Talk:Michael Flynn/Archive 5

RfC: Release of new documents, possible perjury trap
On April 24, 2020, there was a release of previously-unseen documents relating to the investigation of Michael Flynn, including one that shows that, before the meeting with Flynn, one FBI agent had written, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?". Should this article mention this release of documents? And if so, should it be done in the context of allegations that Flynn was the target of a perjury trap? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You can see one attempt at creating a section that does both, here. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This RfC is still ongoing, despite the U.S. Department of Justice dropping its case against Flynn, because there is not yet a clear consensus on this question. Please continue to share your opinions below. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No Putting that quote in there without context would make it appear as though the FBI did something inappropriate in their interrogation of Flynn, and there is no evidence to suggest that is the case. Legal experts say it does not show entrapment. The release of documents is WP:ROUTINE, WP:ROTM, and this article already appears to suffer from proseline-like additions of each step of the court process. These documents are nothing more than fodder for the WP:FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the FBI does not do things inappropriately? Judge Sullivan OVERTURNED THE CONVICTION OF TED STEVENS for precisely that reason, seems they have not changed their tactics.  I will bet there was a big "Ah $%^&" sigh when he was chosen to oversee the sentencing of Flynn and an even BIGGER ONE when he demanded they turn over any exculpatory evidence from the FBI AFTER THE CONVICTION on plea. Especially now that we know that Strzok transcript of his text was just released  that he altered the 302 extensively trying to write it in the voice of the original agent to influence an investigation which is a Felony punishable for 20 years.173.172.158.168 (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems that the comment "including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant's supplemental pleadings" from the filing is talking about these notes. So based on that I'm striking my vote. I'm not supporting its inclusion. A whole 'nother process is needed to figure out what we should say. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both. Even if Flynn's view that he was caught in a perjury trap - and that these documents help to prove it - was a completely insane, fringe theory, it would still be worth covering here because it represents his views, and his legal defense: ultimately, this is an article about Michael Flynn. However, it's far from a fringe theory, by Wikipedia standards, since it's shared by a variety of American newspaper editorial boards, legal analysts, and politicians, all of whom have written or talked about it publicly. The evidence for including all of this in the article is pretty overwhelming. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to mentioning the document release, as a major development, widely covered by reliable sources. I don't think we should add "context", unless RS'es do so. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck comment by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to mentioning the document release and Flynn's subsequent filings, as well as legal expert opinions on their (lack of) significance. Such an addition accurately reflects new developments in the Flynn case and provides needed NPOV to the earlier proceedings. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No to both. I suspect the reason why the full quote (ie. context) hasn't been recommended by those wishing to add this content in: is because it would then appear be a pretty innocuous practice, and yes, run of the mill reporting. If anything, I'd be curious to see what happens in the next few weeks with respect to this latest "development", and then would reconsider if necessary. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 11:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No - Per my previous comments. The proposed material is full of partisan talking points, and disproportionate weight given to a ploy by Flynn's lawyers and Flynn's non-law-respecting supporters. I'm open to considering including something, but I would want to see the wording worked out first and it would have to be much more concise and factual. - MrX 🖋 11:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What about "On April 24, U.S Attorney Timothy J. Shea sent a letter to Flynn's counsel stating that in January 2020, Attorney General Barr had directed U.S Attorney Shea to review reports along with communications and notes by the FBI personal associated with the Michael Flynn Investigation "Crossfire Razor." The letter goes on to state that new evidence in the investigation was found and turned over to the court and opposition counsel under seal." There is no need to focus on the partisan talking points, but a simple and neutral update is appropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Something along those lines would probably be fine, after changing the word personal to person. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No We don't elevate empty talking points that are disregarded by the mainstream. "Perjury trap" is rare as the Dodo Bird and does not apply to the facts surrounding this event. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes The idea that this was "disregarded by the mainstream" is just not true as the NYT has covered it precisely in the context of an argument over whether or not it was a perjury trap. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, we should do the same. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both Backed by reliable sources. ~ HAL  333  16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both and to Crossfire Razor. Also you really miss the point, FBI thought he did not lie and wanted to close it (there was even a hidden part in court documents that he is not guilty), that is why the guilty plea did not work. It all was pending for so long because Peter Strzok reopened it and as emails show it was not fancy. Also wanted to tell that https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/judge-delays-michael-flynns-sentence-again.html and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJVc5GSjpSU can also be used as sources (even though the second is opinion). 91.76.22.132 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC) — 91.76.22.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes to both since they are supported by substantial sources. Idealigic (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both it gave context to Flynn's defense arguments and is supported by reliable sources Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both since there is now large WEIGHT of coverage, and this is part of DOJ dropping charges has large BLP impact on Flynn’s life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to both close per WP:SNOW. Buffs (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to quote, No to "perjury trap" - Include the quote as shown. The note as quoted is heavily reported and quoted, plus that is direct info without spin.  But no to using the phrase "perjury trap", as the phrase seems less commonly used, a bit too inflammatory/POV opinionating versus the WP:BLP quidance to show restraint, and it's just not necessary for the BLP context.  I don't doubt that it is a reasonable label to apply, but the impact for Flynn BLP purposes is in the DOJ dropping charges and saying the investigation was not justified, which all POVs agree happened.   That the investigation used hardball tactics unusual for this context of nor not following normal procedure, seeking a lie, and pursued his business partner and son is significant details that can be neutrally stated.