• 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!

Declassified Transcripts of Flynn-Kislyak Calls Released

OpportunityCost said:
Come back when you are quoting what was held and not the minority dissent!

What was held was that amicus should not take up prosecution on behalf of the bench and should not be prejudicial. Gleeson wanted to do both. FYI the evidence of betrayal of the public trust generally occurs in evidence of corruption, in this instance the DoJ is withdrawing its prosecution as a relief to the corruption. Further, the leave of the court should only be needed when the judge suspects the prosecution believes that the prosecution will be attempting to use further prosecutions upon the defendant as a pattern to affect the defendant with repeated expenses and pressure. Leave of the court is worded broadly and ruled very narrowly, Sullivan was entirely outside his mandate, he was interfering directly with the prosecutorial discretion of the executive branch and was slapped down for it.

Sullivan was trying to take up the prosecution of the case through Gleeson when both sides agreed to walk away from the dispute, the judge has no basis on which to extend the dispute, its not his job or duty to do so.
Click to expand...

So much smoke.

And you never once mentioned that the defendant pleaded guilty.

At this point, if Flynn is going to walk, Trump will have to spend his fast dwindling political capital pardoning him.
 
TomFitz said:
So much smoke.

And you never once mentioned that the defendant pleaded guilty.

At this point, if Flynn is going to walk, Trump will have to spend his fast dwindling political capital pardoning him.
Click to expand...

Pleading guilty under coercion not revealed to the court isn't relevant.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Pleading guilty under coercion not revealed to the court isn't relevant.
Click to expand...

No one other than than a bunch of right wing disc jockeys and public relations people believed that.

That regiment already failed in court, although it is gospel truth to the right wing talk radio crowd.

Never mind that the National Security Advisor was on the payroll of the Turkish government, Never mind that he made specific policy commitments to the Russian government, as a private citizen, claiming to act officially on behalf of the President elect.

Besides, Flynn was running around like an idiot, involved in an entire portfolio of shady, half assed schemes. He was among the first of a long line of bag men, wannabe international men of mystery and flunkies, all running around peddling half baked schemes on the side. Like a supercharged Michael Cohen (who was among the group back then).
 
Last edited:
Ouroboros said:
It is not disingenuous to point out that Flynn may not have associated sanctions and expulsions when he answered the FBI, even if legally they amount to the same thing. The state of Flynn's mind is something on which I choose to speculate, even knowing that I'll never know the truth, while others don't give a rat's heinie.
Click to expand...

Flynn was not asked about economic sanctions. Flynn was asked, specifically, about the diplomatic expulsions. Flynn's responses indicate he understood that the FBI was concerned about diplomatic expulsions, not economic sanctions.

This is a very dumb point that Trump supporters are making, and had any of them spent any time reading the underlying documents they are commenting on they wouldn't be making this point.
 
TomFitz said:
No one other than than a bunch of right wing disc jockeys and public relations people believed that.

That regiment already failed in court, although it is gospel truth to the right wing talk radio crowd.

Never mind that the National Security Advisor was on the payroll of the Turkish government, Never mind that he made specific policy commitments to the Russian government, as a private citizen, claiming to act officially on behalf of the President elect.

Besides, Flynn was running around like an idiot, involved in an entire portfolio of shady, half assed schemes. He was among the first of a long line of bag men, wannabe international men of mystery and flunkies, all running around peddling half baked schemes on the side. Like a supercharged Michael Cohen (who was among the group back then).
Click to expand...

Then it shouldn't have been necessary to violate due process and his rights to convict him, should it?
 
Judge asks appeals court to reconsider decision forcing him to drop Michael Flynn case

The judge in Michael Flynn’s criminal case asked a federal appeals court Thursday to reconsider its ruling last month ordering him to dismiss the prosecution of the former national security advisor to President Donald Trump.

Judge Emmet Sullivan’s lawyer asked for a so-called en banc review of the decision of the appeals court, which would involve all active judges on the court to re-hear the case.
 
The DC Circuit US Court of Appeals has stayed its decision ordering Judge Emmet Sullivan to end former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn's criminal case while the entire en banc panel of appellate judges considers the issues.

Appeals court stays decision ordering judge to dismiss Michael Flynn case

So much "winning" for Trump these past few days.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Flynn was not asked about economic sanctions. Flynn was asked, specifically, about the diplomatic expulsions. Flynn's responses indicate he understood that the FBI was concerned about diplomatic expulsions, not economic sanctions.

This is a very dumb point that Trump supporters are making, and had any of them spent any time reading the underlying documents they are commenting on they wouldn't be making this point.
Click to expand...

I was speaking to your earlier point, that legally economic and diplomatic sanctions were the same thing--

Sanctions can mean either economic or diplomatic sanctions (which includes diplomatic expulsions:
Click to expand...

Flynn may not have correlated the two, and therefore might have dropped his guard before realizing that he was facing a false statement trap.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Flynn was not asked about economic sanctions. Flynn was asked, specifically, about the diplomatic expulsions. Flynn's responses indicate he understood that the FBI was concerned about diplomatic expulsions, not economic sanctions.
Click to expand...

