• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The curious case of Michael Flynn: Timeline of twists and turns in ex-official's prosecution

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,217
Reaction score
28,851
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/case-michael-flynn-timeline

Special Counsel Robert Mueller faces a Friday afternoon deadline to turn over documents related to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s first interview with federal prosecutors, marking the latest twist in his turbulent prosecution dating back to his fateful Jan. 24, 2017 interview with agents at the White House.

Flynn’s legal team earlier this week made the bombshell allegation that the FBI had pushed him not to bring a lawyer to that interview. His attorneys further claim Flynn was not advised that any false statements he made could constitute a crime, as he was questioned about communications with the Russian ambassador.


Now, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is tasked with overseeing Flynn’s criminal case, is demanding details from Mueller and seeking 302s—or FBI documents memorializing interviews with witnesses. 302s are often critical pieces of evidence in false statements cases where, as in the Flynn case, the FBI does not have recordings. Sullivan is weighing Flynn's sentencing, following recommendations from Mueller’s office of little to no prison time for the former Army lieutenant general.
It's high time Mueller gets investigated, and while they're at it, get the 302s from Hillary's interviews. I'm sure they exist, right?
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
31,159
Reaction score
15,940
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/case-michael-flynn-timeline


It's high time Mueller gets investigated, and while they're at it, get the 302s from Hillary's interviews. I'm sure they exist, right?

Yeah this Flynn thing is disturbing.
I'm anxious to hear what Sullivan says.
Supposedly there's a timeline type of chart that details the FBI actions in gthe documents the Judge requested.
Curious to see if it explains the 6 month lag time in writing the 302.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
40,559
Reaction score
46,988
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/case-michael-flynn-timeline


It's high time Mueller gets investigated, and while they're at it, get the 302s from Hillary's interviews. I'm sure they exist, right?

Mueller will not turn over the documents and the judge will do nothing about it. We have already seen how this kind of thing plays out. Somebody comes up with evidence that the "resistance" has buried exculpatory evidence, it makes a blip on some right wing news blog, a judge or a senator or a congressman makes a demand with a time limit, the time limit is ignored, the evidence never materializes and everyone moves on to the next "LOOK WHAT TRUMP DID!" event.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,217
Reaction score
28,851
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Mueller will not turn over the documents and the judge will do nothing about it. We have already seen how this kind of thing plays out. Somebody comes up with evidence that the "resistance" has buried exculpatory evidence, it makes a blip on some right wing news blog, a judge or a senator or a congressman makes a demand with a time limit, the time limit is ignored, the evidence never materializes and everyone moves on to the next "LOOK WHAT TRUMP DID!" event.

Judge needs to send Mueller a note that says US Marshals will be sent in to clean out his office, if he doesn't comply.
 

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
7,605
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
A general ... the National Security Advisor ... needed to be told it was a crime to lie to the FBI.

Well, I'm sure he'll get his transcripts, but what a shabby excuse for lying to the FBI. "I didn't know it was against the law to lie to the FBI, so I lied to them. Because ... duh ... I was a member of Trump's administration. You thought I would tell the truth without being threatened with jail time?"


Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Just like it has been interesting to see how all the rest of the legal troubles of Trump's criminal associates have played out. Mueller may have made some mistakes along the way, but I'm sure he'll be able to show he and his team took a whole lot more care to do their jobs right than Trump and his administration have taken in their jobs.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
12,948
Reaction score
10,215
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I love right wing fantasy.
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
17,349
Reaction score
8,272
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Mueller will not turn over the documents and the judge will do nothing about it. We have already seen how this kind of thing plays out. Somebody comes up with evidence that the "resistance" has buried exculpatory evidence, it makes a blip on some right wing news blog, a judge or a senator or a congressman makes a demand with a time limit, the time limit is ignored, the evidence never materializes and everyone moves on to the next "LOOK WHAT TRUMP DID!" event.

This particular Judge as I understand doesn't roll that way. He has a history of smashing prosecutors who play fast and loose. I hope performs as he has previously. I also understand he had a run in previously with one of Mueller's attorneys.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
31,159
Reaction score
15,940
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mueller will not turn over the documents and the judge will do nothing about it. We have already seen how this kind of thing plays out. Somebody comes up with evidence that the "resistance" has buried exculpatory evidence, it makes a blip on some right wing news blog, a judge or a senator or a congressman makes a demand with a time limit, the time limit is ignored, the evidence never materializes and everyone moves on to the next "LOOK WHAT TRUMP DID!" event.

They need this Judge. I believe he's the sentencing Judge.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
40,559
Reaction score
46,988
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
They need this Judge. I believe he's the sentencing Judge.

I'm sure the judge is straight up. I'm sure he's a good guy. I'm equally sure that he'll have no power whatsoever to enforce the demand he made.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,062
Reaction score
36,295
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"Enron did nothing wrong" is a new hot take from right wingers.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
17,612
Reaction score
6,988
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"Enron did nothing wrong" is a new hot take from right wingers.
"F*$K Justice" is the new battlecry of the American left.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,062
Reaction score
36,295
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"F*$K Justice" is the new battlecry of the American left.

:lamo

Due process of law is being followed, dude. You just hate the outcome. What does that say about your opinion of justice?
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
31,159
Reaction score
15,940
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm sure the judge is straight up. I'm sure he's a good guy. I'm equally sure that he'll have no power whatsoever to enforce the demand he made.

He does have the power to refuse to accept the prosecutors' sentencing recommendations and to dismiss the charges instead.
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Judge needs to send Mueller a note that says US Marshals will be sent in to clean out his office, if he doesn't comply.

If that were to happen, as is typical behavior inside the Beltway, Mueller's folks would get busy with a shredder.
 

Atomic Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
14,709
Reaction score
5,314
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
He does have the power to refuse to accept the prosecutors' sentencing recommendations and to dismiss the charges instead.

He also has the power to impose sentencing greater than what was recommended. Which was 0 to 6 months. So given the charges he was facing why you want to mess with that recommendation? This is one one those be careful what you ask for scenarios because the materials requested will likely expose the weakness of this claim because up to now the DOJ has never had the opportunity to write it's own explanation for what happened with Flynn's interview and now Sullivan is giving them the opportunity to do just that. And Flynn, unlike Papadopoulos, being a man with the kind of stellar background and experience that would clearly suggest that he more than most anyone else ought to have known better may induce the judge to impose jail time even if government wasn't seeking it. This could backfire spectacularly for Flynn.
 

Tanngrisnir

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,597
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
31,159
Reaction score
15,940
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He also has the power to impose sentencing greater than what was recommended. Which was 0 to 6 months. So given the charges he was facing why you want to mess with that recommendation? This is one one those be careful what you ask for scenarios because the materials requested will likely expose the weakness of this claim because up to now the DOJ has never had the opportunity to write it's own explanation for what happened with Flynn's interview and now Sullivan is giving them the opportunity to do just that. And Flynn, unlike Papadopoulos, being a man with the kind of stellar background and experience that would clearly suggest that he more than most anyone else ought to have known better may induce the judge to impose jail time even if government wasn't seeking it. This could backfire spectacularly for Flynn.

And they did just that ... with redactions.
They essentially said "Yeah we deceived Flynn, but he still lied to us"
So it's worse (for them) than it looked before.
From what was initially read in the memo, I said it looked like they made it look like the interview was just a chat among friends. Now it's definite ... that was intentional.
If there's a backfire it won't be against Flynn.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,415
Reaction score
21,583
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/case-michael-flynn-timeline


It's high time Mueller gets investigated, and while they're at it, get the 302s from Hillary's interviews. I'm sure they exist, right?

Well, this is a report in Newsweek from 12/01/17 indicating what Flynn lied about:

According to the charge announced Friday and a court filing dated November 30, Flynn made false statements to FBI agents on January 24. During that meeting, he lied about a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador on December 22, 2016. He told the agents that he “did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution,” and that the ambassador didn’t tell Flynn about Russia’s response to the request. The Washington Post reported in February that Flynn denied discussing sanctions against Russia with the ambassador.

The federal prosecutors also said that Flynn lied about a second conversation with the ambassador, which took place on December 29, 2016. He told the agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day.” He also told them he did not recall the ambassador’s then agreeing “to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.”
https://www.newsweek.com/michael-flynn-charged-special-counsel-russia-investigation-728304

Now none of what he discussed was in and of itself illegal, i.e. Flynn was doing his job at the time when discussing this stuff with Kislyak.

However, when questioned by FBI agents who had a transcript of the conversation thanks to secret monitoring, he denied that he said these things.

I have mentioned before how I believe it is more likely than not Flynn considered this was confidential information at that time and did not want this conversation "leaked" and used against the President to disrupt relations with Russia. (Which IMO is exactly what many people were trying to do at that time.)

So he lied about a discussion of something that was not a crime, and yet was charged for lying to investigators which is the ONLY crime they could come up with.

This is my problem with "lying to investigators" statutes; that a person can be convicted of not being honest while not under oath requiring one to be honest.

As also stated elsewhere, what you say in any conversation can already be used against you in a court of law by any witness directly involved in the conversation, to impugn your honesty. So why do we need criminal charges for lying to investigators if there is no seminal crime being lied about?
 
Last edited:

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
40,618
Reaction score
8,078
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A general ... the National Security Advisor ... needed to be told it was a crime to lie to the FBI.

Well, I'm sure he'll get his transcripts, but what a shabby excuse for lying to the FBI. "I didn't know it was against the law to lie to the FBI, so I lied to them. Because ... duh ... I was a member of Trump's administration. You thought I would tell the truth without being threatened with jail time?"


Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Just like it has been interesting to see how all the rest of the legal troubles of Trump's criminal associates have played out. Mueller may have made some mistakes along the way, but I'm sure he'll be able to show he and his team took a whole lot more care to do their jobs right than Trump and his administration have taken in their jobs.

Flynn copped a plea after Mueller's tactics of deceit, coersion, intimidation and extortion had bankrupted him. He was willing to take th eheat until Mueller told him that Flynn's sone would be attacked next.

This is not an investigation. It is either a witch hunt or an inquistion.

Every American needs to question the methods and practices of these goons. This is a disgrace.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/james-comey-michael-flynn-fbi-russia/2018/02/12/id/842983/

Former FBI director James Comey told lawmakers last March that the FBI agents who interviewed retired Gen. Michael Flynn, who briefly served in the Trump White House, said Flynn did not lie to them — which contradicts what the Russia probe has concluded.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner cited two sources familiar with meetings Comey had with lawmakers on Capitol Hill as saying they believed Flynn was telling the truth when asked about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during President Donald Trump's transition. An intercept of their phone calls led to the Department of Justice pursuing a Logan Act case against Flynn.



Read Newsmax: Report: Comey Told Lawmakers Flynn Didn't Lie to FBI | Newsmax.com
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump? Vote Here in Poll
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
40,618
Reaction score
8,078
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This particular Judge as I understand doesn't roll that way. He has a history of smashing prosecutors who play fast and loose. I hope performs as he has previously. I also understand he had a run in previously with one of Mueller's attorneys.

We can only hope.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
21,203
Reaction score
12,748
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I have mentioned before how I believe it is more likely than not Flynn considered this was confidential information at that time and did not want this conversation "leaked" and used against the President to disrupt relations with Russia. (Which IMO is exactly what many people were trying to do at that time.) So he lied about a discussion of something that was not a crime, and yet was charged for lying to investigators which is the ONLY crime they could come up with.
There are plenty of ways to try and keep that confidential and to not answer, etc., but lying to investigators is not one of them. ALso, investigators are obligated to keep such thigns confidential.
Irrelevant here though, because it was already leaked before that, that Flynn did in fact lie. It already wasn't confidential.

This is my problem with "lying to investigators" statutes; that a person can be convicted of not being honest while not under oath requiring one to be honest.
You're required to be honest to certain members of government at all times "under oath" is irrelevant. You can be silent, you can get your attorney, you can refuse, you can do all sorts of things other than answer their questions.
But you cannot lie. Surely you understand the difference, and why lying to investigators about material matters during an investigation, is a bad thing.

As also stated elsewhere, what you say in any conversation can already be used against you in a court of law by any witness directly involved in the conversation, to impugn your honesty. So why do we need criminal charges for lying to investigators if there is no seminal crime being lied about?
Journalists already broke the news that Flynn lied, and he still lied. That's on him.

These laws were fine when going after Democrats, but suddenly they are all wrong with Flynn? LOL. Because if criminals can lie about a conspiracy, where their testimony is often a large and significant part of the evidence since it's not a physical crime like a murder...then they would be able to simply lie and obstruct, and they could not be brought to justice.

Shameless.
 

pinqy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
6,563
Reaction score
2,718
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well, this is a report in Newsweek from 12/01/17 indicating what Flynn lied about:

https://www.newsweek.com/michael-flynn-charged-special-counsel-russia-investigation-728304

Now none of what he discussed was in and of itself illegal, i.e. Flynn was doing his job at the time when discussing this stuff with Kislyak.
18 USC 953
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Trying to get Russia to not retaliate for sanctions certainly qualifies.

However, when questioned by FBI agents who had a transcript of the conversation thanks to secret monitoring, he denied that he said these things.
Why do you think he lied if he, as you claim, did nothing illegal in his conversation? And it wasn’t just to FBI, it was to Pence and many others.
 
Top Bottom