• 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!

Flynn/Kislyak transcripts released

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
49,275
Reaction score
55,006
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well Flynn was going to be the national security adviser for the Trump administration.
 
Just for reference, here's the 302 Strozk produced regarding the January 24th "interview" with Flynn - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjI9aLWiNrpAhVGj54KHVJ4Cg8QFjAAegQINRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.documentcloud.org%2Fdocuments%2F5633260%2F12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0Xdx2SHcYNMNMmw3j3pzhD

You can compare what Flynn's answers to Pientka were with the call transcripts. I'd suggest that calling his answers "a lie" is a bit of a stretch.
 
Just for reference, here's the 302 Strozk produced regarding the January 24th "interview" with Flynn - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjI9aLWiNrpAhVGj54KHVJ4Cg8QFjAAegQINRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.documentcloud.org%2Fdocuments%2F5633260%2F12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0Xdx2SHcYNMNMmw3j3pzhD

You can compare what Flynn's answers to Pientka were with the call transcripts. I'd suggest that calling his answers "a lie" is a bit of a stretch.


Please highlight the part that totally exonerates Flynn?
 
So the transcripts have been looked over many times by the FBI/government.
They were not bringing any charges because of the phone call so not sure what people
think there is going to be? New administration's talk with other government official's when
there is a transition in progress.

The silly talk about the Logan act is exactly that... silly!
 
Flynn Calls 1 | Politics | International Relations | Free 30-day Trial | Scribd

I've read through what there is and, for those interested in some "smoking gun" WRT Flynn, well, good luck with that.

I won't say that sanctions weren't discussed but if I was going to open up a Logan Act case based on the conversation...well.....there just ain't a whole lot there.

Seems pretty stupid of him to lie then, huh?



PSA, reminder about obstruction:

_____________
The person doing the obstructing need not have committed a crime and neither does someone they may have been trying to protect from prosecution; indeed, the obstructor need not have intended to protect anyone from prosecution. The person doing the obstruction need not have succeeded in impeding the investigation.


United States v. Durham, 432 Fed. Appx. 88 (2013)

United States v. Rickie Durham – CourtListener.com

3rd Circuit case. Police officer has a sister of a childhood friend, and this sister is dating a bad dude being investigated by the feds. Officer contacts the childhood friend to warn of coming raids and that if the boyfriend goes down so does the childhood friend's sister. The bad boyfriend also learned of this and instructed various co-conspirators.

Part of holding: That the officer's intent was simply to protect his childhood friend's sister - a person who committed no crime - but not to actually obstruct the investigation into the bad boyfriend does NOT mean he could not be convicted of obstruction of justice. As usual, they cite black latter law as part of the decision:

To prove obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, the Government must establish: "(1) that there was an agency proceeding; (2) that the defendant was aware of that proceeding; and (3) that the defendant intentionally endeavored corruptly to influence, obstruct or impede the pending proceeding." United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 325 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Bhagat, 436 F.3d 1140, 1147 (9th Cir. 2006)); see also United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153, 174 (2d Cir. 2006).



Id. at 91. Note the absence of any requirement that the person doing the obstructing having done anything criminal (other than the obstructing), the absence of any requirement that the person doing the obstructing even be under investigation in the first place, and the absence of any requirement that the person have succeeded in obstructing.

_________________





Don't like it? Change the law. But you won't because the only reason you people care is that Flynn was on Team Trump, just like all the other scandals you squawk about. And you won't because you don't actually want people to be able to lie to the police because reasons. You don't want illegal alien drug dealers getting off scot free because someone said "process crime! Entrapment!"

You just want Team Trump to go free.
 
Last edited:
Please highlight the part that totally exonerates Flynn?

There is no reason to "totally exonerate" Flynn. He did discuss what he would prefer the Russian response to diplomatic expulsions to be. His answer in the "interview" with Strozk and Pientka was "not really" and, based on the transcript, that's a valid answer. His conversation with Kislyak on the subject was neither substantive nor protracted. It didn't discuss specific policy or specific intent. There wasn't any discussion regarding what Trump administration responses would be. There wasn't any discussion of promises one way or the other. It was merely an acknowledgement of the situation and a very reasonable expression of Flynn's preference that things not get out of hand.
 
I won't say that sanctions weren't discussed but if I was going to open up a Logan Act case based on the conversation...well.....there just ain't a whole lot there.

Did he discuss sanctions or not? He did. So he lied to the FBI. Why? Why didn't he just tell the truth or say he didn't want to discuss it? Why did he need to lie? Why did so many in Trump's campaign need to lie?

I'll tell you why. They were afraid the American people wouldn't like it if they learned the Trump campaign was negotiating and working with an enemy nation.

That's the simple truth. Why can't you accept it? Oh, because it's party before truth, just like the Soviets, right Comrade?
 
Seems pretty stupid of him to lie then, huh?

Like I said, calling anything Flynn said to the FBI a "lie" is a stretch. Section 1001 requires that the false statement be "material" and nothing Flynn said could REASONABLY be called a material falsehood.
 
There is no reason to "totally exonerate" Flynn. He did discuss what he would prefer the Russian response to diplomatic expulsions to be. His answer in the "interview" with Strozk and Pientka was "not really" and, based on the transcript, that's a valid answer. His conversation with Kislyak on the subject was neither substantive nor protracted. It didn't discuss specific policy or specific intent. There wasn't any discussion regarding what Trump administration responses would be. There wasn't any discussion of promises one way or the other. It was merely an acknowledgement of the situation and a very reasonable expression of Flynn's preference that things not get out of hand.

Then there are the two times Flynn pleaded, (i always thought “pled was the past tense of plead,) guilty.....?
 
It was merely an acknowledgement of the situation and a very reasonable expression of Flynn's preference that things not get out of hand.

You can't be serious. You can't. You're trying to be literal in a very dishonest way.
 
Did he discuss sanctions or not? He did. So he lied to the FBI. Why? Why didn't he just tell the truth or say he didn't want to discuss it? Why did he need to lie? Why did so many in Trump's campaign need to lie?

I'll tell you why. They were afraid the American people wouldn't like it if they learned the Trump campaign was negotiating and working with an enemy nation.

That's the simple truth. Why can't you accept it? Oh, because it's party before truth, just like the Soviets, right Comrade?

Why so much drama? The call transcripts don't show any impropriety and comparing them to the 302 doesn't show any material falsehoods. It's a TOTAL nothingburger.
 
Why so much drama? The call transcripts don't show any impropriety and comparing them to the 302 doesn't show any material falsehoods. It's a TOTAL nothingburger.

"mateial falsehood"? Nice spin. He lied. And he's not the only person in Trump's campaign who lied. They lied to deceive the American people about their relationship with the Russian government.

You would be furious if a Democrat had done this. And you would be right to. Russia is a NATO enemy. They are actively working to undermine NATO governments. They have invaded and are occupying parts of Ukraine. There is absolutely no reason for this conversation or to talk about reducing sanctions.

And wasn't it Trump's claim that nobody was tougher on Russia than him? That conversation sure doesn't sound tough.
 
Like I said, calling anything Flynn said to the FBI a "lie" is a stretch. Section 1001 requires that the false statement be "material" and nothing Flynn said could REASONABLY be called a material falsehood.

I'm not going to get into materiality because you simply are not a lawyer and I've had it up to here with laymen acting like their personal opinion of what a word in a statute means controls. There's a reason lawyers tend to be expensive: it's actually quite a lot of hard ****ing work. You'd have to skim/read hundreds if not thousands of cases to find ones where there was a similar factual set-up as in Flynn's situation, see what the various courts said, and then weave an answer out of this wordly cloth. You'd have to have working understanding about how jurisprudence worked. You'd have to read the most important cases cited by the decisions you relied on to see what they said, as to what facts. You might even have to trace a line of jurisprudence back fifty years, depending on the argument.

You can't just say "well, it says material and layman me thinks this is not material". That's nothing. A fart in a hurricane.



So I'll ask the layman's question: Then why'd he plead guilty?

He isn't some poor minority defendant who has to choose between staying in jail for a full year before trial, thus losing job/housing/everything, who is thrust into a deliberately underfunded public defense system. He was a man of means and connections. Those people don't plead guilty despite innocence.

He could afford good lawyers. He wasn't facing the prospect of maybe sitting in jail as long as his potential sentence simply for asserting a right to trial. That's what happens to poor people who don't get bail, not people like Flynn. So why'd he plead, if it's so obvious he was innocent that even layman Lutherf can see it?

Why?
 
I'm not going to get into materiality because you simply are not a lawyer and I've had it up to here with laymen acting like their personal opinion of what a word in a statute means controls. There's a reason lawyers tend to be expensive: it's actually quite a lot of hard ****ing work. You'd have to skim/read hundreds if not thousands of cases to find ones where there was a similar factual set-up as in Flynn's situation, see what the various courts said, and then weave an answer out of this wordly cloth. You'd have to have working understanding about how jurisprudence worked. You'd have to read the most important cases cited by the decisions you relied on to see what they said, as to what facts. You might even have to trace a line of jurisprudence back fifty years, depending on the argument.

You can't just say "well, it says material and layman me thinks this is not material". That's nothing. A fart in a hurricane.



So I'll ask the layman's question: Then why'd he plead guilty?

He isn't some poor minority defendant who has to choose between staying in jail for a full year before trial, thus losing job/housing/everything, who is thrust into a deliberately underfunded public defense system. He was a man of means and connections. Those people don't plead guilty despite innocence.

He could afford good lawyers. He wasn't facing the prospect of maybe sitting in jail as long as his potential sentence simply for asserting a right to trial. That's what happens to poor people who don't get bail, not people like Flynn. So why'd he plead, if it's so obvious he was innocent that even layman Lutherf can see it?

Why?

Like has been said over and over again, he took the plea to end the expense of a defense.
 
Last edited:
Liks has been said over and over again, he took the plea to end the expense of a defense.

End then moved to withdraw guilty plea, and get Trump through back channels to get Barr to force a motion to dismiss charges, incurring even more expense?

:lamo


See this is why you don't get taken seriously. You spit out things random lying propagandists on Fox say as if they are truth. As if you claiming someone else said that the only reason he plead guilty was "to end the expense of a defense" means that that is, in fact, why he plead guilty.

You can't know that, not unless there are actual recorded conversations between Flynn and his original attorneys (and I cannot imagine why there would be, unless it was written correspondence) and Flynn waived attorney-client privilege to them (I can't imagine why), AND those recordings bore that out.

You aren't operating based on facts. You just tell any lie and act like it's the truth. The sole goal is to protect Team Trump and tell yourself that all the ugliness you engage in is justified because look at what those meanyhead liberals made you do.

You'll say it even though Flynn's next move was to invite much more expense. Instead of merely paying lawyers through a trial, he is now paying lawyers to litigate this unprecedented motion to dismiss, to fight about it in the circuit court too, yadda yadda. Just like a 9/11 truther, your conspiracy theory defeats itself. It makes no sense because you never thought it through beginning to end.


Pure, unmitigated bull.





And here's a little clue: when you're a man of means and connections, "expense" is a hell of a lot better than a felony conviction. If you're acquitted you can get back on your feet. Completely different than the poor guy who cannot afford bail but knows he is innocent asking himself whether he could spend as much or more than the max sentence waiting for trial, lose everything in pursuing trial, be acquitted, and then be homeless...
 
Calling some of his answers "not a lie" is a real stretch.
 
Flynn Calls 1 | Politics | International Relations | Free 30-day Trial | Scribd

I've read through what there is and, for those interested in some "smoking gun" WRT Flynn, well, good luck with that.
Luck is not necessary. All you need is the ability to read English.

FLYNN: So, you know, depending on, depending on what uh, actions they take over this current issue of the cyber stuff, you know, where they're looking like they're gonna, they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that and I understand that - that, you know, the information that they have and all that, but what I would ask Russia to do is to not - is -is - if anything -because I know you have to have some sort of action -to, to only make it reciprocal. Make it reciprocal. Don't - don't make it don t go any further than you have to. Because I don't want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?

KISLYAK: I understand what you're saying - but you know, you might appreciate the sentiments that are raging now in Moscow....


FLYNN: We don't need to, we don't need that right now, we need to - we need cool heads to prevail, and uh, and we need to be very steady about what we're going to do because we have absolutely a common uh, threat in the Middle East right now.

KISLYAK: We agree.

FLYNN: We have to eliminate this common threat.

KISLYAK: We agree. One of the problems among the measures that have been announced today is that now FSB and GRU are sanctions, are sanctioned, and I ask myself, uh, does it mean that the United States isn't willing to work on terrorist threats?

FLYNN: Yeah, yeah.


Bam. Obviously discussing recent sanctions, obviously trying to influence Russia not to take action. Clearly interfering in foreign policy while still a citizen with no official role whatsoever.

As a reminder, the Logan Act reads:

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.


I won't say that sanctions weren't discussed but if I was going to open up a Logan Act case based on the conversation...well.....there just ain't a whole lot there.
lol

You've completely missed the point.

The FBI didn't launch a brand-new investigation into Flynn because of a possible violation of the Logan Act. They were still investigating foreign interference in the US election, and finding things along the way.

I'm confident that Flynn's real concern wasn't about getting busted for the Logan Act, which has almost never been enforced. He was probably more worried that these conversation going public would get him fired before he even started his new job. Therefore, he lied to Pence, Spicer and Priebus about the conversation. Then, like a total blithering idiot, he lied to the FBI -- when he should have known full well that they recorded every second of Kislyak's phone calls.

I assure you, this was not the first time in human history that the coverup turned out to be a more serious crime than the original act.
 
Michael Flynn case: Justice Department drops criminal case - CNNPolitics

One of our brighter DP Cult members reviewed transcripts, then began a thread to argue on behalf of Flynn's innocence. Fortunately, Flynn's fate remains in limbo.

Washington (CNN)Nearly 2,000 former Justice Department employees criticized Attorney General William Barr for moving to drop the charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn last week, saying in an open letter published Monday that Barr had "assaulted the rule of law" and calling for him to resign.

Ex-DOJ employees pen open letter criticizing Barr over move to drop charges against Flynn - CNNPolitics

While we wait for Flynn's drama to play out, let us enjoy the prospect of 'Making America Great Again' by dumping Trump.
 
Flynn Calls 1 | Politics | International Relations | Free 30-day Trial | Scribd

I've read through what there is and, for those interested in some "smoking gun" WRT Flynn, well, good luck with that.

I won't say that sanctions weren't discussed but if I was going to open up a Logan Act case based on the conversation...well.....there just ain't a whole lot there.

LOL, yeah....no.

We've seen what happens when Barr releases classified, redacted documents before. Experience informs us that much of what remains redacted by Barr will prove why Flynn lied.

When the next administration takes over, we'll see it. And Barr will not be immune from prosecution.
 
I'm not going to get into materiality because you simply are not a lawyer and I've had it up to here with laymen acting like their personal opinion of what a word in a statute means controls. There's a reason lawyers tend to be expensive: it's actually quite a lot of hard ****ing work. You'd have to skim/read hundreds if not thousands of cases to find ones where there was a similar factual set-up as in Flynn's situation, see what the various courts said, and then weave an answer out of this wordly cloth. You'd have to have working understanding about how jurisprudence worked. You'd have to read the most important cases cited by the decisions you relied on to see what they said, as to what facts. You might even have to trace a line of jurisprudence back fifty years, depending on the argument.

You can't just say "well, it says material and layman me thinks this is not material". That's nothing. A fart in a hurricane.



So I'll ask the layman's question: Then why'd he plead guilty?

He isn't some poor minority defendant who has to choose between staying in jail for a full year before trial, thus losing job/housing/everything, who is thrust into a deliberately underfunded public defense system. He was a man of means and connections. Those people don't plead guilty despite innocence.

He could afford good lawyers. He wasn't facing the prospect of maybe sitting in jail as long as his potential sentence simply for asserting a right to trial. That's what happens to poor people who don't get bail, not people like Flynn. So why'd he plead, if it's so obvious he was innocent that even layman Lutherf can see it?

Why?

He was bankrupted, lost his home with lawyer costs, and was threatened to have his son dragged into it.

What a crock................as usual from you.

You are a team player with no interest in the truth.
 
He was bankrupted, lost his home with lawyer costs, and was threatened to have his son dragged into it.

What a crock................as usual from you.

You are a team player with no interest in the truth.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here, Mr. "Team Player": not only do I actually have training in experience in how the criminal court system works (I will not call it a "justice" system), but the fact that you lot defend people on Team Trump with absurdist conspiracy theories and lies, expecting to be taken seriously despite you not giving half of a **** about all the poor minority defendants who get steamrolled.

You don't care about justice. But you somehow think anyone other than yourself is going to be fooled by your fake outrage squawking. We aren't. I'm not. You don't know what you're talking about and you don't care about what it is anyway. You're the people who defend police just about no matter what they do. You're the people who would never dare complain about a faulty issue of warrant that nabbed an illegal alien drug dealer.

Pure partisanship with you. Hence your volume: you've got to drown your own consciousness of guilt out.
 
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here, Mr. "Team Player": not only do I actually have training in experience in how the criminal court system works (I will not call it a "justice" system), but the fact that you lot defend people on Team Trump with absurdist conspiracy theories and lies, expecting to be taken seriously despite you not giving half of a **** about all the poor minority defendants who get steamrolled.

You don't care about justice. But you somehow think anyone other than yourself is going to be fooled by your fake outrage squawking. We aren't. I'm not. You don't know what you're talking about and you don't care about what it is anyway. You're the people who defend police just about no matter what they do. You're the people who would never dare complain about a faulty issue of warrant that nabbed an illegal alien drug dealer.

Pure partisanship with you. Hence your volume: you've got to drown your own consciousness of guilt out.

LOL

You are a self admitted hater of anything conservative/republican according to the post you made a few days ago.

I see nothing but hate in your posts.
 
Back
Top Bottom