Which was a separate and distinct executive order from the sanctions.
Meanwhile, Mueller charged Flynn with lying about the sanctions.

The question that has been asked, "Why did Flynn lie" about the sanctions. The implication is that the lie was part and parcel of his role in the conspiracy between the campaign and Russia-- trying to pay back Putin and his cronies. We now know they two didn't even discuss sanctions but instead spoke briefly about a bunch of expelled diplomats. In other words, there is even less reason to be "suspicious" of Mr. Flynn participation in any conspiracy. Which is simply more support as to the correctness of Barr's actions in dropping the charges.
 
Ouroboros said:
I was speaking to your earlier point, that legally economic and diplomatic sanctions were the same thing--



Flynn may not have correlated the two, and therefore might have dropped his guard before realizing that he was facing a false statement trap.
Click to expand...

Legally, the sanctions and expulsions were two separate executive orders. So legally, Flynn spoke about the sanctions.
The conflation between the two are by those who wish to make this a political issue.
Which means this prosecution and investigation was simply political in nature.
 
Ouroboros said:
Sullivan's trying to drag things out to the bitter end, but he can't win in the long run.
Click to expand...

The circuit court will have to order Sullivan to drop charges.
Or they will have to agree that the Judiciary has the power to tell the Executive who they must prosecute. Such a claim would be laughable.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The circuit court will have to order Sullivan to drop charges.
Or they will have to agree that the Judiciary has the power to tell the Executive who they must prosecute. Such a claim would be laughable.
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose they stayed the ruling from the panel this morning?
 
BlueTex said:
Why do you suppose they stayed the ruling from the panel this morning?
Click to expand...

The entire circuit will review it.
Standard operating procedure in such a circumstance.
 
Ouroboros said:
Flynn may not have correlated the two, and therefore might have dropped his guard before realizing that he was facing a false statement trap.
Click to expand...

You would do yourself a huge favor if you actually set aside time to read the underlying materials pertaining to the topic of this thread.

We know he didn't have the opportunity to become confused or drop his "guard" because the FBI asked him specifically about the diplomatic expulsions.

So, it's not like the FBI said, "Tell us about the sanctions." And Flynn was confused and could have mistakenly answered the FBI with economic sanctions in mind.

The FBI asked about the diplomatic expulsions specifically.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
You would do yourself a huge favor if you actually set aside time to read the underlying materials pertaining to the topic of this thread.

We know he didn't have the opportunity to become confused or drop his "guard" because the FBI asked him specifically about the diplomatic expulsions.

So, it's not like the FBI said, "Tell us about the sanctions." And Flynn was confused and could have mistakenly answered the FBI with economic sanctions in mind.

The FBI asked about the diplomatic expulsions specifically.
Click to expand...

And he was charged with lying about sanctions.
BTW-- why is it suspicious for Flynn to talk about expulsions?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
You would do yourself a huge favor if you actually set aside time to read the underlying materials pertaining to the topic of this thread.

We know he didn't have the opportunity to become confused or drop his "guard" because the FBI asked him specifically about the diplomatic expulsions.

So, it's not like the FBI said, "Tell us about the sanctions." And Flynn was confused and could have mistakenly answered the FBI with economic sanctions in mind.

The FBI asked about the diplomatic expulsions specifically.
Click to expand...

Were you not, in the section I quoted from your earlier post, arguing that there was no legal difference between sanctions and expulsions; that Flynn was in hot water no matter which he prevaricated about? You might want to clarify that dubious point before giving other posters advice.
 
Ouroboros said:
Were you not, in the section I quoted from your earlier post, arguing that there was no legal difference between sanctions and expulsions; that Flynn was in hot water no matter which he prevaricated about? You might want to clarify that dubious point before giving other posters advice.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my main point. My main point was that everyone involved in this issue, whether it was David Ignatius, Pence, the FBI, or Flynn, specifically referenced the diplomatic expulsions, not just sanctions, generally.

I did mention the term "sanctions" could refer to both economic sanctions and diplomatic sanctions, but I did not mention this to explain that Flynn was in hot water no matter what. I mentioned this to explain the reason why people in the media, pundits, and in the general public would sometimes refer to the diplomatic expulsions as sanctions. I did not explicitly state this, but I didn't think I had to. I just assumed you would all get it.

You might want to clarify that dubious point before giving other posters advice.
Click to expand...

If I erred it was in not being as precise as possible.

If you erred it was because you chose to comment on something you are ignorant of.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
That wasn't my main point. My main point was that everyone involved in this issue, whether it was David Ignatius, Pence, the FBI, or Flynn, specifically referenced the diplomatic expulsions, not just sanctions, generally.

I did mention the term "sanctions" could refer to both economic sanctions and diplomatic sanctions, but I did not mention this to explain that Flynn was in hot water no matter what. I mentioned this to explain the reason why people in the media, pundits, and in the general public would sometimes refer to the diplomatic expulsions as sanctions. I did not explicitly state this, but I didn't think I had to. I just assumed you would all get it.



If I erred it was in not being as precise as possible.

If you erred it was because you chose to comment on something you are ignorant of.
Click to expand...

No, your error remains that you did not understand my point and chose to obfuscate.

I did not confuse sanctions and expulsions. My entire point was focused on what Flynn thought at the time:

Flynn may not have correlated the two, and therefore might have dropped his guard before realizing that he was facing a false statement trap.
Click to expand...

One of your most enduring points was that any discussion of either sanctions or expulsions by an adviser who had not yet officially taken his position amounts to an undercutting of the policies of the previous administration. I have disagreed with you on that interpretation but am not seeking to convince you otherwise. I think it feasible, though, that Flynn might not have thought there was anything harmful in concealing the phone call from the FBI. He might have considered it his job to keep quiet about any matters that might embarrass the incoming administration. Maybe he was, to use your earlier word, "stupid" not to consider that the FBI might have wiretapped the call, but that doesn't explain the attempt to conceal the matter.

Slick Rahm Emmanuel is of late fond of boiling things down to a binary choice for Flynn: "Either lie or tell the truth." Emmanuel could care less why Flynn chose to cover up, and I assume you share his indifference. I'm aware that as a private citizen I'll never really know, but I'd prefer to build my understanding of the case on motivations rather than legalisms.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
I did mention the term "sanctions" could refer to both economic sanctions and diplomatic sanctions, but I did not mention this to explain that Flynn was in hot water no matter what. I mentioned this to explain the reason why people in the media, pundits, and in the general public would sometimes refer to the diplomatic expulsions as sanctions. I did not explicitly state this, but I didn't think I had to. I just assumed you would all get it.
Click to expand...

The reason it is referred to as :sanctions" rather than accurately "expulsions" is because it sounds better: The theory was that Flynn was conspiring with Russia and the removal of sanctions and all the economic hardship to the oligarchs as payback is more convincing than kicking out a bunch of diplomats.
So politically, misnaming is beneficial.
But of course, the previous question still stands- What is so suspicious about Flynn talking about expulsions?
 
Ouroboros said:
No, your error remains that you did not understand my point and chose to obfuscate.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that your point doesn't matter. There's nothing in any of the underlying material our discussion is based on that indicates Flynn may have mistakenly conflated the two.

I did not confuse sanctions and expulsions. My entire point was focused on what Flynn thought at the time:

Flynn may not have correlated the two, and therefore might have dropped his guard before realizing that he was facing a false statement trap.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in any of the underlying material our discussion is based on that indicates Flynn may have mistakenly conflated the two.

One of your most enduring points was that any discussion of either sanctions or expulsions by an adviser who had not yet officially taken his position amounts to an undercutting of the policies of the previous administration. I have disagreed with you on that interpretation but am not seeking to convince you otherwise.
Click to expand...

Please accurately characterize my argument.

1. The mere act of engaging in diplomacy without authorization was wrong on Flynn's part.

2. Further, it's not just the mere discussion of the expulsions that matters with respect to U.S. national interests. It's the fact that Flynn made it clear to Kislyak that the incoming administration would be more concerned about other issues and that retaliating against the U.S. would impede the incoming administration's ability to work with Russia on other issues. This had the effect of mitigating the punishing impact of the Obama administration's sanctions.

I think it feasible, though, that Flynn might not have thought there was anything harmful in concealing the phone call from the FBI.
Click to expand...

It flat-out doesn't matter if Flynn didn't think it was wrong to make false statements to the FBI. The knowledge that making false statements to the government is a crime isn't an element of the crime.

This potential excuse might make you feel better about Flynn personally, but it doesn't change anything we are discussing.

He might have considered it his job to keep quiet about any matters that might embarrass the incoming administration.
Click to expand...

It flat-out doesn't matter if Flynn didn't think it was wrong to make false statements to the FBI. The knowledge that making false statements to the government is a crime isn't an element of the crime.

This potential excuse might make you feel better about Flynn personally, but it doesn't change anything we are discussing.

Maybe he was, to use your earlier word, "stupid" not to consider that the FBI might have wiretapped the call, but that doesn't explain the attempt to conceal the matter.
Click to expand...

The prosecutors don't have to explain why Flynn attempted to conceal the matter.

Prosecutors don't have to prove the motive behind making false statements to the FBI in order to prosecute someone for making false statements to the FBI.

Slick Rahm Emmanuel is of late fond of boiling things down to a binary choice for Flynn: "Either lie or tell the truth." Emmanuel could care less why Flynn chose to cover up, and I assume you share his indifference. I'm aware that as a private citizen I'll never really know, but I'd prefer to build my understanding of the case on motivations rather than legalisms.
Click to expand...

Oh, I care why Flynn lied, it's just not relevant to the charge against Flynn, or to the idiotic accusations that the FBI did something wrong by interviewing Flynn, nor is it relevant to the prosecution of Flynn.

Sooner or later you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that Trump is a crook who surrounded himself with other crooks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom