Talk:Michael Flynn/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Katyal and Geltzer's response(s) to Trump's DoJ dropping charges (after admitted & guilty plea), add?

• Neal K. Katyal and Joshua A. Geltzer, The Appalling Damage of Dropping the Michael Flynn Case; It embeds into official U.S. policy a shockingly extremist view of law enforcement as the enemy of the American people. May 8, 2020 NYT

The authors are law professors at Georgetown.

X1\ (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

NO! This is just a POV add, there are plenty of public figures that have just the opposite view, are we going to add their comments as well, so far this article is not balanced with plenty of cited material that could balance it but the controllers of the article will not add it. I went through many of the now moot articles cited that were based on information that certain politicians and FBI officials would not release to the public and now we know that they are based on false information, but the Controllers of the article will not make those facts be reflected in this article.173.172.158.168 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Who are these public figures? Please post RSs here, 173.172.158.168. X1\ (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

President Trump, Nikki Haley, Jonathan Turley, just to name a few.173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Listing a couple of names with your comments is not posting RSs, 173.172.158.168

Who do you feel the controllers of the article are, 173.172.158.168? X1\ (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

MrX, Muboshgu, NorthBySouthBaranof,MelbourneStar They will not allow any new information, or non-liberal POV to gain entrance in the article even if there is consensus with their moving goalpost requirements, MrX even admitted it. I quote "I wasn't aware that there was a "no partisan opinions" guideline. Are you just making up rules? 173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Per diff 173.172.158.168 labeled the above Korny O'Near (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC), that seems problematic. X1\ (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. - MrX"173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

To what are responding, 173.172.158.168? This (above) appears to be mislocated. X1\ (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• YES! - This viewpoint seems to be common among people who still care about law and order.[1] - MrX 🖋 12:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• YES - This is a reliable source that deserves due mention. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You believe in law and order, like altering 302's? Lying to the FISA court? Using a democrat bought and fake dossier in which THEY colluded with the Russians to sway the election? Full projection mode on this one. BTW why only the liberal side gets into this article. Total POV. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your bias, but this article has to reflect the views of the sources, not the contributors, much less right-wing conspiracies. Given your expressed bias, it is impossible to continue to assume good faith regarding your input. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Is 302 List of FBI forms#FD-302?

And by fake dossier are you referring to the Trump–Russia dossier?

By THEY wp:ALLCAPS, see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND 173.172.158.168.

X1\ (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• YES - Pretty obviously good sources for this, and there are many others. Other viewpoints from reliable sources can also be added -- if they exist. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• No undue opinion piece. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting the premise of the Article is the damage that President Trump is doing to law and order, do those who wrote the piece and those who want it added to the article think Obama did damage to law and order when he pardoned a general who lied to the FBI as well? I list the liberal NYT so you can't call FACTS into question. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

173.172.158.168, see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND regarding wp:ALLCAPS. X1\ (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - it's a notable opinion. Though, MrX, I find it remarkable that this, coupled with your "no" vote on the RfC, strongly suggests that your view on whether political opinions should be included in Wikipedia is based not on notability or relevance, but simply whether you agree with those opinions. What a damning statement on your approach as an editor. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what "the RfC" refers to. What we are discussing here is not a "political opinion", but a legal opinion. Please limit your comments to content, not contributors. - MrX 🖋 15:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There's only one real RfC on this page. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• No Unless we want to add other sources to balance it out. Because there is no consensus among legal experts on this. Here is an analysis from an ex-FBI agent of 25 years. And here is another opinion piece from an Ex U.S Attorney. I was chastised for just bringing up these links in this Talk page. Law professors at Georgetown University are no more experts than ex-FBI agents and retired U.S Attorneys on this matter. The 13th 4postle (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• No Per above. I like how it was done in Trump impeachment artcile though. Links to people who know nothing are appreciated. 2A00:1370:812C:B802:ADD0:CF3A:E6DE:E2E7 (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Curious that 2A00:1370:812C:B802:ADD0:CF3A:E6DE:E2E7 has made only three edits total (including this one: 04:33, 04:22, & 04:20; 11 May 2020), so presumably Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. X1\ (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed Puppetry per se, but I have dynamical ipv6 address that changes every 2 hours or so, I cannot control it at least not on my tablet and I have obviously different addresses on my smartphone and on my PC and on my smart Watch(( That is how ipv6 works, every device gets white address. Also that ipv4 91.x.x.x is mine. I voted only once every time, I never used two or more ip addresses. Also there is no point in blocking /64 for me as my /64 prefix changes every 2-3 days. 2A00:1370:812C:DB93:4CD0:3800:22D6:A881 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• No UNDUE and OFFTOPIC. This article and the posturing of those two individuals is low WEIGHT and no BLP impact. That would be moving a BLP biographical story of his life events into a third parties forum over Trump and non-biographical philosophy. Might as well start quoting from Washington Examiner 'Very disappointed': Justice Department spokeswoman slams Chuck Todd's 'deceptive editing' of Barr remarks on Flynn case and What we still don't know about the Michael Flynn case. Maybe the case needs it's own non-BLP article, or additions made to Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Problem with the 2nd paragraph.

In the 2nd paragrah it states, "He resigned after information surfaced that he had misled the FBI and Vice President Mike Pence about the nature and content of his communications with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak." Here is a CNN article which states "Flynn initially told investigators sanctions were not discussed. But FBI agents challenged him, asking if he was certain that was his answer. He said he didn't remember. The FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say." All information in the article has to be verifiable according to Wikipedia rules. The 13th 4postle (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

To remind you (and to quote from that Kravis article above), "Flynn pleaded guilty to the crime of making false statements in connection with lies he told in an FBI interview about his contacts with the Russian ambassador". Enough said. He admitted he did it. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

To remind you, he plead guilty to get the Mueller team to leave his son alone, and his statements to the Judge about it was probably demanded or the deal to leave his son alone would be off the table. 67.10.206.161 (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

He pled guilty because he was guilty. He remains guilty. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice that thing called a cited reference that I gave? The FBI got him on a process crime, the same agent that told them not to close the case, rewrote a a 302 in another agent's "voice" and admitted to it in a text message. This is a felonious action by that FBI agent out to get Flynn, which if convicted requires a 20 year sentence. There were crimes committed but it wasn't by Flynn. 67.10.206.161 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

An op-ed published in Town Hall is not a valid source. Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI, which is a crime. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

REALLY? This is talk page about the article to improve it, I was addressing usertalk 68.197.116.79 putting their OPINION with no references to back it up. If opinion is not good enough for the Talk Page to improve the actual article, then opinion pieces should not be used in the actual article itself. Like this one: 67.10.206.161 (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

The material is correct and verifiable in the cited sources. In fact, this was all over the news when it happened, so I have no idea what the "problem" would be. - MrX 🖋 02:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The material WAS correct and WAS verifiable in the cited sources at the time. New information has come out and those articles are now out of date as I linked above. Unless you are stating that CNN is not a reliable source? The 13th 4postle (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI, which is a crime" No, if it lacks materiality. An here it is certainly the case (IMO and according to DOJ). 91.76.22.132 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Please fix this typo.

"to taken on". FollowTheSources (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• @FollowTheSources: - thank you. It must have been my mistake, sorry! starship.paint (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I'd have just fixed it myself, but I can't yet. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Add Joseph Misfud and Stefan Halper to the article as the FBI Sources

Washington Post admitted that Joseph Misfud is one of them, and Stefan Halper admitted he lied about Flynn and can't be sued because he was an FBI source.173.172.158.168 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is them, 173.172.158.168?

Stefan Halper and Joseph Mifsud (Joseph Misfud)? X1\ (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So 173.172.158.168, you think the homepage of WaPo is a RS? Appears to be more evidence that you are wp:NOTHERE. X1\ (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• X1, what is the purpose of Wikipedia? To only have a liberal bias, or balanced articles? I know you do not like the fact that I am calling for balance of this article, and am bringing forth information that seems to be ignored by those who control this article until the overwhelming evidence makes them change false information that has been in this biography on a living person and to do so I have to work within the framework I am given. I do not believe the NYT is reliable when it comes to this President, but wikipedia only allows left leaning sources. Name ANY right leaning, and do not say FOX, because their news division is not right wing, and wikipedia will not allow their commentary division. My point being, when any of the wikipidia RS retract stories, it is mostly against Republicans. They told us for 3 years that Trump colluded with the russians, when that was a lie, and they did not stop using the sources that lied to them. And somehow they missed that the DNC and Hillary campaign hired a foreigner who went to Russia to get "information" on Trump from Russian Government Officials, so, the people who colluded with the Russians were the DNC and Hillary Clinton. 67.10.206.161 (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • • Lots of unverified, probably WP:BLP violating information here. Struck. starship.paint (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

From the article "The New York Times reported on May 18, 2018, that a longtime FBI/CIA informant had met Flynn at an intelligence seminar in Britain six months earlier and became alarmed by Flynn's closeness to a Russian woman there;"

That is Stefan Halper, he stated the woman was a Russian Spy, she sued because she is NOT a Russian Spy. Why is it that Halper's name is so secretive in the article? I could list 30 sources on this, but since only left wing publications are allowed on this talk page, I will only list one. I cannot list the NYT or Washington Post because they write stories on the event, but refuse to name him. The Oligarchs who control this article make sure no information that exonerates Flynn makes it into the article. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan Turley's opinion piece is clearly labeled The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill, 173.172.158.168. X1\ (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are they not being cited as the sources, when Jerad Kushner IS here: "The person who directed Flynn to ask foreign officials to act in favor of Israel at the U.N. Security Council—an incident described in Flynn's plea documents—was Jared Kushner, according to two former Trump transition team officials."173.172.158.168 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Notice what is NOT in this article because it makes democrats look bad

All those who were involved in unmasking a United States Citizen, which is illegal. But who would think that something would be added that blows a hole in what has been in a biography of a living person for 2 years. This article is not fair, and it is liberal POV. Something needs to be done about the spin that is in it. 67.10.206.161 (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• As noted by your source, CBS News, the document Grenell declassified (on page 3/5) states that each person who put in an unmasking request was "an authorized recipient of the original report and the unmasking was approved through NSA's standard process, which includes a review of the justification for the request". Your source, CBS News, also does not state that unmasking a U.S. citizen is illegal. In fact it states: The names of U.S. citizens who are caught on intercepts of foreign officials' communications are typically concealed in intelligence reports, but certain senior officials can request to learn their identities to better understand the information, a process known as "unmasking." According to an annual transparency report released by ODNI in April, the identities of 10,012 U.S. persons were unmasked by the NSA in response to specific requests in 2019. By your logic, the Trump administration has committed 10,012 illegal acts in 2019. starship.paint (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• It is what is NOT in the article, and I cannot find the usual far left sources that are accepted here, that state unmasking for political purposes are illegal, which they are, but leaking their name to the far left lapdog media IS. Which means the Obama Administration illegally leaked to the media.67.10.206.161 (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The constant drivel about "far-left" sources are only accepted here is getting a little old. It sounds like you don't like Wikipedia, and if that's the case, you're more than welcome to not edit? perhaps create a blog or something? and since you cannot find the "usual far left sources that are accepted here" (or what most people would consider verifiable reliable sources), then this discussion is moot. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post KNOWS who the leaker is, who had to be in the administration for it was those in the Obama Administration that unmasked General Flynn, and the Washington Post admitted they were in contact with "9 CURRENT AND FORMER OBAMA OFFICIALS" who had leaked. SO by their own admission, it was THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION that SPIED ON AN LEAKED on an incoming administration. We now know the Obama Administration also unmasked others in the incoming administration on the morning of the inauguration as well. If you cannot handle the truth of this, I am so sorry.67.10.206.161 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we do not use far-left sources. You have provided no sources including evidence of state unmasking for political purposes. You have provided no sources including evidence that the Obama Administration illegally leaked to the media. Please do not make accusations here while providing no reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

67, there is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider, as stated in WP:RSP. Please get a better source. The best would be Reuters, Associated Press, Agence France Presse, I hope you don't consider those far left. starship.paint (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unmasking is common and nothing untoward happened here. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see what you did there, you conflated unmasking for National Security purposes with unmasking an incoming administration official for political purposes. So the rest of this is moot, as they have nothing in common. The only thing we know about foreign influence in our election was the Democrat party and the Hillary Clinton campaign hiring a former British (foreigner) MI6 agent (who admitted that most of it was fake) to go to Russia (foreign country) to talk with Russian government agents, to dig up dirt on Trump, turns out it was fake dirt. And this fake dossier is the tree that produced all of the poisonous fruit, including the Flynn "confession". Even if Flynn did discuss sanctions, he was doing so as an official of the incoming Trump administration and it was NOT illegal to do so. A lie as a crime, in regards to an FBI investigation is one that is told to deceive cover for a crime, this is important because it calls attention to what the original FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said, that he was not being deceitful, they thought because he genuinely did not remember talking about the sanctions, but did he lie in the most lowest sense of the word? Yes, and someone convinced the two things were the same, which they were not. So, did he lie to the FBI? Yes because he did not remember the conversation with the Russian Ambassador, did he lie in an illegal sense, no, and this is why he retracted his confession, because he did nothing that rated to taking a deal for a sentence. This is how the article should approach this. Unfortunately it does not do this, but paints Gen. Flynn in the worst light of a biography of a living person.67.10.206.161 (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And this fake dossier is the tree that produced all of the poisonous fruit, including the Flynn "confession". - that's nonsense, 67. The fake dossier did not play a role in the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (Horowitz report on Crossfire Hurricane, page ii). Flynn's confession was sparked by his own conversations with Kislyak, intercepted by intelligence. If you're so off-base on this part, I'm not sure what else we should listen to you. starship.paint (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• • There was no unmasking an incoming administration official for political purposes. The rest you wrote is moot: why are you bringing up the Steele dossier? What happened is U.S. intelligence was listening to certain foreign nationals, passed along reports of what was being said, which concerned the Obama administration, so they sought to unmask who the U.S. person on the call was, and oh boy it was Michael Flynn. Then Flynn lied about it to the FBI, as he later admitted in open court. And the lie was substantial enough for the DOJ to continue along with the prosecution up until they could manufacture some cover (the FBI notes) to justify dropping the charges. It's time for you to drop the WP:STICK and move on. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Why do you ALWAYS omit that the first FBI Agents stated that he was not being deceitful? And why is a lot of what I wrote missing? AGAIN, IN LAW, a lie to deceive is punishable, the FBI Agents that inteviewed him KNEW that he had discussed sanctions, and they asked him about it, but they believed he may have forgotten about it, which he probably did, he had had conversations with MANY foreign nationals as part of his incoming duty to establish relationships, which every incoming administration does. Your OPINION that his action was not official is wrong. NOW, to the 302 that Strozk REWROTE substantially trying to make it in the original Agent's Voice, a felony, to change what they stated that Flynn was not being deceitful, and is the basis of the Mueller team going after Flynn for not stating that he talked about sanctions which the agents, who are trained to spot deceit, did not find as the case, it is Strozk that asked that the case which should have been closed be kept open, admitted in texts that he rewrote the 302 in the other agent's voice, and which got Flynn where we are now at. Again why do you refuse to accept the agents who interviewed Flynn, who were trained to spot deceit(which would be cause to charge him with lying) and stated he was not deceitful. Why do you dismiss their professional opinion?67.10.206.161 (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yep, it became common in Obama administration. Also you may want to know how many people were put in jail for leaking unmasked information to the media. 2A00:1370:812C:DB93:3136:B0EA:FC9C:A5B3 (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  It happened before Obama, and it has happened hundreds of times under the Trump administration. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported that in 2019, the Trump administration had 10,012 unmasking requests fulfilled; 16,721 requests fulfilled in 2018, and 9,529 requests fulfilled in 2017." – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unmasking done to sabotage incoming Presidents is not “common”, I hope. But it’s not Flynn BLP, so take it elsewhere please. There’s already Criminal charges brought in the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, maybe that would suit. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  Markbassett, well unmasking wasn't done to sabotage a president. Unmasking was done because Flynn is compromised. Obama warned Trump about Flynn face to face. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu Not “common”. Unmasking an incoming President’s staff and thus appearance of intent + actual damage done to next administration, whether that was planned sabotage and disrespects peaceful succession ... are the phrases and concerns here. It’s just not a “common” thing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, well it's not "common" for an incoming NSA to be compromised by a foreign government and to have lied to the FBI about it. It was an extraordinary step taken due to an extraordinary situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve obviously been advocating this for a few days, but can we please apply DS, per NOTHERE to this obvious sock puppet? This is a time sink. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Helpful source that we can't use

Not suggesting that this YouTube video[2] is a reliable source, but I found it extremely helpful in summarizing all that's going on and providing some legal insight. Naturally, it's not a reliable source, so anything it mentions, such as "General Misha", would have to be sourced independently. Having said that, the source is reputable enough that everything I've spotchecked [3] has been easy to find reliable sourcing for. I recommend watching this video. FollowTheSources (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course, but only if we will also add https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svYdF4UvJf0 who is pro-Trump. The quality is the same. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Co-Creator States Wikipedia NPOV Is Dead, and this article shows it

Rant. Not useful. O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been trying to get the editors to clean up this whole article from the Liberal POV that is in it, they constantly claim it does not have LPOV, BUT NOW WE KNOW ONE THE CREATORS OF WIKIPEDIA agrees with me over the whole platform. Only left wing sources are allowed, you can claim they are not left wing, but they are. I have a suggestion. You know the editors that are not left wing, you can ask us if something has LPOV. We can tell you why we think it is. This article about a living person is full of LPOV in the areas that it can make him look bad. If there is much discussion about a section, perhaps it should be taken out of the article until there is TRUE consensus. There is a lot about Trump in it because liberals think that makes him look bad, but it doesn't, it is funny actually. References that do not add to the article by adding gratuitous references to others should be removed.67.10.206.161 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Is Michael Flynn an alien? Not according to the lame stream media. GMGtalk 19:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC) I have to concur. This article is being held hostage to a grossly biased moderator who is refusing to accept the government's own dismissal document package, as well as articles in Fox News, The WSJ, Townhall, RCP, etc.. because he/she/it simply doesn't like their point of view, not because of any problem with the veracity of their content.45.50.213.176 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal from lede

On April 27, 2017, the Defense Department Inspector General announced an investigation into whether Flynn had accepted money from foreign governments without the required approval. The New York Times reported on May 18, 2018, that a longtime FBI/CIA informant had met Flynn at an intelligence seminar in Britain six months earlier and became alarmed by Flynn's closeness to a Russian woman there; this concern prompted another individual to alert American authorities that Flynn may have been compromised by Russian intelligence. Flynn initially refused to hand over subpoenaed documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee, pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, but a compromise with the committee was worked out.

