Talk:Michael Flynn

woefully inadequate

In a sentencing memorandum released on December 4, 2018, the Mueller investigation stated Flynn "deserves credit for accepting responsibility in a timely fashion and substantially assisting the government" and should receive little or no jail time.[136]

There is far more to the content of the memorandum than that, and it obsoletes much of the other discussion on the page of what Flynn did, which looks like a whitewash at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibal (talk • contribs)

One might consider the name of Flynn's current attorney to be important information as well; Sidney Powell

RfC: FBI agents spotted no deception in body language?

Should the article include a sentence about how the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said they did not spot any physical signs of deception in Flynn's tone and body language?[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• No. It lends credence to the pseudoscience of being able to spot deception from just looking at someone. It's nothing short of mind-reading. It adds nothing of value to the article, except misleads some uninformed readers that there is evidence that Flynn did not lie in his FBI interviews. To summarize, inclusion serves the purpose of propping up a pseudoscience and impairing readers' understanding of the topic. Also, could you imagine adding content to a BLP where we say that law enforcement judged a BLP to be deceptive through body language? Is that some kind of precedent that should be introduced? Of course not – it's absolute BS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. (Here is the news article currently cited for this fact, by the way.) Body language of potential suspects is a standard piece of evidence used by law enforcement around the world, I believe - see Body language#Law enforcement, for example. I doubt it's ever enough to convict or acquit on its own, and I'm sure that it can be faked and misinterpreted, but still it's considered useful information. Clearly the FBI agents thought it was relevant, or they wouldn't have reported it in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Nope, it's straight-up pseudoscience (as is the case with all kinds of techniques that law enforcement use), as this[2] 2019 Annual Review of Psychology article makes clear. It's been so debunked that "lively debates about the merits of nonverbal lie detection no longer take place at the scientific conferences that we attend." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes You again missed the point. It does not matter whether he lied. Also for BLP we just usually avoid harm, so that is why "to be deceptive through body language" will not usually be added. And about pseudoscience, well, you not only killed actors this way but also forget about this beauty based on reality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1mkRit7IGE (even though this occured here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JMiu6b1M7E). 2A00:1370:812C:1186:1D5F:664B:1B27:845C (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• This editor has never edited under this identity before popping into this RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, I did. All ipv6 addresses are mine here, except 2604:6000:1209:C114:A9B3:800E:F31:2BB0. All 91.x are also mine. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:41D0:7E76:AA54:76B4 (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the relevance of the YouTube videos, posted by the IP, as sources for this discussion. The first one is obviously meant to be humorous (not a reliable source and irrelevant). The second one does not discuss the usefulness or lack of usefulness of body language in discerning deception (irrelevant). And YouTube videos are not usually considered reliable sources anyway. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes It is well sourced. ~ HAL333 16:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• No. It is irrelevant. Did they spot any signs of lying when he pled guilty? Also irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - It's trivial detail, and I agree with Snooganssnoogans that it gives credence to pseudoscience. - MrX 🖋 21:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes- It is the testimony of James Comey and reported by reliable sources. Since when did James Comey become someone who promotes "pseudoscience"? I challenge anyone to find a reliable source that say his claim is pseudoscience because "we go by reliable sources".--Rusf10 (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• No irrelevant and gives credence to pseudoscience [3]. On both counts it is therefore UNDUE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That is WP:ORIGINAL research/ WP:SYNTH. Unless you have a reliable source that actually says Comey's testimony is based on pseudoscience then we can include his attributed testimony.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTH do not apply to talk pages/discussion threads, and reasons for not including something in an article don't need to be justified with reliable sources.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• No - He didn't look like he was lying doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - FBI and law enforecement officials frequently use their judgment, from instinct, experience, and training, when interviewing suspects. Their initial opinion about how they felt after the inteview is important in the context of what was going on. Calling this pseudoscience, while perhaps technically accurate, leaves out that it is a routine part of investigations. That they thought he didn't lie is simply their opinion of how they felt about it, and is a useful thing to note by the ones who interviewed him. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - I agree with the criticism that body language reading is pseudoscience. We wouldn't say, about a living person, that their body language was shifty, therefore we shouldn't say the opposite either. Loki (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - It has zero (0) to do with the fact that Flynn pleaded guilty [4] to lying to the FBI about his interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign & 2016 transition period. Plus, it is irrelevant and, if anything, it only shows Flynn can lie with a straight face, which is what Flynn was trained to do in the military. FBI agents knew Flynn was lying & equally important, Flynn confessed to his crime of lying to the FBI. In Flynn's guilty plea agreement [5], Flynn admitted to making false statements to the FBI & admitted he omitted key facts to the FBI about his interactions with the Russia. Trump said, “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the vice president and the F.B.I.” [6] BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• No We need severely trim down the content size of this article to improve page loading performance. Regice2020 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - of course it should be included, reader's can make their own judgment calls about it being pseudoscience, we include the viewpoints of what reliable sources report about it. It was widely reported on, Comey testified that “the agents … discerned no physical indications of deception. It was also the subject of reporting in varying contexts - it was the subject of a fact check by the Washington Post in relation to Comey and what he said, it was the subject of a fact check by the Associated Press in relation to Trump and his false claims, it was brought up by his lawyers at sentencing and Comey's comments to the NYT, The conclusion of the investigators was he was obviously lying, Mr. Comey said, 'but they saw none of the normal common indicia of deception...". It was also cited as a reason by the DOJ for dropping the charges against Flynn – after the interview, FBI agents had "expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr Flynn had lied". Isaidnoway (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• (Moved my comment to be included in my above vote) BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Translation: It isn't the point that I want to emphasize and therefore everyone should ignore it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - I voted on the survey question; I do not give you permission to strike my so do not ever strike my vote again. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, I could not care less whether you gave me permission to strike it or not. Your second vote was illegitimate. Hence, I did the right thing. I'd have no reason to strike a vote of yours at this time considering the fact that my strike caused you to remove your second vote. Display name 99 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - I have made myself clear. Do not tamper with my vote ever again & do not tamper with my comments to my votes ever again. And do not personally attack me by telling other editors to "ignore" my comments just because you either do not like, or cannot understand my comment WP:CIVILITY "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, I will once again tamper with a vote that you make if that vote ever happens to be an illegitimate second vote like the one that you just made. Also, I did not tell anyone to ignore your comments. Rather, the simpler version of what you had written was to say that you felt people should ignore what the FBI agents said about Flynn because it did not reinforce the single piece of information which you wished to emphasize, that being his conviction. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not put words into other editors' mouths. WP:CIV O3000 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well it's clearly what they meant. By the way, BetsyRMadison, I see you've voted twice in this RfC. No editor has the right to do that. It gives the impression to an editor who is not reading extremely carefully that there are more votes a certain way than there actually are. Therefore, I've decided to strike your second response. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - I do not give you permission to strike my votes nor to strike my comments to my votes. If you see that I have accidentally voted more than once, then, you should assume good faith and tell me so that I can make the necessary corrections. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Accidentally? How do you accidentally vote more than once? Anyhow, I did not assume that it was intentional, but I did strike it so that other editors would know not to count it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• No. Not enough coverage to establish noteworthy for something that would normally be considered essentially irrelevant. --Aquillion (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes-Standard evidence on potential criminal suspects should be included. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• No. When a suspect acts guilty, that can be notable. When they don't, it's not notable. It's easy to train oneself to act this way. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, as long as it's properly sourced I'm not sure if that statement is true, but if a trustworthy source says that that is true then it's fine to add. Otherwise it shouldn't be added. Smith0124 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - but only with the proper context I agree with including this but only on strong conditions. As others mentioned, this is an indicator used by law enforcement agencies (but not necessarily evidence). It is irrelevant for the inclusion of this if Mr. Flynn managed to fake/lie or not. However, it is extremely relevant that the full context is included. This detail should not be presented separate from the context if that context is already present - and if not present then it should too be added along this. It is important, if included, to underline that this is just a piece of the puzzle (one among many evidence/indicators) that the FBI put together based on the principle of convergence of evidence. So, unless it is stated by a WP:RS that this was indeed a crucial piece of evidence, it should not be emphasized as such (thus the need for context).Cealicuca (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes' - it happened, it's real, it is cited to a RS, we include it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

