Legal defense fund for Mike Flynn

[Cyber Liberty]

While everyone is getting lacrimonious about Michael Flynn selling his house and his legal situation, there are some things you need to remember.  He was publicly fired twice, by two different presidents, long before being charged.  The second time he was fired, it was over 'an eroding lack of trust,' as Spicer put it.  That alone would restrict his future opportunities working inside the beltway.  Selling and leaving DC was in the cards, anyway.

He's a self-proclaimed life long Democrat from a strongly Democratic Rhode Island family.  In summer 2016, he was on ABC, stating he was pro-choice.  The next day, he was on FOX saying he was pro-life.  The man has a history of being loose with truth and facts.  It's what got him fired twice and in legal trouble. 

Save your tears.

Then Mueller and his accomplice (Weissman?) should be able do it honestly, not by fabricating paper "process crimes" and using tactics designed to drain Flynn's resources to keep him from properly defending himself.   Prove a crime actually occurred, not a crime that only exists because of the investigation.

I don't shed tears for Flynn, I shed them for the abuse of the system going on here in order to get Flynn.  Whether or not Trump is the final target is irrelevant to me.

[driftdiver]

While everyone is getting lacrimonious about Michael Flynn selling his house and his legal situation, there are some things you need to remember.  He was publicly fired twice, by two different presidents, long before being charged.  The second time he was fired, it was over 'an eroding lack of trust,' as Spicer put it.  That alone would restrict his future opportunities working inside the beltway.  Selling and leaving DC was in the cards, anyway.

He's a self-proclaimed life long Democrat from a strongly Democratic Rhode Island family.  In summer 2016, he was on ABC, stating he was pro-choice.  The next day, he was on FOX saying he was pro-life.  The man has a history of being loose with truth and facts.  It's what got him fired twice and in legal trouble. 

Save your tears.

@edpc

So its ok that the FBI lied and cheated.  Got it

[Cyber Liberty]

@edpc

So it's ok that the FBI lied and cheated.  Got it

That's my attitude too.  The FBI lied, and Mueller is deliberately impoverishing a suspect to wring a confession out of him.  I understand Lawyers think that's ethical, but it's not in my old-peoples book.

[edpc]

Then Mueller and his accomplice (Weissman?) should be able do it honestly, not by fabricating paper "process crimes" and using tactics designed to drain Flynn's resources to keep him from properly defending himself.   Prove a crime actually occurred, not a crime that only exists because of the investigation.

I don't shed tears for Flynn, I shed them for the abuse of the system going on here in order to get Flynn.  Whether or not Trump is the final target is irrelevant to me.

The judge is aware of the circumstances and has demanded any potential exculpatory evidence to be turned over.  If there's something there to exonerate him, we'll know.  He'll have cause for damages and have recourse, just as Steven Hatfill did in the anthrax case.  In the meantime, screw Flynn.  He wasn't just some guy minding his own business the FBI decided to pick on for no reason.

[driftdiver]

The judge is aware of the circumstances and has demanded any potential exculpatory evidence to be turned over.  If there's something there to exonerate him, we'll know.  He'll have cause for damages and have recourse, just as Steven Hatfill did in the anthrax case.  In the meantime, screw Flynn.  Be wasn't just some guy minding his own business the FBI decided to pick on for no reason.

@edpc

Cause for damages....lol

He can sell his other house to try that angle.

[Cyber Liberty]

The judge is aware of the circumstances and has demanded any potential exculpatory evidence to be turned over.  If there's something there to exonerate him, we'll know.  He'll have cause for damages and have recourse, just as James Hatfill did in the anthrax case.  In the meantime, screw Flynn.  Be wasn't just some guy minding his own business the FBI decided to pick on for no reason.

I didn't say he was an innocent Jim, but is he guilty of a real crime that would exist without the investigation by the fellow trying to squeeze information out of him to nail higher-ups?  I'm pretty happy with the Judge he drew after the crooked part-time FISA Judge got fired. That said, even though there's a good chance his plea will be thrown out because of Weissman's malfeasance, many on discussion forums (like this one) will still call him a liar because of the plea.  Hopefully he can get those damages if Weissman did, in fact, perform illegally.

But before I say "screw somebody," I'd like to see some guilt proven, and by clean cops.  Maybe I'm just a dreamer.

[Concerned]

But what if you mistakenly said something - misremembered - and didn't realize it at the time. This is totally plausible, and if they wanted to, they could have come back and charged you with lying to the FBI.

To me, being 100% sure of something means being 100% sure of something.  If there was even a 0.000000001% chance of me misremembering something, I would have caveated it with something like:  "As far as I remember" or "To the best of my recollection".  According to the indictment, Flynn lied twice (December 22, and December 29 2016) about asking the Russian Ambassador not to escalate the situation over sanctions and to delay or defeat a UN vote.  As I told my wife:  don’t confirm or deny things when talking to the Feds unless you’re 100% sure of their accuracy.  It just isn’t that hard IMO.  The full Flynn indictment is at the link below.

https://www.scribd.com/document/366038635/Michael-Flynn-charging-document#from_embed

[edpc]

@edpc

Cause for damages....lol

He can sell his other house to try that angle.

If the charge gets thrown out, due to legal chicanery, he'll find representation lined up on contingency.  Hatfill got $4.6M from his settlement with the government.  Flynn could do a lot better.  Take the 33% away and he's still way ahead.

[BassWrangler]

I haven't heard anyone say we no longer need the 4th or 5th Amendments, but if you choose to talk to the FBI (as Flynn did and as I did), I think it's crucial not to lie and to make sure you're 100% accurate in what you do say.  If Flynn really was "suckered into thinking an interview was a 'friendly chat', not an 'interview'" (as asserted above), thank goodness he's no longer National Security Adviser because that strikes me as being incredibly naive and/or incredibly stupid.  Only the best people.   

Implicit in your comments is the assumption that the FBI agent is benign and just looking to get the truth. If instead they have an agenda, and are looking to get you, it is not hard to imagine they might start asking questions about all manner of details, and it only takes one minor slip-up and they can charge you with lying. This technique was given the name "perjury trap", by lawyers, because it's a real risk - not some abstract thing that never happens.

[Concerned]

@Concerned

The guy stopped by his office and asked Flynn some questions.  This wasn't an interview or an interrogation.

Flynn was asked about a phone call he made 2 years prior.   The agent hadn't informed Flynn he was being interviewed.   Flynn did not correctly relay the content of the 2 year old phone call.   The agent knew the call had been recorded via the FISA warrant the FBI knew was based on fake information provided in part by the Clintons.    Arguably an illegal source which even the FBI now admits failed to follow the law for obtaining warrants.

The FBI agents wife was on Clintons payroll.   The FBI agent was making decisions based on his politics.   The FBI sought to use this information to attack a duly elected President with the ultimate goal of removing him.

And you defend the FBI?     Very very few people have the resources to defend against the US govt especially when the govt is lying and cheating.

Anyone who considers a discussion with a Federal agent about potential criminal activity to be a “friendly chat” is either incredibly naïve and/or just plain stupid IMO.  The fact that the FBI agent talking to us tried to put us at ease and keep things “light and friendly” just set off red flags to me.  That was when I gave my little speech to my wife.  I don’t consider myself all that sophisticated about these things, but the more the FBI agent tried to be casual, the more on guard I was.  If Flynn isn’t smart enough or savvy enough to realize that basic premise, thank goodness he’s no longer serving in the Trump Administration.

It's not so much defending the FBI as much as I absolutely just despise liars.  We're only as good as our word and obviously some of our words aren't as good as other's.

[driftdiver]

Anyone who considers a discussion with a Federal agent about potential criminal activity to be a “friendly chat” is either incredibly naïve and/or just plain stupid IMO.  The fact that the FBI agent talking to us tried to put us at ease and keep things “light and friendly” just set off red flags to me.  That was when I gave my little speech to my wife.  I don’t consider myself all that sophisticated about these things, but the more the FBI agent tried to be casual, the more on guard I was.  If Flynn isn’t smart enough or savvy enough to realize that basic premise, thank goodness he’s no longer serving in the Trump Administration.

It's not so much defending the FBI as much as I absolutely just despise liars.  We're only as good as our word and obviously some of our words aren't as good as other's.

Now imagine that FBI with a political axe to grind.

Oh and how well do you remember phone calls you had 3 years ago?

[Cyber Liberty]

To me, being 100% sure of something means being 100% sure of something.  If there was even a 0.000000001% chance of me misremembering something, I would have caveated it with something like:  "As far as I remember" or "To the best of my recollection".  According to the indictment, Flynn lied twice (December 22, and December 29 2016) about asking the Russian Ambassador not to escalate the situation over sanctions and to delay or defeat a UN vote.  As I told my wife:  don’t confirm or deny things when talking to the Feds unless you’re 100% sure of their accuracy.  It just isn’t that hard IMO.  The full Flynn indictment is at the link below.

https://www.scribd.com/document/366038635/Michael-Flynn-charging-document#from_embed

Sounds like stuff Flynn should have known better than to lie about...looks pretty damning.  And he pleaded guilty to that.  What's interesting to me is the kitchen sink that's being thrown at him now.

[Cyber Liberty]

Now imagine that FBI with a political axe to grind.

Oh and how well do you remember phone calls you had 3 years ago?

According to the charging document from scribd linked above, the FBI interview was a little over three weeks after the alleged conversation.  This isn't a three-year-old recollection.

[driftdiver]

Sounds like stuff Flynn should have known better than to lie about...looks pretty damning.  And he pleaded guilty to that.  What's interesting to me is the kitchen sink that's being thrown at him now.

I don't like Flynn but did he lie?   Or did he fail to remember?  There is a difference.   Especially considering the time between the event and the question.

[driftdiver]

According to the charging document from scribd linked above, the FBI interview was a little over three weeks after the alleged conversation.  This isn't a three-year-old recollection.

I meant 2 years.    I've read that the alleged lie was regarding a phone call which occurred two years before the FBI interview.

The 3 weeks doesn't make sense.   The FBI doesn't move that fast.

[Cyber Liberty]

Anyone who considers a discussion with a Federal agent about potential criminal activity to be a “friendly chat” is either incredibly naïve and/or just plain stupid IMO.  The fact that the FBI agent talking to us tried to put us at ease and keep things “light and friendly” just set off red flags to me.  That was when I gave my little speech to my wife.  I don’t consider myself all that sophisticated about these things, but the more the FBI agent tried to be casual, the more on guard I was.  If Flynn isn’t smart enough or savvy enough to realize that basic premise, thank goodness he’s no longer serving in the Trump Administration.

It's not so much defending the FBI as much as I absolutely just despise liars.  We're only as good as our word and obviously some of our words aren't as good as other's.

Your description reminds me of something that always gives me a chuckle.  People call it a "Good cop/Bad cop" scenario of an interview.  Listen up folks:  There ain't no "Good cop" in the room.

[driftdiver]

Why is it a crime to "lie" to the FBI?  Is it a crime to lie to local cops?

[Concerned]

Now imagine that FBI with a political axe to grind.

Oh and how well do you remember phone calls you had 3 years ago?

Depending upon the phone calls, I might remember some but probably wouldn't remember the details of most (if not all).  As such, my response would be (and when I was indeed interviewed by the FBI, in fact was):  "I don't remember".  Our interview lasted about 2 hours.  It covered a wide range of topics.  I said "I don't know", "I'm not sure", or "I don't remember" many, many, many times.  When pressed, I stuck to that because it was the truth.  It frustrated the FBI Agent at times, but I was determined to be 100% honest and only answer questions I was 100% sure of.  I didn't find it difficult at all.  Honesty is the best policy IMO.

[Cyber Liberty]

I meant 2 years.    I've read that the alleged lie was regarding a phone call which occurred two years before the FBI interview.

The 3 weeks doesn't make sense.   The FBI doesn't move that fast.

I reread the charging document to make sure I did not make a mistake.  The conversations he was asked about occurred on or about December 22 and 29, 2016.  The interview with the FBI occurred January 24, 2017.  About three-four weeks after the second conversation.  Apparently the FBI can move very fast when it wants to.

[endicom]

@Cyber Liberty, @BassWrangler and @driftdiver are right.

[Cyber Liberty]

Why is it a crime to "lie" to the FBI?  Is it a crime to lie to local cops?

If they are asking you about a crime they are investigating, yes.  You would be obstructing justice, and Officer Joe will get you charged too.

[edpc]

Why is it a crime to "lie" to the FBI?  Is it a crime to lie to local cops?

Yes, but the penalties vary by jurisdictions.

http://www.dopplr.com/lying-to-the-police/

Consequently, they can lie to you at will without repercussions. For instance, they can say they have an eyewitness that identified you or your partner in crime in the other room confessed to his involvement and yours.

[BassWrangler]

That's my attitude too.  The FBI lied, and Mueller is deliberately impoverishing a suspect to wring a confession out of him.  I understand Lawyers think that's ethical, but it's not in my old-peoples book.

Amen.

[jpsb]

I didn't say he was an innocent Jim, but is he guilty of a real crime that would exist without the investigation by the fellow trying to squeeze information out of him to nail higher-ups?  I'm pretty happy with the Judge he drew after the crooked part-time FISA Judge got fired. That said, even though there's a good chance his plea will be thrown out because of Weissman's malfeasance, many on discussion forums (like this one) will still call him a liar because of the plea.  Hopefully he can get those damages if Weissman did, in fact, perform illegally.

But before I say "screw somebody," I'd like to see some guilt proven, and by clean cops.  Maybe I'm just a dreamer.

I believe I read that Asst Directer McCabe edited the report on Flynn "interview". The agents that
interviewed Flynn did not think he lied. Has the IG released his report yet? And if not, why not.

[jpsb]

Implicit in your comments is the assumption that the FBI agent is benign and just looking to get the truth. If instead they have an agenda, and are looking to get you, it is not hard to imagine they might start asking questions about all manner of details, and it only takes one minor slip-up and they can charge you with lying. This technique was given the name "perjury trap", by lawyers, because it's a real risk - not some abstract thing that never happens.

Asst Directer McCabe is quoted as saying "F*** Flynn and then we F*** Trump".