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

[Captain Adverse]

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.

Really? Then why do you believe he was never charged with violation of this Statute along with lying about what you considered to be a violation of this Statute?

Let me provide a "possible" answer; i.e. that it was NOT a violation of the Statute as Flynn was doing what many servants of prior President-elect administrations have done. Thus NOT considered a violation?

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.

I could offer many possible reasons in speculation, one already presented being fear of leaks from "former and current officials" who we see were and still are willing to leak anything they consider might harm the incoming Administration.

As for why lie to Pence? Vice-Presidents have often been left out of the loop by Presidents who prefer to do so for all sorts of reasons, so bringing this up is a non-issue.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

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.

IMO none of that should matter if the lie has nothing to do with a seminal crime. As stated, there are all sorts of reasons one might "lie;" from simple memory failure, through an honest belief the inquirer has no need to know.

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.

No, my opinion on this issue is not "partisan." IMO they are not "fine" when going against anyone.

But since you are bringing up "whataboutism" (something I preferred not to do); what then is your opinion about the fact that Hillary Clinton "lied" to investigators about never having sent any "secret/confidential" information over her private server? No charges of "lying to investigators" there. :coffeepap:

 

[Mach]

IMO none of that should matter if the lie has nothing to do with a seminal crime. As stated, there are all sorts of reasons one might "lie;" from simple memory failure, through an honest belief the inquirer has no need to know.

Memory failure isn't a lie, why would you type that?
The statute is pretty clear on this:

knowingly and willfully making

Is memory failure "knowingly and willfully making"? No.

As to "honest belief the inquirer has no need to know", I've told you this at least twice, why are you not admitting you're wrong?
There are a wide variety of ways you can *honestly* engage the government in pursuing this "belief the inquirer has no need to know", including remaining silent, refusal to answer, etc.
Knowingly/willfully lying to them about things material to their work, is not one of those legal avenues.

But since you are bringing up "whataboutism" (something I preferred not to do); what then is your opinion about the fact that Hillary Clinton "lied" to investigators about never having sent any "secret/confidential" information over her private server? No charges of "lying to investigators" there. :coffeepap:

There was plenty of debate about the classification of those documents, and whether or not they were marked. That's into the weeds. As long as you are consistent in appying it personally.
FBI and the Inspector General found nothing worth prosecuting. Oh well. In this case, Mueller found something worth prosecuting.

 

[Atomic Kid]

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.

First I'll copy and paste a post I made to Mycroft in another thread about this so called "chat among friends" scenario.

Suppose for a moment if this was a 'friendly chat'. If McCabe believed that the counter-intelligence investigation into Flynn that had been open for months before this interview had not produced enough evidence to support a case. Then that might explain why this interview was set up with less rigor than what might otherwise be expected. As what had happened with Hillary's case being an analogous example. Perhaps McCabe wasn't expecting anything to be there with Flynn either. But remember what Comey has repeatedly said about the FBI's interview of Hillary is that the one thing by that point in the case that would've caused them to continue with the case against Hillary was if they had caught her lying to them. And therein lies the difference in that Flynn told obvious lies and Hillary did not. Whatever the circumstances were surrounding why it took Strzok several months to memorialize his interview of Flynn it doesn't change the fact that there is no dispute that the agents clearly recognized, right then and there, that Flynn had lied. McCabe confirmed the interviewing agent’s initial impression and stated that the “conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn’t detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview … the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.”

As to the redactions, I think this one in particular.



Means that Sullivan knows, even we don't, why Mueller thinks Flynns lies were so important and therefore may have a different understanding. So Sullivan's order could very well result in further documentation proving how shoddy these claims surrounding Flynn's interview really are and it may also reveal that Mike Flynn actually got special treatment that none of us would get if we were suspected of being recruited by Russian intelligence and other foreign actors. That redaction also puts emphasis on Flynn having told the same lies to seniors members of the transition team that they then repeated weeks before his interview with the FBI. So this wasn't a one time thing.

 

[pinqy]

Really? Then why do you believe he was never charged with violation of this Statute along with lying about what you considered to be a violation of this Statute?

Because no one has been charged with it since 1852 (if I recall) and no one has ever been convicted under it. So why a charge guaranteed to be controversial if you don’t need to?

Let me provide a "possible" answer; i.e. that it was NOT a violation of the Statute as Flynn was doing what many servants of prior President-elect administrations have done. Thus NOT considered a violation?

I have no knowledge of other incoming administration memembers making private deals with a foreign power without the knowledge or approval of the incoming or outgoing administration Do you have some examples?

 

[danarhea]

Because no one has been charged with it since 1852 (if I recall) and no one has ever been convicted under it. So why a charge guaranteed to be controversial if you don’t need to?


I have no knowledge of other incoming administration memembers making private deals with a foreign power without the knowledge or approval of the incoming or outgoing administration Do you have some examples?

I think Reagan hamstringing Carter on the Iranian hostage deal, then orchestrating the release as he was being inaugurated, qualifies as an example.

 

[pinqy]

I think Reagan hamstringing Carter on the Iranian hostage deal, then orchestrating the release as he was being inaugurated, qualifies as an example.

If it occurred, maybe. But that theory still fals into the category of conspiracy theory.

 

[American]

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.

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?

Flynn is no idiot, he knew his conversations were recorded.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Flynn is no idiot, he knew his conversations were recorded.

Then why did he lie? Did he think that they had not seen the transcripts of the calls? If there was nothing to hide then why not just tell the truth? That's the mystery here. What was it about discussing sanctions with the Russians that made it so important to conceal that truth from the FBI and the American people? And this seems to be a repetitive theme with many of the Trump people's contacts with the Russians. Maybe Flynn was able to shed some light on the reasons why he felt, and others felt, they had to lie about this to Mueller. Guess we shall have to wait to find out.

 

[MovingPictures]

Then why did he lie? Did he think that they had not seen the transcripts of the calls? If there was nothing to hide then why not just tell the truth? That's the mystery here. What was it about discussing sanctions with the Russians that made it so important to conceal that truth from the FBI and the American people? And this seems to be a repetitive theme with many of the Trump people's contacts with the Russians. Maybe Flynn was able to shed some light on the reasons why he felt, and others felt, they had to lie about this to Mueller. Guess we shall have to wait to find out.

Wrong question to ask.

The question is: why did he go to the interview? The answer is Flynn wanted to talk to the FBI just as much as they wanted to talk to him. Flynn wanted to know what the FBI was investigating, and was concerned the campaigns contacts with Russian nationals were under suspicion.

He probably didn't believe the FBI would refer criminal charges against him false statement, and believed his charm and lies would be enough to throw them off course.

 

[trouble13]

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.

Why not do it mueller style show up with a search warrant in the middle of the night and seize everything

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

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.

Yet when Hillary claims she didnt know the "C" in the header meant it was classified of that deleting gov documents that never were archived?

Yeah the ignorance of the law excuse isnt new and the left is perfectly comfortable with it when it suits them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Atomic Kid]

Why not do it mueller style show up with a search warrant in the middle of the night and seize everything

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

This should be good. Tell us then. Where has Mueller ever done that?

 

[trouble13]

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.

He worked at the military not the doj.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

This should be good. Tell us then. Where has Mueller ever done that?

Excuse me it was the SDNY

https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-cohen-justice-department-raid-on-trump-lawyer-2018-4

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Atomic Kid]

Excuse me it was the SDNY

https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-cohen-justice-department-raid-on-trump-lawyer-2018-4

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

See? I knew it would be good. BTW that Business Insider article says nothing about "showing up in the middle of the night". All it says is that SDNY had to jump through a lot of high level hoops in order to get their warrant to search the offices of a lawyer.

 

[Atomic Kid]

He worked at the military not the doj.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I'll let the Mueller's response to the Flynn defense team sentencing memo speak for itself as I doubt I could sum it up any more succinctly than he does here.

"
Mueller says FBI not to blame for Flynn’s false statements


WASHINGTON (AP) — The special counsel’s office is pushing back at the suggestion that the FBI acted improperly in its interview of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying he “chose to make false statements” and did not need a warning that it was against the law to do so.

The filing from special counsel Robert Mueller Friday comes four days before Flynn gets sentenced on a charge of lying to the FBI about his conversations with the then-Russian ambassador to the United States. It responds to a sentencing memorandum filed earlier this week by Flynn’s lawyers that suggested there were irregularities in how he was interviewed.


Trump associates who have pleaded guilty during the course of the Mueller investigation.

The back-and-forth between prosecutors and defense lawyers has created an unusual rupture in an otherwise harmonious relationship as prosecutors had praised Flynn as a model cooperator and recommended that he receive no prison time at his sentencing.

The disagreement is unlikely to affect Flynn’s chances for probation, but it’s attracted the attention of President Donald Trump, who said this week that Flynn did not lie despite having fired him nearly two years ago for just that reason. The matter may also become a point of debate at next Tuesday’s hearing, especially since the judge, Emmet Sullivan, has asked prosecutors to produce documents related to Flynn’s interview.

They did so Friday as they said “nothing about the way the interview the way was arranged or conducted caused the defendant to make false statements to the FBI.”

Prosecutors said Flynn had committed to a false story weeks before the Jan. 24, 2017, interview with the FBI, having lied several times already to White House officials about his dialogue with ambassador Sergey Kislyak and then repeating those falsehoods to federal agents.

Trump ousted him weeks after the FBI interview. White House officials said he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and others about his discussions on sanctions with Kislyak.

Prosecutors said Friday that Flynn voluntarily agreed to meet with the FBI without a lawyer present and had enough experience in government to understand the consequences of lying and “the importance of accurate information to decision making in areas of national security.”


The filing from the special counsel’s office.

“A sitting National Security Advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired Lieutenant General, and 33-year veteran of the armed forces knows he should not lie to federal agents,” Mueller’s prosecutors wrote. “He does not need to be warned it is a crime to lie to federal agents to know the importance of telling them the truth.”

 

[trouble13]

I'll let the Mueller's response to the Flynn defense team sentencing memo speak for itself as I doubt I could sum it up any more succinctly than he does here.

"
Mueller says FBI not to blame for Flynn’s false statements


WASHINGTON (AP) — The special counsel’s office is pushing back at the suggestion that the FBI acted improperly in its interview of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying he “chose to make false statements” and did not need a warning that it was against the law to do so.

The filing from special counsel Robert Mueller Friday comes four days before Flynn gets sentenced on a charge of lying to the FBI about his conversations with the then-Russian ambassador to the United States. It responds to a sentencing memorandum filed earlier this week by Flynn’s lawyers that suggested there were irregularities in how he was interviewed.


Trump associates who have pleaded guilty during the course of the Mueller investigation.

The back-and-forth between prosecutors and defense lawyers has created an unusual rupture in an otherwise harmonious relationship as prosecutors had praised Flynn as a model cooperator and recommended that he receive no prison time at his sentencing.

The disagreement is unlikely to affect Flynn’s chances for probation, but it’s attracted the attention of President Donald Trump, who said this week that Flynn did not lie despite having fired him nearly two years ago for just that reason. The matter may also become a point of debate at next Tuesday’s hearing, especially since the judge, Emmet Sullivan, has asked prosecutors to produce documents related to Flynn’s interview.

They did so Friday as they said “nothing about the way the interview the way was arranged or conducted caused the defendant to make false statements to the FBI.”

Prosecutors said Flynn had committed to a false story weeks before the Jan. 24, 2017, interview with the FBI, having lied several times already to White House officials about his dialogue with ambassador Sergey Kislyak and then repeating those falsehoods to federal agents.

Trump ousted him weeks after the FBI interview. White House officials said he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and others about his discussions on sanctions with Kislyak.

Prosecutors said Friday that Flynn voluntarily agreed to meet with the FBI without a lawyer present and had enough experience in government to understand the consequences of lying and “the importance of accurate information to decision making in areas of national security.”


The filing from the special counsel’s office.

“A sitting National Security Advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired Lieutenant General, and 33-year veteran of the armed forces knows he should not lie to federal agents,” Mueller’s prosecutors wrote. “He does not need to be warned it is a crime to lie to federal agents to know the importance of telling them the truth.”

I'm well aware of the opinion that you and others are happily parroting. He did not work in the DOJ. Maybe he should of known but didnt know it was a crime. I have no idea. Maybe he thought he was being asked about something that was classified so he lied. Whatever the reason I find it laughable for anyone who defends Hillary Clinton's abuses to be making the argument that Flynn should of known better.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Conaeolos]

My two cents is this...

Either this was Muller sitting on some good but not iron clad intel making this move early to intimidate needed witnesses to be forthcoming which he believed would be hard to crack without fear of the stick...

Or

This is apart of an egregious abuse of power and mass dangerous corruption used to attack on Trump and allies.

I was always privy to the latter, but the evidence was lacking till more recently including what we finding out about Fisa abuse and uranium one. The russians fighting back is most interesting development to me. This development seems more like standard investigative practice to me. Flynn starting to fight back though is intresting.

He should never have made the plea, they had nothing that’d would stand up; I deeply question his legal team(and others here) but since this attacking family trend is now a full out pattern. Can’t blame if just being a good father.

We’ll see Muller better have some unreported meat for his sake otherwise this is going to flip hard.

 

[trouble13]

See? I knew it would be good. BTW that Business Insider article says nothing about "showing up in the middle of the night". All it says is that SDNY had to jump through a lot of high level hoops in order to get their warrant to search the offices of a lawyer.

Sorry cant find a link for you reporting the time they raided his home but I seem to recall they showed up at his house at 4am

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Atomic Kid]

I'm well aware of the opinion that you and others are happily parroting. He did not work in the DOJ. Maybe he should of known but didnt know it was a crime. I have no idea. Maybe he thought he was being asked about something that was classified so he lied. Whatever the reason I find it laughable for anyone who defends Hillary Clinton's abuses to be making the argument that Flynn should of known better.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

What the hell does working at the DOJ have to do with anything? The man has worked at high enough levels of both the federal government and the military with the highest of security clearances in both to know better than what he did. So whatever he provided for the special counsel must have been very helpful because all that prior high level experience would warrant having the book thrown at him. And just stop with the Hillary comparisons because despite years of multiple investigations there hasn't been a damn thing turned up by any of them that you hang her on. Flynn told obvious and blatant lies and Hillary did not. That's the difference. Deal with it!

 

[Atomic Kid]

Sorry cant find a link for you reporting the time they raided his home but I seem to recall they showed up at his house at 4am

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

No such thing happened. They knocked on the door and Cohen answered and he later remarked that the agents were very polite, respectful and went about their business in a very professional manner.

 

[trouble13]

What the hell does working at the DOJ have to do with anything? The man has worked at high enough levels of both the federal government and the military with the highest of security clearances in both to know better than what he did. So whatever he provided for the special counsel must have been very helpful because that prior all that high level experience would warrant having the book thrown at him. And just stop with the Hillary comparisons because despite years of multiple investigations there hasn't been a damn thing turned up by any of them that you hang her on. Flynn told obvious and blatant lies and Hillary did not. That's the difference. Deal with it!

Lol @ the deal with it declaration. Deal with your own hypocrisy.

Even Comey admitted that Hillary did things that were illegal and you and others were content to defend her not being charged because she didnt know better. Please tell us how a woman with as much experience in the highest levels of government did not know the proper handling procedures for classified information.

The double standard by the left is on full display

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

No such thing happened. They knocked on the door and Cohen answered and he later remarked that the agents were very polite, respectful and went about their business in a very professional manner.

Are you claiming they didnt have a warrant or that it wasnt at 4am?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Risky Thicket]

What the hell does working at the DOJ have to do with anything? The man has worked at high enough levels of both the federal government and the military with the highest of security clearances in both to know better than what he did. So whatever he provided for the special counsel must have been very helpful because all that prior high level experience would warrant having the book thrown at him. And just stop with the Hillary comparisons because despite years of multiple investigations there hasn't been a damn thing turned up by any of them that you hang her on. Flynn told obvious and blatant lies and Hillary did not. That's the difference. Deal with it!

Bazinga!

According to Trouble Flynn is innocent because of Hillary. Hillary then can justifiably claim innocence because of the actions of J. Worthington Samuelson because he can justifiably claim innocence because Suzanne Harrington claimed justifiable innocence based on actions of someone before her and idiocy upon idiocy upon idiocy.

In Trouble’s reality that is how the rule of law works. It’s perfectly fine to pee on someone’s cornflakes as long as someone peed on yours and on and on. :roll: Trumpian logic.