Jump to content

Talk:United States v. Flynn/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Possible structure for the page

Since we're creating a new page, I think it would be helpful to discuss the page structure. If we can arrive at some consensus for that, then we can create placeholder headings on the page, which should help us carry out the work of creating the draft. I'm proposing a structure below but am in no way wedded to it. I recognize that the section names are longer than they should be, but since I'm only proposing headings without any text, I want to at least include enough so that it's clear what the focus of the section would be.

1. Key stages of the case
1.1 Events leading up to Flynn being charged
1.1.1 Russian sanctions, Flynn's communication with the Russian Ambassador and Transition Team, public statements by Pence and Spicer
1.1.2 FBI interview, subsequent related discussion/actions (e.g., Yates with McGahn, Pence checking transcripts), Flynn firing
1.2 Plea bargain
1.3 Initial sentencing hearings
1.4 During delayed sentencing, Flynn changes counsel and approach
1.4.1 Motion for additional Brady material, subsequently denied
1.4.2 Personal declaration, motion to withdraw guilty plea, assertion of ineffective counsel
1.5 Government motion to dismiss and Judge Sullivan's initial response
1.6 Flynn petitions for writ of mandamus and appellate court panel's response

2. Noteworthy legal aspects
2.1 Government's conflicting statements (e.g., about materiality)
2.2 Flynn's conflicting statements and potential for perjury charge
2.3 Interpreting Rule 48(a) for a motion to dismiss in the sentencing phase
2.4 Amici in a criminal case
2.4.1 Assigning an amicus to argue against dismissal
2.4.2 Other amici in both the district and appellate cases
2.5 The writ of mandamus
2.6 Intersection with Bijan Rafiekian trial

3. Partisan debates about the case
3.1 Broader context
3.1.1 Special Counsel's Office investigation (incl. Trump to Comey re: "letting Flynn go")
3.1.2 Allegations of a "Russia(n) collusion hoax"/"Obamagate"
3.1.3Continued public release of related evidence (e.g., Flynn-Kislyak transcripts, meeting memorialized by Rice, House interview transcripts, handwritten notes)
3.2 Competing narratives and allegations specific to the case
3.2.1 Allegations that Flynn was coerced with threats to prosecute his son
3.2.2 The agents' sense of whether Flynn was lying
3.2.3 Allegations of a "perjury trap"
3.2.4 Allegations of Brady material having been withheld
3.2.5 Allegations of Judge Sullivan being biased
3.2.6 Allegations of Attorney General Barr acting to protect President Trump

What do people like/dislike about this, and what alternative do you think would be better? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

JapanOfGreenGables' suggestion, June 29, 2020

Just putting a break in bold so its easier to see where one person ends another begins.

There are some good points here. My concern is that it may deviate from the norms of how to structure a page on a court case. Take Brown v. City of Oneonta, for example. I don't necessarily think this article should look exactly like that one, as this case is more complex, but just to show how other District Court cases look. If we follow that model, it would have a break down like this.

1. Background
2. Investigation
3. Case

3.1 'District Court
3.2 Appeal (In Re: Flynn)

4. Reaction

It also has subsections for the district court and the appellate court. Therefore, a section could be added on In Re: Flynn there. It may be to soon to tell, but, I would interpret the relevancy requirements of the appellate case if it continues to be relevant. It's a relevant decision now, but, if it's never used as precedent and soon loses its important, I'm not sure it would warrant its own page other than a significant section in this page.

I think this is a good model. Or, a more detailed model could be adopted inspired by Supreme Court cases. My reasoning for this is that this is a complex case that warrants more sections given its connections to the 2016 election and the Mueller probe. I'm using Citizens United v. FEC as an example for this breakdown. It is modified to conform to the case.

1. Case Summary
2. Background
3. In the District Court
4. In the Appellate Court
5. Subsequent Developments

5.1 This is anticipating that there will be some implications to the District Court's opinion, and new developments after the District Court's final disposition.

6. Responses
7. Political Impact

7.1 Here too I'm anticipating that there will be political implications to the final disposition.

The sub-points are not points that can be added at this time, as the trial hasn't yet concluded. Because it's a bench trial, there will be a judgment from the Court, which generally would warrant a discussion of its reasoning. However, given the appellate decision, it may be short. However, the December ruling on Brady materials and evidence would warrant a discussion of the Court's reasoning. It's detailed enough.

If we were to go with this more detailed breakdown, I think a lot of the points you list under part 1 could go under Background, and legal aspects in part 1 could go under In the District Court or In The Appellate Court. Number 3's points could go under background, subsequent developments, and political impact. As for 2, I'm not sure where those would go. Maybe Noteworthy Legal Aspects would warrant its own section, in which case I would include it after "In the Appellate Court."

That's my two cents — that we follow a model closer to those used in other cases at the district level, and/or of similar notoriety and importance.

JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion and JapanOfGreenGables:: about structure and other things, here are a few tips to consider:
  • Don't overthink it; just go ahead and add some content; that, after all, is what will make up the article. If you know some basic top-level sectioning already, great; you can always refine it later.
  • Check out other articles in Category:United States Supreme Court cases to see how they do it. That category has lots of sub-categories; you might like to find a subcat containing articles like this one, to use as a model.
  • Definitely have a look at the Project page WP:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. You can also ask for help at the Project Talk page (WT:SCOTUS). The best way to do that, is to not post open-ended questions or start long discussions there, but rather start your discussion or question here on this page first (this is the discussion page for the article, and it's where other editors will look for relevant topics), and then, if it looks like you need help about something specific, or just want to know if you're on the right track, write a brief, neutral message--one sentence is good--at the Project talk page WT:SCOTUS, requesting feedback, and providing a link to the relevant discussion here. If the question is more generally about law, and not specific to SCOTUS, then use Wikipedia:WikiProject Law instead (WT:LAW). In both cases, your question may have been answered in the past; find the little "Archives" box, and try a search of the archives, to see what turns up. Project members are happy to give their time to help you, but are not keen on repeating their answer to the same questions that have been answered before.
If I get some time, I'll add some non-content stuff (top, bottom matter) that will help make your Draft look like an article and help support it, but leaving all the content addition up to you, and other interested editors. Feel free to {{ping}} me if you have general (Wikipedia, non-legal) questions. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Here, why not start by structuring like this: WP:SCOTUS/SG? Mathglot (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @FactOrOpinion and JapanOfGreenGables: Thanks for moving discussion over here and for copy the content from the article it is being split off from. I agree with Mathglot that the structure of the article should be similar to other similar cases--similar in notability and similar in court level (e.g. federal district court cases, appellate federal).
I would look at examples from Category:United_States_courts_of_appeals_cases for the format for the appellate case and Category:United_States_district_court_cases for examples of district court cases, and see if you can find a case of similar notability. Perhaps this one will be of use: Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc. as a district court case and avoid examples like MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc. where the text relies on the court submissions rather than what WP:SECONDARY sources say.
If no one has suggested reading MOS:LEGAL, definitely do that.
Please keep in mind that our legal articles vary widely in quality. Some are very well-referenced, e.g. Contract; others, have few sources and too much WP:OR, e.g. Comparative_negligence, Question_of_law.
Some of the text in these articles may have been written by attorneys or even legal experts, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way: We rely on WP:RS. FYI, I have a degree in paralegal and have taken numerous legal research & writing classes. The rules here are different than in your legal classes for writing briefs, where you are just summarizing the WP:PRIMARY source(s). However, I do see a number of cases written up like briefs. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks David Torheim. Maybe it would be good for me to make a subsection on the talk page where we can begin pooling some RS, even if we haven't started writing yet. I will find some RS and do that now. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@JapanOfGreenGables: Yes. Excellent idea.
You can find examples of long lists of WP:RS here: Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)/Archive_2#Requested_move_8_May_2020. Multiple editors provided lists of WP:RS for that article that covered a specific aspect of it. One had a snazzy table: To find that table, search for "request update/modification". If you do a table like that, I would put notes about what topics each article covers to save everyone time finding things.
I would list all the WP:RS already in the article from the "references section". If that seems time-consuming, because of the strange way Wikipedia does reference footnotes, I can help you do it. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Belated thanks to everyone for their helpful replies. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A few questions about the Infobox

