Jump to content

Talk:Michael Flynn: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 117: Line 117:
* '''Oppose''' section, per {{U|Muboshgu}}. Until there is more coverage in [[wp:rs|reliable sources]] elucidating this matter's importance, then it really does seem rather undue to add this kind of run-of-the-mill reporting.
* '''Oppose''' section, per {{U|Muboshgu}}. Until there is more coverage in [[wp:rs|reliable sources]] elucidating this matter's importance, then it really does seem rather undue to add this kind of run-of-the-mill reporting.
:'''Also''', I believe that Mr Ernie's revert of Muboshgu's revert is a violation of the DS/[[WP:ARBAPDS]] on this article, that {{tq|You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article}}. Material was added; challenged by Muboshgu, and re-challenged by Mr Ernie. This discussion is ''still active'', hasn't been closed, and I think it's rather inappropriate for Mr Ernie to carry through "consensus" (which doesn't clearly exist) even though Mr Ernie is a participant of said discussion. —[[User:MelbourneStar|<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b>]]<span style="color: #FF9F00;">☆</span>[[User talk:MelbourneStar|<sup style="color:#407">'''''talk'''''</sup>]] 11:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Also''', I believe that Mr Ernie's revert of Muboshgu's revert is a violation of the DS/[[WP:ARBAPDS]] on this article, that {{tq|You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article}}. Material was added; challenged by Muboshgu, and re-challenged by Mr Ernie. This discussion is ''still active'', hasn't been closed, and I think it's rather inappropriate for Mr Ernie to carry through "consensus" (which doesn't clearly exist) even though Mr Ernie is a participant of said discussion. —[[User:MelbourneStar|<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b>]]<span style="color: #FF9F00;">☆</span>[[User talk:MelbourneStar|<sup style="color:#407">'''''talk'''''</sup>]] 11:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::I'm not sure we will get a formal "closure" about this disputed information. At the time I reinserted I saw a clear consensus to add an update reflecting developments in the story. The text could not be more neutral - there is nothing controversial about the disputed text. There's the disclosure of new evidence, Flynn's counsel's response, and responses from legal professionals. There's been several disputed wordings about potential wrongdoings by one side or the other, but the current material doesn't contain any of that information. I'll revert, but opposers please point out explicitly why this particular information [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Flynn&diff=954796961&oldid=954697403] is a problem. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 12:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:05, 4 May 2020

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)

Michael Flynn has filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

The beginning of the article states that Flynn is a convicted felon based on his guilty plea, but his lawyer filed for a motion to withdraw his plea. This makes him no longer a convicted felon and that should be changed.

In addition, the section on his ongoing legal case does not mention the plea withdrawal motion. The New York Times has published this story. [1].

75.80.196.129 (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, he filed a motion, but judge Sullivan decides whether to accept it. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/us/politics/michael-flynn-withdraws-guilty-plea.html
Makes no difference what the judge says, he filed his documentation of what they all did to him. And it was his ex-lawyers who told him to plead guilty or else. Did you not read his appeal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F0D0:7BA0:6814:3117:AB24:770C (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

Change Michael Flynn's party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Timothy Aslin (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the sources in Michael_Flynn#Political_views. If you find better or more recent sources you can point to them. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump full pardon (potential), add?

Trump is “strongly considering” a full pardon for Flynn, who pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about the nature of his conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to Trump’s inauguration.

Trump tweeted shortly after the Justice Department initiated a review of the criminal case against Flynn “After destroying his life & the life of his wonderful family (and many others also), the FBI, working in conjunction with the Justice Department, has ‘lost’ the records of General Michael Flynn.” “How convenient,” he added. “I am strongly considering a Full Pardon!” Flynn is currently attempting to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct during his initial trial.