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Inflammatory or no (and accurate or no), the phrase "perjury trap" has been used by quite a few people to describe the Flynn case, including, a few days ago, Attorney General Barr. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes to both The well-documented and well-sourced perjury trap is not a made-up term or event, and should be in the article. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 22:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No - So, it is a trick to ask someone a question they may lie to? If it is ever used in WP, the full context must be included. O3000 (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the only reason the question is asked is in the hope that the person will lie (or at least say something false), then yes, that's a trick - and if that's done when the person is under oath, then it's what's known as a perjury trap. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And so what if it is a perjury trap? From our article on it: No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap.[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to know - maybe that's worth including in this article as well. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Care to explain that? O3000 (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what there is to explain. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - regarding I must say that I object to (1) the usage of opinion sources (Wall Street Journal editorial board) for the introduction of such content, and (2) the usage of the National Review and the New York Post per WP:RSP, as there is no consensus that either is reliable. Courtesy ping of, who wrote it.  starship  .paint  (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think those citations are fine, since they're mostly being used to cite opinion, rather than factual content; but it makes more sense to talk about this once the RfC is closed. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - if your best citations for this controversial material are opinion pieces and sources of questionable reliability, I might as well vote No. We have to have appropriate reliable sources to satisfy WP:DUE.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not up to me alone to find citations, and I'm sure others can find more, but I think the citations I did find are fine, and a lot of them are from straight news sources, including The Washington Post and CBS News. Which is not surprising, since the "perjury trap" theory has been advocated by both the Attorney General and Flynn's lawyers, among others. (You would think that a theory held by both the prosecution and the defense of the USA v. Flynn case merits obvious inclusion in an article about Michael Flynn, but clearly some people disagree.) Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No to both. The 1st part gives false impression that FBI did something wrong & the 2nd gives the false impression that the FBI did something illegal. There is no evidence that the FBI did anything wrong in questioning Flynn and no evidence the FBI did anything illegal by questioning Flynn. Flynn willingly chose to lie to the FBI  & then Flynn chose (twice) to plead guilty to lying to the FBI & then Flynn chose to testify, under oath, that he is guilty of lying to the FBI. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras asked Flynn "“Do you plead guilty or not guilty?” Flynn replied “Guilty, your Honor." There is no such thing as a "perjury trap."  It is common & legal for law enforcement to know the answers to questions they ask suspects in advance, without telling the suspect that they already know the answer.  It is the burden of the suspect to tell the truth, no matter what law enforcement knows in advance of questioning. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No to both. This is a selective release of material. The person who made this comment says so himself (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/politics/bill-priestap-michael-flynn.html). Casprings (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What does it mean for something to be "selectively" released? And is there a rule that such selectively-released material should not be reported on on Wikipedia? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean they declassified one part of an internal debate to create a false narrative.Casprings (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there was a rule on Wikipedia against mentioning partially-declassified information. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but one cannot blindly include a false narrative that is part of a cover-up as if it's the whole truth. We do not do that here. When dealing with fringe and false narratives, such as conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, we always give more weight to the factual mainstream view, not to the fringe/false view, even when it comes from the now-sitting government of the USA. Nothing coming from Trump's Justice Department, FBI, CIA, anything, can be trusted. We do not give fringe views more weight than they deserve. -- Valjean (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes to both-Well supported by evidence. Display name 99 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Moot?
I'd say this is pretty moot now that the case against him has been dropped. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this RfC is moot now, which actually helps prove my point that encyclopedias, which are written for a historical perspective, require more patients with WP:BREAKING news. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignoring that bit of illogic, I'm not sure this RfC is moot (though I hope it is). A big part of the reason why this RfC was necessary is the special protected status of this article, which dictates that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged". Which means that one or a small group of editors can prevent even obvious changes from getting made, on the grounds of "no consensus". You would think that, with this latest news, it would be obvious that Flynn's argument about a perjury trap belong in this article - but then again, it seemed obvious before too, and a handful of editors thought otherwise. So it all depends on whether these specific editors have all changed their minds or not. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No "illogic", if that's even a word. This is why WP:BREAKING was written. We need to take a historical perspective on all events, and legal minutiae that amounts to nothing is WP:UNDUE. If indeed the documents are the impetus for dropping charges, that makes it imperative to include. My opinion on this has changed 180 degrees because the facts on the ground have changed since this RfC was opened. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're unsure if something's a word or not, we have recently created a handy tool called a 'dictionary', where you can look it up - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illogic. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , that snark is not needed. I don't care enough if it's a word to bother looking it up. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)\
 * It was an appropriately snarky response to your "if that's even a word" comment, which was itself a totally gratuitous and condescending snark. I'm glad my point came across clearly. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that the case for including these facts is even stronger now doesn't prove that the case for doing it before was weak. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. That's true. It was my opinion, and the opinion of some of the others who commented, that the case for doing it before was weak. I stand by that. Actual impact (like the DOJ dropping the case, or if the judge had thrown it out) makes for a different situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We will have to see what develops, but I think there will be lots of commentary about how AG Barr may have concluded that the entrapment thing wouldn't fly and didn't want to risk further upsetting his boss. With the opposite, as noted, from the TV judges.  SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s certainly easier to attack Barr and ignore IG reports and document releases showing potential misconduct in these investigations. Per his statement the decision came from US attorney Jensen. But let’s see how “RS” covers it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it came from him. Barr's no dummy.  SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Amending my statement timestamped 19:03, 7 May 2020 above, the RfC isn't "moot", but the question has been rendered out of date somewhat based on the changed situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In what way is it out of date? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, the charges were dropped. That changes the entire nature of this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s just a run of the mill undue update though, isn’t it? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , remember to WP:AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking of good faith, how about changing your vote? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How does one relate to the other? I'm waiting to see more press coverage of the dismissal to see exactly how the FBI notes factor in. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So... your opinion on this has not changed 180 degrees, then? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When editing an encyclopedia, one should exercise caution. I haven't had a chance to read the dismissal memo. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll say this in your favor: as your opinion keeps changing, your confidence in your own wisdom never falters. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion only changes with the facts and the coverage of reliable sources. I see the quote " including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant's supplemental pleadings". I can only assume that means the notes? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, given that this RfC still appears to be necessary, anyone should feel free to change their vote if they've changed their opinion on it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Not moot - the coverage WEIGHT and BLP impact is increased because this was a direct impetus to dropping charges. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As of May 11 2020, DOJ has announced its intention to file a motion to dismiss. Until this is ruled on by the judge, Flynn remains. convicted felon based on his guilty plea accepted in court. Judge will rule on DOJ motion in court. Until that time, Flynn remains convicted of a felony. Joey.J (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Case has not been “dropped” until judge rules on the motion to dismiss. It may be denied. Joey.J (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Unarchived
I have requested a formal closure of this at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. If there is a consensus, it is not a strong one. Several commenters simply stated a preference without making any policy based arguments. - MrX 🖋 11:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to Remove the following sections
Due to the fact we now have transcripts that prove General Flynn did not discuss the sanctions and Kysliac was the only one to mention them, these sections are MOOT, and are full of falsehoods and need to be removed immediately. After talking to McFarland, Flynn immediately proceeded to call Kisylak.[123] Flynn, in discussing the recent sanctions, gave advice to Kislyak that the Russian government should not escalate the situation, avoiding a "tit for tat".[125][126][127] After talking to Kisylak, Flynn informed McFarland of what he had discussed with Kisylak.[114][119] The December 29 conversation between Flynn and Kislyak was intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies who routinely monitor Kislyak.[113] Transcripts of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations exist, but the Department of Justice under the Trump administration declined to make them public as of June 2019.[128] On January 12, columnist David Ignatius, writing for The Washington Post, made public that Flynn had called Kislyak on December 29, citing a "senior U.S. government official". Ignatius pointed out that this was the same day that the U.S. announced the sanctions against Russia, and questioned if Flynn had said anything to "undercut the U.S. sanctions".[135][136][137] According to the Mueller Report, the following events happened: Trump reacted angrily to the article by The Washington Post. Trump's incoming chief-of-staff, Reince Priebus, told Flynn of this, stating: "Kill the story". Flynn instructed aide McFarland to lie to The Washington Post that Flynn had not discussed the sanctions with Kislyak on December 29. McFarland knew this was false, but followed Flynn's instructions.[127] Accordingly, The Washington Post reported the denial.[135] According to the Mueller Report, in the following days, Flynn proceeded to lie about not discussing the sanctions with Kislyak to incoming chief-of-staff Reince Priebus, incoming press secretary Sean Spicer, and vice president-elect Mike Pence. The trio publicly parroted Flynn's falsehood to the media, not knowing that it was false.[127][138] On January 13, Spicer said that the Flynn-Kisylak call was only "centered on the logistics" of setting up a Trump-Putin call after Trump became president.[137] On January 15, Priebus said: "I have talked to General Flynn. None of that came up, and the subject matter of sanctions or the actions taken by the Obama administration did not come up in the conversation."[137] On January 15, Pence said that he had discussed the matter with Flynn, and that the Flynn-Kisylak call "did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia".[127] As a result, the Obama administration officials feared that these publicly stated falsehoods would result in "a compromise situation for Flynn because the Department of Justice assessed that the Russian government could prove Flynn lied", stated the Mueller Report.[138]

There is only two mentions of sanctions and Kysliak brought them up both times and it seems Flynn did not bite on it from the transcripts. Therefore he did not discuss the sanctions. 67.10.206.161 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, for your information "moot" means open for disscussion, so please stop using it in that opposite sense. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:B401:8EF2:7E6:BD04 (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Reliable sources report the opposite of what you 67.10.206.161 are claiming. CNN reports, "declassified documents show that Flynn discussed in detail Russia's response to the Obama administration's sanctions, despite public denials at the time from senior Trump administration officials." CNN goes on to report, "The call summaries and transcripts show Flynn asked then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to "reciprocate moderately" in response to the sanctions" during a December 29, 2016, call. "In a follow-up call two days later, Kislyak told Flynn that Russia's response -- in which Russia did not escalate against the US -- was influenced by their earlier conversation." As you can see, that is completely opposite of what you're claiming so I do not support the removal of the section. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * CNN is not reading the same transcript I did, and they are twisting it from different sections of the transcript about disparate things. The same "RS" CNN that libeled a school kid because he had a MAGA hat on. CNN is NOT a reliable source when it comes to Trump. I gave a link TO THE TRANSCRIPT, read it for yourself instead of letting it go through a biased spin mill.67.10.206.161 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT SHADOW REMOVE AGAIN Unclassified Transcripts Show that General Flynn Never Mentioned Sanctions With His Call To Ambassador Kysliak

On May 29th 2020 Senator Charles E. Grassley Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee released now declassified phone call transcript between General Flynn and Soviet Ambassador Kislyak. The transcripts show that General Flynn did not mention sanctions on the phone call and only Ambassador Kislyak mentioned them. This shows that the agents of the FBI lied about him discussing sanctions, and falsely accused him of doing so. This exonerates General Flynn of lying, and shows that the FBI and United States Prosecutors forced him into a confession promising him they would leave his son alone and give him a light sentence on their false lying charge. 67.10.206.161 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are even more juicy material there, like "Americans did hacked this all". BTW, that is why I do not use voice mail. When you listen to it, it records back everything to ISP. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:B401:8EF2:7E6:BD04 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To 67.10.206.161 - You are mistaken. Reliable sources report the opposite of what you are claiming. "The declassified documents show that Flynn discussed in detail Russia's response to the Obama administration's sanctions," per CNN. CNN goes on to report, "The call summaries and transcripts show Flynn asked then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to "reciprocate moderately" in response to the sanctions, Flynn said on a December 29, 2016, call." BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, those were sanctions to USA itself. I mean sending russian diplomats from USA is USA problem not Russian. Kislyak also mentioned sanctions to FSB and GRU but without any answer from Flynn. 2A00:1FA0:452:CFEC:8CC4:66D9:39E6:BF59 (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No, 67, we're not going to add material based on your original interpretation of the transcripts. Get a reliable source from WP:RSP saying that - green coloured source.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, 67, this is Fox News   starship  .paint  (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Flynn NEVER mentioned the sanctions, the word "Sanction" was only mentioned twice by Kysliak, AND NOTHING that Flynn stated deminished the sanctions that Obama leveled against Russia. Flynn was being a DIPLOMAT is stating that there should not be a raising past what has been done with tit for tat actions, he NEVER stated that the Sanctions would be lifted, but that it is what they had to work with.  BESIDES, EVEN IF HE DID MENTION SANCTIONS, which he didn't, he was acting officially for the INCOMING Administration and what he did was NOT illegal, all of the left wing consternation of "it MAY be illegal"(it isn't).67.10.206.161 (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Come back with a reliable source saying that. WP:RSP, green colour.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the expulsions that Flynn discussed are part of the sanctions. Suggesting that the expulsions aren't part of sanctions simply because Flynn didn't use the word "sanctions" is like suggesting a discussion of "scrambled eggs" isn't a discussion of "food" unless you use the word "food." There's quite a bit of legal material about the meaning of "sanctions" in this context (e.g., the relevant executive orders and Obama's Dec. 2016 statements about sanctions, which included the expulsions). FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"A broad array of legal experts"
Do we need to start an RfC now for every dispute on this article? Now that an RfC has ruled that this article should mention the "perjury trap" theory, the latest dispute is whether the article should say that this theory is contested by "a broad array of legal experts". That's what this New York Times article seems to say - although reading the article closely, I don't think it actually says that. That sentence comes after eight paragraphs of detailing the views of both the Trump administration and Bill Barr - and only the last sentence in those eight paragraphs mentions the "perjury trap" theory at all. After the "broad array" sentence comes a quote from the only legal expert quoted in the article: Marshall L. Miller of the DoJ, who states that "Mr. Flynn admitted twice under oath that he lied to the F.B.I." This doesn't disprove the "perjury trap" theory, and it seems to refer to something mentioned much more prominently in those eight paragraphs, which is Trump et al.'s assertion that Flynn did not knowingly lie to the FBI. So, though, I wish the NYT article were better-worded, I'm pretty sure it's not saying anything at all about the perjury trap theory. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That NYT source might only quote one legal expert, but my understanding is that the vast majority have called bunk on the "perjury trap" story. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That Aaron Blake Washington Post column is a useful reference, but it's hardly definitive, because it was written in December 2018, before a bunch of relevant facts came to light. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha I didn't even notice the date it was published. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They said he didn't knowingly lie after it was beyond doubt that he lied. "Perjury trap" is more or less like cold fusion and adding "theory" brings it one step closer to being called "perjury trap conspiracy theory".  SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a bit late to argue whether we should talk about a "perjury trap" - there was already an RfC about it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "A broad array of legal experts disagree." is stated in The New York Times voice in direct refutation of Barr's opinion. If Barr's view is important enough to add to the article, then we need to also include the collective viewpoint of legal experts. - MrX 🖋 22:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's in refutation of Barr's overall opinion - and it seems to be specifically about his opinion that Flynn didn't lie to the FBI, not his opinion that the FBI conducted something like a perjury trap. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not how I read it at all. - MrX 🖋 23:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true that the wording is very ambiguous, but I think that the fact that the one quote from an expert in the article has nothing to do with entrapment makes it clear that they're not talking about that. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But it's not ambiguous. You don't seem to have comprehended the material. The phrase "... they concocted a reason to keep the case open for “the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn,” Mr. Barr said in the CBS interview." is immediately followed by the words "A broad array of legal experts disagree." The latter can't possibly be referring to something other than Barr's perjury trap theory. - MrX 🖋 14:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * NY Times: "Mr. Barr, for example, has recently argued that the F.B.I. interview of Mr. Flynn was not justified because agents who had been investigating him had not found any wrongdoing and were on the verge of closing the case. When agents found out about the call with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, they concocted a reason to keep the case open for “the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn,” Mr. Barr said in the CBS interview. A broad array of legal experts disagree." This is in direct response to the perjury trap theory proposed by Barr (i.e. the notion that the FBI had absolutely nothing to go on and decided to somehow trick Flynn into perjuring himself to save their investigation). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Your 11 June revert constitutes a violation of the editing restrictions on this page. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans - well, the way you formatted it, it certainly sounds like they disagree with the perjury trap. But that last line is on a new paragraph, and from context, it's pretty clear that the disagreement is with Barr's overall thinking about the Flynn case, and specifically his view that Flynn is innocent. Otherwise, why would the one quote from a legal expert have nothing to do with the perjury trap allegation? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You could simply edit this to "a number of prosecutors disagree," and cite https://www.justsecurity.org/70431/understanding-the-michael-flynn-case-separating-the-wheat-from-the-chaff-and-the-proper-from-the-improper/ -- see "For what it’s worth, however, the experienced prosecutors with whom I’ve consulted are uniformly certain it wasn’t such a trap." The statement about it in this source is unambiguous. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Is justsecurity.org a reliable source? If so, that citation, and wording, sound reasonable to me. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Will you take the decision of the court, when it arrives, or will that be just one more opinion?  SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that means, and it doesn't seem related to this discussion, but I don't believe Wikipedia takes judicial rulings as undisputed truth. Otherwise the article on Alger Hiss, for example, could be a lot shorter. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well at some point, if the court rules as is now apparently expected, the perjury trap thing will be outright FRINGE. In such an event, it will only be mentioned insofar as the politicization of Flynn's conviction is discussed. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe a view held by both the defense and the prosecution in a major trial can ever be considered fringe, but others may have different views on that. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If I may say so, that's a real problem for the talk page here. We don't go on what we ever think. We go on what the weight of RS presentations tell us. And if you're expressing a personal opinion, congratulations. But if your opinion turns out to be so marginal that it's not taken seriously in reliable sources then yes, it will be FRINGE and treated as such here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great talk. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Just Security is a reliable source: "Just Security is an online forum for the rigorous analysis of U.S. national security law and policy. We aim to promote principled and pragmatic solutions to national security problems that decision-makers face. Our Board of Editors includes individuals with significant government experience, civil society attorneys, academics, and other leading voices. Just Security is based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law." Marty Lederman, a law prof. at Georgetown, is the author of the piece I quoted from. I hope that I've formatted my response correctly. I'm not that experienced an editor, and this is my first day posting to a Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for alleged "perjury trap" wording
The following paragraph is just a suggestion to be used to begin gaining a consensus for Mike Flynn's alleged 'perjury trap' defense

Like I said, this is just a suggestion to start a conversation for a consensus on wording. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, on my screen there are 7 citations below my proposed paragraph. I have no idea why they are there, but I did not include them as sources in my proposal. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * To BetsyRMadison, those citations are associated with my attempt to revise the first paragraph, posted at the bottom of the discussion under "Allegations of "perjury trap" section." I'm new to posting to a Talk page, and have never posted proposed text before, and I do not yet know how to bound the text properly. If someone would be kind enough to direct me to a page that discusses this (e.g., how to set the text off in green), I'd appreciate it. Sorry to be creating problems. Re: your proposed text, I think it's important to include some text about the difference between "false statements" and "perjury," as well as the actual meaning of "perjury trap," which many people don't understand (e.g., it's not generally illegal to try to get someone to lie, as long as that's not your sole purpose for questioning them). Since I have next to no experience with Talk pages, how do people generally approach a problem like this productively? For ex., does each person independently write a version of the paragraph that they think would be good and people compare those? Do people simply start with a paragraph and propose edits to it? ... I'm not sure that shifting to a totally new paragraph makes most sense. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To FactOrOpinion - I appreciate all your hard work on this topic; however, as I explain here,, I do not support the paragraph you're talking about and that is why I proposed a completely different paragraph. I feel we should stick with what RS report on this topic and avoid writing legal briefs for any legal topic. You've been on WP 4 years longer than me so I can't answer all your questions but I feel you're doing just fine on this talk page. Keep up the good work.  BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BetsyRMadison - I like that, in your suggested wording of a section to cover the "perjury trap" allegations, the concept of a perjury trap is only mentioned once, and that's by someone denying that there was one. :) Again, there was already an RfC to cover this, and though I'm sure you wish the decision would have gone the other way, it's settled now, and you can't keep re-fighting it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Korny O&#39;Near - I feel you need to re-read the RfC closer's comments again. You seem to be very confused as to what the RfC closer wrote. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've read it, but help me out - what am I missing? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Korny O&#39;Near - You say you read the RfC closer's comments. Ok, then point me to the closer's comments telling us how many times we have to use the words "perjury trap."
 * Also, you made clear in your comment (here ) that what you really want to write in this WP article has zero (0) to do with the actual RfC questions; but all to do with your desire to write about "FBI motivation." You wrote to me, " TAnd whether or not Flynn did lie is irrelevant to the charge, which has to do strictly with the FBI's motivation. . ."
 * "FBI motivation" was  not  part of your 2-question RfC, so  no , that has not been agreed to.
 * Plus, you're wrong, Mike Flynn " willingly and knowingly " has everything to do with what Flynn pleaded guilty to & was charged with.
 * Look Korny, the talking-heads from the unreliable sources you use have no idea what the "motivation" of any FBI agent is, none, zero, zilch. You and the talking-heads are speculating - which to me amounts to nothing more than pushing unfounded conspiracy theories - and in the RfC we did not agree to push speculation or conspiracy theories. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the "perjury trap" allegation is based entirely on FBI motivation. If you think that mentioning it thus means pushing conspiracy theories (a valid opinion to have, though I don't share it), then yes, the RfC called for pushing conspiracy theories. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Korny O&#39;Near - The RfC did not mention "FBI motivation" so if you want to include "FBI motivation" you need to write another RfC.
 * As for the allegation of "perjury trap" that was started by Donald Trump in a tweet to deflect from his being investigated by Robert Mueller which is what Judge Sullivan debunked in his court room on December 18, 2018 - perhaps we should include that? BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think "perjury trap" means, in this context? When Attorney General Barr says there was a perjury trap, what is he saying? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * TO Korny O&#39;Near - what part of Judge Sullivan already debunked the entire "perjury trap" allegation are you finding difficult to understand?
