Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 01, 2020

Newly unsealed FBI notes show that during an internal discussion about the bureau's investigation of then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, an unknown author questioned whether the goal was "Truth/Admission" or "to get him to lie." The single page of handwritten notes is dated January 24, 2017, the same day of Flynn's White House FBI interview. The notes are lightly redacted, and read in part, "We have a case on Flynn & Russians." In a section titled "Afterwards," it states, "What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" The notes continue, "If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act give facts to DOJ + have them decide..If we're seen as playing games, WH will be furious. Protect our institution by not playing games."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Flynn always has seemed to me to be a really bad guy, but this still bothers me that the FBI would go to these lengths against someone so high profile, it makes me wonder what they do to ordinary people.

#1 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-04-30 11:42 PM | Reply

"it makes me wonder what they do to ordinary people."

You mean you don't know?
Are you sure you're a lawyer?

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-30 11:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Are you sure you're a lawyer?

Seriously.

The FBI investigators had a choice. They already had evidence (and so did the public) that Flynn had lied about whether he had spoken with the Russians about Obama's sanctions. Before the interview, Flynn had lied to the White House Press Secretary and the Vice President in denying what the FBI already had on tape. Both publicly asserted that Flynn had told them that he hadn't had such a conversation.

So the agent in question wondered if they should A) Let Flynn know that they know he lied and try to get him to confess based on the weight of the evidence against him or B) Not tell Flynn that they already had evidence that he lied and give him another opportunity to add to the pile if he lied to them yet again. They chose B, and Flynn indeed lied directly to the FBI. Nothing about this is coercive nor entrapping.

This is not exculpatory and nothing the FBI did was scandalous unless you think that LEO has to divulge whatever evidence they have to any suspect that they question who is not yet under arrest.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-01 12:06 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

It bothers you that the FBI would investigate Flynn breaking the law merely because he was a general?

Giving generals a pass on breaking the law is what banana republics do. How low do you want the US to go?

#4 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-01 12:08 AM | Reply

Lord Nelson said you have to hang an Admiral every now and again to keep the others in line.

Flynn has earned some rope.

#5 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-01 12:11 AM | Reply

So we just ignore this note:

"What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

I was taught at Boalt Hall in first year CrimLaw that law enforcement was about the truth.

Getting someone fired seems political at best.

#6 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-05-01 12:16 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"How low do you want the US to go?"

I certainly don't want them "getting someone to lie" so that they can be removed from office.

That is what Banana Republics do (unless they line them up and shoot them.)

#7 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-05-01 12:18 AM | Reply

#6 The FBI gave Flynn an opportunity tell the truth. He is a serial liar, lied to his VP about breaking a law, and lied to the FBI.

No one forced Flynn to lie. He did it to cover his crimes. That is a crime.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

#8 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-01 12:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

So we just ignore this note:

"What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

It's one FBI agent's opinion that has zero legal bearing whatsoever. As I posted above, the agent speaking wanted to confront Flynn with the evidence that they already had and try to get him to plead. There is no law nor stipulation that NOT taking this track is entrapping anyone. They didn't compel Flynn to lie by asking him questions, Flynn lied BECAUSE they asked him questions.

As I read the question, evidently the agent wasn't thinking along the same lines as his bosses above him who realized that Flynn was already compromised and an imminent national security threat because the Russians could have blackmailed him. It's not that agent's job to ponder his orders, imo.

But I'm all ears, what law or right was violated by the FBI asking Flynn questions that they already had the answers to, and in what universe is it exculpatory to the charges at issue?

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-01 12:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

No general deserves to keep job after lying about his crimes to the VP.

In Trump land if an Admiral sends an email complaining and an outbreak on board his ship he is fired. But a sketchy double dealing slimbag like Flynn can break the law and only have to resign. That sounds like a banana republic.

#10 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-01 12:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And to be perfectly clear, it didn't matter one whit what the FBI agent thought anyway. The tape of Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador was already in the FBI's possession, so he was already going to be charged with violating the Logan Act, not to mention his lying to the Vice President. And his violation of the act would have meant the loss of his security clearances because of him allowing himself to be in the position of possibly being blackmailed by the Russian government. He could not have kept his job under these circumstances.

Bottom line, Flynn would have lost his job regardless of how the FBI questioned him because of all that preceded said questioning. The agent didn't have a clue to the totality of Flynn's conduct as it related to national security, obviously. Flynn's goose was cooked long before those agents spoke with him, they just didn't know it.

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-01 12:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I was taught at Boalt Hall in first year CrimLaw that law enforcement was about the truth.
#6 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

Sure, like it's the duty of law enforcement to get the truth, even if it means enhanced interrogation.
Waterboarding not your thing?

ICE should find out the truth about everyone's immigration status by consulting Census data.
What's the harm in knowing the truth about people?

They taught you how to think well enough.
Not sure you realize what you're doing, though.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-01 03:27 AM | Reply

"I was taught at Boalt Hall in first year CrimLaw that law enforcement was about the truth."

And you believed them? That's just sad.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2020-05-01 09:29 AM | Reply

Why hasn't Kerry been prosecuted under Logan act for his undermining of US policy on Iran?

#14 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-05-01 09:35 AM | Reply

Why hasn't Kerry been prosecuted under Logan act for his undermining of US policy on Iran?

#14 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

You have any actual evidence of this, or is this just a deflection from actual and provable conservative lies and corruption?

Oh... let me guess. Trump said it so you believe it with all of your little heart.

Sheep will continue to be sheep.

#15 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2020-05-01 10:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

For those who think what the Agents of the FBI was acceptable, remember it works both ways. There are several of your heroes could face a perjury trap. What goes around, comes around.

#16 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-05-01 10:10 AM | Reply

Clinton testified for 11 hours and somehow managed not to lie.

Why do goppers insist on lying and stealing constantly?

#17 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-01 11:21 AM | Reply

17 | Posted by bored Not true, she was not under oath, and she had several advisors with her. She lies like a rug.

#18 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-05-01 12:12 PM | Reply

#18 - you can't cite a single lie, though. Lying to Congress is a crime, oath or not, BTW. Was she charged? Drop the right-wing talking point. It's crap.

Flynn lied and it's on the record. Period.

As to feigning outrage over the question the FBI agent asked, Tony nailed it in #11.

WRT "Flynn always has seemed to me to be a really bad guy, but this still bothers me that the FBI would go to these lengths against someone so high profile, it makes me wonder what they do to ordinary people." Don't be ridiculous. The FBI's tactics are only being questioned because of Flynn's stature.

#19 | Posted by YAV at 2020-05-01 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#19 | Posted by YAV I have been interviewed by the FBI and US Marshals. They treated me much better than they apparently did to Flinn. They opened the interviews with the warning that I could be prosecuted for any lie. They did not threaten my family. Of course I was a mere witness. If they found anything I said untrue or mistaken I could be charged with aiding and abetting a fugitive or impeding an investigation. I knew someone go to prison for three years for giving an individual a phone number. They did not have to prove that the individual he gave the phone number to was known to him to be a fugitive. Lesson learned, never speak to a LEO without counsel.www.youtube.com

#20 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-05-01 12:47 PM | Reply

It's funny how I have absolutely no sympathy for Flynn

How much money did he accept from Putin again?

Putin-$45,000
Erdogan-$530,000

And then he lied about it so he could get a job at the White House.

Like I would EVER be forgiven for even taking $1.

Remember the "Lock Her Up" chants he participated in?

"If I did a tenth of what FLYNN did, I would be in jail today."

F him. And the Trumpy horse he rode in on.

Lock him up. Throw away the key. Let Trumpy pardon him.

But no forgiveness.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-05-01 12:56 PM | Reply

Didn't the FBI, at the time of that Jan 24th interview, already have evidence that Mr Flynn broke the law?

And didn't Mr Flynn actually lie during that interview?

I'm having trouble seeing what all the kerfuffle is here, aside from a new team of defense lawyers trying anything, including politics, to exonerate their client who seems to be guilty (he admitted as much,).

#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-05-01 02:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I was taught at Boalt Hall in first year CrimLaw that law enforcement was about the truth.
#6 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

That is what Banana Republics do (unless they line them up and shoot them.)
#7 | POSTED BYLEFTCOASTLAWYER

^
All LeftCoastLawyer has is "Pound the table!" arguments.

Did you really think we weren't going to notice that, or are you the one who didn't notice it?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-01 02:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

It sounds like you're talking about a Security Clearance investigation. You do understand that that is different than being a subject in a criminal investigation? Police lie to suspects all the time and it has been adjudicated as being legal and acceptable (according to the "Law and Order" types up until now).

Flynn should be an exception, why?

#24 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-05-01 03:24 PM | Reply

#24 | Posted by WhoDaMan No, it was the investigation of an individual who had enlisted who was also a member of a organized crime group, "Bloods". He and a few others ended up busted under RICO for the sale and distribution of large amounts of narcotics moving up and down the west coast. Apparently he joined the army to elude a warrant using a fraudulent ID. He was located by a phone tap on his mother's phone. He also continued to associate with his fellow gang members in Tacoma and Seattle. Surveillance picked him up there. Last I heard he had crossed into BC.

#25 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-05-01 03:45 PM | Reply

But you weren't a suspect, right? You were just an "interviewee". As opposed to someone who they already knew had broken the law.

#26 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-05-01 03:55 PM | Reply

I was taught at Boalt Hall in first year CrimLaw that law enforcement was about the truth.
Getting someone fired seems political at best.

#6 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

By the time of this note the FBI already knew both the White House press secretary and the Vice President had publicly stated that sanctions were not discussed. Russia would therefore have evidence that would contradict the White House and give the appearance that they were lying to cover up a crime before Trump was even sworn in.
At that point it would appear to investigators that Flynn had lied to the White House or Spicer and Pence were lying to the American public. In either case Flynn was definitely compromised and there was at least the appearance that Pence and Spicer were too.
What action could the FBI possibly have taken that wouldn't be political? Interviewing Flynn seems like the least political option they had at the moment. They either interview him and he lies or he tells the truth that they did discuss sanctions and he admits he lied to the White House or he tells the truth and says the White House knew he discussed sanctioned. Flynn decided to lie.

#27 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-05-01 04:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#27 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE

Facts only matter in reality, not in Trumplandia.

#28 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-05-01 04:21 PM | Reply

It must be exhausting believing that Donald Trump is infallible and that anyone opposed to him or any of his associates is a criminal.

Think of the job security that would come with that if someone could figure out a way to make money off of it..

#29 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-05-01 04:54 PM | Reply

#18 Hillary testified for 11 hours to Congress. Lying to Congress is perjury.

The FBI said Hillary did not lie to them.

Flynn lied to the FBI. Then plead guilty and said he was not entrapped during his sentencing. He got off easy.

The GOP got caught in many lies, with Trump being the king of lies and fraud.

Goppers like you are cultists.

#30 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-01 05:15 PM | Reply

17 | Posted by bored Not true, she was not under oath, and she had several advisors with her. She lies like a rug.
#18 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

1. You lie like a rug.
She was sworn. You can hear that fact right here at the 8:15 mark of the hearing.
"And because you have already been sworn, we will go straight to your opening."
youtu.be

2. If what you said was true, it would be because the Republicans didn't swear her in. It was their investigation after all.

So not only are you lying, the lie you are telling actually makes the Republicans look even worse!
Sheesh.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-01 07:00 PM | Reply

Jesus, some of you suggesting that the FBI trying to get Flynn to either confess or catch him in a lie is somehow inappropriate is ridiculous. In your mind, do they go into an interrogation with a suspect they know is guilty and just shrug and give up when the suspect offers a lie-filled alibi? Of course not, you go into every interview with a plan! The suspect interrogation is generally the last step of an investigation because by then, you have all the facts and can spot when the suspect is lying and can confront those lies with the truth. If you can't get to confession, you lock the suspect into a story (lie) and then work to disprove that lie. This is investigation 101. The FBI has an advantage because, unlike local or state cops, lying to the FBI is an actual crime. Flynn knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime, yet he STILL did it. They gave him every chance to tell the truth, but he LIED! Why did Flynn feel he had to lie? Recall the Judge on his case, who has seen ALL the prosecution's evidence, tongue-lashed Flynn, suggested the plea agreement was too SOFT and that Flynn's activities were treasonous.

This is nothing more than a hail mary and a distraction from the greatest presidential failure in American history. Flynn is guilty as hell. He wasn't even charged with plotting to kidnap an American resident to rendition him to Turkey to face trial and execution in exchange for cash. It seems like that is much more serious.

#32 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-05-01 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

LeftCoastLawyer is getting high fives from RightOCenter for how well he trolled the libs with that "First year law school" shtick.

I hope everyone can see that.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-02 03:11 PM | Reply

...trolled the libs with that "First year law school" shtick.

Also interesting that Boalt Hall has been renamed since John Boalt was a racist.

#34 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-05-02 03:52 PM | Reply

#34 Oh, so there's a racist dog whistle too.
So LeftCoastLawyer is trolling the libs, without the libs even realizing they're getting trolled.

So much winning!
#MAGA

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-02 05:20 PM | Reply

LampLighter asked me the other day, why do I come here.

Exposing people like LeftCoastLawyer is a big part of it.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-02 05:24 PM | Reply

Are you desperate for attention Snoofy? Lonely?

Is that why you are trolling me more than 28 hours after my last post?

#37 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-05-02 11:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort