DOJ dropping criminal case against Gen Flynn (UPDATE: DC Cir. dismisses case) (3 Viewers)

So the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts have been released (see below, only link I could find). I don't see anything alarming there... Am I missing something?
(Edit: didn't realize there were multiple transcripts in the file. Still reading)

Savage said:

So the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts have been released (see below, only link I could find). I don't see anything alarming there... Am I missing something?
(Edit: didn't realize there were multiple transcripts in the file. Still reading)

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/05/flynn2.pdf

Click to expand...

I think the most important thing (I haven't read them completely yet) is that it removes any doubt that Flynn did lie to the FBI. So, he pleaded guilty to something that he actually was guilty of doing.

FullMonte said:

I think the most important thing (I haven't read them completely yet) is that it removes any doubt that Flynn did lie to the FBI. So, he pleaded guilty to something that he actually was guilty of doing.

Click to expand...

Flynn and Kislyak discussed expulsions, not the executive order-mandated financial sanctions explicitly cited by Mueller in his charging documents.

The transcripts show Mueller, not Flynn, lied about Flynn’s conversations.

Can you show us in the transcript where you think Flynn discussed sanctions?

SaintForLife said:

Flynn and Kislyak discussed expulsions, not the executive order-mandated financial sanctions explicitly cited by Mueller in his charging documents.

The transcripts show Mueller, not Flynn, lied about Flynn’s conversations.

Can you show us in the transcript where you think Flynn discussed sanctions?

Click to expand...

I don't know about that....but, I do know this....

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

Flynn's Redacted 302: "The interviewing agents asked Flynn if he recalled any conversation with Kislyak surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing or Russian properties in response to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. Flynn stated that he did not. Flynn reiterated his conversation was about the [REDACTED] (described earlier). Flynn noted that he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions as he did not have access to television news in the Dominican Republic and his government blackberry was not working."

So, the transcript shows that Flynn asked Kysliak to get Russia not to respond to the expulsions. During his interview, he said he did not remember that call, he reiterated that the call was about something else, and stated that he didn't even know about the explusions. That's clearly a lie.

surada said:

Well, the US has monitored ALL communication in and out of Soviet/Russian embassies worldwide as long as I can remember going back to Libya 1969 and probably before that. If you were calling the embassy all the time, the US would have noticed. Do you consider that spying on Trump?

Click to expand...

Do you known whether it is routine to leake information based on such monitoring to the WaPo? Because that is, without a doubt, what happened with Flynn.

SaintForLife said:

Flynn and Kislyak discussed expulsions, not the executive order-mandated financial sanctions explicitly cited by Mueller in his charging documents.

The transcripts show Mueller, not Flynn, lied about Flynn’s conversations.

Can you show us in the transcript where you think Flynn discussed sanctions?

Click to expand...

It’s not really in dispute that he discussed sanctions in the call. It’s whether he lied about it to the FBI. Remember?

SaintForLife said:

Flynn asked the Ambassador not escalate in response to the sanctions. How is that illegal?

Click to expand...

SaintForLife said:

Can you point out what you claim was illegal or wrong about his call with the Russian ambassador? How is asking Russia not to retaliate after the sanctions wrong?

Click to expand...

SaintForLife said:

He asked Russia not to escalate after the Obama sanctions. Should he have told the nuclear armed Russia to escalate?

The fact that you think an incoming National Security Advisor talking to the Russian ambassador about not escalating in response to sanctions as something illegal is hard to take as a serious argument.

Click to expand...

This new line of argument that the Flynn transcripts show that he wasn’t discussing sanctions with Kislyak because Flynn didn't use the word “sanctions” and only referred to expulsions (which were part of the sanctions) is... a stretch:

Anyone who wants to analyze this argument objectively, I implore you to read the entirety of the 12/29/2016 transcript between Kislyak and Flynn and decide for yourself whether transcript shows Flynn reassuring Kislyak that the Obama-imposed sanctions over Russian cyber-interference would not be a problem once Trump took office:

And KT McFarland’s 302 made clear that the “escalations” referred to sanctions:



Again, I didn’t think it was in dispute that Flynn discussed sanctions. I am sure there are many other examples where he and associates admitted to it.

