Talk:United States v. Flynn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit warring over content in the lead and a bit below

2A00:1FA0:4699:CC56:B5C1:B8A6:6EE2:BEBB / 2A00:1FA0:44C:B42D:44F3:6186:ECC4:F76E -- Based on the content of your edits and edit summaries, you seem to be one person; if I'm wrong about that, my apologies. You seem to be engaged in edit warring (WP:EW). Your claim that "Nothing needs sourcing" is mistaken. You also seem to be trying to discuss things in your edit summaries that cannot be effectively discussed there. For example, in response to my edit summary note that "Flynn's name wasn't masked in the FBI report," you wrote "we still do not know FBI or CIA was it," but that's mistaken. I can give you evidence here, but I cannot do so in an edit summary, nor would it be appropriate to do it there. And in response to my edit summary "deleted edit that confused the court-appointed amicus (Gleeson) with other amici who were allowed to file briefs; the writ of mandamus doesn't affect the latter," you said "please instead of reverting, give a source that you can still fille an amicus," which misinterprets what I wrote in my edit summary. I wasn't claiming that other amici "can still file," only that the writ of mandamus doesn't apply to them, precisely because the deadline for their briefs had already passed. It's better to discuss these things here on the talk page. There are some additional errors in what you introduced, but I'm not going to delete them now, as I've already mistakenly exceeded the # of reverts that are allowed in a 24-hour period. I'd appreciate it if we can work to resolve this through discussion here. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: - I'm sorry you are having to deal with possible vandalizing of this page. I have reported your issue to Drmies and it seems El_C is also aware of it. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The page is now semiprotected, indefinitely, as an AE action. El_C 20:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I've gone in and removed the vandalism that I could spot. I may have missed some though. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C - thanks again. BetsyRMadison - Thanks. I'm not convinced that it's vandalism; but it's not summarizing existing content in the body, and it needs to be in the body supported by RS before it can be added to the lead (Wikipedia:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

For record-keeping:

I went to the Teahouse in response to edits starting at 10:18, 10 July 2020‎ and continuing through 14:44, 10 July 2020‎ (or perhaps through 15:15, 10 July 2020‎, though I don’t think there’s really conflict about the date change). The conflict involved edits from the following editors:

• 2a00:1fa0:4699:cc56:b5c1:b8a6:6ee2:bebb
• 2a00:1fa0:4697:3ef6:81fe:2bbc:7885:2b6 (perhaps the same person as editor #1, using a dynamic IP address)
• 2a00:1fa0:44c:b42d:44f3:6186:ecc4:f76e (perhaps the same person as editor #1, using a dynamic IP address)
• 168.215.97.5
• FactOrOpinion

I created a talkpage for the first editor in the list and left a message there: [1] -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: -- Which of my edits were inappropriate? I am certain I deleted unsourced material from the ipv6 user, and the edits I made included well-sourced material. 168.215.97.5 (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

168.215.97.5 - I don't think you did anything wrong, and I hadn't meant to imply that you had. One of your edits was reverted by the person engaged in edit-warring, and I was just trying to highlight which editors were involved during that time-span (per this advice from Mathglot in response to my Teahouse question about how to deal with this: [2]), in case an administrator needed to make sense of it later. My apologies for not having been clearer above. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: -- Ah. I apologize for misunderstanding what you were doing. Thank you for the clarification.168.215.97.5 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

168.215.97.5 - You're welcome. If only everything could be so easily resolved. :-)

@FactOrOpinion: - well whatever it was, I removed it and tried to restore it, as best I could, to your edits. You've done a good job on this article and I wanted to help you out in recovering your hard work. . BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my edits abput Biden and Obama should be restored, start RfC template somebody. Sigh. There were no edit waring, as this article is WIP, before some crazy came and starting vandaling. Again, FBI is not Intelligence, we do not know whether it was CIA or FBI, as Ted Cruz pointed out on granting 53 subpoenaes in Senate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPPPE0NYuhw on 1:08:40. 213.87.156.221 (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

