Flynn in FBI interview denied discussing sanctions with Russian ambassador
Source: Washington Post
Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn denied to FBI agents in an interview last month that he had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that countrys ambassador to the United States before President Trump took office, contradicting the contents of intercepted communications collected by intelligence agencies, current and former U.S. officials said.
The Jan. 24 interview potentially puts Flynn in legal jeopardy, as lying to FBI is a felony, but any decision to prosecute would ultimately lie with the Justice Department. Some officials said bringing a case could prove difficult in part because Flynn may attempt to parse the definition of sanctions.
A spokesman for Flynn said he had no response. The FBI declined to comment.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/flynn-in-fbi-interview-denied-discussing-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador/2017/02/16/e3e1e16a-f3d5-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)herding cats
(19,564 posts)I can't wait to see Trump defend this one.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)but various situations apparently can extend it. In any case, even if the GOP could smother/delay this particular fire for a while, Flynn wouldn't be safe for a minimum of five years. He's also not a super-wealthy man at a reported $8m could be hurt just by only legal costs.
As for other fires springing up, it seems unlikely that 45 is capable of operating completely within the legal constraints of his position for any extended period as he neither understands nor respects the need them and finds them "stupid." And then there are his narcissistic "rages," which are apparently not exactly what we think of with the word rage but do involve periods of irrational and uncontrollable behaviors.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)The Pentagon says it has not discovered any evidence former national security adviser Michael Flynn received authorization to accept money for a paid Russian state TV event in 2015.
The Department of the Army conducted a thorough records search, and has not found any documents, acting Secretary of the Army Robert Speer said in a Tuesday letter, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.
The Journal said Speers message was in response to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee.
Cummings reportedly asked the Pentagon if Flynn received approval for the event, which occurred in December 2015 during a period of rising tension between the White House and the Kremlin.
Several top Democrats in Congress sent the Department of Defense a letter Feb. 1 asking it to investigate whether Flynn violated the Constitution when he accepted money for the gala.
Flynn accepted an invitation to Moscow in late 2015 to give a paid, sit-down interview with Russian state-funded media outlet RT. RT was conducting a gala for its 10-year anniversary, the Journal said, and Flynn ultimately sat beside Russian President Vladimir Putin.
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/policy/international/russia/320051-pentagon-no-record-russia-pay-to-flynn-allowed
That's not exactly cheerful news it that regard.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)illegal misbehavior. Just look at Scalia's years of flying off to entertainments and meetings, who's paying often highly questionable--like his last, a gratis stay at a "friend's" resort and thus legal.
Raven123
(4,842 posts)The presser was a decoy. Follow the real story!
herding cats
(19,564 posts)If what Flynn did wasn't wrong, why did he lie?
3_Limes
(363 posts)That makes me happy - in a strange way that I'm not really pleased with. But happy, none the less.
Friend or Foe
(195 posts)To his mouth!
JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!
herding cats
(19,564 posts)What did the president know, and when did he know it?
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)quiet if he actually has any dirt on Trump?
herding cats
(19,564 posts)I'm not saying Trump wouldn't do it, but it would be a tipping point.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)that they would do unless he refuses to sign what they order him to sign when they order him to sign it.
Native
(5,942 posts)The entire call was about the sanctions and how they had Russia's back.
Native
(5,942 posts)herding cats
(19,564 posts)It was reported yesterday the entire call was about the sanctions. That he said they could expect a reprieve is in essence saying they were going fix it for them.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Or will Justice come up with some excuse?
TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)transcripts with a magnifying glass to check if there were any slight differences between what Clinton said to the FBI vs. what she said to their committee, and salivating over the possibility of nailing her for perjury.
What are the odds they'll do it this time?
Skittles
(153,160 posts)Donald Fucking Trump is held to no standards at all.
CanonRay
(14,101 posts)Lying to a Federal Agent, under oath or not, is a felony. Now if we only had an attorney general who was interested in the truth...
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)Surprise surprise.
The FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn regarding a phone call with Russia's ambassador, barring new information that changes what they know, law enforcement officials told CNN Thursday.
Flynn was fired by President Donald Trump earlier this week after it was revealed that he withheld information from Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the US. A US official confirmed to CNN last week that Flynn and Kislyak discussed sanctions, among other matters, during a December call.
Flynn initially told investigators sanctions were not discussed. But FBI agents challenged him, asking if he was certain that was his answer. He said he didn't remember.
The FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/fbi-not-expected-to-pursue-charges-against-flynn/index.html
wishstar
(5,269 posts)They deliberately controlled questioning, signaling to him that truth was known and he needed to modify his answer to muddy waters and not persist in absolute denial. So they allowed him to escape prosecution..
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)although technically, a Grand Jury would need to be impaneled to determine if charges could be brought if the evidence is sketchy and a U.S. Attorney would be the one to request that a judge get that process going vs the FBI. I.e., the U.S. Attorneys (or designees in that office) are normally the ones who file on behalf of the government.