Byron York: Comey told Congress FBI agents didn't think Michael Flynn lied

[j-mac]

In March 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed a number of Capitol Hill lawmakers on the Trump-Russia investigation. One topic of intense interest was the case of Michael Flynn, the Trump White House national security adviser who resigned under pressure on Feb. 13 after just 24 days in the job.There were widespread reports that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about telephone conversations that he, Flynn, had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition in late December 2016. On Jan. 24, 2017, two of Comey's FBI agents went to the White House to question Flynn, and there was a lot of speculation later that Flynn lied in that interview, which would be a serious crime.

"The Jan. 24 interview potentially puts Flynn in legal jeopardy," the Washington Post reported in February. "Lying to the FBI is a felony offense."

snip

According to two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. As a result, some of those in attendance came away with the impression that Flynn would not be charged with a crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-comey-told-congress-fbi-agents-didnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896

While all 'anti Trumpers' are hoping beyond hope that Flynn is in some kind of daily brief with Muller's team and compiling some kind of iron clad case against him, it appears that even those with agenda's within the Muller team didn't think that Flynn lied.

So the question, why'd he take the plea?

Many said at the time that it was Weisman [sic], and this has his brand of fingerprint all over it...That this man threatened to go after Flynn's son, and with Flynn going broke over legal fees at a breakneck pace, he took one plea. The article from York goes on:

"To some Republicans, it appears the Justice Department used a never-enforced law and a convoluted theory as a pretext to question Flynn — and then, when FBI questioners came away believing Flynn had not lied to them, forged ahead with a false-statements prosecution anyway. "

This is unbelievable.

Thoughts?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

While all 'anti Trumpers' are hoping beyond hope that Flynn is in some kind of daily brief with Muller's team and compiling some kind of iron clad case against him, it appears that even those with agenda's within the Muller team didn't think that Flynn lied.

So the question, why'd he take the plea?

Many said at the time that it was Weisman [sic], and this has his brand of fingerprint all over it...That this man threatened to go after Flynn's son, and with Flynn going broke over legal fees at a breakneck pace, he took one plea. The article from York goes on:

"To some Republicans, it appears the Justice Department used a never-enforced law and a convoluted theory as a pretext to question Flynn — and then, when FBI questioners came away believing Flynn had not lied to them, forged ahead with a false-statements prosecution anyway. "

This is unbelievable.

Thoughts?

Doubtful...Tell ya what...When you stop falling to "anonymous sources" say, and getting all bent out of shape about dumb ****, then I might actually take you seriously.

lolol

 

[jmotivator]

Well, it appears that Flynn is reversing his plea based on Revelations of investigator misconduct. Sorry for the spoilers, folks, but I told you this would happen.

Now wait and see if the charges are dropped. I am going to say that they will drop the charges to avoid putting the investigation under a microscope in court.

 

[Cardinal]

Sooooooooo....what....Pence lied to the American people knowingly?

 

[Fishking]

While all 'anti Trumpers' are hoping beyond hope that Flynn is in some kind of daily brief with Muller's team and compiling some kind of iron clad case against him, it appears that even those with agenda's within the Muller team didn't think that Flynn lied.

So the question, why'd he take the plea?

Many said at the time that it was Weisman [sic], and this has his brand of fingerprint all over it...That this man threatened to go after Flynn's son, and with Flynn going broke over legal fees at a breakneck pace, he took one plea. The article from York goes on:

"To some Republicans, it appears the Justice Department used a never-enforced law and a convoluted theory as a pretext to question Flynn — and then, when FBI questioners came away believing Flynn had not lied to them, forged ahead with a false-statements prosecution anyway. "

This is unbelievable.

Thoughts?

The FBI gets people with this bull**** "crime" all the time. Misremember a date? That's lying to the FBI and a felony. How should that even be a felony in the first place? It's ridiculous.

 

[Cardinal]

Well, it appears that Flynn is reversing his plea based on Revelations of investigator misconduct. Sorry for the spoilers, folks, but I told you this would happen.

