Did Michael Flynn lie to the FBI?

1. 79

   Don Wposted 7 years ago

   It is a federal offense to lie to the FBI. The offense is called "Making False Statements":
   
   "Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully
   
   (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
   (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
   (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry" (U.S. Code § 1001)(1)
   
   The FBI interviewed Flynn about his contact with Russian officials in the first days of the Trump administration(2).
   
   Presumably Flynn was asked if he had contact with Russian officials, and he said he had. That's not really the issue. It's extremely unlikely that the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens engaging in diplomacy with foreign states, would be invoked here.
   
   However, it is an issue if Flynn was asked whether his conversation included sanctions, and he said "no". That would be a "materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent" statement to the FBI, which is a crime punishable by a fine, a maximum prison sentence of 5 years, or both(3)
   
   On Feb 14 White House Spokesperson, Sean Spicer, said:
   
   "The president was very concerned that General Flynn had misled the vice president and others."(4)
   
   So the question is, was the FBI one of the "others" who have been misled?
   
   If so, it would be very difficult for the FBI not to recommend prosecution.
   
   The decision to prosecute would sit with the DoJ though, and the chances of Jeff (too racist to be a federal judge in the 80s) Sessions prosecuting this case would be slim.
   
   However, the chances of Flynn's answers to the FBI being leaked to the press, are much higher, and if it's clear he made false statements, that would make it extremely difficult for Sessions to justify not prosecuting.
   
   If I were a journalist, I'd be trying to get confirmation of exactly what Flynn was asked by the FBI and what his responses were (NYT, WaPo etc. over to you).
   
   The next question would then be: what did Trump know, and when did he know it?
   
   (1)(3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
   (2) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … ar-AAmWsPP
   (4) https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of … 2142017-12

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Update
      
      The Washington Post have reported that Flynn denied discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador when interviewed by the FBI(1).
      
      This means Flynn made a "materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" to the FBI, which is a felony(2).
      
      However, CNN are quoting a law enforcement official as saying the FBI is "not expected to pursue any charges" against Flynn(3).
      
      That doesn't mean Flynn cannot be prosecuted. The decision to prosecute sits with the DoJ. But again,  the exact nature of Flynn's denial to the FBI is important.
      
      According to CNN, FBI agents challenged Flynn when he said he had not discussed sanctions, because obviously they knew he was lying, and Flynn said he "didn't remember"(4).
      
      That may be enough for the DoJ to justify not prosecuting, which Jeff (too racist to be a federal judge in the 80s) Sessions would be reluctant to do anyway [note: his racism isn't relevant to this case, I just like to be accurate in my description of him].
      
      Based purely on evidence currently available to the public, even if the Attorney General wasn't so contemptible, I think it would be very unlikely for a prosecution against Flynn to succeed anyway.
      
      But at least my question has been answered.
      
      Yes, Michael Flynn (former US national security advisor) lied to the FBI about discussing sanctions with Russia.
      
      That's bad. That's very very bad.
      
      (1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … d92d8d6a4e
      
      (2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
      
      (3)(4) http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/16/polit … index.html

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe Bill had a friendly chat with the DOJ. That was all that was needed to ensure Hillary wasn't prosecuted.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            If you have a verified, recorded conversation between Bill Clinton and someone at the DOJ (like the one the FBI has of Flynn and the Russian ambassador), which specifically captures him lobbying against prosecution, you better get it to the Trump administration right away. They could really use a smokescreen at the moment
            
            If not, I suggest you stop promoting fake news. President Bannon doesn't like it (unless it's flattering to "president" Trump).

            replyreport
2. 76

   jackclee lmposted 7 years ago

   Don, did Hillary lie to the FBI, did she lied to Congress???
   You are trying to score political points to what avail?
   You have got what you wanted and removed a competent person in Trump's admin.
   Is there anything else you want? Should Trump step down as Commander in chief?
   would that be your goal?
   Really, I am asking what is it that you want?

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Clinton was investigated 9 times over one incident. Investigated by 5 different panels and the FBI over another. And still, nearly two months after the election, you are asking whether she lied to Congress.
      
      That's exactly the level of scrutiny I want applied to Trump and his officials. 
      
      I want to know whether Michael Flynn lied to the FBI
      
      If he did:
      
           I want to know whether the FBI will recommend prosecution, and if not why?
      
           I want to know whether the DoJ will prosecute, and if not why?
      
           I want to know when Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI.
      
           I want to know why Trump did not fire Flynn immediately if there was some delay.
      
      If Flynn did not lie to the FBI:
      
      I want to know why Trump allowed Flynn to continue as a member of the National Security Council for three weeks after the DoJ told him Flynn was compromised by the Russians.
      
      I want to know when the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will begin an inquiry into Trump and his administration's ties to Russia, as a matter of national security.
      
      I want to know why Trump supporters are so keen on national security when it's being used as the reason to ban Muslims, or investigate Clinton, but not so keen when it comes to establishing whether the president or any of his other officials have inappropriate ties to adversarial foreign states.
      
      If you can provide any of the answers to those questions, feel free to . . .

      replyreport
   2. 77

      psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      That's a lot of questions from someone who didn't bother to answer OP's question at all.
      Turn about is far play... and a more constructive way to have a discussion.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!    YES!   
      
      
      YES! and YES!!!!!!!!
      
      
      
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Feb 17th 2017, -FBI announces --NO INVESTIGATION FOR FLYNN .
         
         So much for your "fake news ".

         replyreport
         1. 73

            ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Oh, you mean the DOJ Jeff Sessions?  He is investigating the WH leaks.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Lets face it most of the top tier employees are still Obama  appointees. no doubt ,   Suffice to say if their are no investigations ---there was no offence !

               replyreport