Talk:Michael Flynn/Archive 7

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There are a few things that are puzzling me & here's my short version describing what puzzles me: the content of the FBI notes have been in the general public since 2018, RS has been reporting about them via Flynn's case since 2018, and this WP article has been reporting on them since 2018 as well. On top of that, the 'trap' notion has also been discussed in RS and this WP article since 2018. So, there is literally nothing new about the FBI notes or the notion of 'trap.'

Longer version: While Bill Barr's release of the physical copies of the FBI notes are the only thing "new" to the general public, the content of them is not new to the general public, and the physical copies are not new to Flynn, Flynn's lawyers, or the Federal Court. The NYT [1] reports (from a 2020 DOJ letter) that since February 2018 those very same FBI notes have been in the possession of Michael Flynn, Flynn's lawyers, and the Federal Court. And, more importantly, since 2018, this WP article already discusses those FBI notes, along with Flynn's and the Federal Court's reaction to those FBI notes, under the subheading "Delayed Sentencing" here [2]. As for the sensational phrase, "perjury trap," since 2018 the RS and this WP article already writes about that allegation when it surfaced in both 2018 & 2019 under the same Delayed Sentencing section of this WP article. Additionally, RS reports [3] [4] that Bill Barr's DOJ did not file anything with the court that implies or alleges, "perjury trap" or any other kind of "trap."

So I feel the serious questions about that RfC are:
1. Why are we going to be redundant and come up with new wording to describe what the WP article already describes in the "Delayed Sentencing" section?
2. How do we reword what we already worded in the "Delayed Sentencing" section?
3. Why would we add the legal phrase, "perjury trap," when: this WP article already discusses that along with Flynn & the Federal Court's reaction to that notion, and RS report that: the DOJ has not filed anything with court alleging that; and the Federal Court rejected any such notion of that on December 18, 2018; and while under oath and talking to Judge Sullivan on 12/18/2018 Mike Flynn rejected that notion and "reiterated his guilt;" and Mike Flynn's lawyer specifically told Judge Sullivan he (Flynn) was not making any such claim of trap during the 12/18/2018 sentencing hearing.

Sources showing the FBI notes have been in possession of Flynn, his lawyer's, and Federal court since February 2018:

• NYT reports [5] that in the April 29, 2020 letter from Bill Barr's DOJ to Flynn's lawyer, the DOJ writes that (new-only-to-the-general-public) the FBI, "materials are covered by the Protective Order entered by the Court on February 21, 2018."
  
• Flynn's lawyers discuss and quote from those very same FBI notes in their Flynn's December 11, 2018 sentencing memorandum to the court [6] [7] [8].
  

From CNN - Flynn's 12/11/2018 memo to the court quoting from those very same FBI notes: "The FBI "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport,"  He did not have an attorney with him at that time, and was not warned he could be prosecuted for making false statements, his memo said.  FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who spoke to Flynn before the visit, said that if "Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. (General Flynn) stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants." 

• 12/18/2018 NYT reported [9] reports that prior to his December 18, 2018 sentencing hearing, Michael Flynn's lawyer, Robert K. Kelner implied that "the F.B.I. agents who had interviewed Mr. Flynn may have tricked him by failing to warn him that lying to investigators was a crime." During the court hearing Michael Flynn "reiterated his guilt" to Judge Sullivan and told the judge that he knew "it was a crime to lie to the F.B.I.."  Mr. Kelner told Judge Sullivan that he was not trying to imply a perjury trap but was "merely trying to show that Mr. Flynn had been held to a higher standard than two other people who had pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators for the special counsel: George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign aide, and Alex van der Zwaan," Judge Sullivan dismissed the comparison and underscored that Mr. Flynn is "a high-ranking government official who had betrayed the government’s trust by lying.  Mr. Flynn deceived not only F.B.I. agents, but also senior White House officials, who then repeated his lies to the American public. This is a very serious offense. This case is in a category by itself.”

To summarize: My questions stem from these facts: This article already discusses the FBI notes & already discusses Flynn's and the Federal Court's reaction to those FBI notes. This WP article already discusses the "trap" notion & already discusses Flynn's and the Federal Court's reaction to that 'trap' notion in both December 2018 & December 2019. In Feb. 2018, the DOJ (through Mueller) gave those FBI notes to Flynn, Flynn's lawyers, and the Federal Court. In 12/18/2018 sentencing hearing: Flynn, Flynn's lawyer, and the Federal Court already rejected and debunked any notion of "trap."
I originally intended this to be a reply to starship question about RS [10] but then decided the questions are serious enough to be put in a new section. - BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

To BetsyRMadison, I appreciate your serious question and the evidence that you've highlighted. Here's a long but useful and relevant discussion: https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-redux-what-those-fbi-documents-really-show It outlines some significant events since 2018 that bear on this: Flynn fired his previous attorneys and hired new ones, the new ones filed "a motion to dismiss her client’s prosecution 'for egregious government misconduct,' and a motion to withdraw his guilty plea" (quoting Lawfare) and other documents, like a motion for Brady materials that includes the claim “high-ranking FBI officials orchestrated an ambush-interview of the new president’s National Security Advisor, not for the purpose of discovering any evidence of criminal activity … but for the purpose of trapping him into making statements they could allege as false.” (source: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.133.0.pdf ). I haven't read all of those docs and don't know if there are other allegations like that. Other relevant events subsequent to that article (and so not included there): the government submitted a Motion to Dismiss, and the Attorney General publicly alleged that “[The FBI] kept [the investigation] open for the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn.” There is an ongoing effort by some to recast the nature of the interview. I'll have to look at the most recent filings in both Sullivan's court and in the appellate court re: Flynn's request for a writ of mandamus to see whether there are any new statements about a "trap" in those filings. But it may take me a while to get to that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. to BetsyRMadison, You said that "The NYT ... reports (from a 2020 DOJ letter) that since February 2018 those very same FBI notes have been in the possession of Michael Flynn, Flynn's lawyers, and the Federal Court," but I don't see that in what you linked to. Did I miss it? Are you saying that "These materials are covered by the Protective Order entered by the Court on February 21, 2018" means that the materials were in their possession? If so, that's not clear to me, but IANAL. Also, it's fine with me to address this as a paragraph in the "delayed sentencing" section rather than a separate "perjury trap allegations" section FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

P.P.S. to BetsyRMadison, I've done a little more searching and reading, and I found that in a 12/16/19 ruling from Judge Sullivan, he wrote "the Court summarily disposes of Mr. Flynn’s arguments that the FBI conducted an ambush interview for the purpose of trapping him into making false statements and that the government pressured him to enter a guilty plea. The record proves otherwise." (source: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016f-109b-d105-af6f-97bb428b0000). I now see that that's already touched on in the existing "Delayed Sentencing" section, where the text says "On December 16, 2019, Sullivan rejected Flynn's assertions of entrapment by the FBI and malfeasance by prosecutors after a review of possible case related findings in the Michael Horowitz report, setting his sentencing date for January 28, 2020." That convinces me that if the "perjury trap" allegation is going to be added, it shouldn't have it's own section, and it might suffice to simply add a short preface to the preceding sentence, along the lines of "Allegations of a perjury trap or entrapment have been made by Flynn's counsel and some others [citations]; however, on December 16, 2020, Sullivan rejected ..." It might be worth touching on the "trap" allegations again in the "Justice Department's motion to drop charges" section, adding that shortly after the Motion to Dismiss was filed, A.G. Barr alleged in an interview that the FBI had been trying to create a perjury trap, and also noting that some analysts argue that the Motion to Dismiss and this allegation are bad faith attempts by Barr to aide a Trump ally and to avoid Trump having to choose to pardon Flynn, as a pardon might have political and legal side-effects (and if this is how people want to handle it, I'll look for citations from RSs for analysts voicing this opinion -- I know that I've seen some). FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

To FactOrOpinion - The issues raised in the Rfc (& that you raise in your comment) are already within this WP article under "Delayed Sentencing" section. The fact that the issues the RfC brings up are already within this WP article is why I ask the 3 questions that I ask above your comment.

On Bill Barr: RS report that the motion to dismiss from Bill Barr's DOJ does not mention anything about "perjury trap." New York Times [11] reports what Bill Barr's comments outside of the motion to dismiss is Barr misinterpreting the FBI notes, "The department’s motion referred to notes that Mr. Priestap wrote around the bureau’s 2017 questioning of Mr. Flynn, who later pleaded guilty to lying to investigators during that interview ... Attorney General William P. Barr said investigators were trying to “lay a perjury trap." That interpretation was wrong, Mr. Priestap told the prosecutors reviewing the case. He said that F.B.I. officials were trying to do the right thing in questioning Mr. Flynn and that he knew of no effort to set him up.”

Other sources: "Nearly 2,000 exJustice Department employees sign letter criticizing Barr for moving to drop Flynn charges [12], and Bill Barr "Assaulted the rule of law" [13], and "Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth [14].

It appears Bill Barr has a bad habit of misinterpreting and distorting legal documents. On the Mueller report, the NYT reports [15] "Mr. Barr put forward a “distorted” and “misleading” account of [the Mueller report] findings and lacked credibility on the topic."

Like I said above, the issues that the RfC brings up are already within this WP article and that is why I ask the 3 questions I did. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

To BetsyRMadison, thanks for your response. Clearly I didn't read the main entry carefully enough. At this point, perhaps one of the people advocating an "allegations of a 'perjury trap'" section needs to explain why s/he thinks it merits a section / why the existing text isn't sufficient. But that's not me. (I came in in the middle of this, and jumped in trying to be helpful by adding references for disputed text on the page, but I simply didn't familiarize myself sufficiently with the rest of the existing text on the page, so I haven't been particularly helpful. Sorry for taking up your time because of my lack of care.) Absent a convincing argument from someone else, I agree with you.
In my attempt to learn more elsewhere, I found a very helpful page with all of the documents filed with/by the court, not sure if you already know about it: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/united-states-v-flynn/ . I've now read the 2/21/18 protective order (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.22.0_1.pdf ), and I don't think that "materials are covered by the Protective Order entered by the Court on February 21, 2018" implies that "the FBI notes have been in possession of Flynn, his lawyer's, and Federal court since February 2018." Am I mistaken? I'd like to add the main Court Listener link for U.S. v. Flynn to Flynn's page, but I'm not sure where. My sense is that the External Links section should be for biographic info about Flynn, not about the case. Is that right? I'd add it to the Plea Bargain section but can't figure out what to write. What do you think?. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if either of you expect anyone to read through that wall of text you've created, but: I was responsible for the "perjury trap" RfC, and I created a section to attempt to match the results of the RfC, so I can chime in here. In answer to the original questions:

1. "Why are we going to be redundant and come up with new wording to describe what the WP article already describes in the "Delayed Sentencing" section?"

I tried to read through the longer explanation, and I still don't know what this means. Can you please point to specific sentences in the current article, and in the section I tried to add, that match one another?

2. "How do we reword what we already worded in the "Delayed Sentencing" section?"

Again, I don't think it was already worded. But even if it was: how about using... the section I came up with?

3. "Why would we add the legal phrase, "perjury trap," when [Flynn and the government have already said at various times that there wasn't a trap]?"

Well, because... they've changed their minds? (Or, in Flynn's case, hired different lawyers who gave him better legal advice.) And various analysts and politicians have also said that Flynn was subject to a "perjury trap", or something like it.

BetsyRMadison - your personal views, and legal analysis, although detailed, are irrelevant to the editing of this article; we have to go by what reliable sources say. In this case, of course, reliable sources hold different opinions, and some people's views have changed over time. This article needs to capture that succinctly; a "perjury trap" section represents the current consensus view on how best to do that. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It will be a great day when a "perjury trap" section achieves some reasonable approximation to the weight of RS presentation of the Trump/Barr conspiracy theories. I get the impression some of the RfC !votes were cast in favor of such a section without understanding what its ultimate content will reveal. I find BetsyRMadison's comments helpful pointers to that end. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Korny O'Near - Yes, Flynn got new lawyers, and they alleged in a filing that "high-ranking FBI officials orchestrated an ambush-interview ... not for the purpose of discovering any evidence of criminal activity ... but for the purpose of trapping him into making statements they could allege as false.” However, Judge Sullivan ruled on that, saying "the Court summarily disposes of Mr. Flynn’s arguments that the FBI conducted an ambush interview for the purpose of trapping him into making false statements and that the government pressured him to enter a guilty plea. The record proves otherwise." And as BetsyRMadison noted, this is already captured in "Delayed sentencing" text that says "On December 16, 2019, Sullivan rejected Flynn's assertions of entrapment by the FBI and malfeasance by prosecutors after a review of possible case related findings in the Michael Horowitz report..." Given Sullivan's ruling, at most I'd simply add something like "Allegations of a perjury trap or entrapment have been made by Flynn's counsel and some others [citations]; however, on December 16, 2019, Sullivan rejected ..." to the existing "Delayed sentencing" text. Barr has subsequently alleged a perjury trap in a TV interview, but the DOJ hasn't claimed this in its court filings. It's legal, though unethical (per legal bar Professional Conduct Standards), for Barr to make false claims on TV. We can add Barr's allegation to the "Justice Department's motion to drop charges" section along with text noting that the DOJ doesn't allege this and that others disagree with Barr's claim (see, e.g., BetsyRMadison's NYT quote above that "Attorney General William P. Barr said investigators were trying to 'lay a perjury trap.' That interpretation was wrong, Mr. Priestap told the prosecutors reviewing the case. He said that F.B.I. officials were trying to do the right thing in questioning Mr. Flynn and that he knew of no effort to set him up”). Along these lines, Paul Rosenzweig, a former federal prosecutor, has said that Barr's "sole purpose seems to be saving the president from the embarrassment from having to pardon Flynn,” https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-05-14/flynn-case-enters-completely-uncharted-waters . Since Sullivan has already ruled on this issue and given the absence of the DOJ claiming it, I don't see any reason to have a separate "Allegations of a 'perjury trap'" section. Do *you* still think that a separate section is merited, and if so, why? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

To Korny O'Near - I used RS and this WP article as my sources (not my personal view nor my legal analysis). As I said above, this WP article already addresses all of the issues raised in the RfC. And, as SPECIFICO has already reminded you: "The onus is on you to provide adequate BLP sourcing for any content you feel is relevant and has due weight for this article." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion - yes, I still think a separate section is merited. I'm sure you could find 100 people who think the "perjury trap" allegation is meritless (including Judge Sullivan), but that's irrelevant, because some people - including some very high-level people - think it does have merit. This article should show both sides of the issue. For our purposes, Judge Sullivan's views do not override anyone else's views.

To Korny O'Near - You didn't actually say why *a separate section* is needed. It's entirely possible for the article to "show both sides of the issue" without the issue being addressed in a separate section. I already described how that could be done with a combination of text in the "Delayed sentencing" and "Justice Department's motion to drop charges" sections. I disagree with your claim that "For our purposes, Judge Sullivan's views do not override anyone else's views." People are alleging a legal issue, and a legal ruling on that very issue has a different weight than personal opinion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison - could you specifically quote parts of the current text that satisfy the RfC? Because I don't see them. And no, a sentence like "X says there was no perjury trap" is not by itself enough. As for the "onus" thing, SPECIFICO is wrong, as are you. If I stopped editing here tomorrow, the conditions of the RfC would still need to be met. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

To Korny O'Near - The RfC said "Q: May the incident be mentioned in the article? A: Yes." It does not say that the allegations *must* be mentioned. The RfC says "A more concise and less prominent version should be drafted," so I don't see any requirement that it be addressed in its own section. Please quote whatever you're referring to in the RfC that you think implies "a sentence like 'X says there was no perjury trap' is not by itself enough," and keep in mind that I already proposed adding somewhat more than that in two existing sections. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

To Korny O'Near - Yes, since 2018, this WP article has addressed, and met, the issues in the RfC: the FBI notes & notion of "perjury trap." Also, since 2018, this WP article has reported on Flynn, Flynn's lawyers, and the Federal Court being in possession of those FBI notes.  It's possible that your confusion about that may stem from an inability you may have in differentiating between "content" and "unseen."  Content: the "content" of the very same FBI notes that Barr released in April have been discussed in this WP article since 2018 and the notion of "perjury trap" has also been discussed in this WP article since 2018.  Unseen: Bill Barr's release of the physical copies (what you call "unseen" copies) of the FBI notes are the only thing "new" to the general public, but, and more importantly, the content of those FBI notes is not new to the general public.  I explain all of that in detail above in this talk section, so I urge you to reread this section, several times if necessary. The bottom line is: yes, since 2018, the issues in the RfC have been met.  BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion - saying that someone said there was no perjury trap, without even noting that there are those who believe it did happen, is not addressing it. By that standard, the article on O. J. Simpson could say, "A jury found that he was not guilty of murder", and have nothing else about the murder charge, and it would be "addressing" the issue.

BetsyRMadison - Let me ask you a third time: for my benefit and others', could you please quote the parts of the current article that satisfy the RfC? No need for lots of explanation, just the quotes would be good. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Korny, a page RfC will never contramand NPOV, V, RS, BLP or any other site-wide policy. The RfC can conclude that the topic should be covered, it can never go against policy. You are mistaken each time you make that claim. If you can't accept the word of half a dozen editors here, please take it to one of the WP talk noticeboards and seek advice. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV? BLP? I have no idea what you're talking about. Apparently stating the views of a person, in the article about that person, is a violation of BLP. I might argue that it's the other way around, actually: withholding the views of Flynn and all the people who say that he is innocent, was railoaded, etc., is a violation of those guidelines you mentioned. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Last time: Do you see that you have no prospect of consensus here for your view? Then go to the court of appeals, just like Flynn. Go to a noticeboard. Whichever one you choose. They'll tell you if you went to the wrong one. You're beating your head against the wall here. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That's true - we're in almost the same position now as where we before the RfC. Just as then, a small group of editors are trying to make sure that no information about the "perjury trap" view (which is, pretty amazingly, now held by both defense and prosecution in what's left of the trial) ends up in the article. Just as before, when these obstructing editors run out of other arguments, they resort to the circular logic of saying that the information can't be allowed because there's "no consensus" for it: in other words, they won't allow it because they won't allow it. As before, it does look like an RfC is needed: though this one hopefully providing a lot less wiggle room for the anti-Flynn side if it succeeds. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, your suggestion that I'm part of "a small group of editors ... trying to make sure that no information about the "perjury trap" view ... ends up in the article" is false. I very explicitly suggested that information about the perjury trap view be added in two places, when I wrote "I already described how that could be done with a combination of text in the "Delayed sentencing" and "Justice Department's motion to drop charges" sections." There's a big difference between not mentioning the "perjury trap" views at all and not creating a separate section for them. I'm suggesting that they be added in the existing sections, and you've yet to really explain why you oppose that. Also, your claim that the "perjury trap" view is "now held by ... [the] prosecution" is false. Barr asserted this, but AFAIK, the DOJ did not assert this in any of their filings; if I'm wrong about that, just quote from the brief where they said it. I'm open to changing my mind, but I need evidence. Similarly, I'm open to changing my mind re: the creation of a separate "Allegations of a 'perjury trap'" section, but I need a convincing argument about why it merits a separate section rather than those allegations being addressed in the existing sections. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

To Korny O'Near - You are patently wrong. To be clear: since 2018, this WP article has addressed the "perjury trap" notion that Flynn's lawyers tried to pull in court two times, once 12/2018 & again in 12/2019. The more you deny that fact, the more I think you've never even bothered to read this WP article. And, you are also patently wrong when you falsely claim both the "defense & prosecution" make a "perjury trap" claim. That is not true. To be clear: the prosecution has never filed any "perjury trap" claim with the court. Never. If the prosecution thought Flynn was victim to a "perjury trap" they would file that claim in court and they did not. The reason prosecutors did not file that nonsense with the court is because the prosecution does not feel that way. WP editors should avoid making such ridiculously false claims. Do better research.

Finally, if your goal is to write a baseless, unfounded, unsupported, "perjury trap" conspiracy theory that has been rejected and debunked since 2018 in both the Federal court and in the prosecution's court filings, then yes, you need to write a new RfC and you'll need to follow SPECIFICO's advice on: NPOV, V, RS, BLP, and all other WP guidelines. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison - as I've said before, just saying that somebody once denied that there was a perjury trap is hardly "addressing" the issue, since many notable people and sources say that there was a perjury trap - all the more so in the last six months. By the way, if I can give you some stylistic advice: brevity is the soul of wit. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To Korny O'Near - I've added a sentence from RSs to the "Delayed sentencing" section. I haven't yet added anything to the "Justice Department's motion to drop charges" section, as I'm not positive where in that section to add it, and I'd also like to get some consensus before making the change. Why don't we work on that here? Here's a draft of text (italics indicate new text), along with my current guess about where to add it (non-italicized existing text):

Van Grack had contended in previous filings that the "topics of sanctions went to the heart of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation," and that "any effort to undermine those sanctions could have been evidence of links or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia." However, in the Motion to Dismiss, the government asserted that “[the] investigation … seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn,“ [citation to DOJ motion] and Attorney General Barr subsequently described the FBI's actions as "trying to lay ... a perjury trap" [CBS News citation].

I'm also not sure whether there should be some discussion here of the meaning of "perjury" vs "false statements" (and again: if so, where), since it was literally impossible for the interview to be a perjury trap, given that Flynn wasn't under oath and thus could not be charged with perjury, but he could (and was) charged with false statements, which is still illegal in an FBI interview. BetsyRMadison, this is also relevant to your comment that "the prosecution has never filed any 'perjury trap' claim with the court." Your claim is true but rests on the "perjury trap" vs. "false statements trap" distinction [edit: and also the difference between an explicit "claim," which doesn't appear, versus an implication]. The DOJ did imply a "false statements trap" in what I just quoted from the motion. BTW Korny O'Near, re: your comment to Betsy that "somebody once denied that there was a perjury trap," it's important to be clear: Sullivan isn't just a "someone," he's the judge in this case, and his decision about it isn't just a personal opinion, but a legal ruling. His *ruling* about this is significant, and unless he grants the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss, he'll be ruling on this issue again. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

By "somebody", I wasn't referring specifically to the judge, not that it matters. Obviously the judge's views are important, but they don't override everyone else's views, from the perspective of this article. As for the rest: I think you're running into issues that can only be solved with a separate "perjury trap" section, but I'm curious to see what you come up with. I agree with you that your current text is inadequate.

By the way, you asked me before to find a quote from the DOJ where they allege a "perjury trap" (really, "false statements trap") - but you seem to have saved me the trouble, by finding it yourself, as you noted. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I see now that you added Flynn's comments on the matter (via his lawyers) - I think this is a step in the right direction. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To Korny O'Near, it absolutely does matter if the view is in a judicial ruling by the judge presiding over the case rather than an opinion expressed in an interview, etc., as the ruling has a legal impact, and interview comments don't. I quoted from the DOJ because I saw it last night, recognized it as relevant, and always care about dealing honestly with evidence. What they wrote implies a false statements trap, not a perjury trap; Flynn was never at risk of being charged with perjury, as he wasn't under oath. Perjury and false statements are governed by different parts of the U.S. Code. Yes, the DOJ is now essentially alleging a false statements trap, and Gleeson disagrees, and various other amici have also weighed in on this, and whatever text we come up with should likely include Gleeson's response too. Here's the thing I don't understand: the defense has alleged all sorts of things in trying to get the best deal it can for Flynn. Why do you want *this particular allegation* to be highlighted in a separate section? And are you planning to work on this text with me? ("I'm curious to see what you come up with" suggests you aren't.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've made this point before, but if Wikipedia were only concerned with judicial rulings, then the article on Alger Hiss, for example, could be a lot shorter. As for "perjury trap": yes, when I say "perjury trap", it's not really that - that's why I usually put it in quotes. And I'm sure when Bill Barr said it, he knew it was not quite accurate either. Unfortunately, there's no common term for what is alleged, so until "false statements trap" catches on, we may have to stick with "perjury trap", adding in the necessary caveats. What are the other allegations that the defense has made? No, I'm planning to work on the text with you, but I support any attempt to add this information in to the article, and I have no plan to revert any of your additions. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To Korny O'Near, me pointing out that a judicial ruling is distinct from a personal opinion doesn't imply that the judicial ruling is all that counts. I was simply rejecting your "not that it matters" claim, as the context and claimant can indeed matter. As for the other allegations made by Flynn and his counsel, you can read their filings for yourself. You'll see all sorts of claims, such as Flynn claiming "In truth, I never lied [to the FBI]" in his personal declaration under oath, and also claiming ineffective counsel from his previous lawyers (Covington). In fact, there's a conflict between Flynn's claim that he didn't lie and the idea that the interview elicited knowingly false statements / served as a false statements trap. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

By "not that it matters", I meant that it didn't matter who I was talking about earlier. Anyway, it's true that Flynn has said that he didn't knowingly lie - as have various others - and it may be worth having a separate section about that controversy as well. It's also true that he's complained about his Covington lawyers, but I think anyone, on both sides, would agree that, objectively speaking, his new lawyers have gotten better results for him, so that's hardly an allegation. As for the conflict, I don't see one: the idea is that the FBI were hoping to get a false statement, and then prosecute it as a lie, regardless of whether he consciously lied (which is ultimately unknowable). But in general, I support splitting up the USA v. Flynn stuff by topic, rather than simply listing everything chronologically, to make it easier for readers to understand what's going on. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, I don't assume that "his new lawyers have gotten better results for him." What have they actually accomplished to date? The DOJ motion is Barr's doing, not his lawyers'. His new lawyers allowed him to submit that January declaration under penalty of perjury, which potentially sets him up for a perjury charge, and if the current case is dismissed, he could be charged with the FARA violations, though I don't expect it. His lawyers also filed a Motion to Withdraw, claiming that Covington’s representation was ineffective, and that lead to the court waiving attorney-client privilege for a lot of his communication with Covington, which potentially creates problems for him (some related to the FARA violations, and potentially other things IIRR). We'll see what happens when the Covington materials are made public, which wouldn't happen if he'd kept them as his lawyers. Re: your support for "splitting up the USA v. Flynn stuff by topic," what topics do you propose besides the false statements trap allegations? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The most recent reports indicate Flynn's flown from the frypan to the fire. He may now have committed perjury in his attempt to reverse his fortunes. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Lots of irrelevant stuff here, but FactOrOpinion, to answer your question - I think it makes sense to have sections on things like the "perjury trap" allegations, Flynn's guilty plea and subsequent recanting, the threat to prosecute Flynn (and his son) for his Turkey lobbying, and Judge Sullivan and his legal battle with the appeals court. I'm not sure of the best way to structure it, but if/when a separate "USA v. Flynn" gets created, the process may become easier, since the day-to-day stuff can move there, leaving more room here for analysis. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS - Just wait until the sentencing. There will be loads of RS coverage of the entire series of events in appropriate context. SPECIFICO talk

20:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh no SPECIFICO say it isn't so!!! Flynn committed perjury?!?! That's so surprising coming from a guy like him.  Flynn who, together with his son, decided to make money off two foreign governments against the best interest of America, plotted to kidnap a man living in America for the Turkish government, then 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.  Yup, a real shocker that the judge is considering perjury charges against a man like that. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No part of

WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Korny O'Near (talk

) 20:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"have committed perjury in his attempt to reverse his fortunes" who is going to prosecute him for lying about something that was dropped with prejudice? I.e. they cannot repeat the charges. 2A00:1FA0:42D6:329B:7469:915E:44B5:7E7C (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - we don't know whether sentencing will occur. It depends on whether the CADC grants the writ, and if not, whether it's appealed and what happens with the appeal, and also whether Sullivan grants the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss (assuming that he's not order to dismiss it). It may well be worth splitting most of U.S. v. Flynn onto a separate page for the case now, or soon, as there are already a bunch of unusual things about the case. That's why I posted a question about that in another section of this Talk page. I noticed that there's a WikiProject Law, and perhaps someone who participates with that has helpful thoughts about it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if I recall correctly, I believe I agreed with you that a separate article will eventually be appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - OK, I added Split section templates to elicit more discussion of that and also posted a note to the WikiProject Law Talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Does_U.S._v._Flynn_merit_a_page . Two responses there so far, both strong yeses. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion re "perjury trap"

Two new editors disagreed about the use of

I asked them if they would copy it here or provide link/permalink, and that just complicated things, so I am providing the links/permalinks for them. The discussions are:

• User_talk:FactOrOpinion#Regarding_your_questions_&_comments_to_me (permalink)
• User_talk:FactOrOpinion#Mike_Flynn_talk_page (permalink)
• User_talk:BetsyRMadison#Discussion_of_article_content_on_User_talk_pages (permalink)

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR when I said that it implied (but didn't claim) a "false statements trap" as distinct from a "perjury trap." -- FactOrOpinion (talk

) 12:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• comment - I notice that David Tornheim copied FactOrOpinion entire personal talk page in both permalinks -- which makes both permalinks identical, redundant, and off-topic. Can someone please explain to me how posting FactOrOpinion's entire personal talk page on the "Michael Flynn talk page" helps "improve" this article? Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  @BetsyRMadison: - posting links to user talk pages discussing Michael Flynn is possibly useful to improving the article on Michael Flynn. It doesn't break any rules. starship.paint (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

In light of Flynn apparently taking a "QAnon oath" on 4 July 2020, does consensus favor including any information about the QAnon-Flynn connections?

Some relevant sources:

• https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1279590652200849409
• https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/07/to-celebrate-the-fourth-michael-flynn-posts-a-pledge-to-conspiracy-group-qanon/
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanon-nuts-euphoric-over-latest-turn-in-michael-flynns-legal-case
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-flynn-finally-embraces-his-qanon-cult-following

Yes, covered by multiple WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes include Mike Flynn taking an oath the QAnon on July 4, 2020. It's covered by multiple RS and is very noteworthy to this article. [16] [17] [18] [19] BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Text was already added to the page, in the last paragraph of Michael_Flynn#Political_views. Does it really need any further discussion for consensus here? People could simply edit to improve what's already there. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I added a note about this in closing off the discussion in the section above about

"Additional discussion of splitting can occur on both Talk pages."

That's really not a good idea. Pick one place for a discussion and have it there, don't spread it over multiple places, that just leads to confusion. I don't think there's any need for formal "reviewing," get the page where it is something vaguely workable and move it into mainspace. jhawkinson (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS, and I added a note to remind people that if they haven't already read Flynn's page, they should, as it already has a lot of text and references. For me, that's part of the discussion of splitting that belongs on the destination Talk page. On the flip side, the text isn't going to entirely disappear from Flynn's page (that was an issue raised in the discussion here), and people here will need to figure out what should remain, and that's part of the discussion of splitting that belongs on the source Talk page. The directions about splitting a section from an existing page also indicate that notices have to be posted both places. But I'm still a novice editor without experience splitting a section onto a new page, so maybe I've misunderstood, or maybe I'm simply using the wrong vocabulary and you wouldn't call what I'm describing "discussion of splitting." How would you describe the different kinds of discussion that have to happen here vs. there? Thanks for the comment about formal "reviewing." I've looked again at what I was reading, and I see that that's only necessary in limited circumstances (e.g., when no experienced editor is already involved) and doesn't apply in this case. -- FactOrOpinion (talk

) 13:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

All of you participated in the discussion above [20] re: splitting US v. Flynn from this page. I've done my best to copy the relevant content from Michael Flynn to United States v. Flynn, but if any of you are inclined to check whether there's any additional material that should be copied from here, it would be great to have someone else take a look. I included attribution notes in my edit summaries there: [21], [22], and [23]. The last two were the edits where most of the copying occurred, and my edit summaries for those say "Copied content from Michael_Flynn, focusing on the background to U.S. v Flynn (events prior to the plea bargain) from three sections: '2016 U.S. presidential election,' 'National Security Advisor' and the beginning of 'Investigations after leaving the Trump administration.' See that page's history for attribution" and "Content in this edit is copied from the article Michael_Flynn, from the section Michael_Flynn#Investigations_after_leaving_the_Trump_administration, starting with the 'Plea bargain' subsection through the end of the section; see that page's history for attribution."

Regardless of whether you want to check on whether there's any other content to copy, I'm also writing to let everyone know that work can now start on trimming US v. Flynn content from the page here, so that it's not partly a

FactOrOpinion - it looks good; thanks a lot for creating this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Korny O'Near - Thanks. It was a group effort, and I learned a lot in the process. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

We have enough sources now. 2A00:1370:812C:DE1A:E888:DD99:E1:5BB7 (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The current section on Flynn's legal process is an undigested laundry list of dates, motions, hearings, rulings etc. All this is done in a more structured way at the United States v. Flynn page, the point of which must have been to compress this article. The article on Flynn the man should give the highlights of Flynn the case, not all the details undifferentiated as to importance. I've made some edits to the other page and wanted to check general opinion before removing legal trivia from this one. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sesquivalent: The US v. Flynn page was only created recently, developed from the content here about the case. Background re: splitting United States v. Flynn from Michael Flynn above, here and_most_of_the_contents_about_this_case_moved_to_that_page and here [24]. The intent was to edit/compress the case-related content here once the US v. Flynn page was created, while still leaving some content about it here when it's important for Flynn's page. I'm the one who copied the content from here, but it was too hard for me to truly split the material off, as the content here was spread across multiple sections, and it didn't make sense for me to rearrange the content on the page here for the sole purpose of splitting it off. Personally, I'm focused on improving US v. Flynn now that it exists; also, since I didn't contribute much to Flynn's page, I thought that maybe the decisions about what should be kept vs. deleted here should be made by people who were more involved here and who have a better sense of what really makes sense for Flynn's article. If you're up for editing the case content here, I think you should go for it, as that was the intention once the US v. Flynn page was set up. If anyone thinks that you've deleted something that's important to keep, they can revert (as long as it doesn't turn into an edit war) or say so here (if there's significant disagreement re: what should/shouldn't be cut). As people are doing this work, if anyone notices content here that would be good to add to the US v. Flynn page, please do (I tried to find all of the relevant content here, but I may have missed some of it). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. The purpose of creating the case page was to allow this article to have a shorter section about the case. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@

edit summary

that lets editors see exactly what you've done; perhaps something like,

Moved all (/most) of this subsection to [[US v. Flynn]] (in [[Special:Diff/xxxxxxxx|this edit]]) per [[Special:Permalink/970219256#Split discussion|this split discussion]], and left summary and {{Main(/Further)}} link here per [[WP:SS]]. See [[Talk:Michael Flynn#Shorten the section on legal case|Talk]].

and don't address more than one subsection at a time, so each cull gets its own edit summary and link to where the material was inserted in the

child article, and you should be okay, especially if you wait a bit between bites, and don't do them all at once. As long as people can see that you are documenting your steps, and here to improve the article, you should be fine. Mathglot (talk

) 00:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: since the discussion section title was very long, I added an anchor, so [[Talk:Michael Flynn#Split discussion]] now renders like this: Talk:Michael Flynn#Split discussion, and you can use it in an edit summary. Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I'll try, though I did very little work on Flynn's page and haven't worked on other BLP's, and so don't have the best sense of what's important to post here. I've started to take a look, and one question I have already: most of the "Contacts with the Russian ambassador" isn't important here and was copied to US v Flynn, but the latter page isn't primarily about Flynn's contacts with Kislyak. So for the "Contacts with the Russian ambassador" section here, do I still put a {{Main}} link to US v Flynn, or do I instead put a {{Main}} link to the corresponding section there? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@

US v. Flynn, and it's more important for the content to reside there, but it isn't the article topic (i.e., it's not the title of that article). In that case, a {{Main}} link would not be right here, because it is used to point to an article (the doc page at Template:Main is pretty good at explaining this). However, you could definitely use the {{Further

}} link at the top of the section, after cutting it back to a summary.

Housekeeping item: on reflection, discussing this in a subsection of an earlier Rfc, which might get archived, isn't really appropriate. It's my own fault, really, starting with the 00:15, 30 July 2020 post. If you have no objection, let's move this down to a new section at the bottom. We could call it, "Follow-up to US v. Flynn split" or similar. If you agree, you're welcome to just go ahead and move it; otherwise, I can do it if you prefer; just indicate your agreement, and I will move it after your next ping. Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Yes, it's fine with me to move it, perhaps to the "Shorten the section on legal case" section below, in which case you might want to edit what you wrote there a little while ago, so I'll let you move it. And thanks for answering my question, that makes sense now. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Moved! Mathglot (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@

One other thing: do you know how to find the revision id to stick into the 'xxxxxxx' in the model edit summary above? See

Note: tweaked the model edit summary, to add a talk link back to this section. Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for the links and explanation. If I'm understanding correctly, if I'm trimming (sub)section X here, you want me to find the revision id for the edit on US v. Flynn where I initially copied much or all of X to US v Flynn, and then reference that in my edit summary here. I think I understand how to find the correct revision id, and I'll read the references you linked to, and if I run into questions, I'll ask (and maybe I'll also ask you to double-check my edit summary for the first trim that I carry out). I've started working on one subsection, but it will take me a bit to figure out how to trim it properly. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@

US v. Flynn to find your edits where you expanded the article by copying from this one (that should be easy, from the increased byte count in the History, and maybe your edit summary will help.) For example, in your edit of July 3 you added 48kb of text, so you could save that revision number (965714299) for use in culling material here in several edits, focusing on one subsection or bite-size chunk of subsection at a time. (If you use the section-edit link on a section here, it will pre-populate the section name into the edit history for you, and then you can just append the rest.) Not sure how familiar you are with finding and using revision numbers yet. There's a very nice script available at User:BrandonXLF/ShowRevisionID which will make this part of the task much easier, as it will make the revision numbers visible in the page history. Just modify your Special:MyPage/common.js as described in the doc. Or, you can simply copy the last two lines of my common.js

to enable it. (Every time you attempt to save a change to common.js, it will generate a malicious software warning, to make sure you understand what you are doing.) The other option, is to start at this article, and try to find the matching edit there; you'll have to see which is easier for you. If you cull just one subsection at a time, or part of one if it was very long, it should both make it easier for you to manage, as well as easier for watchers to see what you're doing; and if you make a mistake, a revert won't undo everything you've done, just one subsection, and make it easier to fix and carry on.

Maybe

getting in each other's way. By editing using the section-edit links and not the Edit tab at the top, you will minimize the risk of an edit conflict. Mathglot (talk

) 19:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: OK, I made my first attempt at this, shortening the Contacts with the Russian ambassador section. I think my edit summary matches what you'd suggested, with the correct Special:Diff, but if you wouldn't mind checking the edit summary, I'd appreciate it. It was hard/time-consuming for me to shorten the text (hard to figure out what should remain here and to keep track of corresponding references), but think the results are good enough, and I'll now wait to see whether other editors have any concerns about my first attempt before I try trimming another section. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:ES might need more explanation because of how much that section at MF has been modified since the time you copied content from it a month ago; someone unfamiliar with the article might think you added a bunch of stuff purely from looking at that Diff, but of course all that came later, in the intervening edits since 3 July. Also, yes, it's a little tricky, figuring out how to trim, and partly for the same reason: there has been subsequent editing since the move. (If those subsequent additions did not adhere to the result of the concluded split discussion, insofar as, e.g., where content about the Silyak meeting should go, the new material could/should be moved and summarized too, but that shouldn't be all on you. But if you do see that happening, you could mention it in a new talk section, and remind people of it.) I've added an addendum at your Talk page with some further, general tips on culling after a split, that may be helpful. Your edit summary looks good; because of the subsequent evolution of the section here since the copy, it might help to modify the edit summary if we can think of how, exactly. I'll think about that some more. Waiting a few days before the next cull will give you a sense of how this one was received, but as it complies with the split discussion, it should be fine. Mathglot (talk

) 20:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I'm confused by your comment re: "how much that section at MF has been modified since the time [I] copied content from it a month ago." The entire MF page hasn't changed much in the last month, and that particular section has barely changed -- only my correcting the spelling of Kislyak's name, here's a diff from end of June to end of July: [25], that section corresponds to Line 197-8 through Line 225-6. Or did you mean that someone might think that I'd added a bunch to the US v. Flynn page when I copied this section on July 3? If so, no, though I can see how it might look that way, but that's because I copied several sections at once. I tried to identify that in my US v. Flynn edit summary at the time, where I said "Copied content from Michael_Flynn, focusing on the background to U.S. v Flynn (events prior to the plea bargain) from three sections: '2016 U.S. presidential election,' 'National Security Advisor' and the beginning of 'Investigations after leaving the Trump administration'" (emph. added). The one section I just trimmed, "Contacts with the Russian ambassador" is a sub-section of the "National Security Advisor" section in that list.

If that's what needs to be clearer, then in my next edit summary, where it says "Moved most/all of this subsection to US v. Flynn (in this edit)," I can clarify that that edit also included text copied from elsewhere, but I'm doing the trimming in smaller bites. I'll look at your note on my talk page, thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Any confusion on your part, is probably my fault, for going too fast, and not looking at that Diff carefully enough. I think your explanation of copying several sections at once is probably the explanation. Sorry for the confusion. In general, anything you can do in the edit summary to increase transparency, and keep the 278 watchers of the page feeling informed, and that you're following policy and the result of earlier consensus, is a good thing. If it doesn't all fit in the edit summary, you might have to come here and explain, but so far, I think it covers what needs to be said; or as you mentioned, if the copy came from two sections, you could add a brief remark or link about that. Mathglot (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-flynn/u-s-appeals-court-orders-dismissal-of-criminal-case-against-michael-flynn-idUSKBN23V24A F. L. (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Bamadawg, that article was posted in June, and the case has since been sent to the full US Court of Appeals. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies F. L. (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

To those claiming that Flynn is guilty because he plead guilty before exonerating Brady Material was given (because the incompetent law firm did not ask if there was any before his new attorney asked for it) here is Innocence Project material that shows more and more people plead guilty who are innocent because they feel there is NO HOPE FOR JUSTICE even though they did nothing wrong. [26] 67.10.206.161 (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Asking for taking back the guilty plea is NOT committing perjery.

You don't state what exonerates Flynn, and it's not clear to me that the material that was recently made public (much of which is only new to the public, but had already been provided to Flynn and his counsel) is Brady material. Flynn has made a variety of conflicting statements under penalty of perjury (e.g., the Statement of the Offense, his statements under oath in court, his personal declaration in January), so in assessing whether he committed perjury, one would need to look at all of them. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Despite the sensationalism by Powell et al, the Jensen releases did not constitute exculpatory Brady materials. Regardless of ruminations by some in the FBI, Strzok and Pientka repeatedly read back to Flynn his exact words from the wiretaps in an effort to jog his memory and give him the opportunity to retract his lie to avoid a charge. (You know, something like: “Oh, now I remember. Things were really hectic in December and my memory is kinda fuzzy. But yeah, now I remember I said that to Kislyak.”) For whatever reason (more concerned about a Logan charge than lying to feds?) he chose to ignore that generous offer, so when Strzok and Pientka walked out of his office, he’d committed a felony. And the Barr DOJ stated in a June brief that Powell’s assertions of prosecutorial misconduct were "unfounded and provide no basis for impugning the prosecutors." The FBI has the wiretap transcript and Flynn’s statements which clearly established he committed a felony, and the Trump DOJ chose to prosecute him accordingly. The time to change their mind was before or during the prosecution, not as Flynn awaits sentencing for his conviction.soibangla (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the DOJ's filing [27], Flynn's statements were not crimes "even if untrue", because they were not material to any investigation. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and in previous filings, the DOJ stated that Flynn's statements were materially false. The DOJ hasn't explained why its own previous statements were false. Presumably, one of the reasons that Judge Sullivan wanted to have a hearing about it is so he could ask the DOJ about this shift. Also, IIRR, Sullivan had already ruled that the statements were materially false. As an aside, I started trimming the material about the case in the article (as there's now a US v. Flynn article), and that work needs to be continued. If someone else wants to pitch in, that would be great. Otherwise, I'll try to work on it again. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

While he commited perjury, purjury on guilty plea cannot be held in contempt of court per Supreme Court case or designated for prosecution, here we also do not have prosecutors anymore and it was dropped with prejudice, so charges cannot be repeated, even in perjury charges. Again, Sulivan was not a party. En banc procedings did not happen. It was only a proceding on whether actually hear it en benc. 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:DDF0:7166:2C7D:2E78 (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

2A00:1370:812C:DACF:DDF0:7166:2C7D:2E78 - You've presented no evidence that he committed perjury on his guilty plea rather than elsewhere. All we know right now is that he's made conflicting statements under penalty of perjury. Your claim that "we also do not have prosecutors anymore" is irrelevant, as it was already in the sentencing phase, past the prosecution phase, and prosecutors aren't needed for sentencing. Your claim "it was dropped with prejudice" is false. The DOJ submitted a motion that it be dismissed with prejudice, but that motion hasn't yet been ruled on by Sullivan. A 3-judge panel on the DC Circuit ruled to grant a writ of mandamus requiring Sullivan to dismiss the case, but the full DC Circuit court vacated that ruling and is rehearing the case en banc (oral arguments were last week, they haven't ruled yet). Your claim that "en banc procedings did not happen" is false; here's a recording of the oral arguments: and the list of judges / attorneys at the oral arguments: Last but not least, since all of this is specific to the case US v. Flynn, if it's going to be discussed, it would be more appropriate on the article page for the case, United States v. Flynn. The article itself has more details about the case than Flynn's page does. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It was not an en banc procedings and if you were to actually listen to all of it, like I did, you would know that. They were considering whether to actually listen it en banc. There were no discussion of what they decided before. Also if you were to listen to all of it, you would now that at this moment Sulivann can only grant a motion to dismiss and nothing he can do besides that will give anything to him besids his impeachment. 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:85D2:8DC7:C7E7:2A6F (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Um...no. soibangla (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

soibangla is correct. From CADC's 7/30/20 Order: "Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, the responses thereto, and the vote in favor of rehearing en banc by a majority of the judges eligible to participate, it is ORDERED that this case be reheard by the court sitting en banc. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s order filed June 24, 2020, be vacated. It is FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument before the en banc court be heard at 9:30a.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2020." [28] Sullivan isn't going to do anything until the judges who heard the case en banc rule on it. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Again please relisten the 3 hours of procedings. They did not grant Sullivan his petition. It indeed was heard before all the judges of a court (en banc), but as I said, they did not rehear their DECISION en banc. I won. BTW, I recommend to listen to it, I just love how that Griffin (?, name may be wrong) judge proposed a hypothetical that Bill Bar was payed a suitecase of money or that Trump's money spending was unconstitutional, again a "hypothetical". The same judge used George Flоyd as a hypothetical in procedings from one month before that one. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Please give my regards to Vladimir. soibangla (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not support Putin as only 28% of russians does. This is an idiotic argument, you are not on Twitter. 2A00:1FA0:6B8:BD93:F556:66DF:434A:7786 (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that "They did not grant Sullivan his petition" is moot. They left it ambiguous whether they chose to rehear the case sua sponte or chose to rehear it in response to Sullivan's petition. Either way, they very explicitly chose to rehear the case en banc. I already linked to their 7/30 order agreeing to rehear the case. Perhaps you misunderstand what it means to rehear a case en banc. It does NOT mean that they rule on the case during the hearing. It means that the original (3-judge panel) ruling is vacated, and the entire court hears the case again and rules on the case, and the entire court's ruling is the one that matters. They agreed to rehear the case, and oral arguments occurred. They haven't ruled yet (via a written opinion). They will. You have not "won" anything. Wait for their written opinion. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No, they said and I quote "we consider all petitions" and that petition is denied. Okay, we will see. I am not into your judicial system. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, you were right. Mandamus is denied, it was en banc on decision, now the case goes in Supreme Court with writ of certiorari. Saga continues... Just f***** nice. 😪 What a kengaroo court, even crazier than when witness without decrum became a judge in impeahment. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The only extraordinary things in this case are what Barr and Powell have done. Neither Sullivan nor the DC Circuit en banc have done anything unusual. Sullivan was following standard procedure, and today's decision allows him to continue doing so. soibangla (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Michael Flynn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory

The page: Michael Flynn, should have a reference to the above Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory

Michael Flynn and Michael Flynn Jr. In November 2016, Michael Flynn, then on President-Elect Donald Trump's transition team and Trump's designate for National Security Advisor, posted multiple tweets on Twitter containing conspiratorial material regarding Hillary Clinton. They alleged that Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, drank the blood and bodily fluids of other humans in Satanic rituals, which Politico says "soon morphed into the '#pizzagate' conspiracy theory involving Comet Ping Pong".[88] On November 2, 2016, Flynn tweeted a link to a story with unfounded accusations and wrote, "U decide – NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes w Children, etc ... MUST READ!" The tweet was shared by over 9,000 people, but was deleted from Flynn's account sometime during December 12–13, 2016.[85]

After the shooting incident at Comet Ping Pong, Michael Flynn Jr., Michael T. Flynn's son and also a member of Trump's transition team, tweeted: "Until #Pizzagate proven to be false, it'll remain a story. The left seems to forget #PodestaEmails and the many 'coincidences' tied to it."[89][90][91] On December 6, 2016, Flynn Jr. was forced out of Trump's transition team.[92] Spokesman Jason Miller did not identify the reason for his dismissal, however, The New York Times reported that other officials had confirmed it was related to the tweet.[93]

Thank you 2.24.161.96 (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. it's not clear what you wish to change or add. Please formulate your request in a "change X to Y" manner. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Activist: I'm not going to engage in an edit war with you. I find it ironic that you tell me to "Go to Talk!" instead of doing so yourself. I directed you to the archived discussion, Shorten the section on legal case. Did you read it? That you spent hours working on something doesn't guarantee that it's an improvement. Adding info about Judges Rao, Henderson and Wilkins, for example, has nothing to do with Flynn; it's not an improvement. There is a separate article about United States v. Flynn, and any long additions should be made there, not here. As it is, the section you edited, Justice Department's motion to drop charges has yet to be trimmed. But it will be trimmed, and much of what you added will be cut and perhaps added to US v. Flynn, if it's not there already. You can see the previous work on trimming the article here and here. So instead of making someone else do that work, do it yourself: add it to the US v. Flynn page, not Flynn's biographical page, as the content you added isn't about Flynn himself and not central to this article about him. You could even improve this page by helping to trim the content about the case. As for your references to "solicited revisions" and "satisfied editor's requests," please link to whatever solicitations/requests you're referring to, for clarification. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, I agree with your revert and used my one revert for the 24 hours to redo it. Activist, you would be in violation of this page's discretionary sanctions if you reinsert it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This is my first foray into a Wikepedia Editing Talk. In the sentence below, the date "late December 2019" appears not to match the context set a few lines earlier (January 2017):

"The two agents met Flynn at his office later that day and asked Flynn about his exchanges with Kislyak regarding the late December 2019 United Nations Security Council resolution regarding Israeli settlements."

Is one or other of these dates incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.236.117 (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, right. It is United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334. BTW, who knows why it was critical for Russia to support it? I live in Russia and I do not know. 2A00:1370:812D:EDFE:D51B:519D:B0A5:DEA2 (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Michael Flynn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Brayden0521 (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

change "On November 25, 2020 Flynn was issued a presidential pardon."

to "On November 25, 2020, Flynn was issued a presidential pardon."

BTW, how is he pardoned if he is not convicted and/or sentenced? 2A00:1FA0:851:F69A:3518:F65C:CA83:748B (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done My understanding is that since he pled guilty, that counts as a conviction. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

From the New York Times: President Trump pardoned on Wednesday his former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, who had twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about his conversations with a Russian diplomat and whose prosecution Attorney General William P. Barr tried to shut down. “It is my Great Honor to announce that General Michael T. Flynn has been granted a Full Pardon,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/us/politics/michael-flynn-pardon.html

No, Flynn was not convicted as we see from the now finally dismissed case (from 2 hours ago) and I will remind you of first myth here https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-presidential-pardons/2018/06/06/18447f84-69ba-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html 2A00:1370:812D:65B6:ECA9:19BF:C664:CE28 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the fact one does not need to be convicted to be pardoned does not mean Flynn was not convicted. He was convicted and awaiting sentencing when he was pardoned. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)