Jump to content

Talk:Michael Flynn/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

Small typo in "Defense Intelligence Agency" subsection of § Military career section. "Halper" is spelled "Harper." Please change

"Harper became so alarmed by Flynn's close association with a Russian woman that a Halper associate expressed concerns to American authorities that Flynn may have been compromised by Russian intelligence."

to

"Halper became so alarmed by Flynn's close association with a Russian woman that a Halper associate expressed concerns to American authorities that Flynn may have been compromised by Russian intelligence."

76.95.236.193 (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2019

Please Delete Mike Flynn - “is a convicted felon”- that is an outrageously slanderous false statement-Thank You 2605:E000:1C00:8577:3D57:A1C4:8040:6EAE (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Flynn is not a democrat

He may have come from a "strongly democratic" family, but he supported Donald Trump and spoke at the Republican National Convention. He is a Republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:447F:DEC0:98:C7C4:D544:7ED0 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

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)

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)

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.
Wow, do not misquote Trump. He said "I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!" -- Emphasis mine. So, just like he said Snowden is a traitor and now he says then-DNI Clapper is human scum who lied that NSA is not spying on Americans. Of course that story about Clapper is rather shady, maybe he did not lie as it was another directive about metadata... 91.76.22.132 (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The 13th 4postle, as I said above in the RfC thread, if these documents are indeed the impetus for the dropping of charges, then something run of the mill has been made something exceptional, which changes the whole ballgame. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
"Based on an extensive review of this investigation, including newly discovered and disclosed information attached to the defendant’s supplemental pleadings, see ECF Nos. 181,188-190, the Government has concluded that continued prosecution of Mr. Flynn would not serve the interests of justice." - "Government's Motion TO Dismiss The Criminal Information Against the Defendant Michael T. Flynn"[1]
I think personally, you should focus more on adding to Wikipedia in a positive way instead of using it to fight your partisan battles. Instead of refusing to add information to an article because you don't like the new information, you should edit and add on to it to make it as accurate as possible. What you and others have done on this Wikipedia page is honestly disgraceful Muboshgu & SPECIFICO, and your partisanship on display right now on this talk page is too. The 13th 4postle (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.scribd.com/document/460363357/Flynn-Motion-to-Dismiss. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
The 13th 4postle, I think you should rethink your statement. You've been pushing for the adding of statements by Flynn's lawyers without considering the weight or balance of them. I and others have tried to maintain this, because the release of those documents was insignificant. We're now waiting on the mainstream sources to provide the context on this dismissal so that we can properly characterize it. We don't treat WP:PRIMARY sources as gospel. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
One more thing on "partisan battles"... I just had a look at the Twitter account you helpfully linked to in your user page. Yeah, you're not here.fighting a "partisan battle"? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Is this really relevant here, its pretty obvious certain users hold opposite positions yet never get called out on it anyway. As long as he's arguing for sensible inclusions this is just a personal attack. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
False. In the paragraph I had added. I quoted Flynn’s attorney while also quoting sources that said the new evidence was standard practice. But you were so into fighting your political battle on here, that you never actually read what I wrote. The 13th 4postle (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Flynn prosecutor stepping down from the case appears to be a significant event in this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I suspect Van Grack needs time to prepare his defence against an inevitable malicious prosecution lawsuit.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I am really tied to repeat myself but FBI always said here he did not lie. That is why however guilty he would plead it did not lead to his conviction. Case was dropped in January 2017, but Peter reopened it. Also! Van Grack stepped down from many cases, not just Flynn's. https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1258451997935747073?s=19 Dunno why, but I have an idea ;) 2A00:1370:812C:B802:6D02:8742:7E1E:ED77 (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 2A00:1370:812C:B802:159B:788A:1E5:3A53 (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Nothing in this article about Yates telling the Muller SO investigation that she had concerns of how the FBI was conducting their investigations, that the FBI should have contacted the White House Counsel Office should have been informed. This article CLAIMS Flynn lied when the FBI Agents who DID NOT READ HIM HIS RIGHTS, TOLD HIM HE DID NOT NEED AN ATTORNEY, DID NOT INFORM HIM THAT IF HE LIED TO AN FBI AGENT THAT IT IS A FELONY, AND according to YATES, THEY THOUGHT THAT HE ACTUALLY DID NOT REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT SANCTIONS from how casual he was and did not give any "tells" of lying. Yet THIS article reads like it was written by Representative Adam Schiff as it is NOT NPOV it is written to make him look bad. Yet Yates and others who were stating there was no Russian Collusion in the OSC briefings, were LYING to the audiences of CNN to drum up hatred of Trump and anyone in the Trump administration. These facts were in the interview transcripts that Schiff (although he claims he wanted them to be seen by the public) refused to make public until the Acting DNI stated either Schiff release them of he would do it. Why would Schiff refuse to release these transcripts that had exculpatory information that there was no Russian Collusion, while he stated in public that there was evidence of it from the House Basement investigation? I think because he could claim anything since the evidence was being held captive by him,until this week.