 * Do you not understand this part: Flynn  reiterated his guilt " to Judge Sullivan and told the judge that he knew "it was a crime to lie to the F.B.I.."
 * Or maybe you don't understand this part: Mr. Kelner told Judge Sullivan that he was not trying to imply a perjury trap but was "merely trying to show that Mr. Flynn had been held to a higher standard than two other people who had pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators for the special counsel: George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign aide, and Alex van der Zwaan,"
 * Or perhaps it's this part you don't understand: Judge Sullivan dismissed the comparison and underscored that Mr. Flynn is "a high-ranking government official who had betrayed the government’s trust by lying. Mr. Flynn deceived not only F.B.I. agents, but also senior White House officials, who then repeated his lies to the American public. This is a very serious offense. This case is in a category by itself.”
 * To be clear : your RfC did not include "FBI motivation" so, if you want to include "FBI motivation" then you need to write a new RfC. BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Take your time, though, if you need to think about it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Korny O&#39;Near - I already answered you and apparently you don't like my answer. BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you did, but everyone here can judge for themselves. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * To BetsyRMadison, thanks, I understand your concern better now, and I replied in the other section. I need a bit of time to think about how to revise it now that I better understand the concerns and also my own views about what's important to point out. Thanks for the words of encouragement. I signed up a few years ago but then didn't do any editing until a few months ago, after I attended another edit-a-thon, so I'm really pretty inexperienced. I'm slowly learning how to learn from others' editing (such as how to use colons for indentation, identify the person I'm addressing, and now I see that you used a "tq2" for the green block text and found the WP template page with more info about that, so I'll go back and fix my earlier mistake). FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To FactOrOpinion - you're doing great & I'm glad you're here. The more the merrier! BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I've thought about this a bit more, and my sense is that it would actually be more productive to first sort out what points we think should be included, rather than the specific text. [Edit: in light of the discussion in the "Serious questions around the RfC on FBI alleged "perjury trap"" section, I no longer think the following merits discussion, so I'm striking it.] Here are the kinds of claims that have appeared so far, and whether there's reliable evidence for them: What are the main points? 1. Some people have contended that Flynn's FBI interview was intended as legal trap. [We have citations for Flynn's legal team and Attorney General Barr; a claim was made about "some analysts and politicians," but no citations were provided, though they shouldn't be hard to find.] 2. Other people dispute this and argue there was no legal trap. [It would make sense to find a citation for the prior DOJ prosecutors. I have some citations for some analysts and prosecutors.] 3. Terms like “entrapment” and “perjury trap” have legal definitions. The interview doesn’t meet those definitions. A more appropriate term might be “false statements trap.” [We have some citations.] 4. Those alleging a trap may also claim that there was no valid criminal predicate for the interview. However, the interview had a counterintelligence predicate. [I have some citations.] 5. There is some relevant testimony under oath from Flynn, including Flynn’s statements that he was aware that it’s illegal to lie and that he knowingly and willingly made false statements. [We have some citations.] Do people think that all 5 of these points belong, or should any be omitted? Are there any additional points? I think it also makes sense to sort out what a RS is in this case. It seems to me that if you're only claiming that person A claimed X, then any source with a true quote from person A is acceptable, even if it's a blog, op-ed, etc. For example, here's an example of an analyst and former AUSA saying that Flynn wasn't entrapped: https://cafe.com/the-wall-street-journal-is-wrong-on-flynn/ That source isn't normally a RS, but as long as Honig is saying what he's saying and is legitimately a CNN analyst and former prosecutor, I personally don't think it should matter that he wrote it on Cafe rather than saying it on CNN. But I don't know how others feel about this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of "perjury trap" section
I just removed this from the article - temporarily. Now I know the RfC says we're to have a section on this, but the above needs a lot of work before introduction. I've already objected before. (1) The opinion piece by the Wall Street Journal editorial board needs to be clearly stated as such. (2) There is no consensus that the National Review and the New York Post are reliable, per WP:RSP. We should not use them for statements of fact, if we are using them for opinion, it should be clearly attributed. (3) There are unsourced statements that need sourcing.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - notifying you as you added the material. Let's use this section to draft up the appropriate material.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The material sourced to the low quality New York Post should be removed. The phrase "... while perjury can only happen when the perpetrator is under oath," is not supported by the National Review. In general, there seems to be some original research in this material. - MrX 🖋 11:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please re-add the section, and feel free to make any changes you think should be made, then. It's very strange to delete an entire section because you don't think some of its sources are good enough. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to provide adequate BLP sourcing for any content you feel is relevant and has due weight for this article. P.S. it is a crime to lie to the FBI.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is the onus on me? There's consensus that there should be such a section, and I provided a starting version for it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who added the text "Making false statements to the FBI is illegal even when one is not under oath, so the contention is more correctly characterized as a 'false statements trap.'" I originally added a citation from emptywheel.net, which is a blog by the independent journalist Marcy Wheeler (see her Wikipedia entry for more info). She's interviewed as a reliable source by other media, like NPR. But someone removed the citation, as it's to her blog. If people don't think her blog is a reliable source, that's fine. The sentence really shouldn't need a citation; the conclusion follows from straightforward definitions and logic. Flynn cannot be guilty of perjury because he was not under oath and did not make a declaration under penalty of perjury (see, e.g., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621); instead, he can only be guilty of making false statements (and I linked to the page about the latter). Since perjury doesn't apply in the context of an FBI interview, but false statements can apply, if there is an allegation of a "trap," it would logically have to be a false statements trap, not a perjury trap. People don't generally comment on "false statements traps," as they aren't common, so there simply aren't a lot of sources to link to about it. If you accept CNN, here's an example of CNN legal analyst Michael Zeldin making the same distinction for Kushner: "Well, he is not under oath so it's not perjury, but if he makes a false statement to Mueller and his FBI investigators, it can be prosecuted as a false statement if it was done knowingly and intentionally and involved a material aspect of the inquiry. ... And I'd be very surprised with Kushner ... that Kushner's going to find himself in a 1,001 false statements trap" (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1711/29/cnnt.02.html). Given this clarification: do you still think it needs a citation, and if so, is that an acceptable source? Also, the Cornell link re: perjury can be used as a citation for "perjury can only happen when the perpetrator is under oath." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To FactOrOpinion - "false statement trap" seems to imply that Mike Flynn was "trapped" into lying to the FBI - which is not true. In Federal Court  on December 1, 2017 Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to "willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations" to the FBI; therefore, Flynn was not 'trapped.' And, because Flynn pleaded guilty to lying, "Mr. Flynn hurt his credibility." In a statement released by Flynn's lawyers, Flynn wrote, "I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong ... I am working to set things right. My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the special counsel’s office reflect a decision I made ... I accept full responsibility for my actions.”  Since Flynn pleaded guilty in Federal Court to his crimes of "willfully and knowingly" lying to the FBI, it is wrong for WP editors to promote any such ridiculous, unfounded, allegation of "trap" or "entrapment." BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BetsyRMadison - too late; there was already an RfC about this. FactOrOpinion - thank you for finding that additional citation. I've re-added the "perjury trap" section, now with the citation of CNN Tonight as well as the other one you found, of Just Policy. I'm glad that you, at least, are being constructive here. I think if the other involved editors here spent as much time trying to improve this section as they did criticizing it and/or trying to delete it, this conflict would have been resolved already. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Korny O&#39;Near - You are mistaken and you should remove (self-revert) what you just reinserted for two reasons:
 * 1) the RfC did not determine what verbiage to use - so you don't get to decide that verbiage all by yourself, and
 * 2) the RfC closer wrote, "Q: May the incident be described as a "perjury trap"? A: Not in Wikipedia's voice. There is very clear, and firmly policy-based, support for the view that this is opinion and should not be described as fact in Wikipedia's voice for fear of an unconscionable breach of NPOV. The article may say for example that the Wall Street Journal's position is that this amounted to a perjury trap."
 * Perhaps you did not read my RS, the RS I gave is the Federal court judge and Flynn's guilty plea, both, debunking any "perjury trap" theory.
 * Finally, Korny, there is no reason for you to start an "edit war" by insisting on forcing WP editors to use verbiage, your verbiage, that has not been agreed upon. I again, I urge you to self-revert and use your time constructively by helping to find a consensus on verbiage. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, the RfC did not say what verbiage to use - and you're also right that I don't get to decide the verbiage either. I put in some wording that I thought made sense, and I encourage anyone to change it - but just deleting the whole thing is not a good approach. And I was careful not to put these allegations in Wikipedia's voice (did I?). As for this supposed proof that there was no perjury trap: the issue is not whether or not Flynn knowingly lied (though that, too, is an open question), but whether or not the FBI talked to him in the hope that he would lie - and his guilty plea has no bearing on that. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * To Korny O&#39;Near - You had no consensus by other WP editors to put wording that you thought made sense, so you should self revert.
 * 1. The RfC closer was clear "No specific wording has gained consensus during this RfC, so I have decided not to edit the article as a result of this close. I do hope that editors will be able to agree specific wording without the need for another formal RfC." Therefore, you should self-revert so that WP editors can come to a consensus.
 * 2. In December 2017 and again in December 2018, in Federal court Mike Flynn admitted to Judge Sullivan that he "willingly and knowingly" lied to the FBI - so there is not an "open question" on that.
 * 3. Flynn pleaded guilty, twice, in Federal court to "willingly and knowingly" lied to the FBI and Flynn admitting his guilt to willfully & knowingly lying has zero to do with whether or not the FBI wanted him to lie or did not want him to lie.
 * Just do the right thing Korny, and self-revert so WP editors can come to a consensus on the verbiage. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * - the WP:ONUS is on you - read it. If you had one problematic paragraph and the other was fine, I'd have removed only one. But both paragraphs have problems. If you would even cite reliable references for your very first sentence, that can be included immediately.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, we're talking about two different onuses. Anyway, deleting an entire section is a strange way to deal with problems - especially since there was just an RfC to put in such a section. Please restore it, remove whatever you don't think belongs, and let's work from there. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way - I think a Wall Street Journal editorial opining that Flynn was entrapped is a perfectly good citation for the sentence "This alleged motivation has been referred to as entrapment". Of course, if the sentence were "Flynn was entrapped", you'd need a much stronger citation (or many). But as proof just that the opinion has been stated, I think it works fine. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Korny O&#39;Near - It seems to me that you have forgotten that no consensus on verbiage was agree upon. And, by you attempting to force other WP editors to use verbiage you came up with all by yourself - verbiage that you know in advance of putting that in is verbiage that you know other WP editors object to - could start a possible edit war, which is not in the best interest of WP. For example, an Op/ed is not a RS. Not even if it's an Op/ed from WSJ. Let's work together on this, self-revert the verbiage you added, and avoid edit wars. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by "forcing", but yes, an op-ed can be a reliable source; please see WP:BIASED. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's get some consensus on how to word this material before jamming it back into the article. I don't appreciate Korny removing "... a view which has been rejected by "a broad array of legal experts"." after our extensive discussion above. - MrX 🖋 18:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to re-add the "broad array of legal experts" wording, then. Nobody argued with FactOrOpinion's suggested alternate wording, so I assumed everyone was fine with it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI Korny, the editorial and op-ed content of the Wall St. Journal is largely garbage. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Korny O&#39;Near - You are attempting "force" WP editors to use verbiage that you know other WP editors object to by putting in verbiage that you & you alone decided upon. SPECIFICO is correct, the "editorial" from the WSJ editorial board is "largely garbage" because, not only do other RS debunk that WSJ editorial, the WSJ editorial debunks itself:
 * 1. The WSJ contends that the FBI should have warned Flynn not to lie -- NYT reports that Judge Sullivan debunked that notion in Federal court on December 18, 2018.