IANAL and have a few questions:
1. The “date decided” is listed as “Dec. 19, 2019.” I assume it was supposed to be Dec. 16, but why would that be the date the case was decided? It’s the date for a long and significant memorandum opinion (e.g., re: Brady material), but it seems to me that the case itself isn’t yet decided. There’s an order from CADC on the writ, but Sullivan hasn’t dismissed the case, and we don’t know whether Sullivan will appeal the ruling, or if CADC will choose to rehear it sua sponte, or if Sullivan will instead accede to the order. The "date decided" also affects what’s listed as prior and subsequent actions.
2. For the docket, is there any standard re: listing “No. 17-232” vs. “1:17-cr-00232”?
3. Should we note things like “(recused after 1 week)” for Contreras there or only in the body? Ditto re: changes in counsel: Van Grack resigned from the case, Timothy Shea was the one who submitted the Motion to Dismiss but otherwise wasn’t counsel for the case, etc.
4. Should the U.S. be listed as prosecutor rather than plaintiff, since it’s a criminal case? FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'll try and clarify things.
1. Yes it should be December 16, I must have made a typo. The reason why I put it for date decided is because that was the most recent disposition and was published in the Federal Reporter. Once the final decision is released, it should be changed. But it hasn't yet. Anyways, I will fix this now. But yes all this information should be replaced once the case finishes.
2. "1:17-cr-00232" isn't the docket number. That's the case number. ^___^
3. This is a good question, and I don't know what the official answer is. I say yes, only in the body. The information I've put in the info box is taken directly from court documents. I haven't found any cases where the info box lists refusals and people leaving the case, but I could be wrong. I checked Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker to see what they did, as Samuel Alito recused himself (he owns stock in Exxon). There's nothing in the info box to indicate this, but it's mentioned in the body of the article. I'm basing my opinion off that. It is, however, an educated guess, coupled with the fact that people like Van Grack are still listed as Counsel, and earlier motions were filed by him.
4. Nope. The Special Counsel are not prosecutors, and aren't acting as prosecutors. This is largely a technicality. Under federal law, only the U.S Attorney and Attorney General can prosecute federal crimes. Prosecution of federal crimes isn't in the jurisdiction of a special counsel. They are, however, authorized to bring action on behalf of the government. Special Counsel, representing the United States, submitted a criminal complaint on behalf of the government. Prosecutors, like the U.S Attorneys offices, press charges and are not the complainant, even though in both cases the party is the United States. As a result, they are listed as plaintiffs in all legal documents.

Hope this helps clarify things! JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

JapanOfGreenGables Belated thanks for your answers. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on WikiProject Law and Michael Flynn talk pages

Please note that the creation of this draft comes partly from this discussion at WikiProject Law:

The creation of this draft also comes partly from this discussion on Michael Flynn's talk page:

Although there was no formal discussion about splitting off part of Judge Sullivan's article, a concern was also raised on the talk page there about the article becoming a WP:COATRACK for the case:

Some background on the creation of this Draft page

I'm going to include a fairly detailed discussion here, in case the overview and/or the links are helpful to some.

On June 11, I posted a question on the Michael Flynn Talk page about whether to create a page for US v Flynn, moving a lot of the contents from the section of Flynn's page that focused on the case, both because the case struck me as meriting a page and because the contentious discussion on the Talk page seemed to focus on the case. There wasn't a great deal of discussion and no consensus after a few days, so I decided to see whether anyone at WikiProject Law had views on it that would help move the discussion forward, and on June 15 I posted a related question on the Talk page there. There was consensus on the WikiProject Law Talk page for creating a US v Flynn page, so I returned to the Flynn Talk page to see if we could reach consensus there as well, and the people who were originally hesitant were OK with it. I'm a relatively novice editor and have learned a bunch in this process, including that there was a similar (though more limited) issue with content on Judge Sullivan's page and the Sullivan Talk page, that there are WP:BLP reasons to remove most of the case text from both the Flynn and Sullivan pages, and that WP has a process and some rules for splitting content from an initial page. I saw that if you want to split a section of a page, you're supposed to add a template for that to the source page to promote discussion and list it on another page about proposed article splits. I realized that this process was more than I wanted to take on by myself and asked for help, and eventually Mathglot made the helpful suggestion of using a Draft space. JapanOfGreenGables started the page.

There are a lot of formalities re: splitting, and I'd like to highlight part of what Mathglot told me on the Flynn talk page: "If you're reading up on copying content from a split/merge, you've probably already discovered WP:CWW. The key takeaway from that page, is the attribution statement model that you'll find in tty font right in the middle of the first paragraph. As long as you stuff that statement into the edit summary with every edit involving copying (or closely adapting) text from the source article to the target, you're fine. That's really all you need to know; the rest is nice-to-know."

It's not entirely clear to me what happens when you're copying text from a Source page to a Draft page rather than actually carrying out a split. I don't think the split can occur until the new article is approved, and my sense is that the text should should stay on the Flynn and Sullivan pages until the new article is approved, at which point the text on the Flynn and Sullivan pages would be trimmed and info would be added to US v Flynn that some of the content was "split content from Michael Flynn."

If I understand correctly from what I've read about proposed splits, there are a bunch of things that need to be done: adding notices to the Flynn and WikiProject Law Talk pages, closing out the discussions about whether a case page should be created, adding notices to the Flynn and Sullivan Talk pages letting people know about the draft case page and inviting people to work on it and asking people not to delete source text until the draft page is ready to be reviewed, updating the status on the Proposed article splits page. I suspect that I'm forgetting things that I'd thought might be important to include here, but probably best that I post this now and add other things later if/when I remember. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: my comments above about "until the new article is approved," I've since learned that I misinterpreted info that I read, and as long as there are experienced editors involved in creating the draft, it doesn't have to go through an approval process. I've taken care of everything in the last paragraph except posting a note to the Sullivan talk page, and I'll do that soon. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I've now added a note to the Sullivan talk page. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion and JapanOfGreenGables: That's right, you won't need to go through an approvals process, but it wouldn't hurt to post a "Feedback requested"-type notice at WT:SCOTUS a week or two before you think you're ready to release it, asking for some experienced eyeballs to come look at your article, to see what they think. Another thing that I find helpful on a serious effort like this, is to make a "To do" list, to manage it. If that helps, you can do it at any time, but it's especially useful, I find, when doing the final push, getting the Draft all cleaned up and ready to go. That also leaves you with a place to summarize the feedback you get from the legal eagles, if they recommend some tasks you need to do, before releasing the Draft. Wikipedia has the idea of "To do" lists kind of baked in, insofar as if you create the To do list as a stand-alone subpage (which also makes it easier to maintain), there's a Template built just for the purpose: {{To do}}, which can conditionally display the list right here on the Talk page, open or collapsed. Some examples will suffice to make it clear what I'm talking about; check these out: Talk:Vietnam War, Talk:Schrödinger equation, Talk:Romani people, Talk:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Finally, here's one that is quite long, and shows up as collapsed by default: Talk:Offshoots of Operation Car Wash. You'll find that a watchword around here is, "There's more than one way to do it"; so if that appeals to you, it's one more tool in your toolkit, and if not, that are lots of other approaches. Hth, Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
And when copying from any page to any other, whether splitting, merging, or into a Draft or an article, always provide attribution* in the edit summary; this will suffice:
  • Content in this edit is copied from the article [[ARTICLENAME]]; see its history for attribution.
each time you copy content. (Paraphrasing doesn't absolve you of the requirement; you still have to do it, and there's no reason not to copy word-for-word, if you like the phrasing of the original). You can also add the {{Copied}} template to the Talk page, but that's optional; the edit-summary is required by Wikipedia's licensing. If you forget to do it, see WP:RIA. Mathglot (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
^I wasn't aware of this requirement until I read this. I had thought it only applied to copying material from outside of Wikipedia. I usually attribute, but I didn't realize it was actually a requirement from within Wikipedia for copyright issues. If I said something to the contrary, please disregard. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Thanks for the suggestions. I haven't yet looked at the links, but will do so. Quick question, since neither US v Flynn nor In re: Flynn are SCOTUS cases or even appealed at this point: is there a reason that you suggest we post a "Feedback requested"-type notice at WT:SCOTUS rather than someplace else, such as WikiProject Law's talk page? I do see that people occasionally ask on the former talk page for attention to non-SCOTUS cases, but just want to make sure I don't post a feedback request to a group that will see the request as peripheral to their interests and whether there's a different group that's better match for a "Feedback requested" notice. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion:, no, and based on what you said, obviously not appropriate for the Scotus project. You're right: the Law project is the better place. I can help (sometimes) with the Wikipedia-related stuff, but I'm not up on either the law, or where this particular case is. Sorry if I misled you about that. Given that its not there, I wonder if a different Style guide applies; someone at Law should know the answer to that, or you could probably find out, just by poking around the project. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Next steps re: the split

At this point, I'm pretty sure that everything that we'd want to copy from the Flynn page has now been copied, and I'd appreciate others taking a quick look; if we've copied all of the relevant text, then I would add a new section to the Flynn talk page, encouraging discussion of how to trim the relevant sections on Flynn's page (what's key and appropriate for a WP:BLP and what's no longer key there and should be removed, since it's discussed here). I'm not sure if the "suggested split" discussion templates can be removed at this point or not yet. I'm also not sure if it's OK to add a link on the Flynn page to the draft article, or if that has to wait until the article moves out of draft stage. Mathglot and/or David Tornheim, could you provide a little guidance on that? Thanks! Also, I haven't yet looked at the section of Sullivan page on the case to see whether there's additional text that should be copied, or if they're only going to want to trim that text a bit and add a link to the (draft) case article. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No links to the Draft article from main (article) space, unfortunately. You can use hidden text, although that's not ideal; a better solution, is just keep some notes privately on the side, reminding you to add it in after the Draft is released. Or, you can certainly add it to a public To do list (the To do list at *this* article, I mean; you can have a Task section called "Post-release" and then a bullet that says, "add link from Flynn article" or some such). Will look at your content later, but wanted to respond about the no-link-to-Draft right away. You can link here all you want, from Talk pages of other articles, like the Flynn article, if you wish. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to ping @FactOrOpinion:. Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Don't link to draft article--wait until it is approved. To be honest, I am not familiar with the Draft approval process. It might be explained at WP:AfC.
  • Right now I am not sufficiently familiar with the specifics of this case, the WP:RS about it, content on Wikipedia either here or at the Flynn article to give any meaningful feedback. So, I'll have to take a pass on commenting on this particular version for others who know the material better. Maybe at some point I will have enough interest. So far, I have been more interested in helping with explaining the mechanics of wikipedia, sourcing, format of legal articles, and things like that. I also wanted to weigh in in favor of splitting off the case, based on recent media coverage. I know enough about law to know that a federal case like this is likely fairly complicated and may have a 40+ page decision with numerous case citations.  :)
To get more feedback, you could ping:
(1) everyone who commented at the split discussion, except the closer.
(2) everyone who contributed content to the section that is split--this is a little trickier to figure out, but can be done.
(3) recent editors to the Flynn article and/or talk page.
When pinging people, please be aware of WP:CANVASS.
I agree with Mathglot that posting at WikiProject Law is the easiest place to request feedback, but from my past experience, you usually get only one editor from such a request, but one is certainly better than none.
If you want help with pings, let me know. Again, I'm not really sure about the draft approval process. If I create a new article, I make sure it won't get deleted or pushed off to WP:AfC, where it might languish. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
David, I'm not that familiar with it either, but I know there's a backlog, and since any autoconfirmed user can just move it, FactOO can just ask you or me; no approvals needed. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Be my guest.--David Tornheim (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The text I copied from Flynn's page included a thumbnail of the Statement of the Offense and a link to a copy that had been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, ditto for the Motion to Dismiss and Flynn's resignation letter. I'm wondering whether there are any other court documents that should be treated this way, and if so, which ones (e.g., Sullivan's long ruling on the fall 2019 motions from Flynn's counsel, the request for the writ of mandamus, or the ruling on that request?). No rush, just wanted to post the question while I'm thinking of it. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC) [updated: FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)]

Court proceedings section added

I've now copied the content from the Flynn page that focuses on the court proceedings. The content came from the section labelled "Investigations after leaving the Trump administration" – specifically, all of the text in the "Plea bargain," "Delayed sentencing," and "Justice Department's motion to drop charges" subsections. I haven't copied any of the new references to the talk page yet, and I haven't checked the references yet to see if they're complete on the draft page (e.g., not missing authors). I anticipate that we may want to split the text up a bit differently (e.g., adding a section for In re: Flynn), along with adding more info about the case. [Edit: the preceding text was part of what I originally posted in a comment on 19:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC), but I later introduced a section header for the second half of that comment, so this first half is no longer clearly tied to an editor/time stamp. Just clarifying that it came from me and when it was added -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)]

Possible improvements

This is just a grab bag of possible improvements to the article. As I think of them, I'm going to add items that might (or might not) be useful before release:

  • Add some categories; see the categories of cases similar or analogous to this one.
    • categories go at the bottom of the page (only stubs go after categories, but this is not a stub).
    • While in Draft space, embed categories inside {{Draft categories}}.
  • Other bottom matter (see MOS:ORDER for proper ordering of sections)
    • External links – follow style guide; is there one (or several) "official" links about the case?
    • Add Portals. You can copy the list off some similar article.
    • Further reading – optional. A good place to collect citations to great resources you've found, but which aren't yet used for a specific footnote. Or just for providing interesting resources for the serious reader.
    • Nav templates – copy from some similar article
  • Style – is there a style guide for US Law, as there is for Supreme court case style? See WP:SCOTUS/SG.
    • Redacted content – e.g., in FBI section; check if use of {{Redacted content}} is per guideline
  • Footnote viability – Double-check clickability of footnote links. If the url is dead, add |url-status=dead to the {{citation}}, and then add |archive-url= and |archive-date= if possible. If you're not using the citation templates, then see {{dead url}}.
  • Copy attribution – Double-check proper attribution for all copied content. If you forgot, see WP:RIA. Nice-to-have, is a set of {{Copied}} templates on the Talk page. (See Talk:History_of_Christianity or Draft talk:Government of Vichy France for examples.)
  • LEAD – (placing this last in this list on purpose)
    • The body of the article, is the article, as far as assertions of fact. The lead is just a summary of the article body (not an "intro paragraph" as in journalism).
    • Leave development of the lead till the end; get the article body the way you want it, then write the lead at the end. (I realize this recommendation is a bit late.) See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Studies show that many people don't read past the lead. Make the lead a "mini-version" of the entire article, summarizing just the most important points.
    • Check the lead for unique information; anything in the lead that is not already in the body in more detail, doesn't belong in the lead (with the exception of the bare-bones definition in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE).
    • Because it's a summary of already sourced material in the body, the LEAD does not require any references. But they're not prohibited, either. If there's a legal style guide, or a common convention used in similar articles, follow that.
  • Post-release – various things right after release:
    • In-links – Link the article into the encyclopedia by adding links to it from other articles. See steps 2 & 3 at WP:DE-ORPHAN.
    • Remove the {{Draft categories}} template. (No effect on rendered page; just a housekeeping item.)
    • Talk page – consider creating Archive_1 and move discussions no longer useful post-launch into it
    • Interwikis – seems unlikely in this case, but if other language Wikipedias have an article about this topic, you need to link them via WP:Wikidata.

That's what occurs to me for now. Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Background section added

I've copied content from the Flynn page that strikes me as background to US v. Flynn. The content came from the sections labelled "2016 U.S. presidential election," "National Security Advisor," and the beginning of "Investigations after leaving the Trump administration" (stopping at the plea bargain section, which is the beginning of the court case). I omitted a bit of text from those sections if the text didn't seem relevant (e.g., about other aspects of the campaign or transition). I haven't copied any of the new references to the talk page yet, I haven't checked the references yet to see if they're complete on the draft page (e.g., not missing authors), and other than omitting some of the text from those sections, I hardly did any editing. I just wasn't up for copying all of it + fixing the references that didn't transfer properly and then also editing on top of that. It's a lot of text for the background section of a court case, and I expect that some or even a lot of it may be trimmed, though many of these details are relevant to understanding the case itself and/or understanding public discussion of the case. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@JapanOfGreenGables: I edited out some text that you'd added to the Background section, as it didn't seem relevant to the case. Do check Michael_Flynn's page to see whether the info you'd added is there; if not, it could be good to add there.
Related: when I copied text from there re: the background for the case, I omitted the second paragraph from Michael_Flynn#Contacts_with_the_Russian_ambassador, as it didn't strike me as central to the case. Perhaps someone wants to double-check that judgment. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: I think it is, because it explains the context in which the case is occurring and key information leading up to his calls with the Ambassador. But, I see some of that information has been moved to the section on Operation Crossfire. I wouldn't say there needed to be much more, though. I'm not going tor ever it back and instead leave this up to the opinions of everyone else. I can say that, at the very least, I think a few sentences on this point would be warranted in the introduction if a section like the one that used to be there isn't included (I was just plugging info in to a section that had already been made). But, I can see the section that was removed being appropriate in line with the spirit of pages likes Lawrence v. Texas which has a bit more history on the plaintiffs separate from the concerns of the case, Roe v. Wade which has a section on the history of abortion laws separate from the Texas statute being raised in that case. New York Times v. United States has a short section on the Pentagon Papers (EDIT: I originally put Panama Papers by accident) and then links to the main page. That could also be an option. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@JapanOfGreenGables: I now agree that there should be a short section on Flynn in the Background section. I assume you meant Pentagon Papers and followed that model (as the situation is a bit different than a case like Lawrence v Texas: Flynn himself has a large page that we can link to, whereas Lawrence himself doesn't). I tried to undo my edit where I deleted that section, but got an "edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually" message. So I manually added back a sub-section header for Flynn, added a "Main" link to his page there, and added the text back with slight edits, noting in my new edit summary where the text originally came from, with links to the sources (the Flynn page + a diff to your edit). I was initially worried that the text wasn't directly related to the case and that the section would grow with other not-directly-case-related info about Flynn, when the background section already strikes me as quite large (right now, it's larger than the section on the case itself). But I now think that having the "Main" link at the top of that section will discourage it growing too big. Sorry for having deleted your text in a way that wasn't easy to undo. I see that David Tornheim often makes several smaller edits, and I should follow his model, as that might have made the undo more feasible (or maybe not, still due to intermediate edits). Re: my slight edits, the referent of a pronoun or ambiguous noun / noun phrase is usually the closest preceding noun(s) that match in gender and number, and in this case a couple of the referents weren't to the closest nouns. Would you check the citation for "Flynn had been publicly critical of then President Barack Obama at the time of his retirement, stating that America was now less safe to the threat of Islamic Terrorism than it had been prior to the September 11 attacks in 2001," as I don't see that info in the reference (I only checked because I wanted to make sure that I was correct in thinking "his retirement" referred to Flynn when I edited "his" to "Flynn's"). Thanks for your response; I learned a bunch from this.
@FactOrOpinion: I did mean Pentagon Papers, oops. You are correct that I was referring to Flynn's retirement. I think the amount there now is appropriate. It provides important context for understanding the case fully, and explains the subsequent section on FBI investigations. I wouldn't worry too much about John Geddes Lawrence not having his own wikipedia page (and doesn't really warrant having one either). Each page should be self-sufficient and have all the information needed to understand a case. Anyways, I'm going to add in the link to the main page for Flynn. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, never mind. You (or someone else) already did. I should have double checked. But I am wondering if it should link to his main page or have a 
{{further|))
to the section of his page on his tenure as National Security Advisor.JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@JapanOfGreenGables: Yeah, I added that. My understanding of "Main" vs. "Further" is that it depends on whether that's the topic of the page/section you link to vs. not being the topic but still having additional relevant info. So I think "Main" is more appropriate here and also that it makes more sense to link to the entire page, and people can look at the contents box and choose for themselves what they want to read more about. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Relative time expressions, and Recentism

(edit conflict × 2) While writing this article (any article), please beware of what Wikipedia calls Relative time expressions. Among other things, this includes the word "now", or use of the present tense (when meaning the present moment), or the present progressive, as in "Holding" in the Infobox. A quick test if something is a relative time expression or not: if you jump into your Time Machine and read this version of the article ten years from now, will that sentence still read correctly? If not, there are RELTIME problems with it. The last sentence of the LEAD, for example, needs to be changed.

WP:Recentism is different. It's easier to see in an article that isn't an ongoing event like this one. For example, if someone like Michael Flynn had a career spanning four decades, with all sorts of positions and commands, and titles in and out of the military and government, and then 1/4 of the article is about U.S. v. Flynn, which only started some months ago, that would be way out of proportion to the length of his decades-long career. The Time Machine helps here, too: if you looked back at the article in ten years, would it really make sense to have the day-by-day decisions by the court, every motion filed by the parties to the case? Most likely not (unless it's a very long, exhaustive article). It's human nature to put what's uppermost in your mind into the article, and that's generally the most recent items. But for most of that stuff, it doesn't make sense in the long run. If you find yourself "cleaning up" or shortening what you wrote three months ago because there was all sorts of irrelevant detail from back then that nobody cares about now, and adding exhaustive new detail about the latest motions, hearing, depositions, and so on to the end of the article to bring it blazingly up to date, then you are probably engaging in WP:RECENTISM. Another way to look at it, is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

Besides being recent, this case is also somewhat of a current event, meaning that ongoing developments may bring new changes. Consider adding template {{Portal|Current events}} to the Draft. Beware of RELTIME and Recentism when updating it. If you have questions relating to recency or current events, you could post at the Current events noticeboard, where experienced editors can help. Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Subject heading "Relationship to the opening of the Special Counsel investigation" is grammatically incorrect.

I've been doing some copyediting and fixing grammatical mistakes in the article, and correcting some of the language that is too informal. I didn't want change the heading of this section yet as there are two possible changes that could be made, and so I felt I should open it up for discussion. It can be either "relationship with" or "relation to." But "relationship to" is grammatically incorrect and needs to be changed. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@JapanOfGreenGables: I have a mild preference for "relation to" (and also for "cell phone" rather than "telephone," since his claim that “his government BlackBerry was not working” in the interview 302 is significant). Unrelated, re: your edit summary "Removed internal link to Sidney Powell (no such page exists)," that's an indication from Soibangla (who introduced it) that s/he thinks a page should be created: WP:RED. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: Ok. I'll put the internal link back in. As for cell phone, while that is an important fact, it's related to his defense and not the charge. Telephone doesn't imply a landline phone, but "a telecommunications device that permits two or more users to conduct a conversation when they are too far apart to be heard directly" as per Telephone. Cell phone would not be appropriate. If anything, that phrase should conform to his indictment. I will edit it to do so. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It's time to move this to mainspace

Holding patterns can be fun, but at some point you've gotta land the plane.

An article need not be perfect before moving. This article is already very good. It should be moved, and further improvement happen in mainspace. A WP:DYK nomination is also recommended. --Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

168.215.97.5 -- thanks. I couldn't have done my part of it without all of the help and without so much of the text already existing on Flynn's page. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
It hath been done. Was leaving this to others who were more engaged. But anyways, it's been published. I will leave the Did You Know to others, though. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: I was in a holding pattern to see what others thought and because I hadn't taken the time to review and carve out time for the things that need to happen after it's moved (e.g., Wikipedia:Splitting#How_to_properly_split_an_article). I still need to ping a bunch of editors from Flynn's talk page about checking whether there's anything else to be copied before trimming the text there. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @FactOrOpinion and JapanOfGreenGables: This happened rather suddenly. Content-wise, I think it was almost ready for release, but as FoO pointed out, there were various other things that needed (and still need) doing, including items at the split link you posted, and others that apply to new articles generally, as well as things listed at Your first article. You might also have a look at what new article reviewers look for, and review your own article against the checklists there. Some other things: the article has no categories yet. Good job on required attribution; that's one very important step, and it looks like you have that covered, for every edit that copied material out of the parent article. Mathglot (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: IIRR, there's also a template that's supposed to go on the talk page re: the split and copy attribution, and it will need a WP:BLP template as well. And I'd started wondering about other things; for ex., IIRR, the Flynn page is restricted to autoconfirmed users. I don't know how those decisions are made and don't know if it applies here as well. (Sorry, I know that I should look it up, but I don't have the energy right now.) -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: I may be wrong, but I believe the TP template for merge/split is a nice-to-have, not a requirement. Don't worry about things like page restrictions, others will see to it. The more important things should be handled first, one of which, is the lead (see last section). Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Thanks for your help in pointing out key things that need to be done. I've started working on the lead but am tired and haven't finished. I'll continue tomorrow. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead needs a rewrite

The lead has a lot of unique information not covered in the body of the article. With the exception of a bare-bones definition in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, all of this material should be moved into the body. When the article is complete, the lead should then be rewritten as a summary of the body. Footnotes are not required in the lead, since it summarizes body content that is (or should be) footnoted (but it's not forbidden, either, and anything contentious should be footnoted, i.e., footnoted again, in the lead). See WP:LEAD. Mathglot (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means for a WP article to be "complete." There's certainly lots of relevant info about the case that isn't in the article, but I think there's enough of an article that it should have a lead. So instead of deleting the lead, I went through each paragraph and compared it to the relevant text in the body, adding material and references to the body so that there's nothing in the lead that isn't in the body. I'm pretty sure that I caught everything and that the template can be removed, but I'd rather that someone else double-check before the template is removed. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The issue @Mathglot: is pointing to isn't that the article doesn't need a lead. There's no debate the article needs one. The problem is that the current lead isn't appropriate. This is why the article is incomplete. The page has also been reviewed and now has a template stating that the lead needs a rewrite, so it is something that has to be done. There's information in the lead that is not addressed in the body of the article. This is a pretty major revision that's needed, so the article isn't really completed when that's on our to do list. It's definitely not complete if there are things in the lead that are not mentioned again in the article. The lead needs to be a summary of the article as a whole. Things that are mentioned in the lead and aren't mentioned again need to either be moved down to the body of the text, and/or expanded upon in the body of the text. Right now the lead isn't a summary of the rest of the article, as it mentions things not in the article itself. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
JoGG correctly explained (probably better than I could) what the problem is with the article, wrt the lead. A minor point: just to be clear about one thing, the "lead rewrite" cleanup template was placed by me, and not through any formal process such as happens in an Afc review, it's just obvious to me looking at the article, and anyone is free to place a cleanup template (see list) in good faith if it's accurate and helpful. My hope in placing the template, is that it would point to an area that needs improvement, because it is currently not compliant with the WP:LEAD guideline. If the consensus of other editors were that the lead is fine as is, then one could simply remove the template. See WP:WTRMT for more guidance on removal of templates.
Oh, FactOrOpinion, that bit about "complete": I didn't mean, that the article is complete, but that the editors creating the draft considered it "complete enough" to be an article. When the body can stand on its own and has the content that you wish it to have, more or less, that's the time to write the lead. Think of the lead as a miniature copy of the entire article; it's your 30-second elevator pitch to convey all the important points to your "client", before they exit the elevator, because they're likely never coming back this way again. (Wikimedia studies have shown that most people never read past the lead.) Mathglot (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
JapanOfGreenGables - You say "There's information in the lead that is not addressed in the body of the article. ... [The lead] mentions things not in the article itself," but you don't give any examples. Would you give an example? Did you look at the lead after I'd edited it and before posting your reply, or were you just assuming this based on the fact that the template was still there? Re: "The page has also been reviewed and now has a template stating that the lead needs a rewrite," as Mathglot noted, they added that before I edited the lead, and my question was whether my edits earlier yesterday had caught everything so that we can now remove it (i.e., me: "instead of deleting the lead, I went through each paragraph and compared it to the relevant text in the body, adding material and references to the body so that there's nothing in the lead that isn't in the body"). I understand now that the preference is to write the body and then construct the lead after, but since the lead was already there and struck me as a decent overview, I decided to go backwards and just make sure that everything in the existing lead was substantiated in the body. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: I don't think I can, lol. I was just going off of the template because I only got a notification that the page had been reviewed by another editor after this discussion had started. Weird... Anyways, I do think that the lead could be a bit more concise. But that's, imo, not the end of the world. I think the consensus is I jumped the gun publishing the page (I felt pressured!), but it might be ready now, or at least close to "complete." Thank you for being on the ball fixing the lead so quickly. It looks like everything is in the body now. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@JapanOfGreenGables: Thanks for checking, and I'm glad it looks OK to you, other than conciseness. I'm sorry you felt pressured. I'd meant to post a reply saying that I supported publishing with the caveat that we'd first identify and take care of all the details necessary. I wasn't expecting anyone to publish it right then. But it's done, and we can work now to get it in shape. I'm very thankful that Mathglot is letting us know what's key there / where to look to identify what we need to do. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Closing the split discussion

That's generally a no-no, since you launched the discussion and are involved in it. Move discussions, for example, have a set of rules on who can close the discussion:Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Who_can_close_requested_moves and it excludes editors who participated in the discussion. Typically discussions like this require a third-party non-involved person to close the discussion. Perhaps, it is different for split decisions. Unless another more experienced editor disagrees with me, I would recommend unclosing it, move from Wikipedia:Proposed_article_splits#Discussion_complete to Wikipedia:Proposed_article_splits#Awaiting_consensus and ask that someone review and close it. You could ask an univolved admin to close it. You could also ask at WP:TEAHOUSE about whether this is necessary.
If there is any question about this, please feel free to refer to my comment here as this diff. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Mathglot what do you think? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The section title was phrased as a question, but it is not an WP:RFC or WP:RM, thus not subject to WP:RFCEND, or one of the other types of formalized discussion-ending procedures. Since User:FactOrOpinion got the answer they wanted, they're free to close it if they wish. No need to reopen (although no prohibition on reopening, either; if another user felt strongly and wanted to comment), and no need to request formal closure. Mathglot (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly what I should undo, and I want to bring one other person into the conversation, @Psiĥedelisto:. On the WikiProject Law talk page, I'd asked Psiĥedelisto whether I was supposed to post a request to Wikipedia:Proposed_article_splits#Awaiting_consensus, as I figured that I'd already initiated discussion in two places (the Flynn talk page and the WikiProject Law talk page), and Psiĥedelisto went ahead and posted it to Wikipedia:Proposed_article_splits#New_requests (diff here: [1]). Re: the question I posed on the Flynn talk page, once there was consensus on that page and the WikiProject Law talk page that US v Flynn merited its own page and the content should be split from the Flynn page, I tried to close the discussion in that section of the Flynn talk page. But something was off with the code I used, so I undid my attempt. Psiĥedelisto noticed and closed it on my behalf (diff here: [2]). After we reached consensus, I also moved the issue from "New request" to "Discussion complete" on the Proposed article splits page. So are you saying that I should undo both of these (i.e., undo closing the discussion on the Flynn talk page and also undo moving the split request to "Discussion complete")? Sorry if I did something that I shouldn't have (there's a lot to learn about being an editor here), and thanks for letting me know. Should it matter, as far as I can tell, no one ever did anything in response to Psiĥedelisto listing the request as a new one on the Proposed article splits page. I still don't have a good handle on how all of this is supposed to work, including what notices needed to be posted, which is why I also raised the issue of the notices when JapanOfGreenGables first created the draft and made comments about it in the first section on this page, saying what notices I thought I needed to post where and what the status was. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
FactOrOpinion I don't know if you need to do anything. Mathglot, an experienced editor, seems to think the close was okay, and the decision to split is reasonable. It was just a question of following process. Just to be sure, I posted this question:
Because of what Mathglot said, for now, I suggest you not worry about it, and that you follow the answers to my question to see if your close was okay.
--David Tornheim (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: are you familiar with your WP:Watchlist? If you place Wikipedia_talk:Splitting on your list, then you'll automatically get a notification any time someone updates the page. Besides David's initial comment and my link back here, there's already one response there. Mathglot (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: - I'd previously added Draft:United_States_v._Flynn to my WP:Watchlist and just added Wikipedia_talk:Splitting, thanks. I want to double-check what you mean by "notifications." I don't get a notice in my alerts, but I can see the edit summaries for the most recent changes (perhaps all changes since I last visited the page) in a list on my Watchlist page. Is that what you were referring to? If it's possible to get alerts, perhaps that's a matter of how I have my preferences set. I'll also have to check whether I can limit notifications to edits of a specific section of the Talk page. There's lots for me to learn here! I appreciate your and David Tornheim's willingness to provide guidance; it definitely helps. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion:, sorry, brainfreeze on my part; not notification, which means something particular, but just an *appearance* on your Watchlist, as you pointed out. Sorry for being unclear. Mathglot (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: no problem, it was a helpful suggestion to add that page to my watchlist. I'm glad that the first response suggests that I didn't screw up, but will wait to see what others say. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: one other question re: watchlists. I don't see any way to watchlist only a section of a page rather than the entire page (what I mentioned earlier re: "whether I can limit notifications to edits of a specific section of the Talk page"). Is this possible? I'm asking because I'd like to be able to add something to my watchlist from the RS/N discussion that I started, but the RS/N page gets so much discussion that if I watchlist the entire page, the list of edits from that page overwhelms the rest of my watchlist. How do you manage your own watchlist so that you're able to see what's helpful but not have it feel overwhelming? Thanks -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Picky but hopefully quick question re: quoting the charging document vs. the statement of offense

Right now, the text of the plea bargain section says "In the Statement of the Offense to which Flynn agreed, he said he falsely denied that on December 29, 2016 he asked Kislyak 'to refrain from escalating ... in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day.'" This is actually a quote from the charging document, not from the Statement of Offense. The wording of the two is slightly different (the former includes "that same day" and the latter doesn't, copies of both here: [3]), and the CNBC citation also quotes the former, not the latter. I can either change "Statement of Offense" to "charging document," keep the quote and citation, and edit out "to which Flynn agreed" (he signed the SoO under penalty of perjury, but the charging doc. isn't something the defendant signs), or I can keep the reference to the SoO and add a bit more detail re: signing under penalty of perjury, but adjust the quote and add a new citation (which I supposed could just be a link to the SoO, though WP prefers secondary sources). Either way, my goal was actually to add more about the false statements, and I still want to do that: there was only 1 count of making false statements, but both the charging doc. and the SoO identified more than one false statement. I expect to quote a bit from the other false statement(s). There, too, there's a bit of a difference between the two documents: the SoO adds info about the false FARA filing and the charging doc. doesn't. I need to decide which document to quote from for all of this. I'm leaning towards using the SoO (more detail and Flynn signed it), and want to check whether there's any reason to use the charging doc. instead. I had a conversation with a lawyer at one point who said that the charging doc. is more important legally, but I don't know if he's correct. @JapanOfGreenGables: You have more legal expertise than I do, what are your thoughts? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I was looking again at MOS:LEAD, and among other things, it says "[The lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

There clearly are controversies in this case, and right now, I don't think the article addresses them very well. Given that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the first thing is to add them to the body. But what are the key controversies? I tried to identify some initially, in the section 2, "Possible structure for the page". I'm not suggesting that that's the way to structure the page, only wondering if anyone has thoughts about the ideas that I suggested there for "Noteworthy legal aspects" and "Partisan debates about the case." And/or does anyone have thoughts about other controversies that we should develop text for? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Related, since this article was split from Michael Flynn's page: just wanted to note that there's considerable discussion on the Flynn talk page re: a couple of controversies that might be discussed more in the US v Flynn page. Looks to me like the most relevant sections of that talk page are: (3) "RfC: Release of new documents, possible perjury trap" (and further discussion of possible wording in sections 8, 9, and 10) and (4) "RfC: FBI agents spotted no deception in body language?" -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I think two case-related controversies need addressing:
  • Flynn plead guilty after admitting his guilt before two different judges; and
  • The DOJ attorney who resigned from the case claimed he disclosed all exculpatory materials in compliance with Judge Sullivan's order, but the latest filings by both the DOJ and Flynn have additional exculpatory material that was withheld from disclosure.
The latter is of particular importance considering Judge Sullivan's reputation for not tolerating Brady violations by the prosecution, except in this case.168.215.97.5 (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
168.215.97.5 Would you clarify what you meant by "Flynn plead guilty after admitting his guilt before two different judges"? (Is there a typo? Did you mean that what he stated in his personal declaration under penalty of perjury conflicts with his previous statements to both judges under oath?) I agree that material about your second point should be added (probably your first point too, pending clarification). We may need to distinguish between "recently made public" vs. "recently provided to Flynn, his counsel and Judge Sullivan," as it's not clear to me that those are the same. And as best I can tell, there's no consensus among legal experts that the materials recently made public are actually exculpatory. Some have been widely misrepresented (e.g., Strzok's notes from a conversation with an unknown person about a meeting Strzok himself didn't attend are often discussed as if he was a first-person witness and his notes were verbatim from the participants in the meeting, Priestap disputes how his notes have been interpreted). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: I'll try. I believe on December 1, 2017, Flynn plead guilty before Judge Contreras along the lines of the plea bargain he and the DOJ reached. Six days later, Judge Contreras recused and the matter was assigned to Judge Sullivan. I have been unable to find a date in the sources cited, and my own research has been unsuccessful in confirming, but at some point after Judge Sullivan's assignment, Flynn appeared before Judge Sullivan and reaffirmed his guilt. One date I read was December 7, 2017, but that does not make sense as that was the date Judge Sullivan was assigned and it's not typical that an appearance is scheduled that same day. Another date I read was December 28, 2017. Either way, the controversy is why he would plead guilty if he felt he were truly innocent. As for the exculpatory material, it really is not up to the legal experts to determine exculpability. That is a decision reserved for the prosecution, the defendant, the judge, and the jury. Priestap is free to dispute how his notes have been interpreted, but his word choice is unambiguous. The materials disclosed were enough for the DOJ to determine it had a major proof issue. And based on the 2-1 decision from the DC Circuit Court Of Appeals, the higher court was persuaded of the same. That said, there is still time for either Judge Sullivan to request an en banc review or other members of the court to initiate an en banc review and hold the opposite. Regardless whether these materials are ultimately deemed exculpatory, they still fall under Brady material and should have been disclosed long before May 2020. 168.215.97.5 (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
168.215.97.5 - Flynn pleaded guilty before Contreras on 12/1/2017, then his sentencing was postponed several times, and he reiterated his guilty plea in a sentencing hearing on 12/18/2018 with Sullivan (some of that's in the article, but here's a link to the 12/18/2018 hearing transcript: [4]), and sentencing ended up being postponed again. Re: Priestap's "word choice is unambiguous," I'd say that the phrases on the page are what they are, but the interpretation is somewhat ambiguous, and different people have clearly interpreted them in different ways in public discussion. Re: "The materials disclosed were enough for the DOJ to determine it had a major proof issue," that's disputed, and there's an argument about whether the motion to dismiss was instead submitted for political reasons. I seem to recall an opinion piece saying that the new material handed over isn't covered by Brady, but I don't recall where. I'll try to find it. Some new material handed over hasn't been made public. So I agree that all of this should be discussed in the article, but we need to find RS that will help us determine what claims are supported by RS and should be added to the text. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There are other documents from the case that people may want to cite (e.g., motions by various parties, exhibits, status reports, transcripts, minute orders). AFAIK, the Court Listener docket pages for the case have all of the public documents: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/united-states-v-flynn/ The In re: Michael Flynn documents are listed here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/56207/in-re-michael-flynn/, but aren't available there, and the oral arguments audio is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/70607/in-re-michael-t-flynn/ Is there a specific format for citing specific legal documents other than opinions? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I moved your comment to a new section, just because I know it will likely end up being a lot of discussion on how to cite things properly.
At any rate, as per MOS:LEGAL, there is. MOS:LEGAL states Bluebook is recommended as the citation style for Articles in American Law. BUT and this is a huge but, this doesn't seem to be the case. The article states that clear language should be used. I've checked some other articles (actually, the page for Ammon Bundy and am trying to find some others to confirm) that have citations to briefs and motions, and they have cited them as websites. This is definitely preferable. As you'll see, a Bluebook citation is far from clear language. That said, I'm including some info about it just to be safe.
There are pdfs of the Bluebook online, and sometimes if you google Bluebook and the document type, the instructions for citing it will come up on a University library's website — "how to cite criminal complaint in Bluebook," for example. I wish I could give a simple answer to your question, but unfortunately there isn't one.
If you want, you can flag here whenever you cite a new legal document, FactOrOpinion and either myself or someone else can double check. Or if you're more comfortable, you can say here what needs to be cited and where and either myself or someone else can input the citation.
Looking at the citation for legal documents might help.
{{cite court |litigants= |vol= |reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint= |court= |date= |url= |access-date= |quote=}}
Here is the one for the most recent decision.

United States v. Flynn, 411 F.Sup. 3d 15 (D.D.C Dec. 16, 2019).

Which produces

United States v. Flynn, 411 F.Sup. 3d 15 (D.D.C Dec. 16, 2019).

Note there is a difference here from Bluebook. Wikipedia's citation style italicizes cases.
As you can see, I removed pinpoint. Pinpoint is when you are citing something specific like a quote. It appears after the opinion number/first page number. So if a decision has been published in the reporter, it would look something like this. United States v. Flynn, 411 F.Sup. 3d, 15, 16 (D.D.C, Dec 16, 2019). This would be if something is cited on page 16. Documents that aren't published in a reporter might have paragraph numbers. If they do, you cite that instead of the page number and precede the number with the paragraph symbol/pilcrow. So say something is cited in paragraph 3, you'd put ¶3 instead of the page number.
For documents that aren't in a reporter, like a motion or memorandum, you take vol, reporter, and opinion out and replace it with docket. Docket should be formatted as "No.17-232-EGS." Keep in mind, many documents have this listed as Crim. Action No. But this is actually the docket number. There aren't templates for these, so unfortunately you have to do it by hand. The Docker number should be a hyperlink to the document using 
[http://... / Docket Number]
Let's say you're citing something on page 2 of one of Flynn's briefs to support a motion to produce Brady Material and Show Cause. Page number comes after the document title. So the citation looks like this.
Brief of Def. in Supp. Mot. Compel Prod. of Brady Material and Order to Show Cause at 2, United States v. Flynn No. 17-232-EGS (D.D.C, Aug. 30, 2019)
The case number is used if there is no docket number. Case numbers are used for filing documents, and doesn't refer to the actual legal proceedings (though they are very similar). So, for example this... https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.1.0_3.pdf
...was filed before the case was assigned a docket number, so you put the case number. For the sake of an example, let's say I'm citing a quote on page 2 again.
Information at 2, United States v. Flynn, No. 1:17-cr-00232-RC (D.D.C, Nov. 30, 2017)
You may be able to get the gist of it from this. But it's important to note some words are always abbreviated/excluded from the title, as you can see with the brief I used as an example. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
JapanOfGreenGables thanks for your long reply; I hadn't meant to take up so much of your time with my question. I should have reread MOS:LEGAL before asking, though I'm not familiar with the Bluebook and would have needed to read a bunch more to really understand the correct citation styles. Thanks, as well, for your offer of help if I run into problems using the correct citation style. I don't mind your having moved my question to a new section, but have relabelled the header, and I propose that you move your "Legal citations are a bit confusing if you don't know how to read them, so just to give a quick synopsis. ..." paragraph here, replacing it in the previous section with something like "see below for formatting," linking to this section. Or, if you prefer to leave that paragraph there, I'd like to edit my O.P. so that it's clearer that I raised my question in response to your comment about the citation style for opinions. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Sure, FactOrOpinion. Happy to move it, and will now. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
JapanOfGreenGables - I actually meant moving the text that you deleted here [5], which (I think) includes a bit of information (e.g., "the thing after the case name is the reporter citation. ...") that was helpful to me and likely to others who aren't lawyers. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please be mindful of properly citing legal documents.
Right now, references 85 and 86 are wrong. You can use the court template. 

{{cite court |litigants= |vol= |reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint= |court= |date= |url= |access-date= |quote=}}

Right now those references have the pinpoint under 

|date=

, and so, the citations its producing are wrong. The page numbers should not be in the parentheses. They should be before the parentheses, and should be input under Please disregard this part of my edit. I just realized the person had originally put a numerical month year (12-19) in the date section and not page numbers, though this is still incorrect. (JapanOfGreenGables)

|pinpoint=

. As a reminder, date is just the year unless the opinion hasn't been published yet in a reporter. So for Sullivan's ruling denying Flynn's brady motions, it should say 2019, whereas for In Re: Flynn you will put the date that it was decided. Also, for pinpoints, the page number should be used. Paragraph number should only be used if a decision is not paginated, and is instead numbered according to paragraph. So the paragraph notes in citation #86 should be removed. Beyond published opinions, we should continue to cite court documents as webpages for the sake of clarity. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed these mistakes. I also made a refname for the opinion dismissing brady motions. Therefore, if anyone needs to cite the opinion as a whole in future edits, please use 
<ref name="USvFlynn" />
You'll only need to use the cite case template if you're citing a specific page. I also realized that with the layout of the website we're directing too, it might appear like there is no pagination. However, there are. There will randomly be numbers that aren't footnotes, which indicates the page has changed. Also, please disregard my above comments about there having been page numbers where the date should go. I just realized that 12-19 was meant to refer to December 2019 and not page numbers. At any rate, for a published opinion, you just put the full year (2019). JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@JapanOfGreenGables: Judge Sullivan just filed for a rehearing en banc. I added a citation, but would appreciate if you'd check it, as I'm not sure if I formatted it correctly, given that it's a petition and not an opinion. Currently the last reference for the page. Thanks! -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Ditto re: CADC's July 10 order in response to Sullivan's petition: I'm not sure if I've formatted it correctly (it's now the last reference on the page, the petition itself is now penultimate). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The part about Flynn's son is central

I notice this edit[6] moved the part about Flynn's son from the lead to the body, saying that it's "not central". I have to disagree. Until the leaks saying that they would charge his son if he didn't plead, Flynn's team had been insisting he wasn't guilty. That's critical context for his decision to plead. What person wouldn't want to protect their children? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: It wasn't moved; it was already in the body of the text on Flynn's page, and I simply hadn't copied that section of the body yet from Flynn's page. Flynn's plea agreement didn't actually involve any explicit commitment on the SCO's end to not charging Flynn's son (this is discussed in some of the Covington materials that have been made public), and although the potential for his son to be charged may have been significant to Flynn's choice to plead guilty rather than being indicted and tried, it doesn't enter into the legal proceedings much, so I don't see it as particularly key to the legal case. Also keep in mind that this page is at the draft stage. If you look here [7], you'll see that I proposed including a section, 3.2.1, re: allegations that Flynn was coerced with threats to prosecute his son. But it will be up to the group whether to have a section of that sort. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny: P.S. In an exchange below about the lead, Mathglot noted this WP guideline: WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I don't see anything in the body re: "leaks saying that they would charge his son if he didn't plead." So it would be good for you to add that if you a RS for it. If there's more text in the body about it, and depending on the content of that text, I'm certainly open to being convinced that there should be a line about it in the lead. It would be good to add more to the body about it either way. In addition to the section preceding his plea deal, another place to add something would be in the section about his attorneys' motion to withdraw the plea. IIRR, he said something about it in the personal declaration he filed in Jan. 2020. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny: Whether something is central to the topic of an article, should be based on how it's covered in the preponderance of reliable sources, and whether they consider it to be central. I see that the article now has 170 references. Without asking you to go through the list, do you have a sense of how many of them discuss the son in any significant way in the source, other than a mere passing reference? In how many of the sources is the son the primary topic of the source, or a major part of the whole article? Based on that information, one could decide whether it is important enough to mention in the lead, or not. Remember that, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." It's a summary, and not of the whole article, but only of its most important contents. Less important subtopics of the article, should not be mentioned in the lead. Adding User:FactOrOpinion. Mathglot (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources to draw upon

Given the work that lies ahead, and David's comments/advice on avoiding some of the pitfalls case pages sometimes have on Wikipedia, I thought it might be good to make a section where we can begin pooling reliable sources to use. I will suggest that when you add something, provide a short synopsis underneath. That way, as we begin writing, it will be easy to look at this section and use specific sources easily, rather than having to fish through them to find one that helps for a given section. For now, I'm going to break add three sections -- journalism, legal, and academic/scholarly. Feel free to add more.

Journalism

  • Gerstein, Josh. "Judge recuses in Michael Flynn case". POLITICO. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
  • Goldman, Adam (2020-01-14). "Michael Flynn Moves to Withdraw Guilty Plea in About-Face After Extensive Cooperation". New York Times. Retrieved 2020-06-30.
New York Times article on Flynn's change of plea.


District Court opinion by Emett Sullivan denying Flynn's motion to compel government to produce Brady materials and new evidence. (See Brady v. Maryland)
Appellate court decision granting Flynn a writ of mandamus in the District Court case.

Legal citations are a bit confusing if you don't know how to read them. See below section for further guidance. Citations should follow MOS:LEGAL, which requires cases be cited according to the Bluebook.

Scholarly Commentary

Sources from the Michael Flynn and Emmet G. Sullivan articles

Sources added with this edit:

... This is not a complete list, but a start. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

David Tornheim, JapanOfGreenGables has now moved the citations in this list to the categories above. I'm wondering if we should keep this section as part of documenting that information was moved here from the Flynn and Sullivan articles, adding new citations to it as they're brought over from those pages, or if citations from this list that have been put in a category should be deleted here (so that it's a section only of yet-to-be-categorized citations from those pages). If we do the latter, and if people want as part of honoring the original sources, we could also add something like "origin-MF:" and "origin-ES" after the bullet for a citation when moving a citation from "yet-to-be-categorized" here into one of the categories above. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
FactOrOpinion said if citations from this list that have been put in a category should be deleted here. I agree with JapanOfGreenGables that is it is better to leave them, unless they are clearly irrelevant. If one is completely irrelevant or determined to be bad WP:RS, I would use the strikethrough, so editors know you rejected it. What you can do instead--to keep track of what is and is not used--is add notes after an entry indicating whether they have been used or not. I believe I suggested somewhere creating a table where it is easier to organize the information and add notes. I have no objection to adding new entries to the list. Do you want help with creating such a table?--David Tornheim (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: OK. I did look at the table you referred to on the Gideon page, and a table seems quite flexible. For example, we wouldn't have to have the legal / journalism / ... categories here; there could just be a column for the type of citation, and then people could sort on that column if they wanted. I haven't ever created a WP table, but am open to / interested in learning, though I'm also a bit hesitant to spend a lot of time working on the Talk page rather than moving more of the text from the Flynn page to the draft page and working on getting a good draft. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest that we keep, because those articles have largely been vetted as being reliable, since their pages are already well established. It might be nice to have. I would also recommend we make an additional section for citations that are currently included in the draft -- I thought there had been one but I guess I was wrong -- and it be updated in the talk section as new things are added. That will also be useful. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest that we keep, because those articles have largely been vetted as being reliable, since their pages are already well established. Yes. I agree to keep. See above comment from me. You can include in a table the extent there seems to be agreement about which is reliable. Please note that if you wish to say something is reliable or not, it should be attributed to you, since there may be disagreement. That's why an example I gave above in a different article, three different editors gave three different lists of the WP:RS they believed was reliable. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@JapanOfGreenGables: Of the 18 references on the Draft page now, all but the first three are from the Flynn or Sullivan articles and were added in the edit that David Tornheim referred to (though I think I swapped out a different link for the Motion to Dismiss, and I don't remember why). I think he just didn't copy all of them, and that's what he meant by "This is not a complete list..." He may also have included the first reference by mistake; you had added that one when you first created the draft page, and I don't know if you brought it from the Flynn or Sullivan page. I'll now add the rest of the Flynn & Sullivan refs from the Draft page edit referenced above. I considered inserting them into David's comment, given his reference to a specific edit, but it doesn't feel right for me to add something above his signature without his OK, even though I think it will be easier to keep track of if it's one long list rather than interspersed with comments. That can be fixed later. I'll also note that I didn't attempt to clean up the references when I brought them over. For example, whoever had added the Politico article didn't look up the author, and I didn't attempt to do that when I added text to the overview using that reference. I see that you cleaned them up when you added the references to the categories above on this Talk page, but they still need to be cleaned up on the Draft page. I'm just going to copy them now, and will try to clean them up as I categorize them. If we're keeping all of them here, this could become a very big section, as there are maybe 150 relevant references from the Flynn and Sullivan pages. Does it really make sense to try to copy and categorize all of them on this Talk page? And if so, would the entries here simply be listed in the order that they were added to the Draft page? Also, I don't understand why you want "an additional section for citations that are currently included in the draft." Someone can see that list on the Draft page, why add it here too? It seems like extra work without any clear benefit. What am I missing? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I think he just didn't copy all of them, and that's what he meant by "This is not a complete list..." That's correct. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
He may also have included the first reference by mistake. I did notice it is redundant, but I left it for two reasons: (1) to be thorough (2) because it is formatted differently. I'm not sure which is more correctly formatted. I would think the one that I copied from the article was likely added by a more experienced editor and likely is more correct, but I have not checked; It may be the reverse, or both may have problems. I'll leave that for you all to figure out. :) --David Tornheim (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: Just to clarify, when I said He may also have included the first reference by mistake, I meant that that specific reference didn't come from the Flynn or Sullivan pages; JapanOfGreenGables had introduced it him/herself before I started copying content and references from the Flynn and Sullivan pages. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
My bad. I had thought all the refs had come from those two pages. I will revise accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: You're right. No need, and extra work. My thought had been that having everything in oe place. I think what I was envisioning it being possible to keep track of what has been cited there, but we really don't need to beyond the reference page on that section. My thought process was that, while we do need lots of sources from different people that are unbiased, we also want the article to not be "messy" and over-cited. The latter risk is a small risk. So to answer the question your user name asks, it was not a fact. It was an opinion. Also, heads up (and no big deal), but the decision for In Re: Flynn should be cited using <prev>.</prev> . The other court documents you cited as websites look great -- but make sure you include the author of them! So Sullivan for the Case Reassignment, etc. I'll fix them. Noooo big deal. Rule of thumb, if it's actually published in a reporter, then you should cite it as a case, or a decision by an appellate court. I wouldn't be surprised if something else relating to this doesn't spring up in the appeals court, to be honest. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: I'll leave them unedited here for now in case you wanted to practice.
@JapanOfGreenGables: I do understand the need to include authors, source and retrieval dates, etc., and I always do so when I'm the one adding a reference. But in this case, I was copying references from the Flynn page, whence my comment above that "I didn't attempt to clean up the references when I brought them over." It was simply more work than I was up to to copy/edit text from different parts of the Flynn page for the overview, make sure that I got all of the references associated with that text, and also clean up all of the references introduced by others. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: Depending on the context, sometimes editors don't provide all the citation information, and sometimes just do what is easiest and takes the least space in a discussion. For example, in Articles proposed for Deletion discussions, usually just a url link is given to simplify the discussion. For example, in this discussion, you see links [3],[4],...,[11] where editors are likely suggesting WP:RS to prove notability or dispute whether citations in the article are reliable. Here, where you are working on the article looking for the best WP:RS and trying to avoid redundancy, a full citation is best--if you have the time. Thanks for your efforts to use full corrected citations, when possible. Good instinct! --David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
oh oops! My bad. Sorry to have jumped to conclusions. Mea culpa.JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Remaining sources added with this edit:

-- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the improper citations in this list (Emergency Petition for a Write of Mandamus; Order Appointing Amicus Curiae; and In Re: Flynn). JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: draw on reliable sources from the Michael Flynn and Emmet G. Sullivan articles

The US v Flynn page is being split from a section of the Flynn page, Investigations after leaving the Trump administration, and there's a lot of material about the case there with WP:RS already. I've only brought a bit of it to the Draft so far, focusing on the Overview, as I thought it made more sense to discuss the page structure before copying more from there (and people then helpfully drew my attention to the norms for structuring case pages, which I hadn't known about). There's also some relevant text and references in the National Security Advisor section and a bit on Sullivan's page. If any of you haven't looked at the text and references on those pages/sections already, I encourage you to do so. Is there a straightforward way to copy a bunch of references formatted for WP? When I added them to the draft last night, I was copying one at a time. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Notes On Work Done

  • I think it's good we have a running list of citations that are currently cited in the article. We should keep updating it. However, I've also added those citations to their respective categories. Group consciousness (meaning we should go with what we think as a whole rather than what I say), but I would suggest we do that as well. When something new is cited, add it to both the Sources Cited list and also the one it is relevant too (Legal/Journalism/etc.), and maybe still include short synopsis/summary of what it is. I'll work on going through these and doing that now. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes On Work To Be Done Pertaining to Citations

  • Organize sources cited into other lists.
Done as of June 30, 2020 JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Add descriptions for sources that are lacking them.

Don't mind me making these subsections. I'm just a stickler for keeping everything organized and visually clear. Sorry I'm spending more time on the talk page than the draft itself. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Reference #141 has a broken link. The link in reference 141 directs you to a 404 error. Also, Flynn shouldn't be credited as the author. Sidney Powell should be credited as the author if it states she is the author at the end of the declaration. If not, then no author should be listed. Even though it is Flynn's declaration, that doesn't mean he wrote it. I guess I am assuming it wasn't authored by Flynn himself. As the saying goes, "any lawyer who represents himself has a fool as a client." JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@JapanOfGreenGables: Thanks for checking the links. Re: his declaration, it's all written in the first person, and my sense is that he's the true author. Here's a working link: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.160.23.pdf I'm not sure how to format the citation correctly (sorry, I haven't searched yet to see whether you addressed how to properly format something like this). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: Gotcha! I'd never actually read a written declaration before, and I assumed it would be in the third person like briefs. Crediting him as author is correct. Though, as an aside, it was probably actually written by his lawyers in the first person with his consultation, and then signed by him, since things have to be stated just right. That's just kind of a fun fact (that may not actually be that fun) and doesn't impact how it's cited at all. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@JapanOfGreenGables: If it was written by a lawyer, it wasn't written very well. I'm just glad I could find a copy. Are you familiar with Marcy Wheeler? She's an independent journalist who I think is accepted as an "expert" for WP's purposes for some things (and I would include US v Flynn in her "expert" categories). She sometimes writes for / appears on MSM, but also has a self-published blog (definitely not neutral), where she does very detailed analysis of diverse evidence and generally links to the primary sources, and thankfully she'd written about Flynn's declaration, so I was able to find that link on her site without too much trouble. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@JapanOfGreenGables: P.S. re: locating a copy:
One of the things that made it less straightforward to locate was that although I'd read it previously and knew it was signed on 1/29/20, more than one motion and a slew of exhibits were submitted that day, and I wasn't sure how to quickly identify which exhibit corresponded to his personal declaration (turns out to be attachment 23 / exhibit 21). So I turned to an internet search to find a copy instead of finding it directly on the docket pages. You clearly have more legal expertise than I do. How would you have gone about finding a copy in this circumstance? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. As I'm sure you know, things are quite crazy right now for international students. I'm not familiar with her work. Because of the dearth of information out there, I would suggest against citing her if it's in a blog format. I'm not going off of any of the wikipedia criteria, but by comparing this page to the page for NXIVM. There's a blogger whose published the most about NXIVM of anyone or any news source -- Frank Parlato and his blog the Frank Report -- and they've only cited his blog when there weren't other sources that could be used. There's just a layer of review and vetting with media formats -- even if they aren't mainstream media -- that makes sources more "credible," even if the author is very knowledgeable (Fact checking, copy editing, etc). I'm not familiar with Marcy Wheeler, though. If she's widely recognized as an expert, though, her work can be cited, but not as fact. Instead, noting it's her writing ("As Marcy Wheeler, a frequent columnist for the WaPo notes..."). As for locating documents like Flynn's declaration, you honestly went about it the right way. In most instances, a website like CaseListener will be the way to go. While court documents are public access unless they are sealed, most are only available through PACER. If it's only available through PACER, then you have to pay for them. That said, you can go to the particular court's website to get documents as well. In the case, the DC District Court. https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov Honestly I'm not sure there's much there that's free that will be of much help. Also, sometimes, if you're looking for an indictment, for federal cases they are sometimes published on the website for the respective US Attorney's office -- for future reference, since that is not the case here, since the Special Counsel's office and not the US Attorney filed the charges. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

We need to describe Turkish firm opinion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zldEW0tE0yA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfs3FaFYS0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ7sn6J3Kvg 2A00:1FA0:4699:CC56:B5C1:B8A6:6EE2:BEBB (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

These are unrelated to United States v. Flynn in particular. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It is. Stop playing idiots here. 213.87.131.174 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Cool it. United States v. Flynn is a criminal trial for Flynn making false statements about his communications with the Russian ambassador about sanctions the Obama administration put into place in response to the Russian government's interference in the 2016 presidential election. Yes, Flynn has connections to Turkey. That's not what the case or this page is about. You also have not provided sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Speady deletion of all "Turk" info in the article should be done or do what I said above. And stop with that RS staff, you know that you can use some interviews to expand already present information from libtard press. Or search for news RSes using info there. 213.87.162.197 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Listing the other WP pages from which content has been copied to US v. Flynn

This is just a short section intended to make explicit the WP pages used as a source -- via WP:CWW -- for content on the US v. Flynn page. If you copy content to US v. Flynn from another page, even if you simultaneously edit what you've copied, please add the title of that page to this list, thanks:

-- FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be even better if we add a Template:Copied at the top of the page, but I'm not up for looking up all of the relevant history info right now. If someone else is up for doing that, please do. Ideally, the template would also be added to the talk pages of the source articles (i.e., the articles from which content was copied). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_v._Flynn/Archive_1&oldid=1212160160"