Travesty
-
POTUS quote:
“He didn't tell the vice president of the United States the facts and then he didn't remember, and that's just not acceptable.”"I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence."
Actually, Trump asked Flynn to resign and Flynn submitted his resignation. Flynn was not actually fired.
Ah, “asked to resign” is not “fired.” Bill Clinton would be proud of you.
Hey, if Xenon can parse every word, why not?
POTUS quote:
“He didn't tell the vice president of the United States the facts and then he didn't remember, and that's just not acceptable.”"I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence."
Actually, Trump asked Flynn to resign and Flynn submitted his resignation. Flynn was not actually fired.
Ah, “asked to resign” is not “fired.” Bill Clinton would be proud of you.
Hey, if Xenon can parse every word, why not?
I did not say you cannot parse every word, I said only that Bill Clinton would be proud of you the way you parsed those words.
-
@George-K well, then he’s clearly a low integrity guy. Which is the actual assertion I’m making.
No. Again.
You asserted that he was fired because of inappropriate communications.
He resigned because he admitted to lying to VPOTUS.
Show me where he was fired because of what you claim were "inappropriate communications." You're moving goalposts.
@George-K well, then he’s clearly a low integrity guy. Which is the actual assertion I’m making.
No. Again.
You asserted that he was fired because of inappropriate communications.
He resigned because he admitted to lying to VPOTUS.
Show me where he was fired because of what you claim were "inappropriate communications." You're moving goalposts.
@xenon said:
POTUS quote:
“He didn't tell the vice president of the United States the facts and then he didn't remember, and that's just not acceptable.”"I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence."
Ah, so "lying" is "inappropriate communications."
Talk about parsing, LOL.
-
@George-K well, then he’s clearly a low integrity guy. Which is the actual assertion I’m making.
No. Again.
You asserted that he was fired because of inappropriate communications.
He resigned because he admitted to lying to VPOTUS.
Show me where he was fired because of what you claim were "inappropriate communications." You're moving goalposts.
@xenon said:
POTUS quote:
“He didn't tell the vice president of the United States the facts and then he didn't remember, and that's just not acceptable.”"I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence."
Ah, so "lying" is "inappropriate communications."
Talk about parsing, LOL.
@George-K there are a lot of arguments floating around here. So I’ll try to be clearer.
My main point has always been that Flynn is a liar and got fired for it. Got fired for low integrity.
As for the inappropriate part, I’ll admit I don’t know what the norm is here. I hear partisans arguing both sides. I can understand the notion of reaching out to your soon-to-be counterparts to get a running start, and I can also understand the part of not affecting policy (e.g. don’t escalate) until you are actually the administration in place. (From the Obama admin’s perspective, isn’t Flynn subverting their foreign policy?)
I don’t know anything about the legalities there.
Now - the reason why I say that the administration likely thought it was inappropriate is because they fired Flynn for his omission here. If it was a trivial or routine thing he misrepresented, then it’s easy to say - “we got our wires crossed” “Flynn, actually did a great job there, he should have told me about it more clearly” etc. etc.
But - yes, that is me interpreting. And in my mind that’s a secondary point. As I said to Jolly earlier in the thread “that’s not the point. But if it were...”
-
I don’t know anything about FARA violations.
In terms of him not lying to the FBI, is this what you’re talking about:
If I’m reading that correctly - the trained FBI agents didn’t see physical evidence of deception from Flynn, but they knew that his statements were inconsistent with the call.
So either he’s really forgetful, or a good liar.
Is there something more you’re referring to?
"Director Comey testified to the committee that 'the agents…discerned no physical indications 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,'" the report says, quoting Comey.
McCabe, the report continues, "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.'""
-
What, specifically, did he allegedly lie about, according to McCabe and Comey? What was the lie?
False Statements Regarding FLYNN’s Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia
- On or about January 24, 2017, FLYNN agreed to be interviewed by agents from the FBI (“January 24 voluntary interview”). During the interview, FLYNN falsely stated that he did not ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United States (“Russian Ambassador”) to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. FLYNN also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of FLYNN’s request..
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4319576-Flynn-Statement-of-Offense.html#text/p1
-
False Statements Regarding FLYNN’s Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia
- On or about January 24, 2017, FLYNN agreed to be interviewed by agents from the FBI (“January 24 voluntary interview”). During the interview, FLYNN falsely stated that he did not ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United States (“Russian Ambassador”) to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. FLYNN also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of FLYNN’s request..
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4319576-Flynn-Statement-of-Offense.html#text/p1
False Statements Regarding FLYNN’s Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia
- On or about January 24, 2017, FLYNN agreed to be interviewed by agents from the FBI (“January 24 voluntary interview”). During the interview, FLYNN falsely stated that he did not ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United States (“Russian Ambassador”) to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. FLYNN also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of FLYNN’s request..