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)

For the people typing about Flynn's alleged innocence in ALL CAPS:
1 - Yes, talking to the Russian ambassador would be a crime if they were discussing foreign policy before the Trump administration took office. Guess what Flynn and Kislyak talked about? US foreign policy towards Russia.
2 - If Flynn was innocent, why'd he lie to the FBI agents who interviewed him? He lied about whether he had talked to Kislyak and what they had talked about. Why lie about what he did if what he did was innocent and legal?
3 - If Flynn is innocent, why did Flynn plead guilty twice and admit his guilt in open court? Why confess that he committed crimes if he was innocent?
Billmckern (talk) 00:47, 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?

1. Please provide proof that a president elect's foreign policy staff cannot talk to other countries.
2. The FBI, which I explained above, and which you apparently did not read, or you would not be pushing the now proven wrong talking point, stated that they did not think he lied. That he honestly did not remember talking about sanctions. [1]
3. He could either watch his son be prosecuted, OR, he could plead guilty to something he did not do. [2]173.172.158.168 (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Reading the references in the article, there is a Washington Post reference # 2, I found it while reading through the article with UNNAMED sources. One of those FBI sources is the now discredited Stefan Halper, who was an informant and a leaker to the the Washington Post's David Ignatius. Halper ADMITTED LYING ABOUT GEN. FLYNN, and was even so bold as to state that he could not be sued for doing so. [3] Why is not he listed as one of the FBI informants in this article? His name should be in it so people can make an informed decision weather to accept his word after he admitted he lied.173.172.158.168 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Heavy dot com not a right wing new source also noted that even though Halper's name has been known, the NYT and Washington Post WILL NOT NAME HIM, WHY? I suspect he is damaged goods and they want their opinion articles to not be called into question for using a source that admitted lying, the same for this article, PLEASE PUT HIS NAME IN THE ARTICLE. [4]173.172.158.168 (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
All reference article stating that Flynn met with a "Russian Asset" need to come down. Svetlana Lokhova denies and evidence shows that she was not a Russian asset. This was based on Stefan Halper's testimony in which he admits he lied, as seen in the cited articles above. [5] As we now know, Susan Rice, under oath, said that there was no evidence of Russian Collusion, although on TV and in Opinion pieces she says just the opposite, which the federalist article also shows.173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-report-backs-claim-that-fbi-agents-did-not-think-flynn-lied-despite-guilty-plea
  2. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobfrenkel/2017/11/27/will-michael-flynn-plead-guilty-and-cooperate-to-protect-his-son/#3cf6ef0114fe
  3. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suspected-fbi-informant-linked-to-russia-smears-claims-immunity-as-government-agent
  4. ^ https://heavy.com/news/2018/05/stefan-halper/
  5. ^ https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/20/the-russian-spy-who-wasnt-defamation-case-accuses-u-s-u-k-intelligence-of-using-michael-flynn-for-spygate-hoax/

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:

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)

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)

That's your opinion. Other people have other opinions. We resolve content disputes through discussion and consensus. - MrX 🖋 01:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
No we don't, only liberal bias is approved. This is NOT suppose to be based on opinion, it is suppose to be based on facts. And not 90% negative facts on Republicans and 90% positive on Democrats, and real negative facts separated into different pages that are not linked to the main article, like Joe Biden Tara Reade is. Name any part of this article that shows any of the new documents that show most of this article is written to cast him in the worst light.173.172.158.168 (talk) 02:11, 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)

You don't request arbitration for content disputes. - MrX 🖋 01:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Well I filed a request anyway. In the filing it states to let those that are named know, and that is why I started this info to let those who I included know.173.172.158.168 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Michael Flynn it, 173.172.158.168? X1\ (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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.[1] 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

  1. ^ 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 fictions statements 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)

Recent changes

  1. @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.
  2. 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)
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. [1] 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.[2] 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)
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)

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.[3]

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)

More:

X1\ (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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.[4] 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.
— [5]

- 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. [2] 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)


References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzLgbka5jKQ
  2. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/judge-lambastes-prosecutors-dismisses-ted-stevens-conviction-1.814451

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

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)

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.
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)
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)
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)[2]
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. [3] 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)

References

  1. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/nbcs-chuck-todd-asks-joe-biden-if-theres-blood-trumps-hands-due-coronavirus-response-1494906
  2. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-report-backs-claim-that-fbi-agents-did-not-think-flynn-lied-despite-guilty-plea
  3. ^ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=washington+post+forced+to+retract&t=opera&ia=web
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)

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)

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)
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 [6] 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)
  • 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." [7], and "We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing" [8] 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Flynn/Archive_2&oldid=957707528"