213.87.156.221, you say "my edits." @Drmies: tried to block you temporarily for disruptive edits: [3], and apparently you've gotten around it. Seems unwise to do that rather than appealing the decision or waiting it out. Either way, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" MOS:LEADREL, and that information needs to be referenced with RS, so no, your edits to the lead shouldn't be restored. If you want that material to be in the article, you need to develop text for the body, and it needs to be referenced with RSs. Trying to argue that it's public knowledge doesn't work. I'm not sure why you keep saying "FBI is not Intelligence." It's part of the U.S. intelligence community. You didn't make clear what "it" refers to in "we do not know whether it was CIA or FBI," but I listened to Cruz's statement in that video, and he's mistaken that had the FBI surveillance "been a surveillance of Kislyak, then Flynn's name would have been redacted and required an unmasking." The various unmasking requests that were made public in Acting DNI Grenell's letter to Senators Grassley and Johnson were all for NSA information, not FBI information, and the FBI and NSA do not have the same requirements for redacting names. The FBI was surveilling Kislyak, and Flynn's name was not redacted because the FBI doesn't require it for a closely held transcript, as that transcript wasn't at the stage of a finished intelligence product. Comey testified about some of this under oath and IIRR, Mary McCord's 302 also speaks to this a bit; both of those are exhibits on the DOJ's motion to dismiss. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

To @FactOrOpinion: Don't know if you saw this [4] but the IP range for the IP's disruptive editing on this article is a Russian range, and it's also making anti-Biden edits. Interesting, huh. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: I did see that earlier, thanks. The two latest accounts (IPv4 accounts above and here: [5]) are also from the Moscow area, and the latter references QAnon to boot. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: I don't even know what to say about this guy. "Again, FBI is not Intelligence." The FBI's job is specifically to oversee domestic intelligence. This is like saying a red apple is not an apple. Crazy. Sorry you're having to deal with this. But at least someday you can tell your grandkids that you got into an editing war on wikipedia with the Russian military. :P But I also wanted to point out he made a section in the talk page above trying to deflect and make the article about Turkey. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@JapanOfGreenGables: I haven't looked at the video above, but I'm pretty sure that Flynn testified in Bijan Rafiekian's trial, which is connected to Turkey and could also have implications for whether Flynn committed perjury, so it's possible that the video is related. If it isn't, I guess we can delete it. As for our friend from Moscow, I learned something useful out of all of it, so it's not a total loss. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Only https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Intelligence_Branch is Intelligence, it is not what we are talking abot here. Again, we do not know whether it was CIA or FBI that was spying on our ambassador. Also, I am not hiding that I am russian. Why would I? 213.87.131.174 (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your edits haven't been about the Russian ambassador. You've alleged that someone in either the CIA or FBI leaked Flynn's name to the press in January 2017. However 1). it was reported before the date you give 2). It's well documented and known that Flynn's name was revealed in the Steele Dossier, authored by Christopher Steele. No one in the US government leaked his name. You're not providing any credible sources for anything you say... most of the time no sources at all. If you think you're right and we're wrong about anything, please provide credible sources according to wikipedia's standards and show us. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"spying on our ambassador" ... Lol! Well, ya' know, if your former Soviet Union KGB spy, Vladimir Putin, had not directed Russia's GRU military to commit cyber-attacks against America in the U.S. 2016 election (that some say may have been Russia committing "act of war" against America [6]) then, who knows, maybe Flynn would not have committed the Felony he pleaded guilty to, twice. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Steele dossier does not have that information. Only this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Cultivation_of_various_U.S._political_figures Indeed that was second, "main" leak on 12 January. The same date Biden asked for unmaskings. "cyber-attacks against America" What cyber attackes? Cyberstrike in ODNI transcripts says they do not know whether Russians hacked Clinton and / or Podesta. Even if we did, I am proud of country to do so, Clinton should rot in jail. I mean just in June Google was subpoeaned and turns out she used gmail as well. And new never seen work emails there were found. This is another 5-20 years in prison. "he pleaded guilty to, twice" He did not as withdrawal is absolute. Also, thanks in that transcripts Kislyak-Flynn we found out FBI can listen to voice mail background sound. Nice. 213.87.162.197 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

213.87.162.197 - Multiple people testified under oath and/or stated in FBI interviews (where it's also illegal to lie) that Flynn's name wasn't masked on the transcripts. These people include Comey, McCabe and McCord. These were exhibits in the DOJ's motion to dismiss, which is already in the citations, and you've provided no evidence that his name was redacted and had to be unmasked. WP:NOTFORUM: "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article." You are making false claims about the case and/or U.S. law (e.g., "withdrawal is absolute" is false; (a) Sullivan hadn't yet ruled on Flynn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and (b) after the DOJ submitted its motion to dismiss, Flynn's counsel moved to withdraw pending motions: [7]), and you aren't providing any WP:RS sources for your claims. Please focus on what you can substantiate using reliable sources (not another WP page: WP:NOTSOURCE) and stop disrupting the work on improving the article. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Russian trolling this talk page is spouting Russian propaganda, disinformation. Don't feed the troll. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: I'm well aware that s/he's a Russian troll posting disinformation. Prior to responding, I'd actually checked whether there's a WP policy or guideline pages about responding to trolling. As best I can tell, there isn't one, only editor-written essays, polls, ... If I'm wrong about that, and there is a WP policy or guideline page about it, I'd appreciate your pointing me to it. Whether I choose to respond to a troll or not depends on the circumstance; each of us has sometimes chosen to reply and other times chosen to ignore. FWIW, I’d followed up with the admin who responded earlier, and hopefully the troll will be effectively blocked soon. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Sullivan hadn't yet ruled on Flynn's motion to withdraw" He would need to go to courts himself to stop Flynn, he must rule. "Flynn's counsel moved to withdraw pending motions" Because there is no point in that motion after charges were dropped. Stop insinuating propoganda here, do not be like Nadler. 213.87.162.197 (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

213.87.162.197 - Your claims are false with respect to U.S. law. You are continuing to post disinformation. Again: Please stop disrupting the work on improving the article. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Two things I'd like to point out. First, if you read the wikipedia page for the Steele Dossier, which our friend has linked, it has all the information about Flynn in there. Second -- and this is important -- for felony charges can be filed after a grand jury returns an indictment, or, when the prosecution submits a charging information. In both cases, the body -- whether it's the grand jury or a magistrate judge -- looks over all the evidence and determines if there is sufficient evidence for the case to go forward. For Flynn, they went with the latter. That document was never sealed. There was no deliberation behind closed doors as there is with a grand jury indictment. Also, it's public knowledge now that Flynn's calls were intercepted by the FBI -- not the CIA, not unknown -- but by the FBI's counterintelligence bureau. That is who intelligence means, and it is all documented in court documents. The splitting hairs about we don't know what intelligence it was is totally wrong. So, politicians first knew about the Flynn investigation through the FBI investigation, and the wider public through newspapers like WaPo and the NYT that published portions of the Steele Dossier -- which, as I previously stated -- has all this on the wikipedia page that our friend linked too. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Try to give me a source that says it is FBI I. Branch, you will not be able to, also it MUST have been NSA, but NSA and FBI do not usually operate on foreign soil like Russian USA embassies. So it is CIA and if you were to see the heavily redacted meta markings on Flynn declassified transcripts, IT IS NOT FBI. We have transcipts (FD forms) from FBI with Halper and Jeff Wiseman spying on Crossfire Typhoon, Flynn's does not look like it is from FBI. I am almost sure it was CIA (it is not hard to find out the style of CIA docs, LOL), that is why Ted Cruz is interested in it. 46.138.186.66 (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead reads like a condensed Disqus comment section

unsupported whining by IP not here to improve the article

Namely, it loves to emphasize that he plead guilty twice while ignoring things like the prosecutor hiding the deal to not prosecute Flynn's son from the court - which is illegal. The two guilty pleas are also irrelevant when compared to the fact that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn't think that he lied. The two guilty pleas are also irrelevant to the specifics of the Brady evidence that wasn't given to Flynn - namely the refusal of the prosecution to hand over the transcripts of the phone calls, the numerous revisions of the 302's, the refusal to hand over the original 302 and the notes talking about whether or not the plan was to get Flynn to "lie" in order to prosecute him. These things are relevant. These things are interesting. The number of guilty pleas is only interesting to people who want to ignore this crap because it is an election year. The one mention of the Logan act makes no mention of its unconstitutionality. It doesn't mention that Flynn was the incoming National Security Advisor and so the Logan Act wouldn't apply to him. It doesn't mention that Biden brought up the Logan Act in a meeting with Obama. I guess the Oval office directing a criminal investigation into the incoming administration isn't interesting enough for this article. The slant on this article is essentially a giant BLP violation. Whatever. It is an election year and political articles are the worst on wikipedia. Where is the mention of James Comey saying it wasn't clear that Flynn lied? The article also gets its facts wrong. Flynn didn't discus the sanctions with Kislyak. He was referring to the expulsion of Russians and wanted the expulsions of Americans from Russia to be proportionate - those were NOT legally sanctions. There's a list of things that you can clean up and which I fully expect to stay wrong - at least until the election is over. Don't say you weren't informed. 63.155.115.36 (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC) 63.155.115.36 - You say "There's a list of things that you can clean up and which I fully expect to stay wrong," as if other people are supposed to do it for you and it's not within your own power to do it. If you believe something needs work, please work on it. Just make sure that your claims are sourced with RSs; that you distinguish between fact and opinion, including the person's name when you're citing opinion (e.g., the "unconstitutionality" of the Logan Act is an opinion held by some, but not ruled on by the courts and not a fact); and that you don't introduce anything into the lead that isn't in the body. You're factually mistaken about some things, like "the prosecutor hiding the deal to not prosecute Flynn's son from the court." There was no "deal to not prosecute Flynn's son," as Flynn's own attorneys explicitly stated: "The government took pains not to give a promise to MTF [Michael T. Flynn] regarding Michael Jr. ..." ([8], emphasis added). Similarly, your opinion that "The two guilty pleas are also irrelevant when compared to the fact that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn't think that he lied" is legally mistaken. Flynn's own statements under oath to the judge, confirming that he'd made false statements to the FBI (e.g., on 12/18/18, Judge Sullivan asked Flynn "Are you continuing to accept responsibility for your false statements [to the FBI]?" Flynn: "I am, Your Honor") matter much more legally than the agents' belief at the time. And just because person A doesn't believe person B to be lying isn't a guarantee that person B isn't lying. I think that there should be a section addressing issues like this that are legally clear but debated by the public. Another issue of this sort is whether there's a "missing 302." I listed some of these issues above in the proposed outline section. So we can work on putting content like this into the page; we just have to be careful about accurately capturing the issues with RSs. For example, your claim that "Biden brought up the Logan Act ..." is based on written notes from Strzok, who wasn't at the meeting in question, where the notes were from a conversation with an unknown person afterwards; that's not good evidence for your claim, but lots of people on the right are saying something similar in public discussion. You make a bunch of claims of this sort. Last but not least, re: "I fully expect [these] to stay wrong," please WP:AGF instead of expecting problems. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC) P.S. I also want to note that "Flynn didn't discus the sanctions with Kislyak" is false. The expulsions were part of the sanctions imposed by Obama, and Flynn raised those in the discussion. Kislyak also introduced other sanctions in the discussion. You also mistakenly claim that there was a "criminal investigation into the incoming administration," when it was a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal one. If you doubt these things, we can discuss them here, and you can introduce RSs to support your claim, and I'll introduce RSs to support mine, and we can jointly figure out how to address them in the article's text. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Of course it isn't in my power because people with a narrative with revert everything I do and source. Even now, you don't fully quote the Covington lawyers - it makes the prosecution look corrupt. The full quote is, “The only exception is the reference to Michael Jr. The government took pains not to give a promise to MTF [presumably referencing Flynn] regarding Michael Jr., so as to limit how much of a ‘benefit’ it would have to disclose as part of its Giglio disclosures to any defendant against whom MTF may one day testify.” (Gee, I wonder who they wanted Flynn to testify against - maybe someone who they planned to impeach?) And that's illegal. They wanted to stop Giglio disclosures because testimony doesn't look very reliable when you get it by promising you won't wage legal warfare against a person's son. You also didn't mention the other exhibit which talked about their "unofficial understanding" about not prosecuting Flynn's son. Off the book, shady and illegal. The narrative about the two guilty pleas means nothing without this sort of context. The statement that Flynn was forced to make as part of his plea deal is irrelevant. If he didn't make that statement then he wouldn't get the plea deal. It is coercion and this sort of coercion has been widely criticized by legal scholars. Say what we want you to say or we throw the book at you. Acting like he said that out of his own free will is ridiculous and speaks volumes about the people pushing the "two guilty pleas" narrative. Why did the first judge recuse himself anyway? No curiosity about that apparently either. The Logan Act horseshit came from somewhere. The only evidence we have is that it came from Biden. Who I'm sure wasn't acting under Obama's orders. And let's be clear - it is horseshit. It is unconstitutional and wouldn't apply to someone in Flynn's position. It was a pretext used to investigate a guy with no adequate justification. The expulsions were not official sanctions. The Mueller team lied about Flynn talking about the actual sanctions by conflating the expulsions with the sanctions. Strange how so many resources have been spent to investigate and prosecute a guy....what was his crime again? Lying to the FBI? About what exactly? What was the proof that he lied? Oh that's right, defense wasn't allowed to have any proof. Obama's "wing man"'s law firm (Eric Holder) conned Flynn into taking a plea deal after they bankrupted him. Another coincidence I'm sure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.115.36 (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC) 63.155.115.36 - Your claim that "people with a narrative [will] revert everything I do and source" is inconsistent with WP:AGF. I suggest that you edit the article using RSs that substantiate what you write, don't engage in edit warring, and if there's a conflict, then we can try to resolve it using one or more means in WP:DISPUTE. I suggest that you start by working on the body, since there isn't supposed to be anything in the lead that isn't in the body. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC) It isn't worth my time for something I know won't happen. I'm experienced enough with wikipedia to know that the entire system doesn't deserve good faith. 63.155.115.36 (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Well, 63.155.115.36, if you believe you're wasting your time and don't want to waste your time, then don't waste your time. If OTOH you just want to lament/decry the terrible quality of Wikipedia, this isn't the place: entire websites are devoted to this, and those websites and their readers will probably welcome your contribution. -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTHERE. Mathglot (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Flynn's reply to Judge Sullivan's request for en banc review

Since this article is indefinitely protected and I am too lazy to register a username, would someone please update this article to reflect Flynn's reply to Sullivan's en banc review request? Thank you. 168.215.97.5 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

168.215.97.5 - Do you have a news report about it? I'm asking because WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS indicate that it may be a problem for us to link to court docs if the material is related to a living person. Yeah, I know that there are already links to that sort of material in the article. I'm waiting for a resolution to the following discussion that I started on the BLP talk page: [9]. I'm still not entirely clear on where the line is between a BLP claim and a case claim, when the case involves a living person. But it may be that we need to find a bunch of other sources for statements in the article and remove the links to court docs, with the possible exception of those published in the federal court register. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: -- A report? Not exactly. I found two articles: one from the NY Post, Flynn's legal team blasts federal judge for case dismissal delay; and one from Fox News, Flynn's legal team brief. The Fox News article links to Scribd with a digital copy of the filing, but you have to have a paying subscription to read its entirety: Flynn brief on rehearing. There is also a Washington Post article: Michael Flynn urges full appeals court not to rehear case saying judge hijacked prosecution. There is a law.com article covering the DOJ's filing, but as with Scribd, you have to have a paying subscription to read beyond the first paragraph.

Ideally, if we could get a link to the DOJ's reply, that'd be great too. I think Flynn's filing could have argued against the rehearing without all the hyperbole, and I suspect the DOJ's filing does just that.

Please advise if you need anything further from me. 168.215.97.5 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

168.215.97.5 - There's a copy of the brief on Powell's website, so that isn't the problem. Again, the issue is that both BLPSPS and BLPPRIMARY preclude our linking to court documents if a claim is about a living person, and I don't have a good way to separate out what's about Flynn, Sullivan, etc. as persons vs. about the case. If you have an opinion about that, I suggest that you join the discussion on the BLP talk page that I linked to above. I can add a link to the WaPo article, but I don't have a Post subscription, so you need to write the text that you want to appear on the page for that article (e.g., is it just something like "In their response, Flynn's counsel urged the appellate court to reject Sullivan's request for an en banc review"?). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: -- I do not have a paid subscription to WaPo either. I suggest you use the NY Post and Fox News articles that I also linked for you as neither of those appear to require a paid subscription to read. As for the BLPSPS and BLPPRIMARY issue, from my quick skim of the policies, which make little sense to me for not citing to court documents, I have no opinion worth contributing to that discussion. I never rely on a secondary source's spin on the primary. There have been too many experiences in my life where after reading the secondary source, I read the primary and realize the secondary source's spin is either categorically wrong, grossly inaccurate, or intentionally distorted to fit the secondary source's narrative. This article is about a notable case, and what is filed in connection to that case is relevant and important material for this article. I am not asking for extensive quotations from the actual filing. If you think there should be quotations from Flynn's filing, I recommend such quotations refer to the legal precedent he is relying upon to oppose Judge Sullivan's request, only. To present a neutral article, I recommend pulling legal precedent from Judge Sullivan's filing for the full-court rehearing; as well as the DOJ's cited legal precedent, however. Citing to all three filings' legal justification for their positions argued provides a more nuanced, and neutral presentation of the issues in the case. Again, I am not asking for such quotations to be added. And again, I am simply requesting that a notation be made that Flynn filed a reply opposing Judge Sullivan's request for a rehearing by the full appellate court. Having looked at Sidney Powell's web page, I also request a notation be added that the DOJ also filed a response to Judge Sullivan's request. 168.215.97.5 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