He said he looked like he was lying. The man who killed Ahmaud Arbery said he instinctively knew that he was a bad person. This kind of crap does not belong in an encyclopedia, or anywhere -- unless it is added as evidence of seriously poor reasoning. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If anything, this just shows Michael Flynn is comfortable lying & lies with a straight face. So far, Flynn has lied to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded guilty two times to lying to the FBI about national security issues, then pleaded to the court that he lied to the court with his two guilty pleas, then said his 1st lawyer's made him lie to the court, and then said the FBI made him lie to them. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per Cealicuca. Springee (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• No I initially was okay with including this as some sort of compromise, but have come to recognize that it's wrong. FBI agents may not have "detected deception", but they're historically not good at detecting deception. Here is an FBI agent writing in Psychology Today about how we're no better at detecting deception than we would be if we flipped a coin and say "heads he's lying, tails he's telling the truth". And here's one on the FBI's website that also shows how difficult it is to detect deception. For instance: Twenty-three out of 24 peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals reporting experiments on eye behavior as an indicator of lying have rejected this hypothesis. Flynn lied, and admitted it under oath in court. Whether or not the FBI agents who interviewed him "detected deception" is really a moot point, even though it is reliably sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• No I don't think it belongs on Flynn's page. However, if we create a new page for U.S. v Flynn, it could be mentioned there, as it's discussed in some of the briefs and exhibits. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:RS and WP:DUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Close?