I always found it impossible to believe he “forgot” whether the topic of sanctions came up with Kislyak, and the transcripts confirm that for me. Read the 12/29 transcript as he waits impatiently for Kislyak to say what he has to say, then immediately brings up Obama’s actions regarding Russia’s cyber-interference. It’s obvious that the thing Flynn wants to discuss the most is not escalating sanctions, right? Given all the back and forth calls that day to Mar-a-Lago about sanctions, the fact that Flynn later admitted to remembering it, and the fact that it’s the thing Flynn was fixated on during the call, is it really believable to think he couldn’t remember whether that topic came up? (No.)

Also, who is the “common enemy” shared by Russia and the incoming admin? Americans like me that think he’s a traitor?

Beach Friends said:

Do you known whether it is routine to leake information based on such monitoring to the WaPo? Because that is, without a doubt, what happened with Flynn.

Click to expand...

Probably depends on the nature of the conversations. Between Flynn's pursuit of nuclear deals and the Turkish kidnapping plot, he would have attracted attention.

TaylorB said:

This new line of argument that the Flynn transcripts show that he wasn’t discussing sanctions with Kislyak because Flynn didn't use the word “sanctions” and only referred to expulsions (which were part of the sanctions) is... a stretch:

Click to expand...

Not only is it a stretch...it's pointless. The argument is...Flynn discussed the expulsions, he told the FBI he didn't discuss sanctions, so technically, it wasn't a lie.

However, the FBI directly asked if he recalled discussing the expulsions, and he said, he did not, that the call was about something else, and that he didn't even know about the expulsions.

From the Flynn 302: "The interviewing agents asked Flynn if he recalled any conversation with Kislyak surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing or Russian properties in response to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. Flynn stated that he did not. Flynn reiterated his conversation was about the [REDACTED] (described earlier). Flynn noted that he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions as he did not have access to television news in the Dominican Republic and his government blackberry was not working."

FullMonte said:

Not only is it a stretch...it's pointless. The argument is...Flynn discussed the expulsions, he told the FBI he didn't discuss sanctions, so technically, it wasn't a lie.

However, the FBI directly asked if he recalled discussing the expulsions, and he said, he did not, that the call was about something else, and that he didn't even know about the expulsions.

From the Flynn 302: "The interviewing agents asked Flynn if he recalled any conversation with Kislyak surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing or Russian properties in response to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. Flynn stated that he did not. Flynn reiterated his conversation was about the [REDACTED] (described earlier). Flynn noted that he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions as he did not have access to television news in the Dominican Republic and his government blackberry was not working."

Click to expand...

Yes, and again, the overriding message from Flynn to Russia was “we don’t care what you guys did to try to influence the election, we want to start fresh.” This is why Flynn supporters try to poke holes in the notion that Russia did what our intelligence community has rather unanimously concluded it did. It wasn’t just GRU hacks, it was the IRA-staged rallies and Internet trolling, infiltration of the NRA by Butina and Torshin, contact with Trump Jr, Flynn, Kushner re: “dirt”, direct contact with Manafort to get internal polling data for battleground states, contact with Stone via cutouts, and so on. The “crowdstrike” conspiracy theory doesn’t do much to explain away the whole of Russia’s efforts on this broad array or fronts.

So when KT McFarland says in an email to the transition team during these Flynn-Kislyak talks that the Obama sanctions hurt the Trump administration’s ability to have good relations with “Russia which has just thrown USA election to [Trump]” it’s really hard to buy the explanation that she was being sarcastic. Not that it proves that that was the reason Trump won; it just shows that they knew Russia was helping them and seemed to embrace it. That’s why Flynn is such a sensitive subject for Trump defenders.

Yep, it’s striking that Flynn basically says he, and by inference Trump, doesn’t care about any of the election interference. Which included a lot of active measures as well as the hacking and dumping of stolen material. He is certainly no one that should be held in esteem, or celebrated as some sort of “patriot”.

It’s nauseating to see the whitewashing of this person who used to serve his country and turned into someone who sells his country out for money. No wonder the judge felt he was a traitor.

MT15 said:

Yep, it’s striking that Flynn basically says he, and by inference Trump, doesn’t care about any of the election interference. Which included a lot of active measures as well as the hacking and dumping of stolen material. He is certainly no one that should be held in esteem, or celebrated as some sort of “patriot”.

It’s nauseating to see the whitewashing of this person who used to serve his country and turned into someone who sells his country out for money. No wonder the judge felt he was a traitor.

Click to expand...

Flynn got greedy. He was going for the big score.

FullMonte said:

I don't know about that....but, I do know this....

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

Flynn's Redacted 302: "The interviewing agents asked Flynn if he recalled any conversation with Kislyak surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing or Russian properties in response to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. Flynn stated that he did not. Flynn reiterated his conversation was about the [REDACTED] (described earlier). Flynn noted that he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions as he did not have access to television news in the Dominican Republic and his government blackberry was not working."

So, the transcript shows that Flynn asked Kysliak to get Russia not to respond to the expulsions. During his interview, he said he did not remember that call, he reiterated that the call was about something else, and stated that he didn't even know about the explusions. That's clearly a lie.

Click to expand...

The orginal 302 was conveniently lost by the FBI. The 302 you are referring to is one that Page and Strzok edited the 302 eventhough she wasn't in the interview. All 302's are required to be finished within 5 days of the interview. The Flynn interview happened on January 24th and the heavily edited 302 was finally finished on February 15th.

Page had no business editing the 302 when she wasn't at the interview and why would the 302 need to be heavily edited when they are supposed to render the witnesses account?

The Flynn 302 doesn't even match the FBI Agents' notes. Agent Notes: "I don't remember making 4-5 calls." 302: "Flynn remembered making four to give calls that day about this issue."

Lisa Page lied to the DOJ about her edits to the Flynn 302. "Page didn't recall whether she took part in editing the FD-302." Upon seeing her texts, she "believes she must have seen it at some point..."

Discussion between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok re: editing the Flynn 302. Strzok to Page: "I made your edits" Also discussion of misleading leadership re: picking up 302.


Page/Strzok texts also include this post-Flynn interview analysis of Strzok. This appears to confirm they left the interview thinking Flynn didn't lie.

Agent notes say Flynn wasn't sure he spoke to Kislyak on the UN vote. The 302 says different.

James Clapper told Washington Post reporter Ignatius to basically "take the kill shot on Flynn"

TaylorB said:

It’s not really in dispute that he discussed sanctions in the call. It’s whether he lied about it to the FBI. Remember?

Click to expand...

Yeah I remember. Mueller and the leaks from James Baker or Clapper told us that he discussed the sanctions. The Flynn-Kislyak transcript barely discusses sanctions. It's mentioned only once by Kislyak.

I still stand by my statements that there is nothing wrong with Flynn discussing sanctions with Kislyak since Flynn was the incoming National Security Advisor.

Mueller report: "With respect to the sanctions, Flynn requested that Russia not escalate the situation, not get into a 'tit for tat,' and only respond to the sanctions in a reciprocal manner."

That was a lie. The request was over expulsions.

This new line of argument that the Flynn transcripts show that he wasn’t discussing sanctions with Kislyak because Flynn didn't use the word “sanctions” and only referred to expulsions (which were part of the sanctions) is... a stretch:

Anyone who wants to analyze this argument objectively, I implore you to read the entirety of the 12/29/2016 transcript between Kislyak and Flynn and decide for yourself whether transcript shows Flynn reassuring Kislyak that the Obama-imposed sanctions over Russian cyber-interference would not be a problem once Trump took office:

Director of National Intelligence Declassifies Flynn-Kislyak Transcripts

On Friday, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified and released the transcripts of the December 2016 calls between former national security adviser Michael Flynn and then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The calls are at the center of the ongoing criminal case again...

www.lawfareblog.com

Click to expand...

You do realize that the screenshot you posted above shows them talking about EXPULSIONS right? How can you defend charging someone for false statements when he didn't even say what Mueller claimed?

And KT McFarland’s 302 made clear that the “escalations” referred to sanctions:

Again, I didn’t think it was in dispute that Flynn discussed sanctions. I am sure there are many other examples where he and associates admitted to it.

Click to expand...

Thats McFarland's interpretation of what Flynn meant. We can all see from the transcript that Flynn said expulsion.

If you are sure there are many other examples of where he admitted to it then cite the proof.

I always found it impossible to believe he “forgot” whether the topic of sanctions came up with Kislyak, and the transcripts confirm that for me. Read the 12/29 transcript as he waits impatiently for Kislyak to say what he has to say, then immediately brings up Obama’s actions regarding Russia’s cyber-interference. It’s obvious that the thing Flynn wants to discuss the most is not escalating sanctions, right? Given all the back and forth calls that day to Mar-a-Lago about sanctions, the fact that Flynn later admitted to remembering it, and the fact that it’s the thing Flynn was fixated on during the call, is it really believable to think he couldn’t remember whether that topic came up? (No.)

Click to expand...

Thats not correct. According to the transcript, Flynn didn't want Russia to expell more Americans than the number of Russians that Obama expelled.

Flynn probably talked to Kislyak for about 4 minutes. I'm guessing as the incoming National Security Advisor he probably had about 1000 calls between the call on 12/29 and the FBI interview on January 24th.

If you had a job with that many phone calls do you think you would remember exactly what you said a month ago?

Also, who is the “common enemy” shared by Russia and the incoming admin? Americans like me that think he’s a traitor?

Click to expand...

The were talking about Islamic extremism/terrorism.

If you still think he's a traitor after seeing the transcript, you should probably stop reading stuff from Lawfare. Comey's buddy runs Lawfare and their founder admitted they looked bad after the Nunes memo was proven to be true.

SFL, you are reading slanted sources at the same time you are discrediting other people’s sources as slanted. Just for the record. You are super focused on small details and technicalities, seemingly, and ignoring the big picture. The Federalist?

So moving on. Did it bother you at all that Flynn seems to just accept that the Russians were interfering to help Trump, and indicates it was not a problem? Did that move the needle? Because it did for me. He seems to not be considering what is best for America at any point, just what is best for himself and Trump. At least to me.

The second thing that bothers me is why lie about it? Because he did lie. And it wasn’t one phone call. Going from memory wasn’t it around five phone calls in one day? Seems like you’d remember something like that.

MT15 said:

SFL, you are reading slanted sources at the same time you are discrediting other people’s sources as slanted. Just for the record. You are super focused on small details and technicalities, seemingly, and ignoring the big picture. The Federalist?

So moving on. Did it bother you at all that Flynn seems to just accept that the Russians were interfering to help Trump, and indicates it was not a problem? Did that move the needle? Because it did for me. He seems to not be considering what is best for America at any point, just what is best for himself and Trump. At least to me.

The second thing that bothers me is why lie about it? Because he did lie. And it wasn’t one phone call. Going from memory wasn’t it around five phone calls in one day? Seems like you’d remember something like that.

Click to expand...

That Federalist article that I posted had the quote from the Co-founder of Lawfare. Also, I'm not the one who continues to believe in the discredited conspiracy theory of Russiagate even after the IG report, the evidence of FISA abuse, The new Flynn information including the transcript, etc.

“Is there somebody who since the release of the Horowitz paper, someone in political life or a pontificator looks better or worse as a result of this report and why?” Baker asked the panel of three legal experts who specialize in the intelligence community.

I feel like all of us, who, you might call us the ‘Lawfare crowd’ who were often denounced or criticized at least in the older days as being too quick to credit and too trust the good faith and completeness of the efforts of the FBI in this kind of context. A lot of us look bad right now and we’re sort of watching anxiously to see how the broader OIG investigation sheds light on whether this was a one-off problem or a broader problem but there’s not question that a lot of our positions don’t look as persuasive as a result of how this has turned out.

I see the goalposts have shifted now that has been shown that Mueller lied about what Flynn said. So now we should be outraged because Flynn didn't discuss the hacking right?

What about the contradiction between Crowdstrike & Mueller? Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry says the DNC data was staged for exfiltration on April 22, "but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."

Mueller: "On April 22, 2016, the GRU copied files from the DNC network to GRU-controlled computers."



I didn't say there was only one phone call. I listed the date of the phone call where Mueller claimed Flynn discussed sanctions. Do you think that Flynn didn't have a bunch more phone calls that day and everyday as the incoming National Security Adviser?

So if the police questioned you about a phone call 1 month ago do you think you would remember everything about the call if you had many calls every day?

You say Flynn lied. The FBI agents who interviewed him didn't think he intentionally lied which is required in a false statement charge.

So Flynn to you is a great guy, a real patriot, who only has what’s good for the US in mind?

You‘re still focusing on small stuff. Whether the Mueller report got a detail wrong. It’s like ignoring a felony to focus on jaywalking.

Flynn has/had gone rogue. He is/was acting as a foreign agent for Turkey and concealed that fact. He lied about his conversations with Kislyak, we just don’t know why. Why was he willing to discuss kidnapping a cleric legally residing in the US and sending him back to Turkey where he would almost certainly be killed? Did that serve US interests, or Turkey’s?

Flynn had no business being involved in the US government at that point in time, he was and is compromised.

What is discredited? That Russia hacked the DNC and used the stolen data to try to help elect Trump? That’s not discredited. That the Trump campaign was fine with the help? That’s not discredited either. To me, those two facts are pretty damning.

SaintForLife said:

Yeah I remember. Mueller and the leaks from James Baker or Clapper told us that he discussed the sanctions. The Flynn-Kislyak transcript barely discusses sanctions. It's mentioned only once by Kislyak.

I still stand by my statements that there is nothing wrong with Flynn discussing sanctions with Kislyak since Flynn was the incoming National Security Advisor.

Mueller report: "With respect to the sanctions, Flynn requested that Russia not escalate the situation, not get into a 'tit for tat,' and only respond to the sanctions in a reciprocal manner."

That was a lie. The request was over expulsions.

You do realize that the screenshot you posted above shows them talking about EXPULSIONS right? How can you defend charging someone for false statements when he didn't even say what Mueller claimed?

Thats McFarland's interpretation of what Flynn meant. We can all see from the transcript that Flynn said expulsion.

If you are sure there are many other examples of where he admitted to it then cite the proof.

Thats not correct. According to the transcript, Flynn didn't want Russia to expell more Americans than the number of Russians that Obama expelled.

Flynn probably talked to Kislyak for about 4 minutes. I'm guessing as the incoming National Security Advisor he probably had about 1000 calls between the call on 12/29 and the FBI interview on January 24th.

If you had a job with that many phone calls do you think you would remember exactly what you said a month ago?

The were talking about Islamic extremism/terrorism.

If you still think he's a traitor after seeing the transcript, you should probably stop reading stuff from Lawfare. Comey's buddy runs Lawfare and their founder admitted they looked bad after the Nunes memo was proven to be true.

Intel Community Blog Founder Admits Nunes Was Right About Spygate

"A lot of us look bad right now," said Lawfare co-founder Bobby Chesney in a podcast published Thursday.

thefederalist.com

Click to expand...

It is true that there are instances in which a distinction is drawn between "sanctions" and "expulsions," including in the Mueller Report itself (the "Obama administration imposed sanctions and other measures against Russia", p. 168), but there are also plenty of instances where the term "sanctions" is treated as encompassing both the financial sanctions and the expulsions. For example, in the paragraph after it describes the financial sanctions and the expulsions of diplomats, the Mueller Report says "[d]uring the rollout of the sanctions...", appearing to refer to the collection of actions taken by Obama's administration. And when the Mueller Report says Trump and the transition team were "concerned that these sanctions would harm the United States' relationship with Russia," it appears to be referring collectively to both sets of punitive measures. Finally, the Mueller Report noted that Sergey Lavrov "remarked that Russia would not respond in kind to the sanctions," citing Lavrov's statement which in its headline distinguishes sanctions and expulsions, but in the text says "sanctions have also been applied against our [expelled] diplomats":
So when KT McFarland described her conversations with Flynn about "sanctions," it's not like she was out on a limb in blurring the distinction.

