HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Flynn in FBI interview de...

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 05:45 PM

Flynn in FBI interview denied discussing sanctions with Russian ambassador

Source: Washington Post

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn denied to FBI agents in an interview last month that he had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States before President Trump took office, contradicting the contents of intercepted communications collected by intelligence agencies, current and former U.S. officials said.

The Jan. 24 interview potentially puts Flynn in legal jeopardy, as lying to FBI is a felony, but any decision to prosecute would ultimately lie with the Justice Department. Some officials said bringing a case could prove difficult in part because Flynn may attempt to parse the definition of sanctions.

A spokesman for Flynn said he had no response. The FBI declined to comment.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/flynn-in-fbi-interview-denied-discussing-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador/2017/02/16/e3e1e16a-f3d5-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html

25 replies, 2344 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply Flynn in FBI interview denied discussing sanctions with Russian ambassador (Original post)
herding cats Feb 2017 OP
msanthrope Feb 2017 #1
herding cats Feb 2017 #3
Hortensis Feb 2017 #23
herding cats Feb 2017 #24
Hortensis Feb 2017 #25
Raven123 Feb 2017 #2
herding cats Feb 2017 #6
3_Limes Feb 2017 #4
Friend or Foe Feb 2017 #5
JaneQPublic Feb 2017 #7
herding cats Feb 2017 #8
cstanleytech Feb 2017 #12
herding cats Feb 2017 #13
cstanleytech Feb 2017 #15
Native Feb 2017 #9
herding cats Feb 2017 #10
Native Feb 2017 #11
herding cats Feb 2017 #14
frazzled Feb 2017 #16
TrollBuster9090 Feb 2017 #17
Skittles Feb 2017 #20
CanonRay Feb 2017 #18
BumRushDaShow Feb 2017 #19
wishstar Feb 2017 #21
BumRushDaShow Feb 2017 #22

Response to herding cats (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 05:46 PM

1. Um, perjury. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 05:48 PM

3. Looks that way.

I can't wait to see Trump defend this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 06:59 PM

23. Five years seems to be the basic statute of limitations,

but various situations apparently can extend it. In any case, even if the GOP could smother/delay this particular fire for a while, Flynn wouldn't be safe for a minimum of five years. He's also not a super-wealthy man at a reported $8m could be hurt just by only legal costs.

As for other fires springing up, it seems unlikely that 45 is capable of operating completely within the legal constraints of his position for any extended period as he neither understands nor respects the need them and finds them "stupid." And then there are his narcissistic "rages," which are apparently not exactly what we think of with the word rage but do involve periods of irrational and uncontrollable behaviors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 09:42 PM

24. He may also be facing the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution

Pentagon: No record Flynn's paid Russian event was allowed

The Pentagon says it has not discovered any evidence former national security adviser Michael Flynn received authorization to accept money for a paid Russian state TV event in 2015.

The Department of the Army conducted “a thorough records search, and has not found any documents,” acting Secretary of the Army Robert Speer said in a Tuesday letter, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

The Journal said Speer’s message was in response to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee.


Cummings reportedly asked the Pentagon if Flynn received approval for the event, which occurred in December 2015 during a period of rising tension between the White House and the Kremlin.
Several top Democrats in Congress sent the Department of Defense a letter Feb. 1 asking it to investigate whether Flynn violated the Constitution when he accepted money for the gala.

Flynn accepted an invitation to Moscow in late 2015 to give a paid, sit-down interview with Russian state-funded media outlet RT. RT was conducting a gala for its 10-year anniversary, the Journal said, and Flynn ultimately sat beside Russian President Vladimir Putin.

https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/policy/international/russia/320051-pentagon-no-record-russia-pay-to-flynn-allowed


That's not exactly cheerful news it that regard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 18, 2017, 06:52 AM

25. Hard-core cons often seem to have patterns of

illegal misbehavior. Just look at Scalia's years of flying off to entertainments and meetings, who's paying often highly questionable--like his last, a gratis stay at a "friend's" resort and thus legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 05:48 PM

2. Keep hammering

The presser was a decoy. Follow the real story!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raven123 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 05:50 PM

6. Trump defended Flynn in his presser as having done nothing wrong.

If what Flynn did wasn't wrong, why did he lie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 05:49 PM

4. So it's not just treason.

That makes me happy - in a strange way that I'm not really pleased with. But happy, none the less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 05:50 PM

5. So, Comey finally found the zipper

To his mouth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 05:50 PM

7. For lying to the FBI? All together now:


Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneQPublic (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 05:52 PM

8. Hopefully he's going to squeal like a little piggy to try and lessen his sentence.

What did the president know, and when did he know it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 06:08 PM

12. Why should he squeal when Trump can simply pardon him to get keep him

quiet if he actually has any dirt on Trump?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 06:13 PM

13. That would pretty much force an independent bipartisan investigation.

I'm not saying Trump wouldn't do it, but it would be a tipping point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 06:16 PM

15. That is assuming the Repugnants allow such an investigation to even go forward which I doubt

that they would do unless he refuses to sign what they order him to sign when they order him to sign it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 06:03 PM

9. Whoa! In the call, "he suggested that the Kremlin could expect a reprieve from the sanctions."

Senior Justice and intelligence officials who have reviewed the phone call thought Flynn’s statements to Kislyak were inappropriate, if not illegal, because he suggested that the Kremlin could expect a reprieve from the sanctions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Native (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 06:05 PM

10. Yep.

The entire call was about the sanctions and how they had Russia's back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 06:08 PM

11. Had Russia's back? Where did you see that? That's even more explosive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Native (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 06:16 PM

14. That's my wording.

It was reported yesterday the entire call was about the sanctions. That he said they could expect a reprieve is in essence saying they were going fix it for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 06:17 PM

16. Whoa, headed for the big house (I hope)

Or will Justice come up with some excuse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 06:54 PM

17. I seem to remember THESE TWO LOSERS neurotically and obsessively going over the Clinton FBI

transcripts with a magnifying glass to check if there were any slight differences between what Clinton said to the FBI vs. what she said to their committee, and salivating over the possibility of nailing her for perjury.

What are the odds they'll do it this time?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrollBuster9090 (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 05:11 AM

20. Hillary was held to impossible standards

Donald Fucking Trump is held to no standards at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 06:58 PM

18. Ummm, that right there is a felony folks.

Lying to a Federal Agent, under oath or not, is a felony. Now if we only had an attorney general who was interested in the truth...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 07:33 PM

19. Just saw a breaking banner that the FBI is not going to prosecute

Surprise surprise.

Washington (CNN)

The FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn regarding a phone call with Russia's ambassador, barring new information that changes what they know, law enforcement officials told CNN Thursday.

Flynn was fired by President Donald Trump earlier this week after it was revealed that he withheld information from Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the US. A US official confirmed to CNN last week that Flynn and Kislyak discussed sanctions, among other matters, during a December call.

Flynn initially told investigators sanctions were not discussed. But FBI agents challenged him, asking if he was certain that was his answer. He said he didn't remember.

The FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/fbi-not-expected-to-pursue-charges-against-flynn/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 05:21 AM

21. FBI interviewers deliberately steered him to change his lie to instead claim that he couldn't recall

They deliberately controlled questioning, signaling to him that truth was known and he needed to modify his answer to muddy waters and not persist in absolute denial. So they allowed him to escape prosecution..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wishstar (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 08:09 AM

22. I wouldn't be surprised

although technically, a Grand Jury would need to be impaneled to determine if charges could be brought if the evidence is sketchy and a U.S. Attorney would be the one to request that a judge get that process going vs the FBI. I.e., the U.S. Attorneys (or designees in that office) are normally the ones who file on behalf of the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread