Talk:Michael Flynn
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Flynn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A fact from Michael Flynn appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 January 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
woefully inadequate
In a sentencing memorandum released on December 4, 2018, the Mueller investigation stated Flynn "deserves credit for accepting responsibility in a timely fashion and substantially assisting the government" and should receive little or no jail time.[136]
There is far more to the content of the memorandum than that, and it obsoletes much of the other discussion on the page of what Flynn did, which looks like a whitewash at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibal (talk • contribs)
Michael Flynn has filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
The beginning of the article states that Flynn is a convicted felon based on his guilty plea, but his lawyer filed for a motion to withdraw his plea. This makes him no longer a convicted felon and that should be changed.
In addition, the section on his ongoing legal case does not mention the plea withdrawal motion. The New York Times has published this story. [1].
75.80.196.129 (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- No, he filed a motion, but judge Sullivan decides whether to accept it. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- Makes no difference what the judge says, he filed his documentation of what they all did to him. And it was his ex-lawyers who told him to plead guilty or else. Did you not read his appeal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F0D0:7BA0:6814:3117:AB24:770C (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Flynn remains a convicted felon. Irrelevant what motions have been filed or what defendant states until the judge makes a ruling to change that status. Joey.J (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @JoeyJ: Was a Judgement of Conviction entered into the official record? It would be a Federal Form that looks like this. https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/criminal-judgment-forms/judgment-criminal-case. If so, i'd happily agree with you. The 13th 4postle (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The judgment form is filled out by the judge during the guilty plea court hearing. The fact that it’s not available until sentencing is probably a matter of process and procedure. Signed agreement here: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/1162491/download Joey.J (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Michael Flynn's party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Timothy Aslin (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- See the sources in Michael_Flynn#Political_views. If you find better or more recent sources you can point to them. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Trump full pardon (potential), add?
Trump is “strongly considering” a full pardon for Flynn, who pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about the nature of his conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to Trump’s inauguration.
Trump tweeted shortly after the Justice Department initiated a review of the criminal case against Flynn “After destroying his life & the life of his wonderful family (and many others also), the FBI, working in conjunction with the Justice Department, has ‘lost’ the records of General Michael Flynn.” “How convenient,” he added. “I am strongly considering a Full Pardon!” Flynn is currently attempting to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct during his initial trial.
Some refs:
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-hes-strongly-considering-pardoning-michael-flynn/2020/03/15/9137ddfe-66e4-11ea-9923-57073adce27c_story.html
- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/us/politics/trump-flynn-pardon.html
- https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/15/trump-considering-full-pardon-of-former-national-security-advisor-michael-flynn.html
- https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/15/politics/trump-michael-flynn-pardon-tweet/
X1\ (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pardon? It is possible after you have been convicted. He was not and withdraw the plea. The same about Assange and Snowden, BTW. Wow, how many people do not know that. 91.79.174.204 (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
BTW. Wow,
do you not know what "potential" means, 91.79.174.204? X1\ (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Pardon? It is possible after you have been convicted. He was not and withdraw the plea. The same about Assange and Snowden, BTW. Wow, how many people do not know that. 91.79.174.204 (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Where is the section on the new news that Flynn was targeted by the FBI
It is all over the Conservative media about disclosure of hand written notes from Priestap that they were trying to trick Flynn into a lie. I do not list any of them here because, as we all know, only far left sources are accepted here, sources that are shown to have a bias and have to correct themselves almost daily after they do the damage they are trying to do. Notice the sources below, NONE are conservative. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, Conservative Twitter was all in a titter over this last night. But, as is often the case (left wing Twitter too), they're jumping the gun on what those notes do and do not prove. So, we will adhere to our cautious approach since this is a BLP. Please provide some sources as there are none. You mistakenly put this above the sources in the above section from March 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't being covered only by the far right. Why not use the objective Washington Post article, "The Michael Flynn revelation: Bombshell or business as usual?" or The New York Times "Flynn Lawyers Seize on Newly Released F.B.I. Documents" or CNN's "Handwritten note shows how FBI official approached key Michael Flynn interview" or any major news outlet's coverage? YoPienso (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yopienso, no, it's not being covered only by the far right. That was not what I meant with what I said, so I see I was not clear. I meant that it got reported and right wing Twitter jumped on it as though it's a total exoneration of Flynn. It seems that it is not. I haven't read those above sources, but this one I just did read: Trump calls Flynn case 'scam' after new docs released, but experts say they change little, from NBC's San Antonio affiliate. One particular line in the FBI notes is being cherrypicked as evidence of entrapment, but it is not as such. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't being covered only by the far right. Why not use the objective Washington Post article, "The Michael Flynn revelation: Bombshell or business as usual?" or The New York Times "Flynn Lawyers Seize on Newly Released F.B.I. Documents" or CNN's "Handwritten note shows how FBI official approached key Michael Flynn interview" or any major news outlet's coverage? YoPienso (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- My point is, there's no reason not to add this to the BLP. YoPienso (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree. Based on what some of the experts are saying, these notes seem Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill for these kind of interrogations, and adding them can provide the erroneous perception that the FBI entrapped Flynn. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- It is a sham though that this article even fails to mention he is still not convicted/sentenced, lol. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/judge-delays-michael-flynns-sentence-again.html 91.79.174.204 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- The article mentions that he has not been sentenced. What in the article is inaccurate? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia article in inaccurate. Lets also add Crossfire Razor, FBI codename as "Other Names" in the box like we did with CT. 91.79.174.204 (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Just another article that shows the left bias of Wikipedia editors in charge. On Joe Biden, the requirement is "Must have multiple sources" here, there are multiple sources yet no mention. AND, I also wrote about how if it is bad news on a republican, immediately it is added, bad news for a democrat, must be vetted for MONTHS. Then that statement, IN TALK, gets memory holed, and I have a feeling it was an editor who cannot see their bias, as they are here doing the same thing. Just because you do not like the info, does not mean it is wrong. Finally, I will be glad when this article is forced to be rewritten when he is exonerated. And when he is, will he have the right to sue all of the editors that painted him in the worst light and only allowed left wing sources worst light?173.172.158.168 (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia article in inaccurate. Lets also add Crossfire Razor, FBI codename as "Other Names" in the box like we did with CT. 91.79.174.204 (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- The article mentions that he has not been sentenced. What in the article is inaccurate? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is a sham though that this article even fails to mention he is still not convicted/sentenced, lol. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/judge-delays-michael-flynns-sentence-again.html 91.79.174.204 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree. Based on what some of the experts are saying, these notes seem Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill for these kind of interrogations, and adding them can provide the erroneous perception that the FBI entrapped Flynn. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- My point is, there's no reason not to add this to the BLP. YoPienso (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I just added a paragraph about the entrapment allegations to the intro, hopefully in an evenhanded way. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- My attempt to balance this addition with sourced facts has been reverted - therefore I object to its insertion and request that it be discussed and consensus gained before any attempt is made to reinsert it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Korney, do you REALLY think that a biased far left "pedia" will allow any information that will show someone in the Trump Administration to stand until they are forced to? My hope is that Gen. Flynn will sue Wikipedia for defamation with it's left biased write up on him. That would include editors who made the article show the darkest light on him. Like, there are plenty of articles that show he pleaded guilty because the corrupt FBI officials and SC lawyers threatened his son after they bankrupted him. But, hey, the NYT says Joe B. has no evidence against him. This is getting ridiculous. There are plenty of articles now that prove he was railroaded, but SOMEONE does not want that added to this article. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- YES add the information that he was entrapped. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- IP, you're skirting around our policy of Wikipedia:NOLEGALTHREATS. If you continue to make legal threats, even suggesting that Flynn should sue Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am not threatening anything. Hoping that someone who has been ambushed here with a biased article that only left wing sources can be cited gets justice, how is that a bad thing if it brings changes here that are balanced? It would make this "pedia" better, and less prone to professors to tell their students not to rely on it for their citations. Don't you want that?173.172.158.168 (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- IP, you're skirting around our policy of Wikipedia:NOLEGALTHREATS. If you continue to make legal threats, even suggesting that Flynn should sue Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- YES add the information that he was entrapped. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- NorthBySouthBaranof - was the paragraph really unbalanced? It described Flynn's views, and noted that Trump agrees with him. Yes, some people have described his views as a conspiracy theory - and it would be good for the article to state that too - but the article should also make it clear that those descriptions predate the latest evidence, as the person who reverted your changes alluded to. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- That "evidence" is not widely viewed as actual evidence of "entrapment." See, say, this non-opinion mainstream source or this non-opinion mainstream source. There are certainly many partisan right-wing columnists and outlets proclaiming that this is some sort of massive bombshell exonerating Flynn, but those are of no value to Wikipedia in interpreting how to factually present an issue. The judicial system will ultimately provide the final say here. We cannot present Flynn's claims as if they are unchallenged fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Korney, do you REALLY think that a biased far left "pedia" will allow any information that will show someone in the Trump Administration to stand until they are forced to? My hope is that Gen. Flynn will sue Wikipedia for defamation with it's left biased write up on him. That would include editors who made the article show the darkest light on him. Like, there are plenty of articles that show he pleaded guilty because the corrupt FBI officials and SC lawyers threatened his son after they bankrupted him. But, hey, the NYT says Joe B. has no evidence against him. This is getting ridiculous. There are plenty of articles now that prove he was railroaded, but SOMEONE does not want that added to this article. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- So, IF the judge OVERTURNS the case and states in this case what he stated in the Stevens case, that the FBI did malfeasance, there will be the obligatory, oh sorry that we have been lying about you for the past 3 years, will suffice from editors that refuse to allow both interpretations of what has happened to enter the article? The article flat out states he lied, does not state he was pressured to lie to protect his son. We do not know why he would admit to it to Judge Sullivan, was his admitting it to Judge Sullivan a predicate to his getting light sentence? If he did not admit to knowing all those things, was he told he would have the book thrown at him? We all know that prosecutors will put those things in for the deal to happen. Judge Sullivan knows that as well from the Steven's Case and the FBI and Prosecutorial misconduct there. From the article, " FBI agents concluded that Flynn's relaxed behavior during the interview was actually because he was fully committed to his lies and therefore could be compromised by the Kremlin.[citation needed] " There is a citation needed because this is a false statement about him in the article, the FBI felt he was NOT being deceitful but had forgotten what he had talked about with the Russian Ambassador! 173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[1]
- Not widely viewed by whom? Left wing news sources and editors? 173.172.158.168 (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- And to be more specific - the Quartz source Korny O'Near cited discussed the fact that Flynn explicitly told the judge in his case that he was not entrapped and that he knew it was against the law to lie to the FBI, and described the view that he was "entrapped" as a conspiracy theory. If we are to present Flynn's new claims, we must of course put them in context of what reliable mainstream news sources have said about the case, and the known facts of how Flynn has discussed the issue previously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Great - we agree that the new evidence that has come out is not concrete evidence of entrapment. Thankfully, that's not what the article paragraph stated: it said that Flynn, Trump and some others believe he was entrapped, and have said so more consistently since the new information came out a few days ago. It would be good to include the opposing view - though it would be better to cite opposing views that have come out since April 29 or so, rather than from 2018. And it's especially important, if you include incendiary phrases like "conspiracy theory", to note the date and source of those statements. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- The Washington Post is NOT OPINIONATED? Really? The NYT which has NOT ENDORSED A REPUBLICAN for 80 years? No one believes they are not biased any longer, you know it just as well as I do. They just fit your bias. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, they don't fit your bias. Editorial pages, which make political endorsements, are independent from investigative journalists at any newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Really? They sure are forced to retract a LOT of stories from their "investigative journalists" that 95% of the time are against conservatives. [2] I think you are biased to believe them. I admit I am conservative, will you admit you are liberal? When I edit an article here, usually grammar corrections, but if it is an edit in regards to adding to information of an article, I pass it by a couple of other editors that do not have my bias to make sure it contains no POV. This article has POV, it won't allow evidence he was railroaded by their threatening his son with jail time. But it WILL, eventually, it will have to,IMHO.173.172.158.168 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, they don't fit your bias. Editorial pages, which make political endorsements, are independent from investigative journalists at any newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- The Washington Post is NOT OPINIONATED? Really? The NYT which has NOT ENDORSED A REPUBLICAN for 80 years? No one believes they are not biased any longer, you know it just as well as I do. They just fit your bias. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Great - we agree that the new evidence that has come out is not concrete evidence of entrapment. Thankfully, that's not what the article paragraph stated: it said that Flynn, Trump and some others believe he was entrapped, and have said so more consistently since the new information came out a few days ago. It would be good to include the opposing view - though it would be better to cite opposing views that have come out since April 29 or so, rather than from 2018. And it's especially important, if you include incendiary phrases like "conspiracy theory", to note the date and source of those statements. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- Is there a citation for the figure that 95% of WaPo articles are "against conservatives"? All newspapers issue corrections. Well, reputable ones do. No publication is perfect. Yes, I am left wing. I've never denied it. But, there's no evidence that Flynn was "railroaded". Flynn Jr was facing jail time for a reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Is Newsmax considered a reliable source here? They are on radio stations as the national news source at the top and bottom of the hour across the US. Just heard their reports on a station today, like FOX, CBS, Salem Radio Network, etc. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, Newsmax is not a reliable source; they are barely one step above InfoWars on the unreliability scale. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- So anything that is right of left wing CBS is not allowed because they may not tow the liberal bias that is shown in all political articles in Wikipedia. That is what I thought. They are a national radio news outlet. BUT they are infowars. I see. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC) I see they are doing investigations into Strzok substantially rewriting a 302 in another agent's voice. Why would he do that? But you will not accept this because a left wing biased source like the WaPo will not report on it, YET. Interesting.173.172.158.168 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you're calling CBS "left wing", and implying that Infowars is in any way reliable, there's no hope for us to see eye to eye. You'd probably feel more at home on Conservapedia, where they edit with a specific bias (yours) in mind. Here, we adhere to neutral point of view. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- So anything that is right of left wing CBS is not allowed because they may not tow the liberal bias that is shown in all political articles in Wikipedia. That is what I thought. They are a national radio news outlet. BUT they are infowars. I see. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC) I see they are doing investigations into Strzok substantially rewriting a 302 in another agent's voice. Why would he do that? But you will not accept this because a left wing biased source like the WaPo will not report on it, YET. Interesting.173.172.158.168 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I never said Infowars is reliable.173.172.158.168 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- I said "if you're ... implying". I'm glad we're on the same page about Infowars not being reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - We can not hide facts on Wikipedia. Eternal Father (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Support We should at least add information about Crossfire Razor is his codename. But yes, the fact as somebody said above this wikipedia article even fails to mention he was not FOUND GUILTY, i.e. was not convicted is rather strange. 2A00:1370:812C:9562:9450:C202:4986:EA75 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- The article says that he pled guilty and then sought to withdraw his guilty plea. Which is accurate. His FBI code name is not relevant as far as I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Potentially exculpatory details, such as a codename used in recently unsealed documents, would be relevant to this case. He did seek to withdraw his plea, and there's either entrapment or at least brady violations that may very well see him acquitted. Eternal Father (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- The FBI likes to use code names. What makes you think Flynn's code name is in any way exculpatory? Entrapment and Brady violations remain unproven and possible acquittal is WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think the guy meant that Crossfire Razor, just like Crossfire Latitude for Donald J Trump and Crossfire Typhoon for George Popadopulus (that is already edited in info box oh his page) can be used to search on Twitter, e.g., LOL, you really do not understand it? Maybe you should try to search Jeffrey Wiseman. Hah. So crazy what FBI did using that guy... "that he pled guilty " That is the point! It is not standard for guilty plea not to lead to conviction but that happens and we must show it here. As I understand it FBI itself said that he did not lie, that is why this did not lead to conviction. 2A00:1370:812C:9562:F124:BA0C:5534:D536 (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- The FBI likes to use code names. What makes you think Flynn's code name is in any way exculpatory? Entrapment and Brady violations remain unproven and possible acquittal is WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Potentially exculpatory details, such as a codename used in recently unsealed documents, would be relevant to this case. He did seek to withdraw his plea, and there's either entrapment or at least brady violations that may very well see him acquitted. Eternal Father (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks like two users, Muboshgu and NorthBySouthBaranof, are preventing any information about the new evidence released about the Flynn investigation from getting added to this article. So now we're in the curious situation where the Wikipedia article about Flynn, a good 30% of which relates to his 2017 FBI investigation, contains no mention of the little fact that Flynn now says he's innocent - as do his lawyers, the President of the United States, and a variety of right-wing media. One would think that at least mentioning this fact would be uncontroversial across the political spectrum, but apparently not. The justification that these two users have provided every time for removing the information is that there's no "consensus" for it - though as far as I can tell, they haven't attempted to generate any consensus. So, Muboshgu and NorthBySouthBaranof, let me ask you directly: what's the endgame here? Are you happy with the article as it currently stands? If not, how do you want it changed? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Korny O'Near, the article covers all of the important details, including Flynn withdrawing his guilty plea. There is no consensus to add some of the more recent items that Right Wing Twitter is misreading as exonerating evidence. There would need to be a consensus supporting it to add it, not whatever you're suggesting. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. Yes, we've established that you think there's no consensus; you don't need to keep repeating it here. Regardless of one's interpretation of this new evidence - which is, of course, a matter of opinion - surely you would agree that it's noteworthy to mention it in this article, given (a) how much media attention it has gotten, and (b) that Flynn, Trump and others have made public statements relating to it? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. We don't automatically add WP:BREAKING news, we assess its importance. The release of documents is pretty standard and WP:ROTM. That Trump and others are misinterpreting the document release is meaningless for our purposes. Trump says lots of things that aren't true. Yes, if Flynn says he's innocent it should be there. Isn't it? I don't think that whole section is written that well. That's probably the result.of one report being added haphazardly after another. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- That WP:BREAKING guideline doesn't seem relevant here - it's about creating new articles, not adding information to existing articles. I don't think WP:ROTM applies here either. Yes, government documents get released every day, but I don't think most of them lead to hundreds of articles, opinion pieces, etc. in mainstream news sources. And Flynn now says more than that he's innocent: his lawyers say that he was "deliberately set up", which is not something I think he or they were saying before. I do agree with you that much of the article content that covers his post-2017 legal troubles is too detailed and blow-by-blow. Unfortunately, you and NorthBySouthBaranof don't seem to be doing anything to improve the situation, but hopefully that will change. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. We don't automatically add WP:BREAKING news, we assess its importance. The release of documents is pretty standard and WP:ROTM. That Trump and others are misinterpreting the document release is meaningless for our purposes. Trump says lots of things that aren't true. Yes, if Flynn says he's innocent it should be there. Isn't it? I don't think that whole section is written that well. That's probably the result.of one report being added haphazardly after another. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. Yes, we've established that you think there's no consensus; you don't need to keep repeating it here. Regardless of one's interpretation of this new evidence - which is, of course, a matter of opinion - surely you would agree that it's noteworthy to mention it in this article, given (a) how much media attention it has gotten, and (b) that Flynn, Trump and others have made public statements relating to it? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- BLP requires that the material reverted recently by Muboshgu be re-instated. The current page does not accurately reflect the situation which has drastically changed since before the release of the FBI notes and the US Attorney investigation. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, ha lol no it doesn't. Not at all. Nothing has changed with the release of these notes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Korny O'Near, per this comment I am reinstating the reverted editors. There is clear consensus that the material should go in. Only 2 editors are against, while 6+ support. The wording is very neutral, and simply updates readers on recent developments. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Where is Crossfire Razor in the box? 2A00:1370:812C:9562:4C22:3085:2D74:9E11 (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, consensus is more than a vote tally. And additional opposition coming in afterwards anwyay makes that point moot. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose section, per Muboshgu. Until there is more coverage in reliable sources elucidating this matter's importance, then it really does seem rather undue to add this kind of run-of-the-mill reporting.
- Also, I believe that Mr Ernie's revert of Muboshgu's revert is a violation of the DS/WP:ARBAPDS on this article, that
You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article
. Material was added; challenged by Muboshgu, and re-challenged by Mr Ernie. This discussion is still active, hasn't been closed, and I think it's rather inappropriate for Mr Ernie to carry through "consensus" (which doesn't clearly exist) even though Mr Ernie is a participant of said discussion. —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)- I'm not sure we will get a formal "closure" about this disputed information. At the time I reinserted I saw a clear consensus to add an update reflecting developments in the story. The text could not be more neutral - there is nothing controversial about the disputed text. There's the disclosure of new evidence, Flynn's counsel's response, and responses from legal professionals. There's been several disputed wordings about potential wrongdoings by one side or the other, but the current material doesn't contain any of that information. I'll revert, but opposers please point out explicitly why this particular information [1] is a problem. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the significance, hence why its necessary to pause before we add content. Moreso, it does not seem reasonable that we devote a whole section to a common practice, something mainstream RS have not even adequately articulated its importance. Whilst I do thank and appreciate the fact you've self-reverted, I would like to remind you that the WP:ONUS is actually on you and supporters of this disputed content to establish consensus for its inclusion (which, even prior to me being here, didn't clearly exist). —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we will get a formal "closure" about this disputed information. At the time I reinserted I saw a clear consensus to add an update reflecting developments in the story. The text could not be more neutral - there is nothing controversial about the disputed text. There's the disclosure of new evidence, Flynn's counsel's response, and responses from legal professionals. There's been several disputed wordings about potential wrongdoings by one side or the other, but the current material doesn't contain any of that information. I'll revert, but opposers please point out explicitly why this particular information [1] is a problem. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This is frantic right-wing chatter on the internet. It's died out even on Fox News as of today. Retired judges asked to comment have said this is far removed from what would constitute entrapment sufficient to reverse the judicial process that has convicted Flynn. Per DS on this page, it should not have been restored to the article without consensus. I trust it will be removed so so that sanctions are not necessary. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the reinstated wording? I think if you had then you also would have seen it was self reverted several hours ago. Your comment about the judges is also included. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- "It's died out even on Fox News as of today." Are we watching the same Fox News? Some crazy guy there said he wants to see Comey/Brennan executed and he will even press the botton. Because of Flynn. lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y43BtbDOi9Y 2A00:1370:812C:9562:4C22:3085:2D74:9E11 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the reinstated wording? I think if you had then you also would have seen it was self reverted several hours ago. Your comment about the judges is also included. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support - this isn't a poll or RfC, but what the heck, I'll vote anyway. For those who say it's a non-story (!), editorials and opinion pieces who have covered these latest revelations include those in The Wall Street Journal, Reason, National Review, The Hill, Boston Herald, The New York Post and The Providence Journal. And those are just the pro-Flynn ones. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Stop hiding factual information. The update I had made had multiple citations. It was written in a NPOV. The article on Michael Flynn is now woefully out of date. There are reports from POLITCO, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, and the Federalist. The 13th 4postle (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - (1) leave out the opinion pieces. (2) leave out the poorer sources: Washington Examiner, the Federalist. (3) If we are to quote: "
What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?
", then we must also include, "If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it.
" [2], and "We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing
" [3] Context is important, we do not only quote things out of context. We may have to explain the context too, if the sources do so. starship.paint (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I like the inclusion of this quote with Kevin's section. I don't see why we can't add Kevin's section and add future additional edits to that. The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose the versions I've seen so far, per my comment below. If someone can propose something concise, factual, and using only high-quality sources, I would be open to reconsidering. - MrX 🖋 13:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support-ish I wouldn't use wiki-voice or say targeted as fact, but YES think the embarassing evidence that looks like that has high WEIGHT and the FBI handling definitely had major BLP impact, so something of significant size belongs. There's a lot of space given to the phone call, his dismissal, the details in delay of sentencing - there should similarly be space for the declassification of FBI note re getting him to lie, of questions over the recording of his phone calls, the breaking of normal procedure in interviewing him, the reported evidence tampering of Strzok editing th 302 record of the interview, texts of Strzok were not known at the time of the earlier Flynn events, the concealment of exculpatory information during the trial, etcetera. The exculpatory info is part of the attempt to change plea to not guilty so I think some of this should be there in proper chronological position. The evidence-tampering allegations and such seems part of the DOJ dropping charges, so should be there in it's proper chronological place. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- If this is an actual straw poll, I oppose the nature of this. Remember how Barr's summary of the Mueller Report didn't match what the Mueller report actually said? Yeah. There's no evidence the FBI did anything inappropriate with Flynn. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
New Section on Release of New Evidence
The new section updates the Michael Flynn article and is written in a Neutral Point of View. It includes multiple citations from credible sources. It simply states how there is new evidence and both sides are now debating the importance thereof. The 13th 4postle (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- The 13th 4postle, it includes information that is run of the mill and obfuscates the facts, so no, "multiple citations from credible sources" isn't enough. No "both sides" debating, it's not important. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu This is absolutely not run of the mill information. The new evidence has led to a huge increase in national media attention. This is considered by many legal and law enforcement analysts to be a significant factual update to the case. "Michael Flynn was railroaded by Comey's FBI", "The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the Trump–Russia Probe." One of those was written by ex-FBI agent for 25 years, the other was an Assistant U.S Attorney in the Southern District of NY. There are 4 votes to 2 to support the inclusion of the factual information on the release of new evidence. This is now multiple times that you continue to edit the article to NOT include relevant and updated information. I would like for the information to be included without having to seek arbitration. It is written in a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The 13th 4postle (talk • contribs)
- @The 13th 4postle: - the Washington Examiner and National Review are poor sources. The Washington Examiner one is even an opinion piece. You don't go by counting votes here. starship.paint (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Those were not the sources I used in the new section. Those were sources I used to show that this new evidence is not "Run of the Mill" @ MelbourneStar The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- A "huge increase in national media attention" that is much ado about nothing. We don't report on every WP:FART. There is absolutely nothing significant in this document release, and no reason we should include it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- This document release has been the focus of dozens of articles and opinion pieces. Many legal scholars have weighed in. Flynn's own lawyers have called for a mistrial. How much more coverage does this need before you'd think that it should be covered in this article? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Significant coverage is not a guarantee of inclusion. His lawyers are basically doing PR for him, so why should we aid them? We're not a PR agency. The idea that these documents represent anything other than S.O.P. for the FBI are WP:FRINGE theories. The level of coverage isn't the issue. We're not a newspaper, so we don't simply regurgitate what the press does. These documents will be proven to be meaningful if they actually alter the prosecution of his case. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Really, you think WP:FRINGE applies here? Let me quote from that guideline: "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view." At least two well-known American legal scholars, Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, have weighed in to say that they agree with Flynn and his lawyers. Conversely, I don't know of any legal scholars who have stated that these latest documents are no big deal. So if any view here is fringe, it might be yours. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe find some that have not worked for Trump in the past 6 months? Just a thought. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whether or not they worked for Trump (I don't think Turley ever did) is not relevant to WP:FRINGE. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I did not call them fringe. I would say the mainstream considers them compromised partisans, if not pathetic hacks, but just find better content and we'll all move on. I haven't seen any serious well-reasoned and qualified opinion that supports Flynn. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I called it fringe and do think Turley and Dershowitz have put themselves into fringe territory over the years. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, good. I'm glad somebody did. SPECIFICO talk
- Your opinions on Turley and Dershowitz, like mine, are irrelevant here. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- My dear Korny, I haven't seen anyone express personal opinions here. (Except your opinion Turley didn't appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing). Just let's find valid sources and get on to the next thing. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see any valid sources that talk about this since five days ago. In other words, the 24 hour news cycle has moved on from this because of lack of relevance. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wait, I just found this one, but it's also insignificant. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I linked a Boston
GlobeHerald [h/t Muboshgu] piece from today, albeit an op-ed. It would be interesting to see if anyone covers it if the judge eventually throws the case out. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)- Well, it's an op-ed, so case in point. If the judge throws the case out, then of course we will document why the case was thrown out. But for now, it's wait and see.
"The judge in Flynn's case, Emmett Sullivan, later Thursday ordered Flynn's team to halt the piecemeal production of new documents and to only add new information to the court docket once they get everything the U.S. attorney is going to provide."