168.215.97.5 - OK, I added a line about the responses, citing a Politico article, which has links to copies of both documents. As for primary vs. secondary sources, I like primary sources too, but WP's guidelines aren't up to me, and I'm trying to abide by them. It's sometimes unclear to me when the BLP policies apply to US v. Flynn material and when they don't. As for the rest, you initially said that you were "too lazy to register a username," but this is definitely more work for me, and I expect that it's at least as much work for you. So unless there's some other reason that you don't want to register, I encourage you to register, so that you can edit the page yourself. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: -- Much obliged. Thank you. 168.215.97.5 (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: and IP 168: if you can't see WaPo articles behind a paywall, know that they are often picked up, either in some kind of syndication deal, or maybe just pinched, by other sites who source all or part of them. You just have to look around till you find one that seems like it's the whole article. For example, this one. Use a double-quoted search of a unique part of the WaPo headline, or all of it, to find other candidates.

There is one thing that is problematic with that, and that's if you're the one writing a reference; in theory, you should cite the WaPo article, not the mirror or consolidator; but if you can't see the WaPo article, how can you be sure they really are equivalent? You can't. I don't believe there's any policy about this, and short of asking someone you know to confirm their equivalence (I happen to have a sub, and could do that for you), you might want to create a combined reference, as in: <ref>{{cite newspaper |newspaper=Washington Post |title=WaPo headline visible to you |author= |url=Wapo-url}} as quoted in: {{cite web |title=identical WaPo headline or their headline if different |website=some random blogger |url=randomblogger.com |accessdate=todays-date}}</ref> That way, you get both verifiability, and you're not making it up or pretending to see the WaPo article, when you didn't. Some other editor can come along later, and shorten it, if they can view the WaPo article directly, and meanwhile, you've adhered to all guidelines, and provided proper Verifiability.

Also, ForO: there's no point {{reply}}ing or {{ping}}ing an IP; anonymous users don't receive notifications. IP 168 appears to be watching the article, and that's how they are replying to you in a timely manner. If you want to ensure they're aware of a comment of yours, just go to their Talk page, and use the {{talkback}} template. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for the info. I also realized that if I have the URL for a paywalled article, I can search the Internet Archive's Wayback section for an archived copy, or I can create one if no copy has been archived yet, and then I can cite the archived copy. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion Even better! I've created many archived copies, and hadn't thought of the idea of going to the IA to read an article for paywall reasons. That's a good enough trick, that it should probably be mentioned in a guideline, or at least a how-to supplement or essay somewhere, if we can figure out where. Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation clutter

There is some citation clutter at the article. When you see a single assertion that is non-controversial, followed by more than one citation, it may be WP:OVERCITE. For example:

• Sullivan then delayed sentencing.
• Flynn had in fact advised Kislyak that Russia should temper their response to the U.S. sanctions.
• I did not understand the president to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign".
• ..."would not take retaliatory measures" in response to the U.S. sanctions and escalate the conflict between the two nations.
• ...which could have violated the dormant Logan Act which bars unauthorized U.S. citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States.

and so on. For the most part, a simple, uncontentious assertion only need one, good source. If you want to keep the extra ones around for future reference, they can always be moved to a "Further reading" section. (See MOS:ORDER for proper placement.) Mathglot (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC) updated at 20:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for this info. I'm still in the midst of learning about the various norms here. Thanks, as well, for adding the hidden text here to note the links from Flynn's page, and for including links in your edit summary, so that I could read up on what you'd done. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Add back Giglio information and Sally Yates testified that Biden did not talk about Logan Act on 5th January

Powell argued in her filings, the lead prosecutor, Van Grack, “made a side deal not to prosecute Michael G. Flynn [Jr.] as a material term of the plea agreement, but he required that it be kept secret between himself and the Covington attorneys expressly to avoid the requirement of Giglio.” I will do an RfC if this will not be done. 2A00:1370:812C:79E7:CD86:CF6A:828A:2620 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Powell has made numerous assertions. I look forward to your RfC.

On June 17, the Justice Department filed a brief with Sullivan asserting that even if Gleeson's findings of gross abuse were true, the Department still had sole authority to drop the case without judicial review. A footnote in the brief stated that assertions of prosecutorial misconduct made by Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, were "unfounded and provide no basis for impugning the prosecutors."

soibangla (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Powell's filings are unacceptable sources for a statement about Van Grack, per WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPPRIMARY. At some point, it would actually be good for us to go through the references for all of the BLP statements in the article to double-check the references for SPS and/or primary docs. That said, I do think that it would be appropriate to have a section discussing some publicly contested issues (e.g., whether there was a "perjury trap," whether a deal was made not to prosecute Jr.) if they've been discussed by RSs. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Briefs from / arguments made by amici

Soibangla: I noticed that you'd added a couple of lines about the US v. Flynn amicus brief from the former Watergate prosecutors. Do you think that we should try to list all of the groups that filed amicus briefs in this case? I haven't really thought about what should be said about these various groups and their arguments, other than the fact that multiple groups filed amicus briefs (already mentioned in the article), probably identifying those who filed in favor of dismissal, those who filed against dismissal, and those who raised other concerns. I've started trying to identify them all, but I'm going to have to double-check some of this to make sure that I'm not mixing anything up between US v Flynn (the district court case) and In re: Michael T. Flynn (the appellate writ of mandamus case), as the dates when the various amicus briefs were filed in the two cases overlaps at the end of May and early June. If we should add more detail, here's a partial list of amici, some with links to their briefs:

• Former Federal Prosecutors and High-Ranking Department of Justice Officials: [10]
• Federal practitioners [11]
• Opening Arguments Media, LLC [12]
• National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers [13]
• Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and The Presidential Coalition, LLC [14]
• The Steady State, and additional former national security officials [15]
• New York City Bar Association [I'm pretty sure that they filed briefs in both cases]
• House Judiciary Democrats
• Watergate prosecutors [the group you mentioned, which filed briefs in both cases]
• Separation of Powers scholars: [16]
• We Who Served-VSO and Vets for Trump [17]

I'm not sure that there was much reporting about any of these, as the responses and hearing for US v. Flynn were stayed after the 3-judge panel ruled in favor of the writ of mandamus on June 9.

Here's a list of the briefs filed in In re: Flynn: [18]

And here's a start on a list of RSs reporting on these, though none of these really discusses the arguments; the Courthouse News articles generally also have links to the briefs:

• Ken Starr Backs Move to Drop Charge Against Ex-Trump Adviser Flynn, Megan Mineiro, 5/29/20, [19] -- mentions the brief from the group of 28 former prosecutors, government attorneys and judges, as well as the brief from 16 former Watergate prosecutors. But it doesn't link to the former (only to a list of the amici), and it's ambiguous which case it's referring to for them (I think the writ). The latter brief is for US v. Flynn.
• City Bar Amicus Brief Backs Judge Sullivan in Michael Flynn Case, by Jason Grant, 6/2/20, [20] - mentions the NY City Bar Assoc. brief for the writ case
• NY Bar Association Opposes Move to Drop Case Against Flynn, Megan Mineiro, 6/1/20, [21] - mentions briefs from the NY City Bar Assoc., from Edwin Meese with the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, from Eleven GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and from several Senate Republicans for the writ case

-- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

There is also this. https://www.sidneypowell.com/the-michael-t-flynn-case. Was totaly destructed by the leak of Windows XP source code, so I see a crazy amount of new demaging things, now we have some real insurance, i.e. purchased liability insurance from Berkshire Hathaway Ins or State Farm Group? Lol. And that crazy FD-302 from Barnett. We also have learnt Crossfire Dragon (Carter Page) and Crossfire Fury (Pol Manafort, the black fake book, Poroshenko-Biden call mentioning, banning of Nabu Leaks by Wray, the new list of FBI directors) codenames, and even that Donald J. Trump and Sessions AND Igor Danchenko had codenames! Hahaha! This is nuts. But Windows XP leak is still more crazy. 20 years they could not leak it. BTW, my favourite, "God forbid it will be FOIA'd" :)2A00:1370:812C:DACF:2D69:C13F:5652:4F70 (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo under 'Subsequent proceedings'. It says "Sullivan asked Powell is she had spoken to the president about the case." when it should say "Sullivan asked Powell if she had spoken to the president about the case." The 'is' should be replaced with 'if'. I'd fix it myself, but the page is under Semi-protection.

 Done soibangla (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)