requests has this as a standard stamp, there is northing informative in those words. "Trump and his supporters have made the unmasking of Flynn one of their major talking points, claiming that it proves the Obama administration unfairly and illegally targeted Flynn and other Trump associates." That is a lie, after all to say that Obama did a crime while leaking ithe information to Yates is difficult. No, the main reason is Peter and Lisa. They at least twice (emails and sms) mentioned that "POTUS wants to know everything" (sms, Obama at that time) and that White House is watching for Crossfire Razor and Cross Wind. We need to "brief" them (emails).94.29.3.116 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing the unmasking was with good cause and not for political purposes. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Flynn&oldid=960571039"