Now wait and see if the charges are dropped. I am going to say that they will drop the charges to avoid putting the investigation under a microscope in court.

Flynn is reversing himself? Do you have a link from a legitimate source for this? I googled "Flynn" and "reversal" and all I got was hits for right wing rags.

 

[Cardinal]

The FBI gets people with this bull**** "crime" all the time. Misremember a date? That's lying to the FBI and a felony. How should that even be a felony in the first place? It's ridiculous.

For those of us here in the United States, what's the penalty for lying to the SVR RF?

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Flynn is reversing himself? Do you have a link from a legitimate source for this? I googled "Flynn" and "reversal" and all I got was hits for right wing rags.

I believe the rumor mill is churning in response to this story from The Federalist...

How A Michael Flynn Plea Reversal Could Uncover Federal Corruption

On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.

Just a week ago, and thus before Sullivan quietly directed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team to provide Flynn’s attorneys “any exculpatory evidence,” Washington Examiner columnist Byron York detailed the oddities of Flynn’s case. The next day, former assistant U.S. attorney and National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy connected more of the questionable dots. York added even more details a couple of days later. Together these articles provide the backdrop necessary to understand the significance of Sullivan’s order on Friday.

I guess we all have to wait and see because this is all speculative at this point.

 

[Acadia]

I've thought Flynn wanted to protect his idiot son.
We'll see if this gains traction. The Left will lose their minds if charges are dropped.

 

[jmotivator]

Flynn is reversing himself? Do you have a link from a legitimate source for this? I googled "Flynn" and "reversal" and all I got was hits for right wing rags.

It is speculation now based on the motions in the federal court in the Flynn case. The judge granted a motion an has ordered Mueller to provide any exculpatory evidence with regard to the Flynn investigation. This is an odd request if they are planning to follow through on the guilty plea.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...aised-about-fbi-robert-mueller-investigation/

 

[Cardinal]

I believe the rumor mill is churning in response to this story from The Federalist...

How A Michael Flynn Plea Reversal Could Uncover Federal Corruption



I guess we all have to wait and see because this is all speculative at this point.

That's what I found too, and it's highly presumptuous, let alone speculative. The author made a rather extraordinary leap from "ordered to turn over discoverable evidence" to "plea reversal may be in the works."

Anyway, if this proves more than speculation then it'll show up in a legitimate news source in due time.

For all that Trump supporters have dumped on the fake media and anonymous sources, it is more than a little funny to see them eating up blatant speculation like this.

Edit: Oh, and Washington Examiner isn't MSM.

 

[NeverTrump]

While all 'anti Trumpers' are hoping beyond hope that Flynn is in some kind of daily brief with Muller's team and compiling some kind of iron clad case against him, it appears that even those with agenda's within the Muller team didn't think that Flynn lied.

So the question, why'd he take the plea?

Many said at the time that it was Weisman [sic], and this has his brand of fingerprint all over it...That this man threatened to go after Flynn's son, and with Flynn going broke over legal fees at a breakneck pace, he took one plea. The article from York goes on:

"To some Republicans, it appears the Justice Department used a never-enforced law and a convoluted theory as a pretext to question Flynn — and then, when FBI questioners came away believing Flynn had not lied to them, forged ahead with a false-statements prosecution anyway. "

This is unbelievable.

Thoughts?

There are at least four other people Mueller is talking to who he has made deals with. If Flynn reverses on his deal with Mueller all it will show is his own corruption, hypocrisy and destroy any legacy he hoped to leave behind before his death.

 

[Bubba]

The FBI gets people with this bull**** "crime" all the time. Misremember a date? That's lying to the FBI and a felony. How should that even be a felony in the first place? It's ridiculous.

Maybe lying in a discussion forum should be a crime.... he he

 

[Fishking]

For those of us here in the United States, what's the penalty for lying to the SVR RF?

Dude...I already owned you on this. Why do you continue to show yourself to be such a fool? It's embarrassing.

 

[Cardinal]

Dude...I already owned you on this. Why do you continue to show yourself to be such a fool? It's embarrassing.

What are you talking about? I just asked you what the penalty for lying to the SVR is. Why so defensive?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The FBI gets people with this bull**** "crime" all the time. Misremember a date? That's lying to the FBI and a felony. How should that even be a felony in the first place? It's ridiculous.

lying isn't the same as misstating. Lying requires intention. I don't know how you can't understand that.

 

[ludin]

Well, it appears that Flynn is reversing his plea based on Revelations of investigator misconduct. Sorry for the spoilers, folks, but I told you this would happen.

Now wait and see if the charges are dropped. I am going to say that they will drop the charges to avoid putting the investigation under a microscope in court.

THis whole things stinks of investigator misconduct.
this whole thing was a Kangaroo investigation from the get go just as we said it was.

 

[radioman]

" To some Republicans, it appears the Justice Department used a never-enforced law and a convoluted theory as a pretext to question Flynn — and then, when FBI questioners came away believing Flynn had not lied to them, forged ahead with a false-statements prosecution anyway. "

Aren't GOPers always prattling on about how important the "rule of law" is?
An allegedly "never-enforced law" is still a law, right?
I would think the Repubs would want all laws on the books to be enforced.

This is unbelievable.

No, not really.......hypocrisy in politics is all too common.

 

[Fishking]

What are you talking about? I just asked you what the penalty for lying to the SVR is. Why so defensive?

Lol...you're such an empty suit, utterly comical. Maybe this is a case of "me thinks though dost protest too much" on your part. Where are you from, eh, comrade?

 

[Fishking]

lying isn't the same as misstating. Lying requires intention. I don't know how you can't understand that.

You're correct, but what you don't understand is how governmental power is abused.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That's what I found too, and it's highly presumptuous, let alone speculative. The author made a rather extraordinary leap from "ordered to turn over discoverable evidence" to "plea reversal may be in the works."

Anyway, if this proves more than speculation then it'll show up in a legitimate news source in due time.

For all that Trump supporters have dumped on the fake media and anonymous sources, it is more than a little funny to see them eating up blatant speculation like this.

Edit: Oh, and Washington Examiner isn't MSM.

Well to be brutally honest The Washington Times IS mainstream media, and the Examiner pretty much echoes the same boilerplate.

 

[Cardinal]

Lol...you're such an empty suit, utterly comical. Maybe this is a case of "me thinks though dost protest too much" on your part. Where are you from, eh, comrade?

First the bullying, then the ad homs, now the "No puppet!, no puppet, you're the puppet!" routine. This is certainly a familiar pattern.

So again, is lying to the SRV a crime?

 

[Cardinal]

Well to be brutally honest The Washington Times IS mainstream media, and the Examiner pretty much echoes the same boilerplate.

Neither the Washington Times nor the Washington Examiner is MSM.

 

[Fearandloathing]

While all 'anti Trumpers' are hoping beyond hope that Flynn is in some kind of daily brief with Muller's team and compiling some kind of iron clad case against him, it appears that even those with agenda's within the Muller team didn't think that Flynn lied.

So the question, why'd he take the plea?

Many said at the time that it was Weisman [sic], and this has his brand of fingerprint all over it...That this man threatened to go after Flynn's son, and with Flynn going broke over legal fees at a breakneck pace, he took one plea. The article from York goes on:

"To some Republicans, it appears the Justice Department used a never-enforced law and a convoluted theory as a pretext to question Flynn — and then, when FBI questioners came away believing Flynn had not lied to them, forged ahead with a false-statements prosecution anyway. "

This is unbelievable.

Thoughts?

You've answered your own question.

When I see phrases like "some republicans think..." I tune out"

 

[Paperview]

Why is this in Breaking News when it was published over a week ago?

I also would not think the Wash. Ex. tabloid is MSM.

ETA: Just checked the rules: "• Dateline within the past 48 hours"

NOT Breaking News.

Also: "III - The following types of articles may not be posted in the *BN* forum:

• Articles that meet the above standards, but contain overly partisan commentary and/or are otherwise clearly biased.
• Editorials and Op/Ed pieces."