And you're citing this semantical distinction as "proof" that "Muller lied and Flynn didn't." Again, I encourage anyone reading this to read this section of Mueller Report, starting at p. 168, and decide for yourself whether Mueller found this to be such an important distinction that he had to lie about it. The section is entitled "U.S. Sanctions Against Russia" and is primarily focused on the efforts between Flynn, the transition team, and Kislyak, to avoid a situation where the two sides have to retaliate against each other over the punitive measures enacted by Obama. What Flynn admitted to, under oath, involved lying to FBI agents about an escalation of the situation in response to the "sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia." Flynn led the agents to believe that he did not recall such a discussion about de-escalation:

The redacted portion likely refers to the cover story Flynn and McFarland came up with which are revealed in McFarland's early 302s: that the discussion was primarily about a meeting with Putin. The progression of McFarland’s 302s show that she walked this lie back as it became more clear to her that the FBI knew it to be untrue.



Had the DOJ found the distinction between "expulsions" and "sanctions" significant, they could have just as easily charged Flynn with lying about discussing "expulsions." But the DOJ never drew such a distinction, and as of the filing of Barr and Shea's Motion to Dismiss, it still doesn't draw such a distinction:

Thus, it is simply untrue to say that the focus in the transcripts on "expulsions" proves that Mueller was lying, and Flynn wasn't. And as you acknowledge, the financial sanctions as distinguished from the expulsions were also discussed in the call, so it's not even true to say that they weren't.

And again, what else does the public record show about what Flynn was saying about the Kislyak call during that time frame? Pence, Spicer, and McFarland all had to walk back lies about what was discussed. Pence claimed on CBS that Flynn and Kislyak "did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia" -- the transcript proves this to be untrue. Sean Spicer claimed in press briefings that the call centered around other topics, including the Putin meeting, but that sanctions weren't discussed -- the transcript proves this to be untrue. McFarland gave up the goods when she realized the FBI knew more than she initially realized. It's not like the FBI were the only people that thought they'd been lied to. Lying about that call was, after all, why Flynn got fired by Trump, according to Trump.

You said:

SaintForLife said:

Flynn probably talked to Kislyak for about 4 minutes. I'm guessing as the incoming National Security Advisor he probably had about 1000 calls between the call on 12/29 and the FBI interview on January 24th.

If you had a job with that many phone calls do you think you would remember exactly what you said a month ago?

Click to expand...

The answer is that I do have a job that requires that many calls (well, probably not 1,000/month, but perhaps half that number), and yes, I would remember that discussion down to the finest details. The topic of sanctions / expulsions wasn't an aside, or an exchange of pleasantries. It was a big deal. It required numerous calls, texts, email exchanges and other coordination with the transition team at Mar-a-Lago. If you look at the transcript, it's really obvious that it's the most important thing to Flynn. He's operating as the transition team's point person for dealings with a major foreign power and he is discussing major issues of foreign policy. He repeats numerous times that he wants to avoid escalating the situation. Then, according to McFarland, his text summary of the call deliberately excluded mentioning sanctions because he was concerned about undermining Obama's foreign policy (his behavior suggests his primary concern was getting caught doing so). Flynn omitted the sanctions from his text not because he forgot about them, but because he didn't want to put in writing what he discussed.

If the details of the sanctions / expulsions discussion were so insignificant that Flynn could arguably show it slipped his memory, that would have been a major consideration in deciding whether to plead guilty. There were plenty of facts the government could have used at trial to demonstrate to the jury what a big deal this was. It's not believable for people who understand the gravity of what was at stake in those calls to think they slipped the mind of a former US general and intelligence official. It's just not. He wouldn't have admitted to it otherwise.

SaintForLife said:

If you still think he's a traitor after seeing the transcript, you should probably stop reading stuff from Lawfare. Comey's buddy runs Lawfare and their founder admitted they looked bad after the Nunes memo was proven to be true.

Click to expand...

I used a Lawfare link because it had a clean copy of the Flynn transcripts; there was no analysis in the link I cited, as I recall. Your suggestion that I'm biased / brainwashed is a distraction.