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4319576-Flynn-Statement-of-Offense.html#text/p1
IOW, he simply may not have remembered. Apparently, you've never had to answer questions with an attorney present, give depositions or testify in court.
Flynn should have never consented to an interview without White House counsel present.
-
I don’t know anything about FARA violations.
In terms of him not lying to the FBI, is this what you’re talking about:
If I’m reading that correctly - the trained FBI agents didn’t see physical evidence of deception from Flynn, but they knew that his statements were inconsistent with the call.
So either he’s really forgetful, or a good liar.
Is there something more you’re referring to?
"Director Comey testified to the committee that 'the agents…discerned no physical indications 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,'" the report says, quoting Comey.
McCabe, the report continues, "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.'""
-
Not "fired." Rather "asked to resign."
Dana Boente, a longtime lawyer for the FBI, resigned on Saturday allegedly at the request of the Justice Department, following earlier allegations that he had worked to block the public release of exculpatory evidence in the Michael Flynn case.
Boente had been at the FBI for just under 40 years. Anonymous sources told NBC News on Saturday that the request for his resignation came from "high levels" of the Justice Department.
An FBI official told The Federalist in April that Boente "led the charge internally against DOJ’s disclosure" against allegedly exculpatory documents of Michael Flynn.
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Saturday commended Boente for serving in "many critical, high-level roles at the Department."
An FBI official told The Federalist in April that Boente "led the charge internally against DOJ’s disclosure" against allegedly exculpatory documents of Michael Flynn.
What?
Hidden "exculpatory evidence?" Is that like, evidence that he didn't lie?
And the guy who helped hide it "resigned" today.
Nothing to see...move along.
-
-
@George-K your own link caveats it with “allegedly”
An FBI official told The Federalist in April that Boente "led the charge internally against DOJ’s disclosure" against allegedly exculpatory documents of Michael Flynn..
So until that’s confirmed - I won’t comment on it.
-
Fair enough.
Any thoughts on why the attorney resigned? Did he want to spend more time with his family?
@George-K my guess would be that he’s ultimately responsible for the sloppy FISA warrants.
He signed off on them - and probably many more.
DOJ is probably pissed with the public loss of trust in FISA.
That’s gotta fall on someone senior.
That’d be my speculation (I’m guessing you can also interpret that as being exculpatory evidence - the Flynn FISA warrants being bad)
-
Mueller's team lied to the court when they say Flynn discussed sanctions:
The Statement of Offense professed that on Dec. 29, 2016, “FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.”
According to the Statement of Offense, during questioning by the FBI agents, “FLYNN falsely stated that he did not ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United States (‘Russian Ambassador’) to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia,” and “also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of FLYNN’S request.”
However, the transcripts released Friday establish that, contrary to the special counsel office’s attestation, Flynn never asked the Russian ambassador to “not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.” In fact, Flynn never raised the “U.S. Sanctions” — defined by the special counsel’s office as the sanctions announced by Obama Dec. 28, 2016, in Executive Order 13757 — with the Russian ambassador at all.
In that executive order, as summarized in a White House press release, Obama “sanctioned nine entities and individuals: the GRU and the FSB, two Russian intelligence services; four individual officers of the GRU; and three companies that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations.” The press release also detailed a number of additional Obama administration actions, beyond the sanctions, “in response to the Russian government’s aggressive harassment of U.S. officials and cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election.”
Of relevance to the Flynn case was the State Department “shutting down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes,” and declaring “‘persona non grata’ 35 Russian intelligence operatives.”
While the Obama administration ejected the Russian personnel in response to the Kremlin’s interference with the 2016 election, the expulsions were not part of Executive Order 13757 and thus were not “U.S. Sanctions” as defined in the Flynn Statement of Offense. This distinction matters because the recently released transcripts establish that Flynn did not ask Kislyak to do anything — or refrain from doing anything — in response to the sanctions.
And this isn't splitting hairs, the Mueller team knew the distinction in "sanctions."
First, as detailed above, Mueller’s team explicitly defined “U.S. Sanctions” in the Statement of Offense as the sanctions announced in Executive Order 13757, and the expulsions were not part of that executive order. Second, in its press release, the Obama administration distinguished between sanctions and other “actions” it was taking in response to Russia’s interference with the 2016 election, and the latter included the expulsions.
The special counsel’s report also distinguished between sanctions and other retaliatory measures, stating that Executive Order 13757 “imposed sanctions on nine Russian individuals and entities,” but then noting that “the Obama Administration also expelled 35 Russian government officials and closed two Russian government-owned compounds in the United States.”
Elsewhere, Mueller’s team distinguished between sanctions and other retaliatory measures by, for instance, stating that “on December 29, 2016, the Obama Administration announced that in response to Russian cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election, it was imposing sanctions and other measures on several Russian individuals and entities...”
Mueller’s team surely knew that the distinction between sanctions and expulsions mattered when it came to Flynn and his conversation with the FBI agents because shortly after Strzok and Pientka questioned Flynn, Flynn publicly refuted media reports that he had discussed sanctions with Russia. I had “a brief discussion of the 35 Russian diplomats who were being expelled by Obama in retaliation for Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 campaign. ‘It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out,’” Flynn stated.
-
Mueller's team lied to the court when they say Flynn discussed sanctions:
The Statement of Offense professed that on Dec. 29, 2016, “FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.”
According to the Statement of Offense, during questioning by the FBI agents, “FLYNN falsely stated that he did not ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United States (‘Russian Ambassador’) to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia,” and “also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of FLYNN’S request.”
However, the transcripts released Friday establish that, contrary to the special counsel office’s attestation, Flynn never asked the Russian ambassador to “not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.” In fact, Flynn never raised the “U.S. Sanctions” — defined by the special counsel’s office as the sanctions announced by Obama Dec. 28, 2016, in Executive Order 13757 — with the Russian ambassador at all.
In that executive order, as summarized in a White House press release, Obama “sanctioned nine entities and individuals: the GRU and the FSB, two Russian intelligence services; four individual officers of the GRU; and three companies that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations.” The press release also detailed a number of additional Obama administration actions, beyond the sanctions, “in response to the Russian government’s aggressive harassment of U.S. officials and cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election.”
Of relevance to the Flynn case was the State Department “shutting down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes,” and declaring “‘persona non grata’ 35 Russian intelligence operatives.”
While the Obama administration ejected the Russian personnel in response to the Kremlin’s interference with the 2016 election, the expulsions were not part of Executive Order 13757 and thus were not “U.S. Sanctions” as defined in the Flynn Statement of Offense. This distinction matters because the recently released transcripts establish that Flynn did not ask Kislyak to do anything — or refrain from doing anything — in response to the sanctions.
And this isn't splitting hairs, the Mueller team knew the distinction in "sanctions."
First, as detailed above, Mueller’s team explicitly defined “U.S. Sanctions” in the Statement of Offense as the sanctions announced in Executive Order 13757, and the expulsions were not part of that executive order. Second, in its press release, the Obama administration distinguished between sanctions and other “actions” it was taking in response to Russia’s interference with the 2016 election, and the latter included the expulsions.
The special counsel’s report also distinguished between sanctions and other retaliatory measures, stating that Executive Order 13757 “imposed sanctions on nine Russian individuals and entities,” but then noting that “the Obama Administration also expelled 35 Russian government officials and closed two Russian government-owned compounds in the United States.”
Elsewhere, Mueller’s team distinguished between sanctions and other retaliatory measures by, for instance, stating that “on December 29, 2016, the Obama Administration announced that in response to Russian cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election, it was imposing sanctions and other measures on several Russian individuals and entities...”
Mueller’s team surely knew that the distinction between sanctions and expulsions mattered when it came to Flynn and his conversation with the FBI agents because shortly after Strzok and Pientka questioned Flynn, Flynn publicly refuted media reports that he had discussed sanctions with Russia. I had “a brief discussion of the 35 Russian diplomats who were being expelled by Obama in retaliation for Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 campaign. ‘It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out,’” Flynn stated.
So - because of this thread I've actually read the conversation between Kislyak and Flynn.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2020/05/FlynnTranscripts.pdfI know news guys want to drive their particular narrative, but it's plain as day if you read it that Flynn isn't being precise about parsing sanctions vs. expulsions vs. other actions.
Flynn doesn't even seems completely sure as to the full totality of the Obama admin's actions.
Flynn wants to convey the following [to Moscow]: Do not allow this administration to box us in
right now! Kislyak says the have conveyed it very clearly.
Flynn: So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff, where they
are looking like they are going to dismiss some number of Russians out of the country. I
understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask
Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it
reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something
that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me?
And Kislyak does respond specifically talking about the actions against GRU and FSB (which are specifically part of the EO)
Kislyak agrees. Now when FSB and GRU are sanctioned and Kislyak asks himself, does it mean
that the U.S. is not willing to work on terrorist threats, Kislyak poses a question. Flynn says, yes.
Kislyak says he heard Flynn and he will try people in Moscow to understand.
I mean - Flynn never technically says the word "sanction" and Kislyak seems much more knowledge about the specific pieces at play. But Flynn is calling this whole topic "cyber stuff", so he's not exactly well versed with the terms at play here.
Page 10-11 of the linked PDF has the full convo.