Why is this RfC still open? We need to find someone to close it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that there's now a US v. Flynn page, and a lot of the text about the case still needs to be cut from Flynn's page. The RfC predates the creation of the US v Flynn page, and the existence of that page might affect people's opinions. There is some discussion on the US v. Flynn talk page re: having a section addressing partisan debates about the case, including this issue and a bunch of others (e.g., whether there's a "missing" 302, unmasking). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

See related discussion on this topic, at #Shorten the section on legal case below. Mathglot (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Archiving time

The article is getting more attention, so I've changed the archive time to 7 days. Anyone disagrees? Even if everyone agrees, when attention dies down, feel free to extend the archive time. starship.paint (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Date error

This is my first foray into a Wikepedia Editing Talk. In the sentence below, the date "late December 2019" appears not to match the context set a few lines earlier (January 2017):

"The two agents met Flynn at his office later that day and asked Flynn about his exchanges with Kislyak regarding the late December 2019 United Nations Security Council resolution regarding Israeli settlements."

Is one or other of these dates incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.236.117 (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, right. It is United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334. BTW, who knows why it was critical for Russia to support it? I live in Russia and I do not know. 2A00:1370:812D:EDFE:D51B:519D:B0A5:DEA2 (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020

Brayden0521 (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

change "On November 25, 2020 Flynn was issued a presidential pardon."

to "On November 25, 2020, Flynn was issued a presidential pardon."

BTW, how is he pardoned if he is not convicted and/or sentenced? 2A00:1FA0:851:F69A:3518:F65C:CA83:748B (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done My understanding is that since he pled guilty, that counts as a conviction. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

From the New York Times: President Trump pardoned on Wednesday his former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, who had twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about his conversations with a Russian diplomat and whose prosecution Attorney General William P. Barr tried to shut down. “It is my Great Honor to announce that General Michael T. Flynn has been granted a Full Pardon,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/us/politics/michael-flynn-pardon.html

No, Flynn was not convicted as we see from the now finally dismissed case (from 2 hours ago) and I will remind you of first myth here https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-presidential-pardons/2018/06/06/18447f84-69ba-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html 2A00:1370:812D:65B6:ECA9:19BF:C664:CE28 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the fact one does not need to be convicted to be pardoned does not mean Flynn was not convicted. He was convicted and awaiting sentencing when he was pardoned. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring over conviction in first sentence of lead

So by now everyone knows the article is under consensus required right? I have to ask because so far PvOberstein[7], Objective3000[8], and DocRuby[9] have all violated that sanction reinserting new material[10] that was challenged via revision. Anyhow I don't think it should be in the first sentence like that given we dedicate a whole paragraph to it in the lead and the body of the article does not say he was convicted. Mostly because he was not technically convicted, that happens after sentencing which never happened. PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted a one-edit IP who removed text with an incorrect edit summary. On your claim that he was not convicted, WaPo [11], BBC [12], CNBC [13], Forbes [14], NBC [15], and LATimes [16] disagree. On the fact that this isn’t in the body, that can be fixed. On weight for the top, this is heavily covered by RS for good reason and most of us would not have heard much about him without the conviction. When is the last time someone in that position was convicted? O3000 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, already covered in a full paragraph in the lead. Does not need to tacked onto the first sentence as well. Leads are generally not written that way unless it is the most notable thing about a person, I have a hard time believing that is the case here. It also does not help that the case was dismissed. Finally as your LA times article says, the pardon wipes the conviction. Also reverting an IP is not an exemption from DS in this case. PackMecEng (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have not edited this page since last June and was not aware of this restriction. He was convicted. A pardon does not reverse that. Indeed, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. So far it is four editors adding, and you and two one-edit IPs against. Others are welcome to chime in. O3000 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I am just going by the source you mentioned. Also you are ignoring the case was dismissed, with most of the sources coming before the dismissal. To be fair the restriction was in the log since February 2017. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

On the talk pages of Dinesh D'Souza and Roger Stone and on WP:BLPN are other discussions about putting "convicted felon" in the first sentence of the lead. Summary = don't. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)