Report: Flynn ‘Denied’ Sanctions Talk in FBI Interview

has anyone wondered why the whitehouse was bugging the presidential candidate and his team?
I suppose it is easier these days than breaking into an office complex

odd I just read this at the washington post


FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.5cba170d29a9

The Devil, You Know wrote:odd I just read this at the washington post


FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.5cba170d29a9

Wow misdirection again, as what has that article in January got to with Flynn lying?

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:odd I just read this at the washington post


FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.5cba170d29a9

Wow misdirection again, as what has that article in January got to with Flynn lying?

did they find anything illicit in his bugged conversations?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Wow misdirection again, as what has that article in January got to with Flynn lying?

did they find anything illicit in his bugged conversations?

What has that got to do with him lying to the FBI?

Thorin wrote:
...as what has that article in January got to with Flynn lying?

Timing.
This discussion took place when Trump was still "President Elect", not POTUS.  His article is still relevant to the information obtained.

Let's not get too overboard with this.  I know you guys are looking for something saucy, salacious, and scandalous from all this... but there's nothing here to comprise any of the 3. It's a pretty boring little political screw up: Flynn resigned for lying to the FBI.  That's it.  Nothing else.

His discussions and their contents were perfectly legitimate, per the FBI's report that they found noting illicit in them.  He's in hot water for denying those conversations took place, when the FBI had evidence to the contrary.  Lying to the FBI during an investigation is a no-no. Especially for someone in his high-level position.

Why did he lie?  I don't know.  Maybe he thought it would be poor optics for the Trump administration, given the current Russian political climate.  Regardless, he made a poor judgement call and has been sidelined for it.

The Devil, You Know wrote:has anyone wondered why the whitehouse was bugging the presidential candidate and his team?

I believe all international traffic, including this website, is bugged as that is not subject to constitutional prohibitions.  A non-citizen recipient of a phone call is not entitled to constitutional privacy.  Then, after 75-years as the arch enemy, it would be expected--if only by habit--that phone calls to Russia would be of interest.  Finally, phone calls from within the US to Russian politicos and suspected agents would be of highest priority.

Then consider, MI6 and Interpol (and others) are doing the same thing.  I believe there is an intel-sharing agreement between NATO nations.

There are written transcripts of such conversations before the participants hang up.

head wrote:I suppose it is easier these days than breaking into an office complex

Absolutely.  Privacy in communication is a thing of the past.

The Devil, You Know wrote:odd I just read this at the washington post

FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.5cba170d29a9

Unquestionably...that would be the standard tactic on any statement regarding a classified subject. It would be like, FBI: "Donno...guess not". POST: "FBI says found nothing."

The way it came to light was the FBI, with transcripts in hand, informed Director Comey, who informed acting-Attorney General Susan Yeats, who informed the White House on January 26th that Flynn was lying.  Flynn was left in place until someone in the WH leaked the truth.

This has led to two questions: 1) after hearing of the Flynn lies, why did the minority president leave him in office for three weeks?; and 2) how large and involving were the communications between the Trump organization and Russian agents prior to office?

IT wrote:His discussions and their contents were perfectly legitimate, per the FBI's report that they found noting illicit in them.

You don't know that. The FBI has not released the transcripts yet. What we know is that Flynn told the VP that he never discussed the sanctions. Then he learned that the calls were overheard. When he came clean, he said only that he had discussed the sanctions. If, in any way, he was suggesting that when Trump took office things would be different, he was involved in an unauthorized negotiation with a foreigh agent. That would be a violation of the Logan Act.

IT wrote:He's in hot water for denying those conversations took place, when the FBI had evidence to the contrary. Lying to the FBI during an investigation is a no-no. Especially for someone in his high-level position.

Yes, he would be committing a felony if he lied to the FBI. Just because the FBI has "other" evidence he is committing a crime, does not absolve him. So he is indeed in hot water if he directly lied to the FBI...but it depends on how he characterized it to the FBI.

IT wrote:It's a pretty boring little political screw up: Flynn resigned for lying to the FBI. That's it. Nothing else.

To the contrary, Flynn was fired by the minority president. Mr. Trump says he fired him for lying to the vice-president.

Would lov to have been a fly on that wall.

OQ wrote:
The FBI has not released the transcripts yet.

And they're likely not going to.

OQ wrote:
...he was involved in an unauthorized negotiation with a foreigh agent.

According to who?  Where does it say anywhere that the conversations were "unauthorized"?  It's his job to talk to them.  He's not in trouble for speaking with anyone from Russia --- he's in trouble for lying about it to the FBI.  Period. That's it.

OQ wrote:
That would be a violation of the Logan Act.

No, Logan Act would not apply here because he is a representative of the federal government and it's his job to conduct these negotiations.