Some refs:

X1\ (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? It is possible after you have been convicted. He was not and withdraw the plea. The same about Assange and Snowden, BTW. Wow, how many people do not know that. 91.79.174.204 (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the section on the new news that Flynn was targeted by the FBI

It is all over the Conservative media about disclosure of hand written notes from Priestap that they were trying to trick Flynn into a lie. I do not list any of them here because, as we all know, only far left sources are accepted here, sources that are shown to have a bias and have to correct themselves almost daily after they do the damage they are trying to do. Notice the sources below, NONE are conservative. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Conservative Twitter was all in a titter over this last night. But, as is often the case (left wing Twitter too), they're jumping the gun on what those notes do and do not prove. So, we will adhere to our cautious approach since this is a BLP. Please provide some sources as there are none. You mistakenly put this above the sources in the above section from March 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't being covered only by the far right. Why not use the objective Washington Post article, "The Michael Flynn revelation: Bombshell or business as usual?" or The New York Times "Flynn Lawyers Seize on Newly Released F.B.I. Documents" or CNN's "Handwritten note shows how FBI official approached key Michael Flynn interview" or any major news outlet's coverage? YoPienso (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yopienso, no, it's not being covered only by the far right. That was not what I meant with what I said, so I see I was not clear. I meant that it got reported and right wing Twitter jumped on it as though it's a total exoneration of Flynn. It seems that it is not. I haven't read those above sources, but this one I just did read: Trump calls Flynn case 'scam' after new docs released, but experts say they change little, from NBC's San Antonio affiliate. One particular line in the FBI notes is being cherrypicked as evidence of entrapment, but it is not as such. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, there's no reason not to add this to the BLP. YoPienso (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Based on what some of the experts are saying, these notes seem Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill for these kind of interrogations, and adding them can provide the erroneous perception that the FBI entrapped Flynn. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a sham though that this article even fails to mention he is still not convicted/sentenced, lol. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/judge-delays-michael-flynns-sentence-again.html 91.79.174.204 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions that he has not been sentenced. What in the article is inaccurate? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia article in inaccurate. Lets also add Crossfire Razor, FBI codename as "Other Names" in the box like we did with CT. 91.79.174.204 (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just another article that shows the left bias of Wikipedia editors in charge. On Joe Biden, the requirement is "Must have multiple sources" here, there are multiple sources yet no mention. AND, I also wrote about how if it is bad news on a republican, immediately it is added, bad news for a democrat, must be vetted for MONTHS. Then that statement, IN TALK, gets memory holed, and I have a feeling it was an editor who cannot see their bias, as they are here doing the same thing. Just because you do not like the info, does not mean it is wrong. Finally, I will be glad when this article is forced to be rewritten when he is exonerated. And when he is, will he have the right to sue all of the editors that painted him in the worst light and only allowed left wing sources worst light?173.172.158.168 (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a paragraph about the entrapment allegations to the intro, hopefully in an evenhanded way. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to balance this addition with sourced facts has been reverted - therefore I object to its insertion and request that it be discussed and consensus gained before any attempt is made to reinsert it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Korney, do you REALLY think that a biased far left "pedia" will allow any information that will show someone in the Trump Administration to stand until they are forced to? My hope is that Gen. Flynn will sue Wikipedia for defamation with it's left biased write up on him. That would include editors who made the article show the darkest light on him. Like, there are plenty of articles that show he pleaded guilty because the corrupt FBI officials and SC lawyers threatened his son after they bankrupted him. But, hey, the NYT says Joe B. has no evidence against him. This is getting ridiculous. There are plenty of articles now that prove he was railroaded, but SOMEONE does not want that added to this article. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YES add the information that he was entrapped. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you're skirting around our policy of Wikipedia:NOLEGALTHREATS. If you continue to make legal threats, even suggesting that Flynn should sue Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not threatening anything. Hoping that someone who has been ambushed here with a biased article that only left wing sources can be cited gets justice, how is that a bad thing if it brings changes here that are balanced? It would make this "pedia" better, and less prone to professors to tell their students not to rely on it for their citations. Don't you want that?173.172.158.168 (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof - was the paragraph really unbalanced? It described Flynn's views, and noted that Trump agrees with him. Yes, some people have described his views as a conspiracy theory - and it would be good for the article to state that too - but the article should also make it clear that those descriptions predate the latest evidence, as the person who reverted your changes alluded to. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That "evidence" is not widely viewed as actual evidence of "entrapment." See, say, this non-opinion mainstream source or this non-opinion mainstream source. There are certainly many partisan right-wing columnists and outlets proclaiming that this is some sort of massive bombshell exonerating Flynn, but those are of no value to Wikipedia in interpreting how to factually present an issue. The judicial system will ultimately provide the final say here. We cannot present Flynn's claims as if they are unchallenged fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And to be more specific - the Quartz source Korny O'Near cited discussed the fact that Flynn explicitly told the judge in his case that he was not entrapped and that he knew it was against the law to lie to the FBI, and described the view that he was "entrapped" as a conspiracy theory. If we are to present Flynn's new claims, we must of course put them in context of what reliable mainstream news sources have said about the case, and the known facts of how Flynn has discussed the issue previously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great - we agree that the new evidence that has come out is not concrete evidence of entrapment. Thankfully, that's not what the article paragraph stated: it said that Flynn, Trump and some others believe he was entrapped, and have said so more consistently since the new information came out a few days ago. It would be good to include the opposing view - though it would be better to cite opposing views that have come out since April 29 or so, rather than from 2018. And it's especially important, if you include incendiary phrases like "conspiracy theory", to note the date and source of those statements. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post is NOT OPINIONATED? Really? The NYT which has NOT ENDORSED A REPUBLICAN for 80 years? No one believes they are not biased any longer, you know it just as well as I do. They just fit your bias. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't fit your bias. Editorial pages, which make political endorsements, are independent from investigative journalists at any newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really? They sure are forced to retract a LOT of stories from their "investigative journalists" that 95% of the time are against conservatives. [1] I think you are biased to believe them. I admit I am conservative, will you admit you are liberal? When I edit an article here, usually grammar corrections, but if it is an edit in regards to adding to information of an article, I pass it by a couple of other editors that do not have my bias to make sure it contains no POV. This article has POV, it won't allow evidence he was railroaded by their threatening his son with jail time. But it WILL, eventually, it will have to,IMHO.173.172.158.168 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a citation for the figure that 95% of WaPo articles are "against conservatives"? All newspapers issue corrections. Well, reputable ones do. No publication is perfect. Yes, I am left wing. I've never denied it. But, there's no evidence that Flynn was "railroaded". Flynn Jr was facing jail time for a reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Newsmax considered a reliable source here? They are on radio stations as the national news source at the top and bottom of the hour across the US. Just heard their reports on a station today, like FOX, CBS, Salem Radio Network, etc. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Newsmax is not a reliable source; they are barely one step above InfoWars on the unreliability scale. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So anything that is right of left wing CBS is not allowed because they may not tow the liberal bias that is shown in all political articles in Wikipedia. That is what I thought. They are a national radio news outlet. BUT they are infowars. I see. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC) I see they are doing investigations into Strzok substantially rewriting a 302 in another agent's voice. Why would he do that? But you will not accept this because a left wing biased source like the WaPo will not report on it, YET. Interesting.173.172.158.168 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're calling CBS "left wing", and implying that Infowars is in any way reliable, there's no hope for us to see eye to eye. You'd probably feel more at home on Conservapedia, where they edit with a specific bias (yours) in mind. Here, we adhere to neutral point of view. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said Infowars is reliable.173.172.158.168 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said "if you're ... implying". I'm glad we're on the same page about Infowars not being reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - We can not hide facts on Wikipedia. Eternal Father (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support We should at least add information about Crossfire Razor is his codename. But yes, the fact as somebody said above this wikipedia article even fails to mention he was not FOUND GUILTY, i.e. was not convicted is rather strange. 2A00:1370:812C:9562:9450:C202:4986:EA75 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that he pled guilty and then sought to withdraw his guilty plea. Which is accurate. His FBI code name is not relevant as far as I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially exculpatory details, such as a codename used in recently unsealed documents, would be relevant to this case. He did seek to withdraw his plea, and there's either entrapment or at least brady violations that may very well see him acquitted. Eternal Father (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The FBI likes to use code names. What makes you think Flynn's code name is in any way exculpatory? Entrapment and Brady violations remain unproven and possible acquittal is WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the guy meant that Crossfire Razor, just like Crossfire Latitude for Donald J Trump and Crossfire Typhoon for George Popadopulus (that is already edited in info box oh his page) can be used to search on Twitter, e.g., LOL, you really do not understand it? Maybe you should try to search Jeffrey Wiseman. Hah. So crazy what FBI did using that guy... "that he pled guilty " That is the point! It is not standard for guilty plea not to lead to conviction but that happens and we must show it here. As I understand it FBI itself said that he did not lie, that is why this did not lead to conviction. 2A00:1370:812C:9562:F124:BA0C:5534:D536 (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like two users, Muboshgu and NorthBySouthBaranof, are preventing any information about the new evidence released about the Flynn investigation from getting added to this article. So now we're in the curious situation where the Wikipedia article about Flynn, a good 30% of which relates to his 2017 FBI investigation, contains no mention of the little fact that Flynn now says he's innocent - as do his lawyers, the President of the United States, and a variety of right-wing media. One would think that at least mentioning this fact would be uncontroversial across the political spectrum, but apparently not. The justification that these two users have provided every time for removing the information is that there's no "consensus" for it - though as far as I can tell, they haven't attempted to generate any consensus. So, Muboshgu and NorthBySouthBaranof, let me ask you directly: what's the endgame here? Are you happy with the article as it currently stands? If not, how do you want it changed? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Korny O'Near, the article covers all of the important details, including Flynn withdrawing his guilty plea. There is no consensus to add some of the more recent items that Right Wing Twitter is misreading as exonerating evidence. There would need to be a consensus supporting it to add it, not whatever you're suggesting. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Yes, we've established that you think there's no consensus; you don't need to keep repeating it here. Regardless of one's interpretation of this new evidence - which is, of course, a matter of opinion - surely you would agree that it's noteworthy to mention it in this article, given (a) how much media attention it has gotten, and (b) that Flynn, Trump and others have made public statements relating to it? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. We don't automatically add WP:BREAKING news, we assess its importance. The release of documents is pretty standard and WP:ROTM. That Trump and others are misinterpreting the document release is meaningless for our purposes. Trump says lots of things that aren't true. Yes, if Flynn says he's innocent it should be there. Isn't it? I don't think that whole section is written that well. That's probably the result.of one report being added haphazardly after another. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That WP:BREAKING guideline doesn't seem relevant here - it's about creating new articles, not adding information to existing articles. I don't think WP:ROTM applies here either. Yes, government documents get released every day, but I don't think most of them lead to hundreds of articles, opinion pieces, etc. in mainstream news sources. And Flynn now says more than that he's innocent: his lawyers say that he was "deliberately set up", which is not something I think he or they were saying before. I do agree with you that much of the article content that covers his post-2017 legal troubles is too detailed and blow-by-blow. Unfortunately, you and NorthBySouthBaranof don't seem to be doing anything to improve the situation, but hopefully that will change. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BLP requires that the material reverted recently by Muboshgu be re-instated. The current page does not accurately reflect the situation which has drastically changed since before the release of the FBI notes and the US Attorney investigation. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Korny O'Near, per this comment I am reinstating the reverted editors. There is clear consensus that the material should go in. Only 2 editors are against, while 6+ support. The wording is very neutral, and simply updates readers on recent developments. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Crossfire Razor in the box? 2A00:1370:812C:9562:4C22:3085:2D74:9E11 (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose section, per Muboshgu. Until there is more coverage in reliable sources elucidating this matter's importance, then it really does seem rather undue to add this kind of run-of-the-mill reporting.
Also, I believe that Mr Ernie's revert of Muboshgu's revert is a violation of the DS/WP:ARBAPDS on this article, that You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. Material was added; challenged by Muboshgu, and re-challenged by Mr Ernie. This discussion is still active, hasn't been closed, and I think it's rather inappropriate for Mr Ernie to carry through "consensus" (which doesn't clearly exist) even though Mr Ernie is a participant of said discussion. —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we will get a formal "closure" about this disputed information. At the time I reinserted I saw a clear consensus to add an update reflecting developments in the story. The text could not be more neutral - there is nothing controversial about the disputed text. There's the disclosure of new evidence, Flynn's counsel's response, and responses from legal professionals. There's been several disputed wordings about potential wrongdoings by one side or the other, but the current material doesn't contain any of that information. I'll revert, but opposers please point out explicitly why this particular information [1] is a problem. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=washington+post+forced+to+retract&t=opera&ia=web
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Flynn&oldid=954807249"