[4] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, it's an op-ed, so case in point. If the judge throws the case out, then of course we will document why the case was thrown out. But for now, it's wait and see.
- Did you mean the op-ed from the Boston Herald? The Herald is to the Globe as the NY Post is to the NY Times. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, that is interesting. I wrote Herald below, after must of having read the URL and Globe here, thinking that was the source since I had told myself "because newspaper in Boston." I didn't realize there were two different newspapers, and that the Herald had such a reputation. Thanks for the heads up. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, I figured that was an honest mistake. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, that is interesting. I wrote Herald below, after must of having read the URL and Globe here, thinking that was the source since I had told myself "because newspaper in Boston." I didn't realize there were two different newspapers, and that the Herald had such a reputation. Thanks for the heads up. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO - you must have missed when Muboshgu wrote, "I do think Turley and Dershowitz have put themselves into fringe territory over the years". Korny O'Near (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's not his opinion. That's thinking. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Deep. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's not his opinion. That's thinking. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- These are some remarkably specific rules that you seem to be making up here. Apparently, to merit inclusion in this article, a fact has to be covered by media for a week straight - and not just any reliable sources, but the right ones. By that standard, 90% of the contents of this article should be deleted, I would think. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- OK let's wait another 10 days and see if anyone off the talk radio circuit is still pushing this. There's a big difference between a week straight and the past week straight with nothing on the horizon. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I stand corrected - I thought it was just a week, but apparently a fact has to be discussed in the mainstream media for three weeks straight in order to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. At least, according to these rules you're making up. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- OK let's wait another 10 days and see if anyone off the talk radio circuit is still pushing this. There's a big difference between a week straight and the past week straight with nothing on the horizon. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I linked a Boston
- My dear Korny, I haven't seen anyone express personal opinions here. (Except your opinion Turley didn't appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing). Just let's find valid sources and get on to the next thing. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your opinions on Turley and Dershowitz, like mine, are irrelevant here. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, good. I'm glad somebody did. SPECIFICO talk
- I called it fringe and do think Turley and Dershowitz have put themselves into fringe territory over the years. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe find some that have not worked for Trump in the past 6 months? Just a thought. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Really, you think WP:FRINGE applies here? Let me quote from that guideline: "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view." At least two well-known American legal scholars, Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, have weighed in to say that they agree with Flynn and his lawyers. Conversely, I don't know of any legal scholars who have stated that these latest documents are no big deal. So if any view here is fringe, it might be yours. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Significant coverage is not a guarantee of inclusion. His lawyers are basically doing PR for him, so why should we aid them? We're not a PR agency. The idea that these documents represent anything other than S.O.P. for the FBI are WP:FRINGE theories. The level of coverage isn't the issue. We're not a newspaper, so we don't simply regurgitate what the press does. These documents will be proven to be meaningful if they actually alter the prosecution of his case. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- This document release has been the focus of dozens of articles and opinion pieces. Many legal scholars have weighed in. Flynn's own lawyers have called for a mistrial. How much more coverage does this need before you'd think that it should be covered in this article? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- A "huge increase in national media attention" that is much ado about nothing. We don't report on every WP:FART. There is absolutely nothing significant in this document release, and no reason we should include it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Those were not the sources I used in the new section. Those were sources I used to show that this new evidence is not "Run of the Mill" @ MelbourneStar The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @The 13th 4postle: - the Washington Examiner and National Review are poor sources. The Washington Examiner one is even an opinion piece. You don't go by counting votes here. starship.paint (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu This is absolutely not run of the mill information. The new evidence has led to a huge increase in national media attention. This is considered by many legal and law enforcement analysts to be a significant factual update to the case. "Michael Flynn was railroaded by Comey's FBI", "The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the Trump–Russia Probe." One of those was written by ex-FBI agent for 25 years, the other was an Assistant U.S Attorney in the Southern District of NY. There are 4 votes to 2 to support the inclusion of the factual information on the release of new evidence. This is now multiple times that you continue to edit the article to NOT include relevant and updated information. I would like for the information to be included without having to seek arbitration. It is written in a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The 13th 4postle (talk • contribs)
I agree that information on the new evidence should be added, though I didn't really like the way that new section was worded (no offense) - too much blow-by-blow stuff that doesn't really matter (no one really cares about the names of Flynn's lawyers). As noted earlier, that's a problem that afflicts this whole article, but that's another story. Anyway, I just added my own attempt at a new section, here. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Korny O'Near no, you don't have consensus to add the disputed content of the previous section (above this one). Gain consensus for its inclusion, and read up on the WP:ARBAPDS applied to this article. Honestly, this whole process is getting a little ridiculous -- do we need WP:RPP? or can editors actually discuss first, come to an agreement, and then edit? —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is a no consensus that Michael Flynn was entrapped. But why is there no consensus that new evidence shouldn't be included? The new evidence can be presented in a NPOV. It is not run of the mill as I have cited above. The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- The 13th 4postle - that's exactly right. MelbourneStar - I agree that this is getting ridiculous, but not for the reasons you think. At the moment, there are a handful of editors who seem to be taking advantage of this article's special "discretionary sanctions" status to keep new information out of it, for who knows what reason. I think you give the game away by repeatedly citing "no consensus" as the reason why you're reverting. I mean, there's no consensus ahead of time for a typo fix either, but you wouldn't revert that change. There's obviously an underlying reason why you don't like these additions, so let's talk about that, instead of the endless circular logic of "I do not consent because there is no consensus". Korny O'Near (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)First of all, you know full well that your edit wasn't a mere "typo fix" so please don't even try minimise it to that. Secondly, consensus is supposed to be clear, which this "consensus" is anything but. I'm certainly not taking advantage of the DS restrictions applied to this article as you've insinuated: if that were the case, I would have opened a discussion here about certain recent edits. Instead, I've opted to keep the active discussion going -- something I've been pretty consistent about. In response to your "underlying reason" comment, my thoughts on the matter are clear in black and white a section above. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I know it wasn't a typo fix - that's my point. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and my point was that you added content that was actively being discussed (still is), without obtaining the necessary consensus. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's very hard to obtain consensus ahead of time for three paragraphs' worth of text. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- "
It's very hard to obtain consensus
" Ah, sorry? the onus is actually on you to adequately communicate with us what you'd like to add in to the article, especially if its currently under discussion and been challenged. Bypassing discussion is not the way you're going to achieve consensus. —MelbourneStar☆talk 14:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)- You just linked to a guideline that has no relevance to this discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, it's part of our verifiability policy, and as it relates to this discussion, I quote:
...all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content
(emphasis mine). So If you can't convince others on the significance of the content you wish to add — that's not really my problem. —MelbourneStar☆talk 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, it's part of our verifiability policy, and as it relates to this discussion, I quote:
- You just linked to a guideline that has no relevance to this discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- "
- It's very hard to obtain consensus ahead of time for three paragraphs' worth of text. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and my point was that you added content that was actively being discussed (still is), without obtaining the necessary consensus. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I know it wasn't a typo fix - that's my point. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)First of all, you know full well that your edit wasn't a mere "typo fix" so please don't even try minimise it to that. Secondly, consensus is supposed to be clear, which this "consensus" is anything but. I'm certainly not taking advantage of the DS restrictions applied to this article as you've insinuated: if that were the case, I would have opened a discussion here about certain recent edits. Instead, I've opted to keep the active discussion going -- something I've been pretty consistent about. In response to your "underlying reason" comment, my thoughts on the matter are clear in black and white a section above. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- The 13th 4postle - that's exactly right. MelbourneStar - I agree that this is getting ridiculous, but not for the reasons you think. At the moment, there are a handful of editors who seem to be taking advantage of this article's special "discretionary sanctions" status to keep new information out of it, for who knows what reason. I think you give the game away by repeatedly citing "no consensus" as the reason why you're reverting. I mean, there's no consensus ahead of time for a typo fix either, but you wouldn't revert that change. There's obviously an underlying reason why you don't like these additions, so let's talk about that, instead of the endless circular logic of "I do not consent because there is no consensus". Korny O'Near (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is a no consensus that Michael Flynn was entrapped. But why is there no consensus that new evidence shouldn't be included? The new evidence can be presented in a NPOV. It is not run of the mill as I have cited above. The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- The versions that I've seen of this so far fall short of our NPOV and RS policies. "...some have argued that Flynn was [[entrapment|entrapped ..." is not encyclopedic phrasing. Quartz, The Washington Examiner, and the WSJ editorial board are not good sources for factual content. Opinions from The Hill, Trump, and Dershowitz should be strictly avoided. Speculation from Fox News should be eschewed. I suggest that those wanting to include this propose something far more factual and succinct on this page, then we can try to get consensus for including it.
- MrX 🖋 13:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)- These are all pretty bold statements. No quoting Wall Street Journal editorials? Can any editorials be quoted in Wikipedia, or is just the WSJ's that are forbidden? And the opinions of legal scholar Alan Dershowitz can't be cited either? Is it all legal scholars, or just him? Finally, the opinions of President Donald Trump cannot be mentioned, about a former member of his administration? I'd love to see the guidelines covering any of this. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- If there's valid content, there will be an abundance of undisputed valid sources. Just show and tell. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- All of this news is about a legal dispute, so I don't know what you mean by "undisputed". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant insisputably valid sources. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- All of this news is about a legal dispute, so I don't know what you mean by "undisputed". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think my comments are bold at all. They're pretty bog standard. Dershowitz is a partisan whose opinions are of no relevance here. Maybe there is a case to be made for Trump's viewpoint to be mentioned, but I have not yet seen it. WP:ONUS applies to POTUS too. - MrX 🖋 16:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that there was a "no partisan opinions" guideline. Are you just making up rules? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. - MrX 🖋 17:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC) ::::::All of us who are trying to make this article FACTUAL and not liberal POV agree with you that that is exactly what you are doing, thanks for admitting the truth! 173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that there was a "no partisan opinions" guideline. Are you just making up rules? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- If there's valid content, there will be an abundance of undisputed valid sources. Just show and tell. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- These are all pretty bold statements. No quoting Wall Street Journal editorials? Can any editorials be quoted in Wikipedia, or is just the WSJ's that are forbidden? And the opinions of legal scholar Alan Dershowitz can't be cited either? Is it all legal scholars, or just him? Finally, the opinions of President Donald Trump cannot be mentioned, about a former member of his administration? I'd love to see the guidelines covering any of this. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it should be ok to simply add that new information was turned over to Flynn's team and they made some new filings. There doesn't need to be a focus on any governmental misconduct, and it should be sufficient to note that legal experts viewed it as largely not helpful. I feel this is a neutral update in line that is acceptable per NPOV. Regarding the valid concern about RS, here is a Boston Herald article [5] and a piece by NPR [6]. Granted the Boston Herald is an op-ed, but the factual statements about the new developments are confirmed there and elsewhere. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Flynn and his lawyers believe there was governmental misconduct - as do a variety of newspaper editorial boards, legal analysts, and politicians. Why shouldn't this article cover that? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I said there shouldn't be a focus on that. We could include what Flynn's team thinks with their filings, and attribute it to them. That's really for the judge to decide anyway, not RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- The NPOV text would also focus on the right wing media fog and on Trump's pandering to Flynn and his supporters. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- What's an example of a source that supports that? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Goddammit. Stop arguing about this and include Crossfire Razor name. And BTW, maybe somebody will find a new photo for George Popadopulus page? I tried but failed ;) 2A00:1FA0:427C:81AB:5084:9ED2:41AF:A353 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why? Why should we add the FBI codename? And address any changes about Papadopoulos' page on Papadopoulos' talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Goddammit. Stop arguing about this and include Crossfire Razor name. And BTW, maybe somebody will find a new photo for George Popadopulus page? I tried but failed ;) 2A00:1FA0:427C:81AB:5084:9ED2:41AF:A353 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, don't include Trump pointing to these Flynn case disclosures as part of the article about Flynn case disclosures and events. Not WEIGHT or direct impact to Flynn, so it would be getting into a separate thing outside the BLP scope of Flynn. Any outside opinions that this was a systematic persecution by Comey et al 'Deep State' of Trump and everyone associated to him and everyone associated to them ... there must be a better place Trump article for that, but at least it doesn't belong in the same section as just relating Flynn-FBI events. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- What's an example of a source that supports that? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
RfC: Release of new documents, possible perjury trap
|
On April 24, 2020, there was a release of previously-unseen documents relating to the investigation of Michael Flynn, including one that shows that, before the meeting with Flynn, one FBI agent had written, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?". Should this article mention this release of documents? And if so, should it be done in the context of allegations that Flynn was the target of a perjury trap? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
You can see one attempt at creating a section that does both, here. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This RfC is still ongoing, despite the U.S. Department of Justice dropping its case against Flynn, because there is not yet a clear consensus on this question. Please continue to share your opinions below. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
No Putting that quote in there without context would make it appear as though the FBI did something inappropriate in their interrogation of Flynn, and there is no evidence to suggest that is the case. Legal experts say it does not show entrapment.[7] The release of documents is WP:ROUTINE, WP:ROTM, and this article already appears to suffer from proseline-like additions of each step of the court process. These documents are nothing more than fodder for the WP:FRINGE.– Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Are you saying the FBI does not do things inappropriately? Judge Sullivan OVERTURNED THE CONVICTION OF TED STEVENS for precisely that reason, seems they have not changed their tactics. I will bet there was a big "Ah $%^&" sigh when he was chosen to oversee the sentencing of Flynn and an even BIGGER ONE when he demanded they turn over any exculpatory evidence from the FBI AFTER THE CONVICTION on plea. Especially now that we know that Strzok transcript of his text was just released that he altered the 302 extensively trying to write it in the voice of the original agent to influence an investigation which is a Felony punishable for 20 years.173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC) [1]
- It seems that the comment
"including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant's supplemental pleadings"
from the filing is talking about these notes. So based on that I'm striking my vote. I'm not supporting its inclusion. A whole 'nother process is needed to figure out what we should say. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- It seems that the comment
- Yes to both. Even if Flynn's view that he was caught in a perjury trap - and that these documents help to prove it - was a completely insane, fringe theory, it would still be worth covering here because it represents his views, and his legal defense: ultimately, this is an article about Michael Flynn. However, it's far from a fringe theory, by Wikipedia standards, since it's shared by a variety of American newspaper editorial boards, legal analysts, and politicians, all of whom have written or talked about it publicly. The evidence for including all of this in the article is pretty overwhelming. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes to mentioning the document release, as a major development, widely covered by reliable sources. I don't think we should add "context", unless RS'es do so. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes to mentioning the document release and Flynn's subsequent filings, as well as legal expert opinions on their (lack of) significance. Such an addition accurately reflects new developments in the Flynn case and provides needed NPOV to the earlier proceedings. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- No to both. I suspect the reason why the full quote (ie. context) hasn't been recommended by those wishing to add this content in: is because it would then appear be a pretty innocuous practice, and yes, run of the mill reporting. If anything, I'd be curious to see what happens in the next few weeks with respect to this latest "development", and then would reconsider if necessary. —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- No - Per my previous comments. The proposed material is full of partisan talking points, and disproportionate weight given to a ploy by Flynn's lawyers and Flynn's non-law-respecting supporters. I'm open to considering including something, but I would want to see the wording worked out first and it would have to be much more concise and factual. - MrX 🖋 11:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- What about "On April 24, U.S Attorney Timothy J. Shea sent a letter to Flynn's counsel stating that in January 2020, Attorney General Barr had directed U.S Attorney Shea to review reports along with communications and notes by the FBI personal associated with the Michael Flynn Investigation "Crossfire Razor." The letter goes on to state that new evidence in the investigation was found and turned over to the court and opposition counsel under seal." There is no need to focus on the partisan talking points, but a simple and neutral update is appropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Something along those lines would probably be fine, after changing the word personal to person. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- No We don't elevate empty talking points that are disregarded by the mainstream. "Perjury trap" is rare as the Dodo Bird and does not apply to the facts surrounding this event. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes The idea that this was "disregarded by the mainstream" is just not true as the NYT has covered it precisely in the context of an argument over whether or not it was a perjury trap.[8] Per WP:WIKIVOICE, we should do the same. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes to both Backed by reliable sources. ~ HAL333 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes to both and to Crossfire Razor. Also you really miss the point, FBI thought he did not lie and wanted to close it (there was even a hidden part in court documents that he is not guilty), that is why the guilty plea did not work. It all was pending for so long because Peter Strzok reopened it and as emails show it was not fancy. Also wanted to tell that https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/judge-delays-michael-flynns-sentence-again.html and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJVc5GSjpSU can also be used as sources (even though the second is opinion). 91.76.22.132 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes to both since they are supported by substantial sources. Idealigic (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes to both it gave context to Flynn's defense arguments and is supported by reliable sources Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes to both since there is now large WEIGHT of coverage, and this is part of DOJ dropping charges has large BLP impact on Flynn’s life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes to both close per WP:SNOW. Buffs (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes to quote, No to "perjury trap" - Include the quote as shown. The note as quoted is heavily reported and quoted, plus that is direct info without spin. But no to using the phrase "perjury trap", as the phrase seems less commonly used, a bit too inflammatory/POV opinionating versus the WP:BLP quidance to show restraint, and it's just not necessary for the BLP context. I don't doubt that it is a reasonable label to apply, but the impact for Flynn BLP purposes is in the DOJ dropping charges and saying the investigation was not justified, which all POVs agree happened. That the investigation used hardball tactics unusual for this context of nor following normal procedure, seeking a lie, and pursued his business partner and son is significant details that can be neutrally stated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Inflammatory or no (and accurate or no), the phrase "perjury trap" has been used by quite a few people to describe the Flynn case, including, a few days ago, Attorney General Barr. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Moot?
I'd say this is pretty moot now that the case against him has been dropped. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this RfC is moot now, which actually helps prove my point that encyclopedias, which are written for a historical perspective, require more patients with WP:BREAKING news. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)- Ignoring that bit of illogic, I'm not sure this RfC is moot (though I hope it is). A big part of the reason why this RfC was necessary is the special protected status of this article, which dictates that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged". Which means that one or a small group of editors can prevent even obvious changes from getting made, on the grounds of "no consensus". You would think that, with this latest news, it would be obvious that Flynn's argument about a perjury trap belong in this article - but then again, it seemed obvious before too, and a handful of editors thought otherwise. So it all depends on whether these specific editors have all changed their minds or not. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- No "illogic", if that's even a word. This is why WP:BREAKING was written. We need to take a historical perspective on all events, and legal minutiae that amounts to nothing is WP:UNDUE. If indeed the documents are the impetus for dropping charges, that makes it imperative to include. My opinion on this has changed 180 degrees because the facts on the ground have changed since this RfC was opened. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you're unsure if something's a word or not, we have recently created a handy tool called a 'dictionary', where you can look it up - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illogic. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, that snark is not needed. I don't care enough if it's a word to bother looking it up. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)\
- It was an appropriately snarky response to your "if that's even a word" comment, which was itself a totally gratuitous and condescending snark. I'm glad my point came across clearly. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, that snark is not needed. I don't care enough if it's a word to bother looking it up. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)\
- If you're unsure if something's a word or not, we have recently created a handy tool called a 'dictionary', where you can look it up - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illogic. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that the case for including these facts is even stronger now doesn't prove that the case for doing it before was weak. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. That's true. It was my opinion, and the opinion of some of the others who commented, that the case for doing it before was weak. I stand by that. Actual impact (like the DOJ dropping the case, or if the judge had thrown it out) makes for a different situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- We will have to see what develops, but I think there will be lots of commentary about how AG Barr may have concluded that the entrapment thing wouldn't fly and didn't want to risk further upsetting his boss. With the opposite, as noted, from the TV judges. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- It’s certainly easier to attack Barr and ignore IG reports and document releases showing potential misconduct in these investigations. Per his statement the decision came from US attorney Jensen. But let’s see how “RS” covers it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Of course it came from him. Barr's no dummy. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- It’s certainly easier to attack Barr and ignore IG reports and document releases showing potential misconduct in these investigations. Per his statement the decision came from US attorney Jensen. But let’s see how “RS” covers it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- No "illogic", if that's even a word. This is why WP:BREAKING was written. We need to take a historical perspective on all events, and legal minutiae that amounts to nothing is WP:UNDUE. If indeed the documents are the impetus for dropping charges, that makes it imperative to include. My opinion on this has changed 180 degrees because the facts on the ground have changed since this RfC was opened. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ignoring that bit of illogic, I'm not sure this RfC is moot (though I hope it is). A big part of the reason why this RfC was necessary is the special protected status of this article, which dictates that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged". Which means that one or a small group of editors can prevent even obvious changes from getting made, on the grounds of "no consensus". You would think that, with this latest news, it would be obvious that Flynn's argument about a perjury trap belong in this article - but then again, it seemed obvious before too, and a handful of editors thought otherwise. So it all depends on whether these specific editors have all changed their minds or not. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Amending my statement timestamped 19:03, 7 May 2020 above, the RfC isn't "moot", but the question has been rendered out of date somewhat based on the changed situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- In what way is it out of date? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Uh, the charges were dropped. That changes the entire nature of this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- That’s just a run of the mill undue update though, isn’t it? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, remember to WP:AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking of good faith, how about changing your vote? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- How does one relate to the other? I'm waiting to see more press coverage of the dismissal to see exactly how the FBI notes factor in. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- So... your opinion on this has not changed 180 degrees, then? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- When editing an encyclopedia, one should exercise caution. I haven't had a chance to read the dismissal memo. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'll say this in your favor: as your opinion keeps changing, your confidence in your own wisdom never falters. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- My opinion only changes with the facts and the coverage of reliable sources. I see the quote
" including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant's supplemental pleadings"
. I can only assume that means the notes? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- My opinion only changes with the facts and the coverage of reliable sources. I see the quote
- I'll say this in your favor: as your opinion keeps changing, your confidence in your own wisdom never falters. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- When editing an encyclopedia, one should exercise caution. I haven't had a chance to read the dismissal memo. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- So... your opinion on this has not changed 180 degrees, then? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- How does one relate to the other? I'm waiting to see more press coverage of the dismissal to see exactly how the FBI notes factor in. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking of good faith, how about changing your vote? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, remember to WP:AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- That’s just a run of the mill undue update though, isn’t it? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Uh, the charges were dropped. That changes the entire nature of this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
By the way, given that this RfC still appears to be necessary, anyone should feel free to change their vote if they've changed their opinion on it. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not moot - the coverage WEIGHT and BLP impact is increased because this was a direct impetus to dropping charges. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
As of May 11 2020, DOJ has announced its intention to file a motion to dismiss. Until this is ruled on by the judge, Flynn remains. convicted felon based on his guilty plea accepted in court. Judge will rule on DOJ motion in court. Until that time, Flynn remains convicted of a felony. Joey.J (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Case has not been “dropped” until judge rules on the motion to dismiss. It may be denied. Joey.J (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Case dropped
The justice department has dropped the case against Michael Flynn. This article is due for some very drastic updates. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Gotta love it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, I hope you mean expansion. Nothing has changed with respect to what's past. Too bad we won't get to hear them argue "perjury trap" before an actual judge. We may be able to get some notewothy content from Judges Pirro and Napolitano, however. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Is that really what you think about this case? I’m still holding my breath for a neutral write up from a RS. If you don’t hear from me for a few days you know what’s happened. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I expect some good neutral sources discussing the impact of a politicized DOJ on the Flynn case. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but also the relevant potential FBI politicization. The Page investigation was riddled with errors and falsehoods. The document release from a few days ago seems to indicate the possibility of the same for Flynn. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- FBI is part of DOJ, yes. And the FBI railroaded Strzok and Page in a similarly political way, yes. That's the best I can figure you mean when you talk about the "Page investigation". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, Ernie, it indicates the opposite. It indicates Flynn was heading for the slammer and they needed to give cover in the right-wing media when either Barr or Trump let him loose. Maybe there was a coin toss at the White House last night. That could go in the article. Just remember -- people who have been entrapped demonstrate that to the court and are acquitted. That's not what happened here. Yes, there will be a LOT of new content, but little of it is going to support the conspiracy theories about a frame-up. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- What a scary thing to actually believe. Thankfully it isn’t rooted in any sort of evidence. I can only assume you support the FBI lying to investigate Americans. I can recall you making NOTFORUM comments to me at other pages for posts far more relevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why is it scary? This is a very predicable outcome, given all of the events leading up to this point. Trump's DOJ dropping charges against a Trump operative would be business as usual. - MrX 🖋 22:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- What a scary thing to actually believe. Thankfully it isn’t rooted in any sort of evidence. I can only assume you support the FBI lying to investigate Americans. I can recall you making NOTFORUM comments to me at other pages for posts far more relevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but also the relevant potential FBI politicization. The Page investigation was riddled with errors and falsehoods. The document release from a few days ago seems to indicate the possibility of the same for Flynn. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I expect some good neutral sources discussing the impact of a politicized DOJ on the Flynn case. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Is that really what you think about this case? I’m still holding my breath for a neutral write up from a RS. If you don’t hear from me for a few days you know what’s happened. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you still think the new evidence was “Run of the Mill” @muboshgu? The 13th 4postle (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry to frighten you, Squire. Trump said Flynn lied to Pence and the FBI, and then he fired him. Flynn told the court he lied and he pleaded guilty. Who was lying? Trump? Flynn? Pence? FBI is not on the list. You're entitled to an irrelevant remark every now and then. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM digression and IP shouting. Please discuss sourcing and content for article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
Flynn prosecutor stepping down from the case appears to be a significant event in this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Yates stressed she disagreed with the way the FBI was conducting the Flynn investigation while in the private briefing (I have not seen if she was under oath about this, but either way, her private statements were directly opposite of what she said in CNN interviews. The FBI in January 2017 stated they did not believe Flynn was acting as a Russian Agent to the DOJ. His call to a Russian Ambassador is NOT a crime, so why were they interviewing him about it? Could those notes mean what they actually say? That they were trying to trick him to lie so they could charge him with a felony or get him fired. Even STRZOK said he believed Flynn was not lying. Something this article state he did. Question to those editors that want this article to continue to paint him in the worst light, would you want the FBI to lie to you that you do not need a lawyer, and not tell you that you are guilty of a felony if you lie to them even if you have forgotten something or mis-remembered something? https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/yates-other-obama-doj-officials-sounded-alarm-about-fbis-treatment BTW CBS cannot be considered a reliable source since the PURPOSEFULLY faked a story on Coronovirus, caused real patients to be kept from getting tested with their stunt and admitted to it and took down the story. https://www.wsj.com/articles/cbs-says-fake-news-wasnt-theirs-11588789238173.172.158.168 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not see anyone typing in ALL caps, I placed some caps on IMPORTANT POINTS. Obviously with your 1,2,3 questions, you did not bother to read what I wrote about pertinent information missing from this article. Your points show POV. Please provide PERTINENT reliable sources for the points you were making that include the now public transcripts of under oath testimony of those who lied when they were not under oath on CNN. Or do you think they were telling the truth to CNN and perjuring themselves while under oath?
References
|
Flynn's potential near future, add?
Trump and his allies want Flynn to assume a public-facing role during the election campaign. Trump reportedly had made clear that if legal circumstances permitted, he would want Flynn to get “something good” in his political, but it’s unclear if Trump meant a job in the administration, a role for the 2020 campaign, or another position.[9]
X1\ (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- No. Potential anything is not a current fact. Once it happens then add it. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- From ref provided:
officials close to President Donald Trump are already gaming out ways to bring the former national security adviser back onto the national political stage
is not "potential", 173.172.158.168. X1\ (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)- They already wanted to make Flynn FBI director. Yep. Unfortunately, he does not practise law and so technically cannot be FBI director. 2A00:1370:812C:B802:ADD0:CF3A:E6DE:E2E7 (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- From ref provided:
More:
- Mike Allen Exclusive: Pence says he'd be "happy" to see Michael Flynn back in government Axios 10 May
X1\ (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Katyal and Geltzer's response(s) to Trump's DoJ dropping charges (after admitted & guilty plea), add?
- Neal K. Katyal and Joshua A. Geltzer, The Appalling Damage of Dropping the Michael Flynn Case; It embeds into official U.S. policy a shockingly extremist view of law enforcement as the enemy of the American people. May 8, 2020 NYT
The authors are law professors at Georgetown.
X1\ (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- NO! This is just a POV add, there are plenty of public figures that have just the opposite view, are we going to add their comments as well, so far this article is not balanced with plenty of cited material that could balance it but the controllers of the article will not add it. I went through many of the now moot articles cited that were based on information that certain politicians and FBI officials would not release to the public and now we know that they are based on false information, but the Controllers of the article will not make those facts be reflected in this article.173.172.158.168 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Who are these
public figures
? Please post RSs here, 173.172.158.168. X1\ (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)- President Trump, Nikki Haley, Jonathan Turley, just to name a few.173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Listing a couple of names with your comments is not posting RSs, 173.172.158.168
- President Trump, Nikki Haley, Jonathan Turley, just to name a few.173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Who do you feel the
controllers of the article
are, 173.172.158.168? X1\ (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)- MrX, Muboshgu, NorthBySouthBaranof,MelbourneStar They will not allow any new information, or non-liberal POV to gain entrance in the article even if there is consensus with their moving goalpost requirements, MrX even admitted it. I quote "I wasn't aware that there was a "no partisan opinions" guideline. Are you just making up rules? 173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Per diff 173.172.158.168 labeled the above
Korny O'Near (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
, that seems problematic. X1\ (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Per diff 173.172.158.168 labeled the above
- MrX, Muboshgu, NorthBySouthBaranof,MelbourneStar They will not allow any new information, or non-liberal POV to gain entrance in the article even if there is consensus with their moving goalpost requirements, MrX even admitted it. I quote "I wasn't aware that there was a "no partisan opinions" guideline. Are you just making up rules? 173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Who are these
- Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. - MrX"173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- To what are responding, 173.172.158.168? This (above) appears to be mislocated. X1\ (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- YES! - This viewpoint seems to be common among people who still care about law and order.[10] - MrX 🖋 12:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- YES - This is a reliable source that deserves due mention. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- You believe in law and order, like altering 302's? Lying to the FISA court? Using a democrat bought and fake dossier in which THEY colluded with the Russians to sway the election? Full projection mode on this one. BTW why only the liberal side gets into this article. Total POV. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for expressing your bias, but this article has to reflect the views of the sources, not the contributors, much less right-wing conspiracies. Given your expressed bias, it is impossible to continue to assume good faith regarding your input. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Is
302
List of FBI forms#FD-302? - And by
fake dossier
are you referring to the Trump–Russia dossier? - By
THEY
wp:ALLCAPS, see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND 173.172.158.168. - X1\ (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- You believe in law and order, like altering 302's? Lying to the FISA court? Using a democrat bought and fake dossier in which THEY colluded with the Russians to sway the election? Full projection mode on this one. BTW why only the liberal side gets into this article. Total POV. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- YES - Pretty obviously good sources for this, and there are many others. Other viewpoints from reliable sources can also be added -- if they exist. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- No undue opinion piece. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting the premise of the Article is the damage that President Trump is doing to law and order, do those who wrote the piece and those who want it added to the article think Obama did damage to law and order when he pardoned a general who lied to the FBI as well? I list the liberal NYT so you can't call FACTS into question.[1] 173.172.158.168 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- 173.172.158.168, see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND regarding wp:ALLCAPS. X1\ (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes - it's a notable opinion. Though, MrX, I find it remarkable that this, coupled with your "no" vote on the RfC, strongly suggests that your view on whether political opinions should be included in Wikipedia is based not on notability or relevance, but simply whether you agree with those opinions. What a damning statement on your approach as an editor. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know what "the RfC" refers to. What we are discussing here is not a "political opinion", but a legal opinion. Please limit your comments to content, not contributors. - MrX 🖋 15:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- There's only one real RfC on this page. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know what "the RfC" refers to. What we are discussing here is not a "political opinion", but a legal opinion. Please limit your comments to content, not contributors. - MrX 🖋 15:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- No Unless we want to add other sources to balance it out. Because there is no consensus among legal experts on this. Here is an analysis from an ex-FBI agent of 25 years. And here is another opinion piece from an Ex U.S Attorney. I was chastised for just bringing up these links in this Talk page. Law professors at Georgetown University are no more experts than ex-FBI agents and retired U.S Attorneys on this matter. The 13th 4postle (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- No Per above. I like how it was done in Trump impeachment artcile though. Links to people who know nothing are appreciated. 2A00:1370:812C:B802:ADD0:CF3A:E6DE:E2E7 (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Curious that 2A00:1370:812C:B802:ADD0:CF3A:E6DE:E2E7 has made only three edits total (including this one: 04:33, 04:22, & 04:20; 11 May 2020), so presumably Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. X1\ (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- No UNDUE and OFFTOPIC. This article and the posturing of those two individuals is low WEIGHT and no BLP impact. That would be moving a BLP biographical story of his life events into a third parties forum over Trump and non-biographical philosophy. Might as well start quoting from Washington Examiner 'Very disappointed': Justice Department spokeswoman slams Chuck Todd's 'deceptive editing' of Barr remarks on Flynn case and What we still don't know about the Michael Flynn case. Maybe the case needs it's own non-BLP article, or additions made to Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
References
I have asked for Dispute Resolution on this Article
Dispute resolution closed as improper filing. WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article displays left wing bias. Those who are guarding it will not allow any change that is balanced. This is to let Muboshgu: Korny O'Near :The 13th 4postle:: MelbourneStar know that I have included you in this as there is much discussion from each of you. I also notice that some of my posts in TALK are removed. All throughout this talk page is those with a left leaning bias can editorialize about those of us who do not share your political views, yet, only those you do not like are removed. Either we go by the guidelines or not. If you choose to make comments directed at those who do not share your opinions, or all of it goes away. I listed new information on the just released documents that prove several source materials as being incorrect and need to be removed, but nothing is done about it. I also asked that the now known FBI sources be named in the article due to their bias against Gen. Flynn, AND one admitting he lied about Flynn and a person who sued because she claims not to be a Russian Agent. You editors who control this article throw "right wing" around a lot, yet you only allow sources that give you confirmation bias. This article needs a total BALANCED rewrite. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
How do we request arbitration on this article and those who are not allowing any information except left wing bias? 173.172.158.168 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
|
Add Joseph Misfud and Stefan Halper to the article as the FBI Sources
Washington Post admitted that Joseph Misfud is one of them, and Stefan Halper admitted he lied about Flynn and can't be sued because he was an FBI source.173.172.158.168 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[1]
- Who is
them
, 173.172.158.168? - Stefan Halper and Joseph Mifsud (Joseph Misfud)? X1\ (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- So 173.172.158.168, you think the homepage of WaPo is a RS? Appears to be more evidence that you are wp:NOTHERE. X1\ (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- From the article "The New York Times reported on May 18, 2018, that a longtime FBI/CIA informant had met Flynn at an intelligence seminar in Britain six months earlier and became alarmed by Flynn's closeness to a Russian woman there;"
- That is Stefan Halper, he stated the woman was a Russian Spy, she sued because she is NOT a Russian Spy. Why is it that Halper's name is so secretive in the article? I could list 30 sources on this, but since only left wing publications are allowed on this talk page, I will only list one. I cannot list the NYT or Washington Post because they write stories on the event, but refuse to name him. The Oligarchs who control this article make sure no information that exonerates Flynn makes it into the article. [2] 173.172.158.168 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Jonathan Turley's opinion piece is clearly labeled
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
, 173.172.158.168. X1\ (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Jonathan Turley's opinion piece is clearly labeled
Why are they not being cited as the sources, when Jerad Kushner IS here: "The person who directed Flynn to ask foreign officials to act in favor of Israel at the U.N. Security Council—an incident described in Flynn's plea documents—was Jared Kushner, according to two former Trump transition team officials."173.172.158.168 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Flynn is still convicted and is still a person associated with Russian Interference in the 2016 election
Until the presiding judge agrees to dismiss Flynn's conviction, his status has not changed.[11] Also, there has been no reversal of his involvement with Russians prior to Trump taking office.(Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Michael Flynn)
It is now up to the federal judge in Washington overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan, to decide whether to dismiss it and close off the possibility that Mr. Flynn could be tried again for the same crime. If the judge wants, he could ask for written submissions and hold a hearing on that topic.
— [12]
- MrX 🖋 11:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why would they be trying a case if he was already "convicted"? I'm not a lawyer but that's not the right word and it's not in either link. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- He was convicted. But, he was still awaiting sentencing. Prosecutors can ask for a convicteion to be withdrawn, or change sentencing requests. But, they cannot withdraw a conviction. That's up to the judge. Or, the POTUS would have to issue a pardon. O3000 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- There are no prosecutors in the case now and the charges were dismissed with prejudice so they cannot be repeated. One Million People tweeted #Obamagate and it is treanding. So much for our Interference. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Flynn has been convicted. If that changes, then he will not be convicted. I don't know what part of "it's up to a judge" people don't understand. Would it help if I tweet it in Russian? - MrX 🖋 02:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Guess who ELSE was awaiting sentencing after being found guilty with exculpatory evidence being withheld? Ted Stevens. Guess which judge was presented that exculpatory evidence after conviction of Stevens by an HONEST FBI informant? Judge Sullivan! Guess which judge was placed on Flynn's case AFTER Flynn pleaded to lying? Judge Sullivan, who would have DEMANDED that exculpatory evidence from the same FBI who withheld it in the Stevens case. Once bitten twice shy. Judge Sullivan did not oversea the case, it was given to him after the fact. SO, we shall see what he does about the FBI again withholding evidence, altered 302's, etc. In a funny twist of events, Judge Sullivan lambasted the prosecutors when he OVERTURNED THE STEVENS CONVICTION for government malfeasance. [1] I am assuming the CBC is far left enough to be considered a source even on this article.173.172.158.168 (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- CBC.ca is not
far left
, in anyway, according to our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation article, 173.172.158.168. And again, for wp:ALLCAPS, see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. It appears you are NotHere. X1\ (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- CBC.ca is not
- There are no prosecutors in the case now and the charges were dismissed with prejudice so they cannot be repeated. One Million People tweeted #Obamagate and it is treanding. So much for our Interference. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- He was convicted. But, he was still awaiting sentencing. Prosecutors can ask for a convicteion to be withdrawn, or change sentencing requests. But, they cannot withdraw a conviction. That's up to the judge. Or, the POTUS would have to issue a pardon. O3000 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
References
NYT source is simply wrong
This article [1], which is currently cited by the Wikipedia article, is deceptive at best, in particular the following passage:
Prosecutors said that the case fell short of the legal standard that Mr. Flynn’s lies be “materially” relevant to the matter under investigation.
“The government is not persuaded that the Jan. 24, 2017, interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue,” Mr. Shea wrote.
The problem here is that in its summary, the NYT has changed the word "statements" used by the actual memo to the word "lies". And that's a far cry from what the actual memo says.[13] From page 2 of the memo, we have the following:
The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue. Moreover, we not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the NYT source needs to be removed from the article, as it, at best, highly misleading. It is simply untenable to change a statement that says "material even if untrue" to a statement that says "lies", which is exactly what they did. I am going to work on removing the source. I'm putting this here so that anyone tempted to restore the source have the opportunity to first understand why I am removing it. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Goldman, Adam; Benner, Katie (May 8, 2020). "U.S. Drops Michael Flynn Case, in Move Backed by Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
- That's absurd. Flynn admitted to lying and the prosecution was based on that fact. The New York Times' paraphrasing is not in conflict with the direct quote, especially in context with the well-publicized facts about the case. I'm astonished that you would think that substituting Fox News for the New York Times would ever make for a viable edit. - MrX 🖋 22:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Have you read the actual filing from the DOJ? The filing makes it clear that the "well publicized facts" are, according to the DOJ, well-publicized
fictionsstatements whose truth or falsehood is unknown. So for the NYT to give the impression that the prosecutors referred to "Flynn's lies" is simply false, because they didn't. Regardless of whether or not one agrees that Flynn lied, the DOJ did not characterize what he said to the FBI as a lie in its motion to dismiss, and it's wrong to characterize the DOJ's filing that way. That's the problem. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)- He was convicted of lying. That's a fact. The DOJ doesn't have the power to reverse that, only to ask that it be reversed. O3000 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- ...and that is why we do not use WP:PRIMARY sources, besides which, the DOJ is not an impartial source under Barr's leadership. I shouldn't even have to write that, it's so patently obvious. - MrX 🖋 22:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- The issue here is not whether or not Flynn lied to the FBI. It is whether or not prosecutors said in the motion to dismiss that Flynn lied [to the FBI]. It's plain as day that they didn't. Surely the actual document from the prosecutors is a good source for what the prosecutors said. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, that's not what the filing said. They said Flynn may well have lied. In fact, they didn't dispute that he lied. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's false, Muboshgo. "Moreover, we [do] not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt."Pg. 2 "And even if they could be material, the Government does not believe it could prove that Mr. Flynn knowingly and willfully made a false statement beyond a reasonable doubt" Pg. 18. Govt-Motion-to-Dismiss The 13th 4postle (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, that's not what the filing said. They said Flynn may well have lied. In fact, they didn't dispute that he lied. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- The issue here is not whether or not Flynn lied to the FBI. It is whether or not prosecutors said in the motion to dismiss that Flynn lied [to the FBI]. It's plain as day that they didn't. Surely the actual document from the prosecutors is a good source for what the prosecutors said. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your interpretation of the DOJs submission. They are questioning the way the questioning was conducted. The words
"even if untrue"
indicate that they acknowledge that Flynn may have lied, but they believe that bad procedure would make it moot if he did. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)- I'm not arguing that the submission said he didn't lie. It took no position. In other words, by "well-publicized fictions" above, I mean that it's a fiction to say they said he lied, because according to the prosecutors, the truth value of the statement "he lied" is unknown. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to include this NYT article as a source, as long as Wikipedia never states in its own voice that Flynn lied. As noted here and elsewhere, whether he lied to the FBI is a subject of considerable dispute. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- He stood in court, swore that he lied, and the judge accepted it and the gavel came down. As of now. he lied. If you want to add an additional reliable source that says he lied under oath about lying, that may be acceptable. But, we can certainly say this in WikiVoice as we have a court judgement. Substituting a NYT source with a Fox source because you think the NYT article was false when it claimed what he was convicted of doing.... O3000 (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. Either he told the truth when he admitted lying, or he lied about lying. That fact that he lied is a settled matter, regardless of whether the judge allows the charges to be dismissed. - MrX 🖋 00:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's true, but the question is what he lied about. If he lied in court, it means he didn't lie to the FBI. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why we are discussing this? All of this happened because Van Grack mislead the Judge under oath: on his deal about Flynn Jr. and Brady evidence and other crazy things. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flynn-evidence-calls-into-question-statements-by-former-special-counsel-brandon-van-grack https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1258848115748155397?s=19 2A00:1370:812C:B802:ADD0:CF3A:E6DE:E2E7 (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Some guy on twitter told me so" Volunteer Marek 04:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, Source 3. Jeff Wiseman. We on Twitter knew his name 1 month before Typhoon (George) confirmed it. 2A00:1370:812C:B802:15E2:FAB5:7B92:CA9C (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Some guy on twitter told me so" Volunteer Marek 04:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why we are discussing this? All of this happened because Van Grack mislead the Judge under oath: on his deal about Flynn Jr. and Brady evidence and other crazy things. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flynn-evidence-calls-into-question-statements-by-former-special-counsel-brandon-van-grack https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1258848115748155397?s=19 2A00:1370:812C:B802:ADD0:CF3A:E6DE:E2E7 (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's true, but the question is what he lied about. If he lied in court, it means he didn't lie to the FBI. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. Either he told the truth when he admitted lying, or he lied about lying. That fact that he lied is a settled matter, regardless of whether the judge allows the charges to be dismissed. - MrX 🖋 00:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- He stood in court, swore that he lied, and the judge accepted it and the gavel came down. As of now. he lied. If you want to add an additional reliable source that says he lied under oath about lying, that may be acceptable. But, we can certainly say this in WikiVoice as we have a court judgement. Substituting a NYT source with a Fox source because you think the NYT article was false when it claimed what he was convicted of doing.... O3000 (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to include this NYT article as a source, as long as Wikipedia never states in its own voice that Flynn lied. As noted here and elsewhere, whether he lied to the FBI is a subject of considerable dispute. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that the submission said he didn't lie. It took no position. In other words, by "well-publicized fictions" above, I mean that it's a fiction to say they said he lied, because according to the prosecutors, the truth value of the statement "he lied" is unknown. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support - The lies that Flynn made are alleged and "cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" according to the DOJ. The Judge is very likely to dismiss the case. We can use the word "alleged" in the article. That would be fair and neutral. The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Using the term "alleged lies" when discussing the filing is also wrong. The filing repeatedly refers to Flynn's "statements". Therefore, he best way to describe the filing is to use that word. Copyright issues are not a concern, so there is no need to change it. 12:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- WP:ALLEGED. He was convicted. Predicting what a judge may do is not our job. I'd revert, but 1RR. O3000 (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- From the WP:ALLEGED page it says, "although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". It seems clear to me that wrongdoing has been asserted but it is undetermined. He plead guilty, hasn't been sentenced, and not the DOJ Prosecution is dropping the case because it no longer asserts any wrongdoing. Michael Flynn and has defense assert no wrongdoing and some legal experts (see section below) agree. So how on Earth are you justifying going against the Wikipedia policy you advocated? The 13th 4postle (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- He was convicted. Under US law, you are assumed to be guilty after conviction even if appealing. It has been determined. O3000 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, that is incorrect. He plead Guilty. He is not considered a convicted felon until he has been sentenced which at this point is highly unlikely. "The guilty plea is an admission by a defendant that he or she committed a particular offense. Essentially, by admitting guilt, a defendant skips the trial at which a judge or jury would make a determination as to whether or not the defendant was guilty. The conviction is based on a finding of guilt, but it is not complete until after the defendant is sentenced."[lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/criminal/is-there-a-difference-between-a-court-conviction-and-a-guilty-plea-1567745.html] The 13th 4postle (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Can't believe you did that. You linked to a page with 51 answers nearly all of which said this is a conviction and picked one that said the opposite. It is important to note that one said the difference between a guilty plea and a finding of guilt after an not guilty plea is that you cannot appeal a guilty plea. O3000 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, that is incorrect. He plead Guilty. He is not considered a convicted felon until he has been sentenced which at this point is highly unlikely. "The guilty plea is an admission by a defendant that he or she committed a particular offense. Essentially, by admitting guilt, a defendant skips the trial at which a judge or jury would make a determination as to whether or not the defendant was guilty. The conviction is based on a finding of guilt, but it is not complete until after the defendant is sentenced."[lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/criminal/is-there-a-difference-between-a-court-conviction-and-a-guilty-plea-1567745.html] The 13th 4postle (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- He was convicted. Under US law, you are assumed to be guilty after conviction even if appealing. It has been determined. O3000 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- From the WP:ALLEGED page it says, "although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". It seems clear to me that wrongdoing has been asserted but it is undetermined. He plead guilty, hasn't been sentenced, and not the DOJ Prosecution is dropping the case because it no longer asserts any wrongdoing. Michael Flynn and has defense assert no wrongdoing and some legal experts (see section below) agree. So how on Earth are you justifying going against the Wikipedia policy you advocated? The 13th 4postle (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Have you read the actual filing from the DOJ? The filing makes it clear that the "well publicized facts" are, according to the DOJ, well-publicized
- User:Adoring nanny Agree the article text has misportrayed what the DOJ motion is, and NYT seems not BESTSOURCE. Obviously there are alternatives like USA Today, AP, BBC, etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- p.s. - I made and edit here to use USAToday which had an actual quote of DOJ. Not sure if it will stick. While there's little doubt that Flynn was convicted of lying, the article language portrayal that the DOJ filing to dismiss said "lying" just wasn't right. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
No Legal Consensus on DOJ Decision
Here are the legal experts that agree with DOJ decision. So if users on this Talk Page could please stop stating that there is a legal consensus among legal experts against the DOJ decision, that would be great.
- Alan Dershowitz (Democrat and Professor at Harvard) Flynn Was Innocent All Along: He Was Pressured to Plead Guilty
- Jonathan Turley (Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University) The Justice Dept drops Flynn Case
- James Gagaliano (CNN Legal Analyst, Former FBI Agent 25 Years) Michael Flynn was railroaded by Comey's FBI
- Andrew MccArthy (Former Federal Prosecuter) The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the Trump–Russia Probe
The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Michael Flynn is not officially convicted until sentenced.
Lots of misinformation on this Talk Page. Lots of editors continue to repeat that Michael Flynn is convicted. This is not true. Until he has been sentenced. He is not a convicted felon. Objective3000, MrX
- https://www.quora.com/Plea-Bargaining-Is-pleading-guilty-considered-being-convicted/answer/Cliff-Gilley
- https://www.quora.com/Why-is-a-plea-of-guilty-to-a-crime-not-the-same-as-being-convicted-of-a-crime/answer/John-Thompson-321
The 13th 4postle (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but nothing on Quora even remotely resembles a reliable source. Do you have any actual reliable sources for your assertion? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC) (a reasonably active answerer on Quora himself)
- Misinformation indeed. An hour ago, you posted a link claiming it said the opposite of what it said. Now you are using Quora as a source. O3000 (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- At this point, there is no consensus to state that Michael Flynn has been "convicted". Please provide a reliable source that says he has. I've given two links here to quora from Legal experts that say until he has been sentenced, he has not been convicted. They are not good enough for the article but it should suffice for people to stop spreading inaccurate information. The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Objective3000 Here is the quote again. In case you didn't read it. From the source I cited an hour ago as you said. "The guilty plea is an admission by a defendant that he or she committed a particular offense. Essentially, by admitting guilt, a defendant skips the trial at which a judge or jury would make a determination as to whether or not the defendant was guilty. The conviction is based on a finding of guilt, but it is not complete until after the defendant is sentenced." If you want to use answers from lawyers that didn't consider the very small possibility that someone could plead guilty and not be sentenced, that's on you. But I have now shown that three legal experts do not consider it to be a conviction until he has been sentenced. And that makes perfectly logical sense. The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I read it. There were 51 answers, all but a couple said the opposite. You picked this one out of 51 opinions and continue to pretend that this is the answer given in that link. This is a rather extreme example of cherry picking. O3000 (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Objective3000 Here is the quote again. In case you didn't read it. From the source I cited an hour ago as you said. "The guilty plea is an admission by a defendant that he or she committed a particular offense. Essentially, by admitting guilt, a defendant skips the trial at which a judge or jury would make a determination as to whether or not the defendant was guilty. The conviction is based on a finding of guilt, but it is not complete until after the defendant is sentenced." If you want to use answers from lawyers that didn't consider the very small possibility that someone could plead guilty and not be sentenced, that's on you. But I have now shown that three legal experts do not consider it to be a conviction until he has been sentenced. And that makes perfectly logical sense. The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- At this point, there is no consensus to state that Michael Flynn has been "convicted". Please provide a reliable source that says he has. I've given two links here to quora from Legal experts that say until he has been sentenced, he has not been convicted. They are not good enough for the article but it should suffice for people to stop spreading inaccurate information. The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Flynn was convicted, but before sentencing he appealed, and with recent release of FBI notes the DOJ moved the case be dropped. When and if the judge accepts, the conviction would be nullified. Like the conviction of his partner was overturned. But until then, he is convicted. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- That source does not say that Michael Flynn was convicted. Just because you and others keep repeating it doesn't make it so. I've now shown three opinions from legal experts that say until a person pleads guilty AND is sentence. They are not convicted. And that makes perfect logical sense. How can a person be convicted until their trial is over? The 13th 4postle (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Let's just stick to reliable sources and stop introducing garbage like quora and original research. - MrX 🖋 20:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- How about the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? MrX, Objective3000, Muboshgu Emphasis mine. “(k) Judgment. (1) In General. In the judgment of conviction, the court must set forth the plea, the jury verdict or the court’s findings, the adjudication, and the sentence. If the defendant is found not guilty or is otherwise entitled to be discharged, the court must so order. The judge must sign the judgment, and the clerk must enter it.” Pg. 43 Section (K)(1) The 13th 4postle (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- No. That's called WP:SYNTH. I didn't think I had to say "Let's just stick to reliable source about the actual subject of the article, but here we are. - MrX 🖋 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- That’s Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure rule 32. Note it is part of “POST-CONVICTION PROCEDURES”. And MrX is right, WP policy is to use others writing about Flynn as refs, we cannot use this in the article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- MrX I didn't synthesize information from multiple sources. It is one source. The source is directly from the U.S Govt. It states that a part of the judgement of conviction is the sentence. Anyone cannot be officially convicted until they are sentenced. I've quoted it directly. The 13th 4postle (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @The 13th 4postle: Where in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does it mention Flynn or his case? Of course it doesn't, which means that you are taking one of the sources about Flynn and combining it with the FRCP to conclude that Flynn hasn't been convicted. Do you understand now? - MrX 🖋 22:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @MrX: Was a Judgement of Conviction entered into the official record? It would be a Federal Form that looks like this. If so, I’d be happy to stop arguing about this. https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/criminal-judgment-forms/judgment-criminal-case
- I'm not interested in debating federal court process with you. This page is for discussing edits to this biography, properly cited to sources about the subject of this biography. I suggest that you quit wasting other editor's time with this original research. - MrX 🖋 23:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @MrX: You're not interested because you know you are wrong. If Michael Flynn was a convicted felon, then there would be a Judgement of Conviction which could be cited and linked directly in the article. Wikipedia rules are not the ultimate decider of what is and isn't truth. It's fine for Wikipedia to have rules. And it's fine that you and other editors enforce them.... for the article. But the Talk page is exactly the place for this type of discussion and where such sources and links can be discussed to better write the article. As long as no one states in the article that Michael Flynn is a convicted felon, which he is not, as I have cited multiple times here. I'm cool. The 13th 4postle (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in debating federal court process with you. This page is for discussing edits to this biography, properly cited to sources about the subject of this biography. I suggest that you quit wasting other editor's time with this original research. - MrX 🖋 23:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @MrX: Was a Judgement of Conviction entered into the official record? It would be a Federal Form that looks like this. If so, I’d be happy to stop arguing about this. https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/criminal-judgment-forms/judgment-criminal-case
- @The 13th 4postle: Where in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does it mention Flynn or his case? Of course it doesn't, which means that you are taking one of the sources about Flynn and combining it with the FRCP to conclude that Flynn hasn't been convicted. Do you understand now? - MrX 🖋 22:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- MrX I didn't synthesize information from multiple sources. It is one source. The source is directly from the U.S Govt. It states that a part of the judgement of conviction is the sentence. Anyone cannot be officially convicted until they are sentenced. I've quoted it directly. The 13th 4postle (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- How about the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? MrX, Objective3000, Muboshgu Emphasis mine. “(k) Judgment. (1) In General. In the judgment of conviction, the court must set forth the plea, the jury verdict or the court’s findings, the adjudication, and the sentence. If the defendant is found not guilty or is otherwise entitled to be discharged, the court must so order. The judge must sign the judgment, and the clerk must enter it.” Pg. 43 Section (K)(1) The 13th 4postle (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Let's just stick to reliable sources and stop introducing garbage like quora and original research. - MrX 🖋 20:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- That source does not say that Michael Flynn was convicted. Just because you and others keep repeating it doesn't make it so. I've now shown three opinions from legal experts that say until a person pleads guilty AND is sentence. They are not convicted. And that makes perfect logical sense. How can a person be convicted until their trial is over? The 13th 4postle (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:The 13th 4postle Maybe clarify the terms here. Conviction happens before Criminal sentencing in the United States is a terminology thing, that’s all. Flynn was convicted. He was not yet sentenced. While that conviction might be overturned in appeal or nullified in the situation of a dropped case, it remains historical fact that Flynn *was* convicted - later events are just separate from that. Not that anything Judicial has happened as yet, other than DOJ filing. Even a Presidential pardon, sometimes used in cases of protecting people who were convicted even though they were legally innocent the person still was convicted but no longer is a felon. For this article he initially plead guilty, was convicted, appealed and the case has not yet been dropped until and unless the judge approves doing so. (I cannot imagine he would not, but skipping speculation...) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC) (Edit conflict Tweak Markbassett (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC))
- To put it another way, he was awaiting sentencing. How can you be awaiting sentencing if you haven't been convicted of something? O3000 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Markbassett No, he wasn't convicted. He plead guilty. That is all. At the sentencing hearing, he would have been convicted as I cited in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure above. The sentence is part of the conviction. They go hand in hand in hand. I know this is confusing for a lot of people. Usually a sentence comes immediately after a Guilty plea but it did not happen in Michael Flynn's case. Had he been convicted by a jury, that would have been different. The judge has the ability to throw out his plea. Which is why Michael Flynn's attorney filed a motion to withdraw a plea, not a motion to withdraw or vacate a conviction. The 13th 4postle (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- To put it another way, he was awaiting sentencing. How can you be awaiting sentencing if you haven't been convicted of something? O3000 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:The 13th 4postle Maybe clarify the terms here. Conviction happens before Criminal sentencing in the United States is a terminology thing, that’s all. Flynn was convicted. He was not yet sentenced. While that conviction might be overturned in appeal or nullified in the situation of a dropped case, it remains historical fact that Flynn *was* convicted - later events are just separate from that. Not that anything Judicial has happened as yet, other than DOJ filing. Even a Presidential pardon, sometimes used in cases of protecting people who were convicted even though they were legally innocent the person still was convicted but no longer is a felon. For this article he initially plead guilty, was convicted, appealed and the case has not yet been dropped until and unless the judge approves doing so. (I cannot imagine he would not, but skipping speculation...) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC) (Edit conflict Tweak Markbassett (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC))
″== NBC admits Meet the Press deceptive editing ==
Mmm, just a note, think should avoid NBC in a Barr remark due to criticism of that coverage as deceptive editing. Perhaps not RS in this case. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ridiculous. O3000 (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Objective3000 It should be noted also that NBC's Meet The Press has admitted that it edited the clip deceptively. "You’re correct. Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with AG Barr before offering commentary and analysis. The remaining clip included important remarks from the attorney general that we missed, and we regret the error." - Meet the Press Twitter Account So just to summarize. Not ridiculous. The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. NBC did exactly what we expect of a reliable source. They corrected an error. 24 hour news sources commonly make errors. O3000 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- And with the public shaming plus NBC admission... the edited quote should be avoided. We can debate elsewhere whether this editing is just “an error”, but for now take the disclaimer and 3rd party objections as reason to avoid that NBC coverage as perhaps not RS in this case. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- It most certainly is not a reason to avoid NBC as a source in general for this article. As for the "public shaming", all the usual suspects including Trump churlish, name-calling. O3000 (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- WP:RS this source - of a Meet the Press episode work - has now been widely derided and the piece effectively retracted. It should not be used as RS, particularly in WP:RSCONTEXT of this BLP. The general reputation of source at Chuck Todd and NBC now has a ding against their accuracy and fact-checking for this incident, but it seems a simple misquoting, perhaps to sensationalize things, or to punch up Todd’s view. There doesn’t seem a severe culpability in this or a widespread pattern of unreliability. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- They claim in their apology that they "missed" "important remarks". The remarks in question come LITERALLY IN THE NEXT SENTENCE. I'm not going to ask how is it possible to miss that, because it isn't. What I'm asking is how is it possible for anyone to believe that they did not do it on purpose? They had to have heard the next sentence just to be able to edit the clip! Do they have AI editing their clips or something? (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- They PURPOSEFULLY did it, you can tell by Chuck Todd's statement of just the opposite of what Barr stated in the clip. They had 3 days to get this right, they did the damage they tried to do, and the apology does not fix that. This is just days after Todd stated that Trump has blood on his hands. NBC has not been a reliable source for years. [1] It is funny, liberals think NBC, CNN, NYT and WaPo are reliable, could it be because of the confirmation bias? The NYT's just PUBLISHED (they did not have to, but the did) by one of their past journalists, Martin Tolchin, that started Politico and the HIll in which he states " I don’t want justice, whatever that may be. I want a win, the removal of Donald Trump from office, and Mr. Biden is our best chance." At least he is being honest, I respect that, it is all the other liberals who feign to be balanced, but those of us on our side see your POV in every political article you control on Wikipedia. Don't believe me, ask some of the more centrist editors that you deal with, you can do it on their talk page, no one will know. Praying for the day that Wikipedia actually becomes balanced, so it will be a trusted source for real research like it was as one time, but not holding my breath.67.10.206.161 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you’re not here to actually improve the encyclopedia, but whinge on about the perceived liberal biases of mainstream media outlets, their supposed disinformation campaigns, and how Wikipedia is a party to this and inherently unreliable, do it elsewhere. We go by what reliable sources say. You can go bemoan the “liberals who feign to be balanced”, and “pray” for Wikipedia elsewhere. It’s obvious you’re WP:NOTHERE. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- They PURPOSEFULLY did it, you can tell by Chuck Todd's statement of just the opposite of what Barr stated in the clip. They had 3 days to get this right, they did the damage they tried to do, and the apology does not fix that. This is just days after Todd stated that Trump has blood on his hands. NBC has not been a reliable source for years. [1] It is funny, liberals think NBC, CNN, NYT and WaPo are reliable, could it be because of the confirmation bias? The NYT's just PUBLISHED (they did not have to, but the did) by one of their past journalists, Martin Tolchin, that started Politico and the HIll in which he states " I don’t want justice, whatever that may be. I want a win, the removal of Donald Trump from office, and Mr. Biden is our best chance." At least he is being honest, I respect that, it is all the other liberals who feign to be balanced, but those of us on our side see your POV in every political article you control on Wikipedia. Don't believe me, ask some of the more centrist editors that you deal with, you can do it on their talk page, no one will know. Praying for the day that Wikipedia actually becomes balanced, so it will be a trusted source for real research like it was as one time, but not holding my breath.67.10.206.161 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- They claim in their apology that they "missed" "important remarks". The remarks in question come LITERALLY IN THE NEXT SENTENCE. I'm not going to ask how is it possible to miss that, because it isn't. What I'm asking is how is it possible for anyone to believe that they did not do it on purpose? They had to have heard the next sentence just to be able to edit the clip! Do they have AI editing their clips or something? (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- WP:RS this source - of a Meet the Press episode work - has now been widely derided and the piece effectively retracted. It should not be used as RS, particularly in WP:RSCONTEXT of this BLP. The general reputation of source at Chuck Todd and NBC now has a ding against their accuracy and fact-checking for this incident, but it seems a simple misquoting, perhaps to sensationalize things, or to punch up Todd’s view. There doesn’t seem a severe culpability in this or a widespread pattern of unreliability. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- It most certainly is not a reason to avoid NBC as a source in general for this article. As for the "public shaming", all the usual suspects including Trump churlish, name-calling. O3000 (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Objective3000 It should be noted also that NBC's Meet The Press has admitted that it edited the clip deceptively. "You’re correct. Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with AG Barr before offering commentary and analysis. The remaining clip included important remarks from the attorney general that we missed, and we regret the error." - Meet the Press Twitter Account So just to summarize. Not ridiculous. The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, just don’t use the clip. There’s too much objecting to it, retraction of it, and DOJ comments. The comments about it don’t belong in this BLP, and even more clearly this is not a RS item. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Recent changes
- @CharlesShirley: just added the word alleged eight times, as if numerous things are of a sudden unknown. This appears to be vandalism to me. I’m not reverting as I don’t want to get into an argument about 1RR. The editor should revert – or someone else will need to.
- OTOH, the addition of "convicted felon" is not appropriate in the first sentence. I can't remove. O3000 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is not vandalism. It is called editing. All of the incidents where I placed the word "alleged" in the article the sentence was making an allegation. These sentences are allegation, not statements of fact. General Flynn is a living person and we need to make sure we are not libeling a living person. That is what Jimbo Wales asks of all of us all the time. I did not change any substance of any of the allegations. All of the substance in the allegations remained. I just merely marked them clearly as what they are allegations so that Wikipedia is not making false claims about a living person, General Flynn. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- “…inspector general announced an investigation into whether Flynn had allegedly accepted” makes no sense. They investigated whether he did this. They didn’t investigate if he allegedly did it.“ Yates told McGahn that Flynn had allegedly misled Pence”. No, Yates didn’t say allegedly. Etc. These were not BLP vios. O3000 (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is not vandalism. It is called editing. All of the incidents where I placed the word "alleged" in the article the sentence was making an allegation. These sentences are allegation, not statements of fact. General Flynn is a living person and we need to make sure we are not libeling a living person. That is what Jimbo Wales asks of all of us all the time. I did not change any substance of any of the allegations. All of the substance in the allegations remained. I just merely marked them clearly as what they are allegations so that Wikipedia is not making false claims about a living person, General Flynn. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Did she? Early in 2017 the usual suspect "press" said she did, but LATE in 2017 CBSN states SHE DID NOT TELL McGahn anything other than to look into Flynn for themselves. [2] 67.10.206.161 (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- CharlesShirley, some of the "allegedly" additions are appropriate, but I agree with Objective3000 that those two in particular are ungrammatical and nonsensical. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- If the edits are ungrammatical then that needs to be changed. But we need to be careful. General Flynn has withdrawn his guilty plea, which apparently is the only piece of evidence that the Federal prosecutors had to make their case. Everything else is in question. I did not remove anything of substance, concerning the allegations. Those allegations were left in the article, but we cannot treat allegations as if they are facts. That violates BLP. Change my grammar. Fine. But do not treat the allegations by the Federal prosecutors as if they are facts because they aren't. They are allegations only. They are not facts. Neither a judge or a jury has made determination after a trial. All that happened is that a guilty plea was offered by Flynn and then Flynn withdrew his plea. Nothing so far makes a determination of facts. We should not treat allegations as if they are facts. Flynn is not a "convicted felon" by any definition of the term. His case is still in court and he has withdraw his guilty plea and the government prosecutors (DOJ) have made a motion to withdraw the charges. To call him a "convicted felon" is ludicrous. And to claim the allegations have been proven and therefore they are facts is also ludicrous. Let's use the word "allegations" and discuss all we want but as Jimbo Wales points out we need to be careful by calling allegations allegations, which they are, and do not call them facts or present them as facts, because they aren't. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I already said that "convicted felon" should be removed from the first sentence -- even though he is, in fact, a convicted felon. But, most of your additions of "alleged" make no sense and you should revert. Also, Flynn was certainly was not the source of all information. I and many others here cannot revert your changes due to 1RR. O3000 (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- You can't be a convicted felon until you have been sentenced. If you want to keep stating this as a fact when I've shown you otherwise with three different links. I'm going to have to ask you for a reliable source to back it up. The 13th 4postle (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Dictionary.com disagrees with you.[14] He was convicted when he pled guilty. The judge might throw out the conviction, but we still don't know that yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu:Judgement of Conviction Definition - "(criminal law) a final judgment of guilty in a criminal case and the punishment that is imposed"; The Judge can agree or disagree with the Govt's Motion to Dismiss the criminal information against Michael T. Flynn. There is no motion to overturn or vacate a conviction because there hasn't been a Judgment of Conviction. The 13th 4postle (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Dictionary.com disagrees with you.[14] He was convicted when he pled guilty. The judge might throw out the conviction, but we still don't know that yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- You can't be a convicted felon until you have been sentenced. If you want to keep stating this as a fact when I've shown you otherwise with three different links. I'm going to have to ask you for a reliable source to back it up. The 13th 4postle (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I already said that "convicted felon" should be removed from the first sentence -- even though he is, in fact, a convicted felon. But, most of your additions of "alleged" make no sense and you should revert. Also, Flynn was certainly was not the source of all information. I and many others here cannot revert your changes due to 1RR. O3000 (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- If the edits are ungrammatical then that needs to be changed. But we need to be careful. General Flynn has withdrawn his guilty plea, which apparently is the only piece of evidence that the Federal prosecutors had to make their case. Everything else is in question. I did not remove anything of substance, concerning the allegations. Those allegations were left in the article, but we cannot treat allegations as if they are facts. That violates BLP. Change my grammar. Fine. But do not treat the allegations by the Federal prosecutors as if they are facts because they aren't. They are allegations only. They are not facts. Neither a judge or a jury has made determination after a trial. All that happened is that a guilty plea was offered by Flynn and then Flynn withdrew his plea. Nothing so far makes a determination of facts. We should not treat allegations as if they are facts. Flynn is not a "convicted felon" by any definition of the term. His case is still in court and he has withdraw his guilty plea and the government prosecutors (DOJ) have made a motion to withdraw the charges. To call him a "convicted felon" is ludicrous. And to claim the allegations have been proven and therefore they are facts is also ludicrous. Let's use the word "allegations" and discuss all we want but as Jimbo Wales points out we need to be careful by calling allegations allegations, which they are, and do not call them facts or present them as facts, because they aren't. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- CharlesShirley, some of the "allegedly" additions are appropriate, but I agree with Objective3000 that those two in particular are ungrammatical and nonsensical. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- If anyone wants to add the word alleged in any form, they can start by pointing to sources that directly support that wording and then they can seek consensus for changing the prior consensus. Editors are not allowed to do original research and conclude that the crimes that Flynn admitted to are now alleged because Trump's DOJ has dropped the charges. The only thing that matters is what is explicitly written in sources. For that reason, I have left the "conviction" categories out of the article, because I could not find sources that use that specific wording and in spite of the fact that CharlesShirley removed one of those categories twice—the second time without obtaining consensus as required by the page editing restrictions. - MrX 🖋 19:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
current status as convicted felon
1. Flynn pled guilty in court to a felony. Judge accepted this plea. 2. Flynn has filed a motion to withdraw his plea. Judge has not yet ruled on this motion. Current legal status as felon stands true. 3. DOJ has made public its intention to file a motion for dismissal. Until judge rules on this, conviction status has not changed. Joey.J (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Was a Judgement of Conviction entered into the official record? It would be a Federal Form that looks like this. If so, I’d be happy to stop arguing about this. https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/criminal-judgment-forms/judgment-criminal-case The 13th 4postle (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Something worth quoting from.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/i-left-justice-department-after-it-made-disastrous-mistake-it-just-happened-again/ 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree vehemently as it is an opinion piece that adds little to no facts on Michael Flynn or his case. The 13th 4postle (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I fully expected you to, but it starts with: "Jonathan Kravis was a federal prosecutor for 10 years." That means that is opinion is notable enough to be referenced as an opinion that shows the reaction to the charges being dropped.
- "put political patronage ahead of its commitment to the rule of law"
- "notwithstanding Flynn’s sworn guilty plea and a ruling by the court that the plea was sound."
- "the department’s handling of these matters is profoundly misguided"
- "Nevertheless, after public criticism of the prosecution by the president, the department moved to dismiss Flynn’s case, claiming that new evidence showed that the plea had no basis. None of the career prosecutors who handled Flynn’s case signed that motion."
- "In both cases, the department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law."
- "For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president’s associates makes this betrayal of the rule of law even more egregious."
- "As the attorney general knows, those career prosecutors and agents cannot respond. The department prohibits employees from talking to the media about criminal cases without high-level approval. Department lawyers are ethically bound to protect the confidences of their client."
- All good stuff that'll fit right in. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with including it as long as we also include an opinion piece from a legal expert that supports the DOJ decision to drop the case. We can choose any of the four below.
- Alan Dershowitz (Democrat and Professor at Harvard) Flynn Was Innocent All Along: He Was Pressured to Plead Guilty
- Jonathan Turley (Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University) The Justice Dept drops Flynn Case
- James Gagaliano (CNN Legal Analyst, Former FBI Agent 25 Years) Michael Flynn was railroaded by Comey's FBI
- Andrew MccArthy (Former Federal Prosecuter) The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the Trump–Russia Probe
- The 13th 4postle (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, why settle for one person's notable opinion when we've got 2,000? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/2-000-former-doj-fbi-officials-call-barr-resign-over-n1204601 68.197.116.79 (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- The 13th 4postle (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
What are comments by Nadler doing in a section called "Dropping of charges"?
Is it common practice in Wikipedia to include the opinions of one's political opponents in biographical information about a person? For some reason the article on Barack Obama does not include super relevant and well-researched claims by Donald Trump after almost every paragraph. Could you not find at least a comment by a supposedly non-biased journalist or a lawyer, instead of the attack dog of the opposing political party? It seems a bit blatant! 46.109.138.188 (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that it is somewhat incendiary and shouldn't be included along with the quote from Trump. We have much better sources as cited above for Legal Opinions that Support or Oppose the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss the case. The 13th 4postle (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- If either of you can find "super relevant and well-researched claims by Donald Trump", I'd be thrilled to include them. Good luck with that. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- That was sarcasm. (OP) 46.109.138.188 (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Although, what is the qualification that Nadler has here that Trump did not have? They are both well-known politicians, I believe that one of them has a higher and generally more respected post than the other. Where the Obama article states "born in Hawaii", it does not have a comment from Trump saying, "na-ah". Why so? What's the difference?46.109.138.188 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- 46.109.138.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I think we include Nadler's opinion because.. oh right, he is the chair of the United States House Committee on the Judiciary, you know, the committee charged with overseeing the administration of justice within the federal courts. Please do your research before asking pointed questions. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't Trump technically in charge of everything now? So his opinions should be added to all articles, Rosie O'Donnell's included? If you're just going to ignore the fact that Nadler is an extremely partisan operator, why not ignore that for Trump as well, and assume that everything he says is based on objective analysis of facts? I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure you have a Presidents Day, but NOT a Chairs of the Committee on the Judiciary Day.46.109.138.188 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- What an absolutely simplistic view, “Trump’s in charge of everything, therefore he’s relevant”. I think this conversation is moot because you’re unable to articulate why Trump is more relevant to this than the actual Chair of committee responsible for federal court matters. —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I was pointing out the absurdity of your argument, it was just a rhetoric device. You're clearly a simple-minded guy, so I'll simplify: I don't believe that Trump's comments should appear anywhere. Neither should Nadler's. They are both political hacks. Your appealing to Nadler's authority by referring to some post that his party members elected him to (for the explicit purpose of scoring political points against the opposing party) is stupid and naive. It's strange that you don't apply this same naive standard to Trump, who was actually elected to his (formerly well-respected) position by the American people rather than by elite Republican Party members. 46.109.138.188 (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- What an absolutely simplistic view, “Trump’s in charge of everything, therefore he’s relevant”. I think this conversation is moot because you’re unable to articulate why Trump is more relevant to this than the actual Chair of committee responsible for federal court matters. —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't Trump technically in charge of everything now? So his opinions should be added to all articles, Rosie O'Donnell's included? If you're just going to ignore the fact that Nadler is an extremely partisan operator, why not ignore that for Trump as well, and assume that everything he says is based on objective analysis of facts? I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure you have a Presidents Day, but NOT a Chairs of the Committee on the Judiciary Day.46.109.138.188 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- 46.109.138.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I think we include Nadler's opinion because.. oh right, he is the chair of the United States House Committee on the Judiciary, you know, the committee charged with overseeing the administration of justice within the federal courts. Please do your research before asking pointed questions. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Although, what is the qualification that Nadler has here that Trump did not have? They are both well-known politicians, I believe that one of them has a higher and generally more respected post than the other. Where the Obama article states "born in Hawaii", it does not have a comment from Trump saying, "na-ah". Why so? What's the difference?46.109.138.188 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- That was sarcasm. (OP) 46.109.138.188 (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- If either of you can find "super relevant and well-researched claims by Donald Trump", I'd be thrilled to include them. Good luck with that. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that it is somewhat incendiary and shouldn't be included along with the quote from Trump. We have much better sources as cited above for Legal Opinions that Support or Oppose the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss the case. The 13th 4postle (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nadler calling out obvious DOJ corruption is appropriate and WP:DUE. - MrX 🖋 02:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Obvious to whom? YOU? Can you let us know your professional credentials for making that observation other than you are partisan and biased? What is obvious is that giving automatic weapons to known Cartels was the most stupid thing any Attorney General with the approval of the sitting President at the time. What is obvious is that the Attorney General that oversaw his DOJ attorneys prosecuting Senator Ted Stevens withholding exculpatory evidence in the case, should have upheld the rule of law and told those attorneys to OBEY THE LAW and turn over that evidence before they did the final arguments and got a conviction, that was overturned by the same Judge who is now the final say in a corrupt FBI sting on General Flynn. What is obvious is there is a LOT OF POV throughout the talk page that makes it into a biography of a living person.67.10.206.161 (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- 67.10.206.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) you're not really going to lecture a longstanding Wikipedia editor about partisanship/bias when your only edits are to this one article's talk page. Also, please leave your ranting about politics outside of the talk page -- not seeing how it is helpful at all to this article. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's not obvious to me that there is any type of corruption. I have yet to see a reliable and verifiable source state and show evidence for corruption. The Jerry Nadler & Trump quote need to go. They both add nothing to Michael Flynn's biography. The 13th 4postle (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, for a longstanding Wikipedia editor you should know that we are just using IP editing because we do not want to get blocked. Disgusting. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Which is quite the admission. I’d venture that you might have already been blocked, based on what you just said. No, most IP editors don’t edit without an account to avoid scrutiny and being blocked, as most of them do nothing to get blocked. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Because obviously the most famous and widely-used information source in the world, which has a cachet of anonymous "objectivity", should only be edited by a clique of editors who have the power to block people they for some reason don't like. Because this is clearly a private project of yours that is not a concern to the public at large!46.109.138.188 (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- More whinging. We are objective, according to our policies. If you want to wage some war upon reliable sources, there’s several blogs, and the door.
- For the record, I’ve never taken another editor to the “drama boards”. I try to encourage even those with the most disparate views from myself to become valuable contributors. I actually believe in this project. That you don’t is immaterial, and just proof you’re wasting our time. Please stop sock-puppeting. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Because obviously the most famous and widely-used information source in the world, which has a cachet of anonymous "objectivity", should only be edited by a clique of editors who have the power to block people they for some reason don't like. Because this is clearly a private project of yours that is not a concern to the public at large!46.109.138.188 (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Which is quite the admission. I’d venture that you might have already been blocked, based on what you just said. No, most IP editors don’t edit without an account to avoid scrutiny and being blocked, as most of them do nothing to get blocked. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, for a longstanding Wikipedia editor you should know that we are just using IP editing because we do not want to get blocked. Disgusting. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's not obvious to me that there is any type of corruption. I have yet to see a reliable and verifiable source state and show evidence for corruption. The Jerry Nadler & Trump quote need to go. They both add nothing to Michael Flynn's biography. The 13th 4postle (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- 67.10.206.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) you're not really going to lecture a longstanding Wikipedia editor about partisanship/bias when your only edits are to this one article's talk page. Also, please leave your ranting about politics outside of the talk page -- not seeing how it is helpful at all to this article. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Obvious to whom? YOU? Can you let us know your professional credentials for making that observation other than you are partisan and biased? What is obvious is that giving automatic weapons to known Cartels was the most stupid thing any Attorney General with the approval of the sitting President at the time. What is obvious is that the Attorney General that oversaw his DOJ attorneys prosecuting Senator Ted Stevens withholding exculpatory evidence in the case, should have upheld the rule of law and told those attorneys to OBEY THE LAW and turn over that evidence before they did the final arguments and got a conviction, that was overturned by the same Judge who is now the final say in a corrupt FBI sting on General Flynn. What is obvious is there is a LOT OF POV throughout the talk page that makes it into a biography of a living person.67.10.206.161 (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the bigger question here is, how much of the article should be about Flynn himself (and his career and legal travails), and much should be about reaction to his legal issues - since they have opened up big questions about the FBI, the DOJ, the Obama and Trump administrations, etc. In general, I support adding in additional relevant opinions, such as Nadler's, on all of these issues; and ultimately, it may even make sense to create a second article, like "Michael Flynn legal controversy", to hold all of this commentary. For the moment, though, I'm against adding in Nadler's opinion, because it would lead to an imbalanced article. Up until now, a group of three editors have prevented the article from including the pro-Flynn argument, which essentially states that Flynn was the target of a perjury trap. There's an RfC at the moment that will surely eventually overrule them, but until that's resolved, I think it's best for this article to stick to the facts and leave out the commentary. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Problem with the 2nd paragraph.
In the 2nd paragrah it states, "He resigned after information surfaced that he had misled the FBI and Vice President Mike Pence about the nature and content of his communications with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak." Here is a CNN article which states "Flynn initially told investigators sanctions were not discussed. But FBI agents challenged him, asking if he was certain that was his answer. He said he didn't remember. The FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say."[3] All information in the article has to be verifiable according to Wikipedia rules. The 13th 4postle (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.newsweek.com/nbcs-chuck-todd-asks-joe-biden-if-theres-blood-trumps-hands-due-coronavirus-response-1494906
- ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzLgbka5jKQ
- ^ https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/fbi-not-expected-to-pursue-charges-against-flynn/index.html.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)
- To remind you (and to quote from that Kravis article above), "Flynn pleaded guilty to the crime of making false statements in connection with lies he told in an FBI interview about his contacts with the Russian ambassador". Enough said. He admitted he did it. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- To remind you, he plead guilty to get the Mueller team to leave his son alone, and his statements to the Judge about it was probably demanded or the deal to leave his son alone would be off the table. [1]67.10.206.161 (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- He pled guilty because he was guilty. He remains guilty. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Notice that thing called a cited reference that I gave? The FBI got him on a process crime, the same agent that told them not to close the case, rewrote a a 302 in another agent's "voice" and admitted to it in a text message. This is a felonious action by that FBI agent out to get Flynn, which if convicted requires a 20 year sentence. There were crimes committed but it wasn't by Flynn. [1] 67.10.206.161 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- An op-ed published in Town Hall is not a valid source. Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI, which is a crime. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- REALLY? This is talk page about the article to improve it, I was addressing usertalk 68.197.116.79 putting their OPINION with no references to back it up. If opinion is not good enough for the Talk Page to improve the actual article, then opinion pieces should not be used in the actual article itself. Like this one: [2]67.10.206.161 (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- The material is correct and verifiable in the cited sources. In fact, this was all over the news when it happened, so I have no idea what the "problem" would be. - MrX 🖋 02:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- The material WAS correct and WAS verifiable in the cited sources at the time. New information has come out and those articles are now out of date as I linked above. Unless you are stating that CNN is not a reliable source? The 13th 4postle (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Switch the locations of Ranger Tab and JCS ID badge (which is a pocket badge) on his awards (look at his picture) 2003:E8:E710:CA28:5C60:16C7:B6C:5922 (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed. The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The DOJ does not currently believe that Flynn lied to FBI agents?
"The DOJ does not currently believe that Flynn lied to FBI agents". was added to the lead. It is not supported by the cited reference (or any reference that I'm aware of). It would require that the DOJ as whole be capable of beliefs and that sources have verified those beliefs. It's also stated in WP:WIKIVOICE, which means that it is a widespread view. I contend that the head of the DOJ knows that Flynn lied (after all, Flynn admitted it), and that his view does not represent the entire DOJ. Also, the parenthetical "(at the time)" is a blend of original research and WP:WEASEL. This edit should be reverted. - MrX 🖋 11:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- The cited reference (https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/fbi-not-expected-to-pursue-charges-against-flynn/index.html) says "The FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say." The 13th 4postle (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I changed it to quote from the source directly. The 13th 4postle (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- The cited reference (https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/fbi-not-expected-to-pursue-charges-against-flynn/index.html) says "The FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say." The 13th 4postle (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Afghanistan articles
- Low-importance Afghanistan articles
- WikiProject Afghanistan articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (military) articles
- Low-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- C-Class Maryland articles
- Low-importance Maryland articles
- WikiProject Maryland articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class biography (military) articles
- Start-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- Start-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Unknown-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class United States military history articles
- C-Class United States Government articles
- Unknown-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment