Flynn pleads guilty to lying to the FBI

[DivineOb]

Not all illegal acts, are impeachable. Having sexual relations, with your subordinate is a violation of the very laws Clinton himself signed into law.

I think you have things backwards. Not all impeachable acts need be illegal. What illegal act could the president commit which would *not* be a possible article of impeachment? Let's stick to misdemeanor / felonies and ignore infractions.

Is it? Is it really a "classic" case? Like it happens all the time? Like everyone knows this is a thing cops do to trick people into confessing?

And *how* would your scenario qualify as a perjury trap as you asserted it was?

The context of my statement was "Let's pretend he's just as smart as an average person. Convince me that someone of only average intelligence would be trapped by the FBI's tactics in a way inconsistent with accepted law enforcement practices." I'm not even raising the bar to the level of the dumbest 3 star general in US history (which probably *is* Flynn).

[lilpixieofterror]

I think you have things backwards. Not all impeachable acts need be illegal. What illegal act could the president commit which would *not* be a possible article of impeachment? Let's stick to misdemeanor / felonies and ignore infractions.

Is it? Is it really a "classic" case? Like it happens all the time? Like everyone knows this is a thing cops do to trick people into confessing?

And *how* would your scenario qualify as a perjury trap as you asserted it was?

You mean beyond threats to charge him for a law that was last enforced when his great-great grandparents were likely children?

The context of my statement was "Let's pretend he's just as smart as an average person. Convince me that someone of only average intelligence would be trapped by the FBI's tactics in a way inconsistent with accepted law enforcement practices." I'm not even raising the bar to the level of the dumbest 3 star general in US history (which probably *is* Flynn).

[DivineOb]

If you really want then put infractions back on the table and have at it. I'll feel silly asserting that you could be impeached over a speeding ticket but I also am not sure that you can't.

I probably could be nailed for all kinds of silly laws assuming I broke them! And if I lied to the FBI when being questioned about one of those silly laws then my lie would be against the law :). What a pointless question.

The fact they tried to nail him for a law that nobody had enforced since before the civil war, is proof of that.

Proof of what? What specifically is it proof of?

You mean beyond threats to charge him for a law that was last enforced when his great-great grandparents were likely children?

Now you know why I asked you to define "perjury trap." You don't know what that is, do you?

How is threatening someone with a rarely enforced law a "perjury trap"? SPECIFICALLY :).

I'm clearly I'm your intellectual better so tread carefully with such insults :).

Flynn knew lying to the FBI was a crime. I am sure it is standard practice to state that explicitly at the start of the interview (hint, it makes it easy to convict them at trial).

But like I said, you clearly have no idea what a perjury trap is and aren't equipped to defend your position. I *know* you wish you could grind my elitist bones like you've been dreaming of ever since your life went south but not going to happen :).

[Mountain Man]

Your claim was that there was no evidence. I pointed to texts from your own source which indicate that is at least a reasonable possibility. Thus, we cannot conclude that there was "no evidence"...

We can reasonably conclude it because there is, in fact, no evidence that Flynn committed a crime. Stzork obviously didn't have it. Otherwise, they would have charged Flynn instead of playing their "either get him to confess or commit perjury" game.

Let's break this down a bit then. Why don't you suggest

1) What Flynn actually did
2) What the FBI might have had evidence of
3) What the FBI might have told Flynn they had

And then we can see how likely the innocent Flynn could have been tricked right under his lawyers noses.

Flynn spoke with a Russian ambassador which was a perfectly reasonable thing for an incoming member of a presidential administration to do; however, the FBI convinced Flynn that this was possibly a crime even though they knew for a fact that it wasn't. They pressured Flynn and threatened his son until he confessed to perjury even though the agents who conducted the initial interview did not think he lied. So why did Flynn think he might have lied? Because the FBI altered the original interview notes and concealed this fact from Flynn and his lawyers:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi...t-court-filing

So now that I look at this, the FBI's deception was two-fold: 1) They told Flynn that he may have committed a crime when they knew he hadn't; and 2) They manipulated the evidence to make Flynn think he had lied when they knew he hadn't.

I ask again, are you really okay with law enforcement behaving in this manner? Because I'm not.

Also, since you forgot to answer these questions I'll just paste them here for you. Biden's dementia must be rubbing off on you ;).

1) Did they lie in a way inappropriate for a law enforcement action? Where is your evidence of this?
2) Did they *know* that no crime had been committed? Where is your evidence of this?

I did answer your questions. I'll paste may answers here for your edification:

They lied and told him they had evidence that he violated the Logan Act when, in fact, they knew that no crime had been committed.

Then you obviously haven't been reading my links. It's right here: "The FBI Washington Field Office says they are going to close the investigation of General Flynn because there is 'no derogatory information' as a result of multiple investigative inquires."

[DivineOb]

We can reasonably conclude it because there is, in fact, no evidence that Flynn committed a crime. Stzork obviously didn't have it. Otherwise, they would have charged Flynn instead of playing their "either get him to confess or commit perjury" game.

It is common knowledge that LE often will let someone plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for coming clean. You know that and are just being dishonest here. Shameful.

Flynn spoke with a Russian ambassador which was a perfectly reasonable thing for an incoming member of a presidential administration to do; however, the FBI convinced Flynn that this was possibly a crime even though they knew for a fact that it wasn't.

Which of the following is what you think occurred

1) Flynn believed speaking to the ambassador was illegal and lied to the FBI.
2) Flynn believed speaking to the ambassador was legal but lied to the FBI anyway.
3) Flynn believed speaking to the ambassador was legal, the FBI convinced him it was illegal, and then Flynn lied about it.
4) Some other scenario you'll explain

They pressured Flynn and threatened his son until he confessed to perjury even though the agents who conducted the initial interview did not think he lied.

And this is just more dishonest reporting from right wing sources.

https://apnews.com/c74ab451f27441bba5fe0f577579de42

So why did Flynn think he might have lied? Because the FBI altered the original interview notes and concealed this fact from Flynn and his lawyers:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi...t-court-filing

Sounds serious. Where are the notes so we can judge for ourselves?

So now that I look at this, the FBI's deception was two-fold: 1) They told Flynn that he may have committed a crime when they knew he hadn't; and 2) They manipulated the evidence to make Flynn think he had lied when they knew he hadn't.

Then Flynn must be an idiot because this doesn't sound like a ruse which would have tricked *me* and I'm just a lowly computer scientist :). And, of course, we have Comey's own words stating that the agents concluded Flynn was lying so no evidence manipulation is necessary.

But please answer my question above about whether Flynn believed the phone call was illegal from the start or was convinced it was illegal and then lied.

I ask again, are you really okay with law enforcement behaving in this manner? Because I'm not.

I'm not either. Let's see the notes! So far the notes from last week show nothing improper. Maybe the next batch will show something different.

I did answer your questions. I'll paste may answers here for your edification:

1) Did they lie in a way inconsistent with accepted LE practice? I'll stipulate for purpose of this specific question that the FBI overstated the strength of their hand. Did they do so in a way improper for LE?
2) Did the totality of the FBI, including Strzok / Page / Comey / et al. know that no crime had been committed? Where is you evidence of that? The texts I highlighted which you chose to ignore show that there is more information than was available to the case agent who was about to close the file. What did Stzork know and when did he know it? :)

Also, you did *not* answer these questions. Please put numbers in front of your answers so I don't miss the specific question you are answering. I'd accept an answer of "We don't have enough information to know that" of course.

2) What the FBI might have had evidence of
3) What the FBI might have told Flynn they had

[Mountain Man]

Then Flynn must be an idiot because this doesn't sound like a ruse which would have tricked *me* and I'm just a lowly computer scientist :).

Of course it would have tricked you.

"Are you aware that what you did may be a crime?"
"What? No, I never broke the law!"
"Then why did you lie to my agents?"
"I didn't lie!"
"I have their notes here saying you did." The interrogator produces the falsified notes. "It says here when you were asked if you discussed such and such with so and so, that you responded that you did not. We have it on record that you did, in fact, discuss that matter with that person."
"I don't remember ever denying that."
"My agents do. It's right here in their notes."
"But I never said that."
"I have proof that you did say it." He taps the falsified notes.
"The notes must be wrong!"
"Are you calling my agents liars?"
"What? No! Of course not!"
"Then what do you think a jury is going to believe, your denials?" He pauses and holds up the falsified notes. "Or my evidence?"
"I... I don't know what to say. I didn't... I don't remember..."
"Then are you prepared to plead guilty to perjury? It's your only chance to make this go away. I would hate to think what would happen to you if you refuse."

[DivineOb]

Of course it would have tricked you.

"Are you aware that what you did may be a crime?"
"What? No, I never broke the law!"
"Then why did you lie to my agents?"
"I didn't lie!"
"I have their notes here saying you did." The interrogator produces the falsified notes. "It says here when you were asked if you discussed such and such with so and so, that you responded that you did not. We have it on record that you did, in fact, discuss that matter with that person."
"I don't remember ever denying that."
"My agents do. It's right here in their notes."
"But I never said that."
"I have proof that you did say it." He taps the falsified notes.
"The notes must be wrong!"
"Are you calling my agents liars?"
"What? No! Of course not!"
"Then what do you think a jury is going to believe, your denials?" He pauses and holds up the falsified notes. "Or my evidence?"
"I... I don't know what to say. I didn't... I don't remember..."
"Then are you prepared to plead guilty to perjury? It's your only chance to make this go away. I would hate to think what would happen to you if you refuse."

1) I would just say "I won't speak further without a lawyer. Am I free to leave?" like any reasonably intelligent adult would in that situation.
2) The above just sounds like a typical interrogation technique of a cop playing hardball. If you can get CP to say it's over the line then I'll admit that your example goes beyond reasonable LE practice.

Further, you failed to respond to the following:

Please explicitly state which of the following is what you think occurred

1) Flynn believed speaking to the ambassador was illegal and lied to the FBI.
2) Flynn believed speaking to the ambassador was legal but lied to the FBI anyway.
3) Flynn believed speaking to the ambassador was legal, the FBI convinced him it was illegal, and then Flynn lied about it.
4) Some other scenario you'll explain

Also, what do you think about the fact that Comey directly contradicts the anonymous sources which are the source of the claim that the FBI didn't believe Flynn actually lied. You *know* it cuts against the credibility of "news organizations" which continue to report that claim. At minimum they should annotate their article with reference to Comey's response. Will they?

Also, you did *not* answer these questions. Please put numbers in front of your answers so I don't miss the specific question you are answering. I'd accept an answer of "We don't have enough information to know that" of course.

2) What the FBI might have had evidence of
3) What the FBI might have told Flynn they had

Also what is your response to the fact that it is common knowledge that LE often will let someone plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for coming clean.

I know you don't want to drill into any of these things but that's the only way to get to the truth.

[JimL]

Of course it would have tricked you.

"Are you aware that what you did may be a crime?"
"What? No, I never broke the law!"
"Then why did you lie to my agents?"
"I didn't lie!"
"I have their notes here saying you did." The interrogator produces the falsified notes. "It says here when you were asked if you discussed such and such with so and so, that you responded that you did not. We have it on record that you did, in fact, discuss that matter with that person."
"I don't remember ever denying that."
"My agents do. It's right here in their notes."
"But I never said that."
"I have proof that you did say it." He taps the falsified notes.
"The notes must be wrong!"
"Are you calling my agents liars?"
"What? No! Of course not!"
"Then what do you think a jury is going to believe, your denials?" He pauses and holds up the falsified notes. "Or my evidence?"
"I... I don't know what to say. I didn't... I don't remember..."
"Then are you prepared to plead guilty to perjury? It's your only chance to make this go away. I would hate to think what would happen to you if you refuse."

Are you aware that claiming ignorance of the law doesn't exonerate you?

[Mountain Man]

1) I would just say "I won't speak further without a lawyer. Am I free to leave?" like any reasonably intelligent adult would in that situation.
2) The above just sounds like a typical interrogation technique of a cop playing hardball. If you can get CP to say it's over the line then I'll admit that your example goes beyond reasonable LE practice.

Further, you failed to respond to the following:

Please explicitly state which of the following is what you think occurred

1) Flynn believed speaking to the ambassador was illegal and lied to the FBI.
2) Flynn believed speaking to the ambassador was legal but lied to the FBI anyway.
3) Flynn believed speaking to the ambassador was legal, the FBI convinced him it was illegal, and then Flynn lied about it.
4) Some other scenario you'll explain

Also, what do you think about the fact that Comey directly contradicts the anonymous sources which are the source of the claim that the FBI didn't believe Flynn actually lied. You *know* it cuts against the credibility of "news organizations" which continue to report that claim. At minimum they should annotate their article with reference to Comey's response. Will they?

Also, you did *not* answer these questions. Please put numbers in front of your answers so I don't miss the specific question you are answering. I'd accept an answer of "We don't have enough information to know that" of course.

2) What the FBI might have had evidence of
3) What the FBI might have told Flynn they had

Also what is your response to the fact that it is common knowledge that LE often will let someone plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for coming clean.

I know you don't want to drill into any of these things but that's the only way to get to the truth.

You're forgetting some of the important details. The first interview was presented as "just a friendly chat". Flynn was never alerted to the fact that it was a formal investigative interview, and the agents told him he didn't need a lawyer:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mue...-michael-flynn

The newly released 302 -- which was finalized on Feb. 15, 2017, just two days after Flynn resigned his post after he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak -- states that Flynn told agents "not really" when asked if he had told Kislyak not to escalate the diplomatic conflict over sanctions with the U.S. -- although he later admitted in his guilty plea to doing so.

"I don't remember," Flynn told the agents, according to the 302. "It wasn't, 'Don't do anything.'"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mis...encing-hearing

So Flynn was giving casual answers. Statements like "not really" and "I don't remember" don't sound like he intended any of his answers to be regarded as definitive. On the contrary, it shows uncertainty.

The second time he talked with the FBI, he did have lawyers, but the FBI had the falsified notes "proving" that Flynn lied during the first interview:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/25...michael-flynn/

Of course Flynn and his lawyers did not know any of this at the time because the FBI deliberately concealed it, and so he pleaded guilty to perjury because there was no way to refute the "evidence". We also know that the FBI was threatening to prosecute Flynn's son, which put further pressure on him to "play ball". It's safe to say that if his lawyers had known of the dirty deals that were happening behind the scenes that their legal advice would have been markedly different.

So to answer your series of questions, Flynn did not believe that talking to the Russian ambassador was illegal, and he did not lie about it, but the FBI tricked him into thinking he did with falsified notes.

Furthermore, we know Comey is lying when he denies that his agents believed Flynn was being truthful. We know the agents who conducted the original interview did not believe Flynn had lied, and we know that the notes were subsequently altered to give the false impression that he had. We also know, based on these latest revelations, that Comey and Stzork hatched a scheme to entrap Flynn, and that Comey and sought the approval of President Obama.

This isn't guesswork or speculation. It's all out in the open, and I can only assume it's your own wilful ignorance that is stopping you from seeing it.

[DivineOb]

You're forgetting some of the important details.

I read through the entire doc at here which did bring up some details I forgot. Like the fact that Flynn had been lying about his discussions with the Russians to the press and the Trump administration for two weeks before the interview took place. Did you forget that part?

(and to prove I read it, I'll note that on the third to last page it is made explicit that Flynn was not warned that lying to the FBI was a crime, so I was wrong about that in my response to LPoE).

This is a lie by Fox News. No other word for it. What is actually said is

"[The agents] both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying." It does NOT say that they did not believe he was lying or that he didn't say things which were factually untrue. How do I know this?

1) Comey's explicit word to the contrary
2) According to the Flynn docs "Before the interview the agents [redacted], but it Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used, such as [redacted] to try to refresh his recollection. If Flynn would still not confirm what he said [redacted], they would not confront him or talk him through it." So they already knew he said something that did not match reality when he said it. They were just noting that he didn't outward indications of it (doubtless this is information expected to be included in such an interview summary).

Flynn's legal team said in a filing that the FBI discouraged Flynn from bringing a lawyer to the interview and agents never advised him false statements in that setting could constitute a crime. The newly released documents confirm those claims.

Mostly true. Relevance?

Correct. Not that they believed he was not lying as Fox dishonestly claims.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mue...-michael-flynn[/box]

The newly released 302 -- which was finalized on Feb. 15, 2017, just two days after Flynn resigned his post after he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak -- states that Flynn told agents "not really" when asked if he had told Kislyak not to escalate the diplomatic conflict over sanctions with the U.S. -- although he later admitted in his guilty plea to doing so.

"I don't remember," Flynn told the agents, according to the 302. "It wasn't, 'Don't do anything.'"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mis...encing-hearing

I couldn't get copy / paste out of the PDF working (kept getting garbage) and my inline image was downscaled by the BBS software to miniscule size so just go here and read the last paragraph here (the second to last paragraph is where the "I don't remember" comes from).

Notice how the second related denial, which is much stronger and direct than the first, is totally omitted from Fox's summary.

So Flynn was giving casual answers. Statements like "not really" and "I don't remember" don't sound like he intended any of his answers to be regarded as definitive. On the contrary, it shows uncertainty.

Read the 302s for yourself. I did! It should only take you a couple of minutes even if you are a slow reader.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/25...michael-flynn/[/box]

I read this article in full. Can you point me to the underlying documents I can review to confirm the interpretation given? Where is their proof that the 302 was changed after Feb 10th? The brief itself is paywalled from that link so I can't even read *that* for myself.

Of course Flynn and his lawyers did not know any of this at the time because the FBI deliberately concealed it, and so he pleaded guilty to perjury because there was no way to refute the "evidence". We also know that the FBI was threatening to prosecute Flynn's son, which put further pressure on him to "play ball". It's safe to say that if his lawyers had known of the dirty deals that were happening behind the scenes that their legal advice would have been markedly different.

It's a nice story and, if the evidence backs it up, I'll be 100% on your side. Where is the *proof*? Where are the underlying documents which *prove* this conspiracy theory true? The ones I've been able to review show the *opposite* of what your sources claim.

So to answer your series of questions, Flynn did not believe that talking to the Russian ambassador was illegal, and he did not lie about it, but the FBI tricked him into thinking he did with falsified notes.

Show me the underlying proof that the notes were falsified. Something concrete. And Flynn lied to the press and the Trump administration prior to the interview! That was why he was fired! I had forgotten all about that until I read it in the 302.

Furthermore, we know Comey is lying when he denies that his agents believed Flynn was being truthful.

Show me the concrete proof of this. Not even the 302s state that this is what the agents believed only that that was how they interpreted Flynn's demeanor.

We know the agents who conducted the original interview did not believe Flynn had lied,

Show me the money!

and we know that the notes were subsequently altered to give the false impression that he had.

Show me the money!

We also know, based on these latest revelations, that Comey and Stzork hatched a scheme to entrap Flynn, and that Comey and sought the approval of President Obama.

Show me the underlying documents which proves this! There is no *proof* of *any* of this at that link. If I missed it then please rub my face in it.

This isn't guesswork or speculation. It's all out in the open, and I can only assume it's your own wilful ignorance that is stopping you from seeing it.

Willful ignorance? I've read every one of your links and read the underlying documents as well wherever possible (something you clearly didn't even do).

Paste me screenshots. Type out quotes. Link to PDFs with page references. Give me something *concrete* which shows that this conspiracy is true.

[DivineOb]

It is common knowledge that LE often will let someone plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for coming clean. You know that and are just being dishonest here. Shameful.

I'm also disinclined to let you squirm away from this issue. The fact that Flynn was allowed to plead to a lesser charge doesn't prove he wasn't guilty of a more serious one. It means the government felt getting a confession to a lesser crime combined with coming clean was a fair trade for a more serious charge which would take a lot more time, give less information, and have a non-zero chance of non-conviction.

Do you get this or not? Do you get that using the outcome we got as proof there was no underlying crime is completely bogus reasoning?

[Mountain Man]

Give me something *concrete* which shows that this conspiracy is true.

You mean something other than the concrete facts and analysis that I've already provided and which you've dismissed with a casual wave of the hand?

I'll get right on that...

[DivineOb]

You mean something other than the concrete facts and analysis that I've already provided and which you've dismissed with a casual wave of the hand?

I'll get right on that...

Show me the money! I read the underlying docs. They not only don't support the story but clearly show the opposite. Be a man and either admit the case isn't as strong as you thought (totally understandable) or actually put in some work and point me *directly* to the data.

I know you can find RWNJ news sources which spin all kinds of stories. They get *paid* to keep you suckers coming back and clicking ads. They get *paid* to keep promising conspiracy after conspiracy which never pans out.

If there were hard evidence that Comey broke the law by falsifying evidence William Barr would have him in handcuffs before days end. Guaran - [bloody] - teed. Stzork too. Page too. Why do they walk free after the conservative treehouse (!) broke the case?

[Mountain Man]

Sidney Powell confirms everything I've been saying.

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020...argeted-flynn/

[DivineOb]

Sidney Powell confirms everything I've been saying.

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020...argeted-flynn/

Because I hate myself I read your link and the article that link references. I don't want to hear her conclusions. I want to hear from you what behavior, specifically, you think is wrong and how that behavior is documented in the FBI docs. By this point I'm more familiar with this material than you are!

Where is this documented?




Where is this documented? What PDF? What text? What email? Where is the proof that this occurred actually stored?
We *know* he was lying to the press and the WH for 2 weeks prior to the interview. Are you saying he suddenly started telling the truth to the agents in the interview? Where is the *proof*?!



Was it wrong to discuss how the interview should be handled depending on how Flynn responded? I don't see how.
Did the agents make up the fact that Flynn violated Logan? Show me the money! Where is that shown in the documents?
And, for God's sake, was Enron *innocent*? Holy hell. Watch "The Smartest Guys in the Room" and tell me they did not deserve prosecution.