If you lie to a US Federal agent, they can bust you, and my understanding is that judges like to sentence those convicted of this by juries to jail for long periods of time. But, if you are charged with this crime and plea guilty, so there is no jury trial, then there is room to negotiate.
LOL
Michael Flynn, perhaps owing to hubris, perhaps owing to fear, perhaps owing to sub-average intelligence, perhaps to a combination, managed to lie, apparently multiple times, to FBI agents.
Unlike most of the other characters in the Trump-Russia scandal, Flynn has been more involved in Turkish shenanigans than Russian, but the charges going down today do relate to Russia.
He is charged with lying about his interactions with the Russian ambassador to the US about sanctions, and about a pending UN Security Council resolution related to Russia.
Here is the charging document:
Case Document 1 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal N0.:
-Violation: 18 U.S.C. 1001 (False
– Statements)
MICHAEL T. LYNN,
Defendant.The Special Counsel informs the Court: Case:
Assigned To Judge Contreras, RudolphQM Assign. Date: 1113012017
(False Statements) Description: INFORMATION (A)
On or about January 24, 2017, defendant MICHAEL T. FLYNN did willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, to wit, the defendant falsely stated and represented to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in Washington, DC, that:
(i) On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Government of Russia’s Ambassador to the United States (“Russian Ambassador”) to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day; and did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those Sanctions as a result of his request; and
(ii) On or about December 22, 2016, did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution; and that the Russian Ambassador subsequently never described Russia’s response to his request.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2))
ROBERT S. MUELLER, 111
Special Counsel
The penalty for that crime can be five years in prison. Two counts, that could be ten years in prison. Likely, a plea will result in some months in prison, or zero time. So, he’s looking at ten years vs. a walk in the park, but only if he is totally forthcoming about all he knows. All. He. Knows.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Not surprising — you had to be an idiot to think he wasn’t lying.
But
It’s unlikely this will go any higher. Remember that impeachment is essentially a political tool, not a legal one. Republicans were fine with Reagan skirting the law and authorizing the sale of weapons to two sets of terrorists — including the government that supported the terrorists who killed a couple hundred Marines in Beirut, but they were more than happy to bring proceedings against an opposition president who lied about a sexual incident.
Republicans are fine with laws being broken when their side does it — they’re even fine with ignoring serial sexual assault from their presidential and senate candidates. Their claims about concern over national debt and deficits are bogus (history and the current “tax plan” show that), and their respect for the law is just as bogus.
A Process Crime – big deal.
I agree with His High Deanness, rapist Clinton
should have never been taken to task for his
affair with Monica.
It depends what is is. A legal hairbrain or a
terrorist group?
Rapist. Not really, for if that accusation had had any basis in fact the Republicans (and the Democrats who were opposed to Clinton) would have made it stick.
No lie is too low for you is it bill?
Bill, you are walking a fine line here, making an accusation of a felony against someone in a comment. I wan t you to think about what you are doing here and perhaps cool it a bit.
Haven’t you been declaring various people as being Russian agents?
“Informally, in criminal procedure, process crime is an offense charged by a prosecutor alleging criminal conduct related to an investigation of a crime, but not to the crime itself.”
Only here it was not the investigation of a crime, but a counterintelligence investigation.
Even that is a stretch, as the FBI already had all the answers from their surveillance. The point of the interview was to see if he would lie. Sally Yates was a primary person on this.
“Republicans are fine with laws being broken when their side does it — they’re even fine with ignoring serial sexual assault from their presidential and senate candidates.”
Your Deanship, they could use a truth
teller like you. Positions are now available
with the following: Radio Moscow; Radio Peking;
Radio Havana; and last but not least Tehran Radio.
WARNING: do not mention any AGW, as those folks
tend to disappear.
80% of perverts are your Progressos Pals. Dear visitors,
when reading Dean’s missives take an aspirin or popper.
Unlike you bill, I don’t support anyone who’s come under the latest outpouring of charges. You defended Moore, Trump, and others on the right.
Your “80%” comment is simply projection from someone (you) who can’t muster a logical argument.
It’s a shame you don’t like facts — whether your habitual dishonesty is due to your religion, your political views, your hatred of minorities, some other issue, or a combination of all those things, but we get it: you don’t care about issues other than right/left (or right/left as you see it in your little world).
For a change — why don’t you deal with issues instead of trying to deflect to your
hot topic — on which you are incredibly hypocritical.
Yea, because the fact that the new president didn’t heed Yates’ (or President Obama’s) warnings about Flynn is her fault.
Again — the shit people who defend Flynn and the current administration toss around to in attempts to defend them is astounding in its stupidity.
Why did the FBI interview Flynn?
“Sally Yates was a primary person on this.”
Mike, i think is was Sally Yikes.
What’s missing is any mention of Turkey. It was reported that Flynn had a deal where he gets $15 million(and maybe a matching amount for his son) if they organized the kidnap of Gulen to Turkey.
If Flynn got this deal in exchange, a guilty plea for something they could easily prove and dropping involvement in a kidnapping, then he must be offering something big…
aaaand… Trollswarm.
How predictable.
Guys, it’s the FBI who got lied to. And in case you didn’t notice, Flynn just pleaded guilty.
I have a feeling that deep down the two resident liars for the right realize what Flynn did — they’re simply trying to deflect attention from facts, because they don’t like them.
But again — since the right is in power and the president is their man, nothing will come from this no matter what Flynn will (or could) say. Having a criminal in charge is fine with them, as long as he’s white and their criminal.
And don’t forget — the current vice president is even more despicable than President Trump, and probably more dangerous, because he is perceived as the sane one. That skin-wrapped collection of shit Mike Pence is fundamentally evil.
He pled guilty to lying to the FBI about one conversation with the Russian ambassador. Nothing about Turkey. Did the media make up this story?
Nothing about colluding with Russia during the campaign.
What did Trump say about the meeting as President-Elect? Have they at least caught Trump in a lie?
The Kochs’ man. I know.
Dean, you say nothing will come from it. Suppose there was a vote on Trump’s impeachment in the House, and if it passed his conviction in the Senate.
One change, both are done with secret ballots.
What do you think the result would be?
Kind of a loaded question, since it posits that an impeachment vote would occur. With the other condition, what do I think would happen? The impeachment would fail (part lines) and never make it to the Senate.
I’m not sure about the House side, but my feeling is that with a secret ballot, Trump is gone. Too much of the Republican Party hates Trump, agreeing with Bill Kristol in private(though they probably think Bill is delusional).
MikeN, how would you answer your hypothetical impeachment question?
Interesting take MikeN, but I’ll stick with my response for this (possibly 100% wrong) reason. Even with the vote being secret, if things went against President Trump one, or the other, or both of these things would happen (again, purely my conjecture)
– The Republican core (not just the extreme right) would be extremely pissed, and vocal, and begin lobbying for “blood” against the folks in the House and Senate
– The Republicans who didn’t vote for impeachment would go public in order to
defend themselves
I don’t think they want to risk any of that.
I do think they are right if they have that opinion of Kristol.
I agree with the aftermath. Now what happens if the Senate vote is 70-30, and 47 Republicans claim they voted to acquit? I’m assuming McCain, Flake, Corker, Collins, and one of {Graham, Murkowski, Hatch, Ayotte} would declare as yes.
You have a point about actually getting to the vote.
Check out Bill Kristol’s Twitter feed. He thinks Trump will be defeated for the nomination in 2020 if he is not impeached.
70-30 to convict? I think that’s what you mean so I’ll go with it. I’d be amazed the vote to impeach passed, and more amazed the Senate vote went the way it did. If the vote were that split, with that many Republicans saying “Hey, don’t blame me”, the Republicans who voted to convict would be politically crucified and the blitz against the Democratic Senators would be so extreme it would make the worst things we’ve seen today look no worse than drunk Uncle Fred farting during grandma’s Christmas dinner blessing.
I’d like to think that, in order for things to reach such a drastic stage, some news, that would clearly be evidence of serious criminal activity would have come to light. Even if the emotions of the moment prevented groups of people of seeing the need for impeachment and conviction, the evidence would be there for history to see.
Missed this in the other response.
I have twitter account, but use it for one reason: I follow a few comedians, and check the feed every few days for a few chuckles. I’m just not focused enough to use it for anything else.
I guess I forgot to account for the gap between House and Senate votes. A House vote that produced impeachment would already provide the backlash, and might make Senators cringe. Of course it is again a secret ballot so the same thing would happen.
My overall point is while Republicans around the country are willing to support Trump, I’m not convinced this will happen in Congress to the same degree. Even without a Russia story, the majority of the Republican Senators would prefer if Trump was gone.
“My overall point is while Republicans around the country are willing to support Trump, I’m not convinced this will happen in Congress to the same degree. Even without a Russia story, the majority of the Republican Senators would prefer if Trump was gone.”
I’ve heard that before, burning don’t pretend to have a clue why there would be such a split.
Yea, I didn’t think thru the part where for a real vote to happen some evidence would have to be out there that changes the situation.
Again, how would people know who voted to convict, with 20+ votes and less than half of them admitting to it?
[Link to white supremacist site deleted. Bill, don’t do that again.]
Deanspeak, “Your “80%” comment is simply projection from someone (you) who can’t muster a logical argument.”
Do you want me to PM this to you? Perhaps you are forgetful or
just being your specious self.
Deanspeak, “It’s a shame you don’t like facts — whether your habitual dishonesty is due to your religion, your political views, your hatred of minorities, ”
I outlink you by 10 to one; blaming my religiosity for my
personal shortcoming , Rev Dean, you have no talking points;
and please provide proof that I diss minorities? And how
do know that I am not a minority?
You do have an scientic flair in writing, whether it is fact
or fiction. Unfortunately, it tends to be the latter.
Have you EVER agreed with a single viewpoint that
I presented? Have I EVER told the truth?
Dear visitors, watch alert: a canard front is approaching.
Breitbart again? Folks who push anti-Semitism, white nationalist, and support Nazis?
You make my car for me by referencing them, all the while putting the lie to your claims of morality and ability to think.
You choose to side with horrible people. Don’t expect others to avoid pointing that out.
Make my case for me, not car.
>They write everything down carefully, have witnesses, etc.
That depends on how you define ‘carefully’.
In general, they don’t have videotape or a transcript of the interview.
Everything comes from notes made by the agents.
This was big in DeflateGate, where a key damning piece of evidence is when asked why he went to the bathroom, the ballboy said ‘I don’t know.’ An actual transcript could show this in context.
Your post title has two phrases. Flynn lied to the FBI, yes.
But why is Mueller charging him?
His appointment violated Justice Department regulations and federal law on appointment of a special counsel, because it failed to specify a criminal investigation that Mueller was tasked with.
Ignoring that, we were told he was investigating Russian influence on the 2016 election, and Trump’s involvement in it, and anything that comes up during that investigation.
How is Flynn’s lying in a conversation to the FBI that happened in 2017 about activity that happened after the election relevant to Mueller’s investigation? Why did he bring the charges instead of DOJ?