WikiPedia wrote:
...Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, a state legislator and pacifist, in 1798 engaged in negotiations with France as a private citizen during the Quasi-War.

Dr. Logan was a legislator for the State of Pennsylvania (state-level, no federal jurisdiction) --- not for the United States (federal level).  He also acted as a private citizen because he was a state official, with no federal authority, meddling in federal affairs. If it's not his job to conduct these communications, then he's clearly unauthorized to have them unless specifically directed otherwise by an authoritive federal official.

Flynn was a federal official, and he spoke to Russia in his official capacity --- not as a private citizen.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

OQ wrote:
The FBI has not released the transcripts yet.

And they're likely not going to.

They will if they get a subpoena by the Intelligence Committee.  Personally, I probably already know.  But a subpoena will convince both sides of the aisle in Congress.

IT wrote:

OQ wrote:
...he was involved in an unauthorized negotiation with a foreigh agent.

According to who?  Where does it say anywhere that the conversations were "unauthorized"?  It's his job to talk to them.  He's not in trouble for speaking with anyone from Russia --- he's in trouble for lying about it to the FBI.  Period. That's it.

No, unfortunately the Logan Act addresses this exact situation.  We already know he was discussing the sanctions at a time when the government had not authorized him.  There are very few subjects around an act of sanction taking place on that very day, that would not raise Logan Act issues.  I mean, what was he saying...Oh that's nice?

IT wrote:

OQ wrote:
That would be a violation of the Logan Act.

No, Logan Act would not apply here because he is a representative of the federal government and it's his job to conduct these negotiations.

But he was neither a representative of the US government, nor authorized at the time of the conversation.

IT wrote:

WikiPedia wrote:
...Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, a state legislator and pacifist, in 1798 engaged in negotiations with France as a private citizen during the Quasi-War.

Dr. Logan was a legislator for the State of Pennsylvania (state-level, no federal jurisdiction) --- not for the United States (federal level).  He also acted as a private citizen because he was a state official meddling in federal affairs.

Flynn was a federal official, and he spoke to Russia in his official capacity --- not as a private citizen.

You are being both silly and irrational.  The Logan Act is a law that makes it illegal for anyone, without authority, to negotiate on behalf of the US with a foreign government or an agent thereof in any disputed matter.  Read the law, not a history of some ancient Pennsylvanian.  

Google wrote:The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 ) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.

On a date prior to Trump's inauguration, having no authority, Flynn (a private citizen unauthorized to act on behalf of the US government) had a conversation about a government sanction on Russia, with an agent of the Russian government.  The huge, pregnant question is, what did he say?  If he made any promises as to what would happen after Trump took over, he was in violation of the Logan Act.  

Remember, Putin pulled back and took no action in response to the sanctions.  Very strange.  Why...what prompted him to forebear?  What did Flynn negotiate without authority?

OQ wrote:
They will if they get a subpoena by the Intelligence Committee.

A subpoena is an order for a person to bring him/herself and/or subpoenaed items to a hearing on a specified date.  It doesn't mean any testimony or evidence will be divulged to the public.  The sensitivity of the discussions will determine what, if anything, is released.

OQ wrote:
No, unfortunately the Logan Act addresses this exact situation.

No, it doesn't.   And you don't know what "exact situation" such an old law addresses because there is no case law or precedents for this charge in any court because nobody has ever been prosecuted.  
Your interpretation is very incorrect.  No prosecutor is going to touch this.
I'd be willing to make a wager with you, that Flynn doesn't get charged with any such thing.  If you're convinced he will, then take me up on it.  Just a small and friendly wager.  If I win, you address me as "Master Independent Thoughts".  If you win, I'll call you right.  Deal?

Wiki wrote:
To date, only one person has ever been indicted for violating the Act's provisions. However, no person has ever been prosecuted for alleged violations of the Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

There's no way in the world he'll get charged with that 200+ year-old law. Especially if nobody has ever been prosecuted or convicted for it ever in it's 200+ years existence.

OQ wrote:
You are being both silly and irrational.

Then take me up on my wager, if you strongly believe I'm being silly and irrational.  It's all in good fun.
You game?

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

OQ wrote:
They will if they get a subpoena by the Intelligence Committee.

A subpoena is an order for a person to bring him/herself and/or subpoenaed items to a hearing on a specified date.  It doesn't mean any testimony or evidence will be divulged to the public.  The sensitivity of the discussions will determine what, if anything, is released.

But, it will be divulged to Congress.

It wrote:

OQ wrote:
No, unfortunately the Logan Act addresses this exact situation.

No, it doesn't.   And you don't know what "exact situation" such an old law addresses because there is no case law or precedents for this charge in any court because nobody has ever been prosecuted.

Judges follow the language of the law.  Age of the law is no significance.  If this is another Watergate the Congress and government will snatch at it.
 

IT wrote:Your interpretation is very incorrect.  No prosecutor is going to touch this.
I'd be willing to make a wager with you, that Flynn doesn't get charged with any such thing.  If you're convinced he will, then take me up on it.  Just a small and friendly wager.  If I win, you address me as "Master Independent Thoughts".  If you win, I'll call you right.  Deal?

I don't need your wager.  I'll just follow along.  When the story breaks, Republicans in Congress will run for their lives.

IT wrote:

Wiki wrote:
To date, only one person has ever been indicted for violating the Act's provisions. However, no person has ever been prosecuted for alleged violations of the Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

There's no way in the world he'll get charged with that 200+ year-old law. Especially if nobody has ever been prosecuted or convicted for it ever in it's 200+ years existence.

Lots of old laws around.  You've seen a press and a public that wants this guy to go down.  Trump lost by a collective 10-million votes.  That's a lot of hostility.  Keep an open eye.  Like I say, if this is another Watergate, the age of the law is of no consequence.  If it gives leverage, they'll use it.

IT wrote:

OQ wrote:
You are being both silly and irrational.

Then take me up on my wager, if you strongly believe I'm being silly and irrational.  It's all in good fun.
You game?

Why?  Your wager means very little to me.  Tell me in what city, state and street address you live, and I'll think about it.  Do it on open forum so I have witnesses.  I'll have my investigator track you down, and after I get your financial statement, etc., I'll look into your bona fides for verification.  Not before.

OQ wrote:
Why?  Your wager means very little to me.  Tell me in what city, state and street address you live, and I'll think about it.  Do it on open forum so I have witnesses.  I'll have my investigator track you down...

Ummmm... why are you such a weirdo?

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

OQ wrote:
Why?  Your wager means very little to me.  Tell me in what city, state and street address you live, and I'll think about it.  Do it on open forum so I have witnesses.  I'll have my investigator track you down...

Ummmm... why are you such a weirdo?

That makes no sense...you appear to have lost the plot.

Apparently so.  
Is that a yes?  You're taking the bet?  If he's not charged when they close the investigation, I win (as usual).

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Apparently so.  
Is that a yes?  You're taking the bet?  If he's not charged when they close the investigation, I win (as usual).

Not until I have that financial statement.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

OQ wrote:
Why?  Your wager means very little to me.  Tell me in what city, state and street address you live, and I'll think about it.  Do it on open forum so I have witnesses.  I'll have my investigator track you down...

Ummmm... why are you such a weirdo?

You post like a teen.

I'm youthful.
My supermodel girlfriends keep me that way.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:I'm youthful.
My supermodel girlfriends keep me that way.

Do you also drive a corvette?
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19729-why-do-men-buy-corvettes

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
I'm youthful.
My supermodel girlfriends keep me that way.

Comrade NITrollsky always sounds/reads like a 15 year old schoolboy in his posts...

His imaginary "supermodel girlfriends" reside in those Playboys he hides in his bedroom..

While his Corvette is the plastic model version sitting on his bookshelf.

eddie wrote:
Do you also drive a corvette?

I used to own one until I had kids.
Now days it's an Audi RS7. Not as nimble around the corners, but it's still a beast.

I found this image, when I googled "L/I/T's  Corvette"  :

https://goo.gl/images/yswdlt

Who'd have thunk it  !?!

Yes, I do actually have that. I bought it for my son on his 3rd birthday. He's also got a toddler's Corvette bed.

You'd be hard pressed to find a car with more performance bang-for-the-buck than the Corvette. Lamborghini and Ferrari-beating performance at a fraction of the price? Yes, please.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Yes, I do actually have that.  I bought it for my son on his 3rd birthday.  He's also got a toddler's Corvette bed.

You'd be hard pressed to find a car with more performance bang-for-the-buck than the Corvette. Lamborghini and Ferrari-beating performance at a fraction of the price?  Yes, please.

GM's HOLDEN subsidiary imported the Corvette engines into Oz and fitted them into high end Commodore 'sports' version sedans for markets like here, NZ, Malaysia, South Africa (where they wore Chev' badges..).

Did you know that the late Pontiac 'R8' and the last couple of Chev' Camaro models were developed in the Holden design studio outside of Melbourne, and initially engineered in Adelaide, but then eventually manufactured in the US ?   (Several car manufacturers also like to use some of the Aussie outback roads for their hot weather and reliability testing..).


(Likewise, Ford developed the current Mustang, the Ranger ute/pickup (and its 'Everest' SUV spin-off), and Focus/Fiesta models at their Broadmeadows studio, also just out of Melbourne -- but manufacture them in the US, Thailand and Germany respectively.. .)