I've removed the above from the lede. I don't think it's important enough. (1) The Defense Department Inspector General didn't conclude anything on Flynn, right? (2) Flynn ultimately was not charged with coordination of Russia, (3) the Senate committee didn't conclude anything on Flynn, right? starship.paint (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for removing this - the "Russian woman" bit always jumped out at me as being irrelevant to the intro. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What? NO! It is very relevent! You see, Chris Steele (yes, himself) created this little story that Flynn has an afair with Russian woman! So romantic, is not it? Sarcasm off. What she is really famous of is that she sued Sberbank Investing and won 3.5 million pounds! Lol. Also! It is in FISA of Carter Page! P.S. Nope in Flynn court docs. Redacted though, but it was really obvious, lets see if I can find a link. https://twitter.com/politicalwilli/status/1255933192126771200?s=19 91.76.22.132 (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Add to ['Justic Department's motion to drop charges']

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Michael_Flynn#Justice_Department's_motion_to_drop_charges

Please add the following to the above-section:

On Tuesday, May 19, 2020, General Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, filed a writ of mandamus in the DC Circuit Court Of Appeals. To support her filing, Attorney Powell cited the US Supreme Court's recent, unanimous decision of May 7, 2020, US v Sineneng-Smith, 500 US _, "The district court's sua sponte of an amicus to oppose the Government's motion and its Minute Order to issue a schedule for additional amici are at loggerheads with the unanimous Supreme Court opinion in United States v Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67 (US May 7, 2020)." The writ of mandamus also cites the DC Circuit's leading case on the issue, US v Fokker Servs, BV, 818 F.3d 733, "The district court's failure to grant the Government's Motion To Dismiss defies this Court's binding precedent . . ." 2604:6000:1209:C114:A9B3:800E:F31:2BB0 (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

302s Make No Mention of Sanctions Discussion, And Other Exculpatory Information

Now that the FBI's heavily edited and modified 302s have been made public, it's clear that there is no mention of the agents ever discussing sanctions with Flynn during their meeting. Flynn was charged with lying about discussing sanctions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. This means it is not possible for Flynn to have lied about sanctions. The 302s only mention Flynn discussing the expulsion of Russian diplomats with the Ambassador, which was an entirely separate event from the sanctions.

In the unredacted House Intel Committee report on the Russia investigation, Andrew McCabe testified that the two agents who interviewed Flynn “didn’t think he was lying." Now we know that Flynn was not lying because there is no mention of any sanctions discussion in the 302s. Any discrepancies between the call and Flynn's statements to the agents could not have been about sanctions.

The justification for the FBI interview of Flynn was predicated on an alleged violation of the Logan Act during Flynn's call. However, no EC (Electronic Communication - filed when the FBI opens an investigation into a crime) exists on the alleged Logan Act violation. In fact, FBI notes show the Flynn investigation was supposed to be closed prior to the Dec 29th call. If no EC was filed on a Logan Act violation, there is no documented justification for the interview, which begs the question of why Flynn was interviewed in the first place, since it can't be due to a Logan Act violation.

Jim Comey testified under oath that, "And the agents -- and the reason I mention their experience is because I talked to them about this -- they discerned no physical indication of deception. They didn't see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.

And they interviewed him completely, went through it all, did not show him the transcript, XXXXXX or transcripts, and then came back and drafted a 302 report to me and the Deputy Director.

And I then briefed the White House on the contents of what Mr. Flynn had said. That is the 24th of January."

The FBI hid the 302 and heavily modified them weeks after the interview, in violation of protocols, never presenting it as Brady material. There is no EC on Flynn for a violation of the Logan Act. Comey testified under oath that an original unedited 302 was presented to him on the 24th of January, the same day Flynn was interviewed by the agents, yet no original copy of this 302 exists and was never presented as Brady material. No copies of the transcript of the call between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador exist and they have not been provided to the defense as Brady material.

We know no original copies of the 302 and transcript exist because Prosecutor Van Grack presented a signed affidavit stating all records of all versions of the documents were turned over to Flynn's defense team and no original 302 or transcript was included in those documents.

The newly released and declassified files of the unmasking requests that were made against Flynn show that no unmasking request was made on Dec 29th, which is the day Flynn received the call from the Russian Ambassador. The closest unmasking request to Dec 29th was made by Obama's Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the 4th of January, a week after the call took place. This begs the question of how Flynn's call was intercepted and unmasked in the first place. It's also odd that Joe Biden is listed as requesting an unmaking of Flynn on the 12th of January, just 8 days before he left office.

When Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was recently questioned under oath by Sen. Graham about how FLynn's call was intercepted, Rosenstein never provided a direct answer to the question. Sen. Graham then asked whether a sitting president can unilaterally order a wiretap of an American citizen's phone without court approval. Roseinstein answered, "...People do things."

Clapper, Comey, and Yates all said under oath that they did not brief Obama about the Flynn/Kislyak phone calls prior to January 5th, yet Obama knew about the call at a Jan 5th WH meeting. Yates stated she was surprised to learn that Obama knew of the call, as she did not know about it prior to Obama telling her about it on the 5th. This begs the question of how Obama could have known of the call.45.50.213.176 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To 45.50.213.176 - The link you provided below (reposted here [4]) answers your questions. 1) Your link says that on Jan 5 US Intel, Yates, Clapper, Brennan, and Comey all briefed the Obama Administration about the call. 2) From your link Yates did not say "Obama told her about it." Please be more careful. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I also like Dan Bongino, but this is total garbage, what do you think the sanctions against us are? Personas non grata (BANNED NOT ONLY IN USA, see Magnitsky Global Act) and companies BUT ONLY in USA. Contrary to common belief cheese and other product embargos are not done by you, it is done by Putin. That is why only 10-15% support him here. See https://www.forbes.ru/biznes/364597-ni-ryby-ni-syra-putin-prodlil-deystvie-produktovogo-embargo-do-2020-goda 91.76.22.132 (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry bro, but you can't charge a guy with lying about sanctions when the 302s make no mention of Flynn lying, nor do they mention the word "sanction" at all. That's not how this works. Further, Flynn admitted to discussing the PNGs in the 302s - so no lie there.

45.50.213.176 - I don't know what the source of all this is (or what this has to do with cheese), but if it's true that the released 302s don't mention sanctions, and/or that there was no documented justification for the FBI interview, it would be great if you found a reliable source saying either thing - both facts would be worth including in the article. As to the discrepancy with the unmasking dates, Andrew C. McCarthy makes the same point you did in this National Review piece, and argues that the people who recorded the Flynn phone call must have been not the FBI but rather the CIA or another country's intelligence service, who then shared it with the FBI. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The heavily edited and modified Flynn 302s are now public. All of this comes from publicly released declassified documents.45.50.213.176 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but you can't really use primary sources - just having the 302s as a reference is not enough. There has to be some news report or reliable opinion piece making these claims. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You're claiming that the actual 302s showing Flynn was never questioned about sanctions isn't good enough to prove that Flynn was never questioned about sanctions? LOL! What? 45.50.213.176 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Where do you get that he was "never questioned about sanctions"? Parts of that document have been redacted. You can't prove that they didn't talk about sanctions. It could be they talked about sanctions there. This is the trouble with using primary documents. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have linked to the unredacted version. 45.50.213.176 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Better wait for original 302 from 24.01 to come out. We cannot link scribd at all on wikipedia. Also, PNG are sanctions, if you did not understand it first time I told you that. There are no financial sanctions as such besides crazy VISA/Mastercard against Crimea and some other little things. Well, thanks to them we now created our own VISA that works everywhere. Also this 302 is nothing new; I had it back on 11 May. Maybe it was more reducted, dunno. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6936-michael-flynn-motion-to-dismiss/fa06f5e13a0ec71843b6/optimized/full.pdf 91.76.22.132 (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's the document dump right from Politico's website. These are legitimate documents released by auditing attorney Jeff Jensen. The 302 is included in there.45.50.213.176 (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The first post in this thread: Now that the FBI's heavily edited and modified 302s have been made public, it's clear that there is no mention of the agents ever discussing sanctions with Flynn during their meeting. - if this were true, it would be very big news. So important, that even the best news sources like Reuters and Associated Press would cover it. We would not need to rely on primary sources. starship.paint (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, this is not news, FD-302 should be drafted in 24 hours and approved by superviser in 5 days, here it was 3 weeks. We know that Peter + Lisa == Love rewrote whole 302 on 14 February. Just look into memes under https://twitter.com/NatSecLisa/status/1262074421386383361?s=19, that is hillarious. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's the document dump right from Politico's website. These are legitimate documents released by auditing attorney Jeff Jensen. The 302 is included in there. Read them for yourself. Last time I checked, you don't need press credentials to read a legal document.45.50.213.176 (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP (under WP:RS): Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Furthermore, the sources should be reliable, check WP:RSP or WP:RSN. starship.paint (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not true that important news is necessarily covered by "the best sources" like the Associated Press. But it is true that, for current events, we are pretty much bound to whatever mainstream media sources decide to cover. That's part of why there's relatively little information in the article right now about the unusual handling of the 302 form for the Flynn interview. For instance, on February 10, 2017, Peter Strzok wrote a text message to Lisa Page telling her that he was editing the original 302 so much that he was "trying not to completely re-write" it. But the only mainstream media sources I can find that have reported this fact are this opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal and this Byron York column - and opinion pieces are not a great reference for information. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm rather confused by your response. There is a mountain of reporting on the DOJ dropping Flynn charges because of these documents. To quote Fox News, “after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information,” as the department put it. DOJ officials said they concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn" and that the interview was "conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”45.50.213.176 (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What specifically are you confused by? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused by how you think It's not true that important news is necessarily covered by "the best sources" like the Associated Press. Starship.paint is right, if the 302 had any bombshells in it, how come no reputable source has picked it up? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That would require a bigger discussion about media bias that I have no interest in participating in. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The media's biggest bias is to clicks / views / advertising dollars. They get that by posting things that get attention, leading to overly sensationalist stories. That neither the AP nor Reuters nor any other reputable source has gone with this 302 story is quite telling. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

There are numerous reputable source covering the 302s and the motion to dismiss. Fox News, The Hill, Townhall, Real Clear Politics, The WSJ, etc... this is just what I came up with in 2 seconds of searching Google. 45.50.213.176 (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I found those too, but they're not reputable. They're right wing sources repeating right wing talking points (Fox News, RCP) or opinion columns (The Hill, WSJ, Town Hall). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

We have primary documents in conjunction with mainstream reporting from Fox News. Wikipedia has not placed Fox News on banned list for biased reporting that I'm aware of. If Fox News or RCP has been banned from wiki, it would be nice if you could show me the published directive saying so.45.50.213.176 (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu - Apparently you think "right wing" is the opposite of "reputable"? I hope you're not letting your obvious political bias guide your decisions as either an editor or an administrator. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, when it's a Donald Trump tweet and Devin Nunes going on Fox Business, it's disreputable. That's what's in the Fox News and RCP articles. What would you feel about an article all about Pramila Jayapal going on The Young Turks? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who that is, but, as I'm sure you know, reliability and notabilty of information are based on a number of factors, and being "right wing" or a "talking point" are not in that group. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I should have linked Pramila Jayapal for your ease. She's a left-wing member of Congress, as Nunes is a right-wing member. The Young Turks is a left-wing show. Reliability of information is important. We don't simply include spin from politicians. The Fox News piece just mentions a laundry list of right wing figures trying to spin something out of this 302. Andrew C. McCarthy who the Fox News article mentions, isn't a reliable source either. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The wiki article on the standards for verifiability makes no mention of bias. The Young Turks is an acceptable source if the claims they are making can be verified to be true, as are blogs and opinion pieces, both of which are explicitly mentioned in the article on verification. Here we have primary source documents in conjunction with numerous mainstream sources, some opinion pieces and some not. I've yet to see Muboshgu challenge the veracity of any of these claims. If Muboshgu thinks something I said is false, please feel free to source anyone, Young Turks included, who says I'm wrong.45.50.213.176 (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so how are we going to proceed with this? Clearly what I wrote is the truth, and it is HIGHLY exculpatory to Flynn's case. The public has a right to know. Do I need to write up a draft section on the 302s in here with reference links as it should appear on the main page?45.50.213.176 (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

As the claims made by those linked pieces haven't been verified, we're not proceeding with this at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Every claim has been verified, and can be verified, from the Politico document dump released by US Attorney Jeff Jensen. The document includes testimony from the Intel committee briefings, the 302s, the Dismissal filing, among other exculpatory information. Unless you want to argue that the Politico documents are fake, I'm not sure how you can say the claims haven't been verified. The public has a right to know the truth.45.50.213.176 (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I got an idea. How about I put together an entire article based on nothing but screenshots from the Dismissal filings and the newly declassified unmasking requests? Let me guess, the Dismissal documents are BIASED!11!!1!!! LOL!45.50.213.176 (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's see, where should I start. How about here. Yeah, that's a nice quote that deserves to be in the main article for sure. Guess who said that?45.50.213.176 (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh man, here's another doozy from a 302. That quote should probably be in the main article as well.45.50.213.176 (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, McCabe instructed agents to not inform Flynn of his rights? That's pretty newsworthy as well.45.50.213.176 (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

To 45.50.213.176 - you comment is incorrect. Your link says McCabe made the decision to not remind Flynn it is a crime to lie to the FBI; which has nothing at all to do with Flynn's "mirandizing" rights. Please try to be more careful. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm... Here's Yates saying she learned of the call from Obama on the 5th of Jan. I guess we can check another one of my claims off the list.45.50.213.176 (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

To 45.50.213.176- Your comment is incorrect, so I urge you to reread your link. From your link, Yates said she learned of the call 'while in the Oval Office being briefed by US Intel who were briefing the Obama Administration.' Your link does not say "Yates said she learned of the call from Obama." BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll just cite exactly what the link says as a response. "After the briefing, Obama dismissed the group but asked Yates and Comey to stay behind. Obama started by saying he had "learned of the information about Flynn" and his conversation with Kislyak about sanctions. Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently, given the information. At that point, Yates had no idea what the President was talking about, but figured it out based on the conversation." - so yeah, she learned of it directly from Obama's own mouth.45.50.213.176 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

To 45.50.213.176 - you are mistaken. And, because you are mistaken, you are misrepresenting what the link says. The mere fact that you misunderstand and misrepresent what the 302 says, underscores what Muboshgu said earlier: we report what reliable sources say, not what you say. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

And if that is the case, so what? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's a problem, considering that's not what she told congress.45.50.213.176 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If she gets charged with lying to Congress, that would be something. Gordon Sondland got to change his story and wasn't charged with anything for the initial lie. Yates may have made a mistake without intent to mislead. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely none of this suggests the things you suggest it suggests. For instance, Flynn himself said to Judge Sullivan in open court when he pled guilty that he understood that lying to the FBI is a crime. We don't rely on primary documents because we need reliable sources to interpret them, and your last several posts show why. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah we definitely need someone who can interpret this quote of Priestap asking if the goal of interviewing Flynn is to get him fired. We as a collective wiki community are too dumb to be able to tell what Preistap meant by that.45.50.213.176 (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

To 45.50.213.176 - That is correct. And your comments on here have already shown that you misrepresent the 302s and you falsely claim that they include things that, in reality, they do not include. We include what reliable sources write about 302s, not what you think they say. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

45.50.213.176 - First, you are misrepresenting what is written in the link you provided. Second, the link you provided is not complete, it's been edited. Who edited it & why is it cut off? Third, your unintentional misrepresentation of your link underscores why we absolutely need the secondary sourcing. Muboshgu has been correctly advising you on that. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

More to your point, Flynn did admit to lying, but that actually doesn't matter according to the government's own documents. Then again, that's a very complicated argument the government is making. Only an AP reporter would be able to interpret that for me in a way I could understand.45.50.213.176 (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You see these primary documents one way, and I see them the accurate way, so yes, we need the secondary sourcing. And in this case, secondary sources aren't even bothering because there's nothing there worth writing about. I'm done responding here, your sarcastic tone is not appreciated. If other editors wish to engage here, they're welcome to. If you don't like this article not being identical to the Conservapedia version, I suggest you get told the same things by some other editors that I've told you at WP:BLP/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The public deserves to know the truth. These documents are the truth. No additional interpretation from the AP or Reuters is necessary for people to understand the contents of these files. These are not physics papers on quantum mechanics we are discussing here. That said, physics papers can actually be used as source material for articles on Wiki without any interpretation from the AP or Reuters news services, even though 99.9% of the public has no idea what the contents of those papers mean.45.50.213.176 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I just added Comey's "no physical indications of deception" quote to the article, using this Fox News article as a source. 45.50.213.176 - the best thing to do is find media sources such as this one for these facts. There's really no point arguing with the WP:PRIMARY guideline - no one here has the power to overturn it, even if that guideline were a bad idea (which it's not). Korny O'Near (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, I support that. We stick with what the sources say, not what we think the primary documents say. We don't try to right great wrongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, no, they aren't mind readers. They are FBI agents who are trained to spot deception. They said they saw no signs of deception in his body language, not that there was no deception in his words. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, now we have three editors who think that the "no physical indications of deception" quote should stay in the article (if you count 45.50.213.176), compared to one who just removed it. Is that enough to establish consensus...? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not DUE to mention that FBI agents could not spot deception from merely looking at him. It gives readers, who are not aware that deception-spotting is pseudoscience, the false impression that Flynn was not telling lies to the FBI. Would we include content to any BLP that law enforcement judged someone to be deceptive based on physical behavior? Of course not, it's pseudoscientific nonsense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The FBI agents told Comey about it, Comey told Congress about it, and some news outlets reported on it. So clearly not everyone thinks it's pseudoscience. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not pseudoscience, but it's true that even FBI agents aren't very good at detecting deception. That's beyond the scope of this article though. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM to discuss the Flynn case. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@45.50.213.176: Did you even read the motion to dismiss? They dismissed it with prejudice because it is not a crime to lie to FBI unless it is material, nobody should care what he said to the russians about our sanctions when FBI has the call transcipt and when... You know it is just like with impeachment that should have been dismissed, because you cannot usually allege crime over/using phone call. And judge thought it was material because of Van Grack, the same one that created a deal (that he did not notify the court of) about his son. So that is why nobody covered it yet. But this immidiatelly changed when Trump tweeted about missing 302... Just look into Catherine Herridge on twitter on latest news, like a petetion for writ of mandamus (yes!). Remember Hillary Clinton just lost with her mandamus, it would be wonderful if this one will work out. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Yeah, the level of government malfeasance in this prosecution is completely off the charts. I hold little hope for the mandamus petition because the DC appellate courts are some of the most corrupt and biased in the country. I have every expectation they will give Sullivan carte blanch to run this show trial for as long as he likes, which I'm sure they are hoping lasts until well after the elections in November. 45.50.213.176 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Article Now Seems More Balanced

This article is much improved in just 3 days. It is much more balanced. Thanks to all involved in trying to do this! Is the old Wiki back?67.10.206.161 (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for Edit

The portion in the article about Democrats going after Flynn for emoluments charges seems to be only political. I have done a large search about what came of that and nothing seems to have been done, they may have requested it, but it seems to be for political reasons more so than for facts. If someone can reference any further action on it from RS that showed he is actually did break emoluments law, please list below, if none can be found, this section should be removed including references: "On February 1, 2017, the ranking Democratic members on six House committees sent a letter to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, requesting a Department of Defense investigation into Flynn's connection to RT.[76] The legislators expressed concern that Flynn had violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution by accepting money from RT.[76]

A 2017 report by the United States Intelligence Community characterized RT as "The Kremlin's principal international propaganda outlet" and said that RT America is set up as an autonomous nonprofit organization "to avoid the Foreign Agents Registration Act".[77][78]"67.10.206.161 (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

Add the below to the section regarding Judge sullivan's decision to delay the Government's dismissal motion and appoint Attorney GLeeson to file an amicus brief:

On Tuesday, May 19, 2020, General Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, filed a writ of mandamus in the DC Circuit Court Of Appeals. To support her filing, Attorney Powell cited the US Supreme Court's recent, unanimous decision of May 7, 2020, US v Sineneng-Smith, 500 US _, "The district court's sua sponte of an amicus to oppose the Government's motion and its Minute Order to issue a schedule for additional amici are at loggerheads with the unanimous Supreme Court opinion in United States v Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67 (US May 7, 2020)." The writ of mandamus also cites the DC Circuit's leading case on the issue, US v Fokker Servs, BV, 818 F.3d 733, "The district court's failure to grant the Government's Motion To Dismiss defies this Court's binding precedent . . ." 2604:6000:1209:C114:A9B3:800E:F31:2BB0 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Also add "On May 21, 2020, the US Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia demanded that Judge Sullivan respond to them by May 31, 2020, to explain why he did not dismiss charges against Gen. Flynn when the Government dropped their case against him. 67.10.206.161 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC) added an additional reference. 2604:6000:1209:C114:A9B3:800E:F31:2BB0 (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like some form of this has been added Cannolis (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for additional information

Comey admits that General Flynn did not pass sensitive information to Russian Ambassador. I use this article ONLY to show that Comey stated it. It is a POV article from MSM and has demonstrably false editorial content in it to try to spin about the spying on an incoming administration. But it does have Comey's comment about Flynn not passing classified info to Russia. Since it is considered a RS I use it. The problematic portion of the article is "Rice wrote that Comey voiced concern about sharing “sensitive information” relating to Russia with Flynn in light of the FBI learning he had spoken about U.S. sanctions policy with Kislyak and then lied about it to incoming Vice President Mike Pence." Pence has sense said he was informed by the FBI later that Flynn lied to him. But this is fruit from the poisonous tree that the writer of the article is trying to pass off now and has nothing to do with Rices email. Thus editorializing from a biased viewpoint for spin.67.10.206.161 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Peter Strzok notes implicate VP Biden and P Obama

Looks like you missed Peter Strzok notes from today, right? Joe Biden, Joe Biden. BTW, so much for protective order, IMHO en banc is not happening anymore. In notes VP is Biden, P is Obama. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-raised-logan-act-in-oval-office-discussion-about-flynn-peter-strzok-notes-show And this "And Strzok appears to quote Obama as suggesting the FBI assign “the right people” to pursue the case." Source is latest from Solomon. 109.252.171.205 (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

So, high levels of the Obama administration became aware of Flynn's criminal activities and wanted to have it investigated. And you think this shows malfeasance on the Obama administration's side? Also if the "Solomon" you're referring to is John Solomon, remember that his "reporting" on Burisma has been debunked. I guess he moved on to the next Biden-related conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Political rhetoric

This edit [5] was added to the Trump administration transition section, based on this source [6]. First, it is inaccurate because it was Sean Spicer who reportedly asked or mentioned the question during a press briefing - not the Trump Administration. Second, this merely serves to throw shade [7] on the Obama Administration.

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

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

Well, is not it obvious? I mean, Obama used Flynn to throw shade on Trump. Why you put a link to a dictionary, lol? There is that same idiom in most languages. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:C448:C2D1:34E6:F0DD (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I linked to a dictionary because some people at certain age groups might not be "hip" [8]and understand the latest "cool" jargon. :0) But I really don't have any reliable data on this phenomenon that backs up that assertion. Can you dig it? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It should be removed, but I've at least made it so it's faithful to the source. Sean Spicer's opinion on this is not objective and it's certainly not suitable for placement in an encyclopedia biography. - MrX 🖋 01:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: really good copy edit. I'm glad you noticed the best parts were left out :o) I don't mind having it in the article now. At least it's truthful. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

And Now We Know Why All Articles On Conservatives Is Biased

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

Which has no influence on editing of content in articles. Bye bye. -- Valjean (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing abnormal about disliking Donald Trump. Rest assured that I do not take my cues from Jimmy Wales. starship.paint (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Valjean:. This article is really good. I will read through the whole thing shortly. --Steve Quinn (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought you'd appreciate it. It's from a subject expert RS we often use. -- Valjean (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no even mentioning Flynn's son in the article, Logan act was never used in court with FLYNN, even FBI understood it is crazy to use never used act. Practically every sentence is a lie, like about interference, Crowstrike said in ODNI transcipts that they do not know if it was russia, so the key part of russian interference is a wrong now, etc. And about trollfarm it looks like it was just zenofobia from people like you. BTW, nice work on fact checking Valjean in Steele dossier article, loved it. I can give a further analysis of that article later. 94.29.3.116 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic. WP:NOTAFORUM Troll behavior
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow, the article is bizzare. Look here "Mr. Flynn, as the incumbent [sic] National Security Advisor", that "sic" means the author knows nothing about how all of it works, remember Ivanka Trump is Incumbent, as noted in Wikipedia article about her! That is important, because if e.g. Trump is Putin's puppet he is still untouchable since the time he is Incumbent. Nothing can be done about him, that is the beauty of this! Better look in this, wow, sane opinion from Washington Times! https://washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/28/editorial-it-time-end-political-prosecution-michae/ 94.29.3.116 (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC) References

AP fact-check on unmasking

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh, can we just post editorials now? Is adding a little parenthetical afterwards enough to get you around WP:NOTAFORUM? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC) A fact check from the Associated Press is an "editorial" how? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Like many pieces in the fact check genre, it's "opinion journalism thinly disguised as straight reporting", as the Wall Street Journal put it a long time ago. (Hey, can I post a long excerpt from that piece too?) Korny O'Near (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC) You can call it what you want, but that doesn't make it any less factual. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts (Moynihan), and when their opinions conflict with the facts in RS, they should bring their opinions into alignment with those facts (Valjean). -- Valjean (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC) @Korny O'Near: - you're using a 2008 article in the Wall Street Journal to discredit a 2020 fact-check by the Associated Press? Impressive. starship.paint (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Thank you. I'm not trying to discredit it, just explaining my view that it's opinion masquerading as straight reporting. Interestingly, no one here is defending the actual issue, which is that a long copy-paste like that doesn't belong on a talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Is the copy-paste the real issue? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC) "nothing illegal about unmasking." That is false, it is illegal to unmask for political purposes (see testimony of NSA director), especially if you already knew the most of the details but want to know more juicy info to then leak it to President Obama (and Obama leaked it to Yates) (that was done by Chief of Staff of Obama) or to the press (that was done by Biden, even though we know that leaks were also before 12th, Biden I think was the one to leak it). We all know it is very illegal to do so, even if Flynn was russian agent. "The declassified document also states that the unmasking requests were approved through the National Security Agency’s “standard process.”" That is a lie, and a misleading lie at that. NSA form that releases the names who asked for unmasking requests has this as a standard stamp, there is nothing informative in those words. "Trump and his supporters have made the unmasking of Flynn one of their major talking points, claiming that it proves the Obama administration unfairly and illegally targeted Flynn and other Trump associates." That is a lie, after all to say that Obama did a crime while leaking the information to Yates is difficult. No, the main reason is Peter and Lisa. They at least twice (emails and sms) mentioned that "POTUS wants to know everything" (sms, Obama at that time) and that White House is watching for Crossfire Razor and Cross Wind. We need to "brief" them (emails). "Trump points to unspecified conspiracies" he is not his press secretary anymore. It is not his job to do so; press secretary did the job and told us all that we need to know, article is misleading in that as well. "increased during the first years of the Trump administration from the final year of the Obama administration." And how it increased during Obama administation. 94.29.3.116 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Good thing the unmasking was with good cause and not for political purposes. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC) You and I both know that it was done not for political purposes. It was done for criminal purposes to overthrow duly elected but not incumbent at the time President Donald J Trump, i.e., treason, just like what Poroshenko is being prosecuted for (but there it is high treason as it was Biden who ruled Ukraine, that is high treason for allowing foreign governence). 94.29.3.116 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Those are some strong BLP-violating claims. NOTFORUM comments against RS should not be allowed here. -- Valjean (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Muboshgu, we need REVDEL and site ban for NOTHERE. -- Valjean (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC) I AM here. Also https://tass.com/world/1158287 about Poroshenko, if you miss the story it is your problem. Zelensky said that he will not stop the prosecution yesterday. 94.29.3.116 (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Valjean, I don't know that these do violate BLP. It's unconstructive and we should close this thread at a minimum. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Muboshgu the completely counterfactual screed, including accusing Biden of treason, is a serious violation of FORUM and BLP, and this is part of a pattern from this Russian IP. It needs to stop. -- Valjean (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Nobody is accusing Biden of treason. What? 94.29.3.116 (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Ah! So you must be referring to Poroshenko, and that's still a false accusation against him. Biden, Kerry, and Poroshenko were just carrying out the international community's attempts to eradicate corruption in Ukraine, and getting rid of Viktor Shokin, the corrupt Prosecutor General, was part of that effort by the international community. Your source of trusted (mis)information seems to be TASS, a Russian propaganda outlet, and Derkach, who studied at Moscow's FSB Academy, which trains Russian intelligence agents. That's why your narrative is contrary to the RS we use here at Wikipedia. We do not subscribe to pro-Putin/Trump propaganda here. -- Valjean (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC) May I remind you both this is not a forum for either of your conspiracy theories. PackMecEng (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No I do not want this article to be used for the reasons said in spoiler above. Also here is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEiOvs5BUwc Zelensky about high treason of Poroshenko for allowing foreign governance from USA. 94.29.3.116 (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your recent comments seem to be contrary to what reliable sources, and our articles based on those reliable sources, say on the topic. In fact, they seem to be coming from the narratives pushed by unreliable sources. Keep in mind that the claims you are making are about actions related to the reasons Trump was impeached, and, ever since then, he and Russia have been trying to cover-up Trump's improper behavior by pushing false narratives. That includes his further attempts to force Zelensky to back that false pro-Russian narrative. Here we base our content on RS, not on those false narratives from the unreliable sources you have mentioned.

Your comments are striking directly at the primacy of RS as the arbiters of proper POV and narrative on the subjects in question. This is very problematic in talk page discussions, where comments should seek article improvement. Pushing ideas that are not based on RS cannot lead to article improvement, and are therefore violations of our talk page guidelines and a misuse of the talk page as a forum. Starting down this path is tendentious and cannot lead to any good. That is why we have had to hat your comments and on some other pages to entirely delete your comments.

Discussion cannot substitute for creating reliably-sourced content. The way forward for you is to use only RS in your discussions, and provide precisely worded proposed improvements, together with the RS you would use to back up your proposal. That way the discussion will be focused on content improvement and not on your opinions. -- Valjean (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you should settle down. Disagreeing with a reliable source is not "problematic" in the least. Sometimes reliable sources even contradict each other. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)