And for another perspective on Flynn outside the spin zone.

This article discusses the curiously overlooked question of why Flynn lied. So far the defense of his actions are that he did lie, but it was immaterial.
Maybe not.

“Flynn’s lies mattered not because of some technicality about the Logan Act, the ancient and much-disregarded law forbidding private diplomacy. Flynn’s lies mattered because they may have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.“

This is the significance that is ignored in the whole fiasco heretofore known as “pardoning by surrogate” or “lowering the Barr”.

Good article that seems to adhere to Occam’s Razor much better than “selected others”.


28 thoughts on “And for another perspective on Flynn outside the spin zone.

  1. I raised this point yesterday and it does bear further investigation.

    I think there is s very real possibility that Flynn may have some VERY incriminating information on trump vis-a- vis Russia and trump is afraid he’ll use it if he has to serve time.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Not that I’ve heard, my guess is he’s mulling over demanding an explanation and determining “with“ versus “without” prejudice.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. If I was a betting man (I am) I would bet he’ll leave it “open” to re-file so the Foreign lobbying he did for Turkey (that he walked on) can be prosecuted as well.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. RE: “Flynn’s lies mattered not because of some technicality about the Logan Act, the ancient and much-disregarded law forbidding private diplomacy. Flynn’s lies mattered because they may have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.” (David Frum)

    And yet Frum doesn’t offer any evidence of any deal Flynn may have wanted to conceal. As a result, Frum’s speculations add nothing to the Flynn story.

    The fact remains that prior to interviewing Flynn FBI investigators had recommended closing their investigation of him, but were overruled by the “7th floor,” meaning senior officials. Until we see the original record of the interview (the “FD 302”) we won’t know anything specific about Flynn’s lies.


    1. We do know all about his lies. He did lie and admitted so, twice.

      The question seems to be why.

      I think there was good reason to believe that national security was at risk with Trump. And with Flynn’s lies, it would certainly cause someone to question a cover up.

      Liked by 4 people

          1. Not really. You are calling Flynn a liar. He is the person who pleaded guilty. Twice.

            Now if you want to get the transcripts to prove Flynn did or did not lie go right ahead.

            Until then I will gladly settle for the words of Flynn under oath.

            Liked by 3 people

          2. @Roberts

            For some one who spends so much time and effort spreading Trump’s famous “alternative facts” you are pretty damn quick to accuse someone else of dishonesty.

            People lie for a reason. Especially when they are being interviewed by the FBI.

            Liked by 2 people

  3. Tell you what. let a skilled interviewer intending to get you in a perjury trap interview you about your conversation the last time you ate out in a real restaurant several times over a period of days and see if he can’t get you in an inconsistency that can be charged as a lie.

    And let him ruin you financially and threaten to do the same to other members of your family, and see if he can’t get you to confess.


    1. Why would I lie?

      Flynn lied about covert contacts with Russians countering a sanction applied by the US government. Many contacts. He lied about lobbying for Turkey.

      How was he trapped?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Cite? What specific lies?

        Lobbying for Turkey is probably legitimate, but it’s a civil offense.

        As for contact with Russia, he was the incoming NSA, not establishing relationships would be negligent. The Logan Act has never been enforced and was never intended to cover contacts between diplomats in the first place.


        1. Well then a simple “yes I did talk to Kiskyak several time’s about the sanctions, why do you ask?”

          What or who was Flynn trying to protect or hide and why?

          National security was at stake. Not a dinner conversation.

          BTW Flynn was not a diplomat.

          Liked by 2 people

      2. Why would you lie? Who said you would.

        But you might well make inconsistent statements that could be spun as lies.

        Anyone who tells the same story exactly the same repeatedly is probably telling a rehearsed lie. normal people are not perfectly consistent.

        That’s how perjury traps work.


        1. Flynn lied consistently so it was rehearsed? That makes it worse. Who or what was Flynn hiding and protecting becomes a really important part of this travesty.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Again, what specific lies?

            As far as I know, the interview forms still have not been released, so I don’t know if there were material differences that really rise to the level of perjury.

            After all, Flynn was not tried, he was coerced into a confession with threats of the financial destruction of his son, and decided a short jail term was preferable.


    2. @Tabor

      Perjury traps only work on people who are willing to commit perjury to hide their activities. Flynn did not lie about what he had for dinner. He lied about his discussions with a significant agent of a hostile foreign government.

      You keep accusing this battle hardened soldier of being spineless – someone who could be forced to confess to something he did not do by financial threats. Why so little respect?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Same question as for Len

        Lies or immaterial inconsistencies?

        The matter never came to trial and the evidence has not been produced. Instead he was coerced into confessing to protect his son.

        There is nothing spineless about choosing a few weeks in jail over harm to your children.


        1. Material inconsistencies. Really?

          He lied about several conversations and their content with a Russian ambassador giving assurance that sanction relief was coming. The first one was just days after sanctions were applied because of interference in our election.

          You just don’t get that if he had told the truth about the meetings and phone calls as well as his relationship with RT and the Turkish government it would not have cost him a nickel.

          We had been “hacked” and our elections tampered with so this was serious stuff. A loose cannon like Flynn could wreak havoc with our own state security.

          Prosecutors have been getting guilty people to turn state’s evidence forever. So that is neither illegal nor unethical.

          But in this case the lies were directly related to possible Russian connections and collusions with a whole slew of Trump’s folks.

          I would expect any outgoing president to be cautious and ensure investigations were followed through.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Again, where are you getting that? As far as I know, no recordings or transcripts have been released, we only have the allegations of the prosecutors.


          2. @Tabor

            Only the allegations of the prosecutors and, oh yeah, Flynn’s confessions after hearing what is on those recordings. Guess what, they were not discussing which kind of vodka to have with borscht. If those recordings are not criminal, Trump has full authority to release them. And, if they were not criminal he would have done so.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Skilled interviewer or not – if you ARE NOT telling lies, you more than likely WILL NOT get caught perjuring yourself.

    It doesn’t matter how many of your family members of Flynn were facing financial ruin, etc., etc., – he should have been telling the truth while sitting for an interview under oath. Those two words, ‘under oath’, make all the difference; and someone of Flynn’s stature in the WH should have been at least smart enough to understand that. He obviously was/is not.

    Any thinking person would surmise that once ‘djt’ was notified of the danger in having Flynn in such a high position, ‘djt’ would have got rid of him ‘pdq’. Naa . . . we all know the faux prez is no way, no how going to take advice, let alone instructions from a female.

    It’s probably no secret why the corrupt oval office squatter surrounds himself with corrupt people; for one reason – so he’ll always have something on them.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. “Skilled interviewer or not – if you ARE NOT telling lies, you more than likely WILL NOT get caught perjuring yourself.”

    You would thing that this self-evident truth would sink in, but these Trumpeters clearly do not care about truth in any form.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s