 * 2. The WSJ editoral debunks itself by contradicting itself. First they write that the FBI told Flynn he could have a lawyer from the White House Counsel’s Office present during questioning but Flynn declined. Then, for some strange reason, in this same editorial the editorial board writes that the FBI “urged Mr. Flynn to meet without a lawyer present.”
 * 3. Citing the internal report, the WSJ editorial complains that when Flynn started lying, the FBI did not “confront him or talk him through it." -- Not only is that an absurd suggestion, NYT reports that Judge Sullivan debunks the entire alleged perjury trap premise during Flynn's December 18, 2018 sentencing hearing.
 * Bottom line: you should self-revert, get a consensus on verbiage, and avoid using bias "editorials" BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I saw that the text had been placed on the main page again and attempted to improve it. I'm a fairly novice editor and even newer to interacting with people on a talk page, and I can't begin to say how frustrating it is to be trying to improve the text and citations, only to find that I can't save them because someone once again removed the text from the page after I started editing. I am also uncertain about how we work on this. I'm just going to copy the status of the first paragraph with my attempted edits here, which I had described as "added an explanation of "perjury trap"; noted that Flynn was charged with false statements, not perjury; added/fixed some citations to correspond to the text; edited a bit of text for clarity":

FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To FactOrOpinion - Twice, two times, in Federal court Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to " willingly and knowingly " lying to the FBI . Also, Flynn & Flynn's lawyers have never alleged that the FBI: encouraged, induced, or forced, Flynn to lie to them. And, the CNN source you use does not claim Flynn is victim to "false statement trap."  In fact, the CNN source you used explains that false statements are prosecuted "if it was done knowingly and intentionally" which is exactly what Flynn pleaded guilty to, twice: " willingly and knowingly " lying to the FBI. Therefore, WP editors should not make the false allegation that Flynn is somehow victim to some non-existent "false statement trap" in this WP article.
 * And those are just a few reasons why I do not support including that paragraph withing this WP article BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To BetsyRMadison, I'm well aware of Flynn's court testimony. I don't think there's any factual basis for the claim of a false statements trap. That said, it has been alleged in public, and the conclusion of the RfC was that it can be mentioned as long as it's not expressed as a fact but only as so-and-so's assertion. For example, it's significant that AG Barr alleges that the FBI was trying to do this. Flynn's attorney alleged it. My guess is that lots of conservatives allege it. Since there's agreement that the public allegations can be mentioned, I think it would be good to explain that (a) all of the references to "perjury trap" are mistaken, since Flynn didn't make the statement under oath and was charged with false statements, not perjury, and (b) even for an allegation of a false statements trap, it simply doesn't fit the definition, because Flynn's interview was properly predicated and he was asked diverse questions relevant to the investigation. That CNN source was only a source for the distinction between "perjury trap" and "false statements trap," as it's hard to find sources that talk about the two as distinct. It wasn't used as a citation for anything suggesting that a false statements trap actually occurred. I think we can do a better job of laying all of this out, and I'll think more about that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The allegation is that the FBI wanted to talk to Flynn mainly in the hope that he would lie to them, so that they could prosecute him or at least get him fired. It's not that they encouraged or forced him to lie (that would rise to the level of entrapment). And whether or not Flynn did lie is irrelevant to the charge, which has to do strictly with the FBI's motivation. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Korny O&#39;Near, I understand what the allegation is, but that misrepresents what a false statements trap actually is legally. It's actually totally legal to try to get someone to lie to you in an FBI interview as long as the interview is properly predicated and that's not your sole goal. Those conditions are satisfied, so this wasn't a false statements trap. The people alleging it either don't know better, or they know better and are being purposefully dishonest. Moreover, the people alleging it are twisting the evidence to pretend that this was the FBI's motivation, when there's testimony to the contrary, such as Comey's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee about the actual motivation. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If your view is that this article should directly state that there was no perjury trap (or something like it) because Comey said there was no perjury trap, that seems a bit too credulous. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My view is that it cannot be a perjury trap because he wasn't under oath, so there was never a risk of him being charged with perjury. My view is also that it isn't a false statements trap because it doesn't meet the definition of one. Comey isn't the only one who testified about the actual predication for the interview. IIRR, both the McCord and Yates 302s (attached as exhibits for the Motion to Dismiss) do as well, and I bet there are statements about it in the Mueller Report and perhaps other testimony, say from McCabe. It's easy to find more elaborate discussions of this from non-government sources that I consider RSs, such as Lawfare (which publishes in coordination with the Brookings Institution): https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-flynn-interview-was-predicated It's a public fact that Pence said on TV on 1/15/17 that Flynn had told him (Pence) that Flynn hadn't discussed sanctions with Kislyak, and that raised flags at the FBI because they knew from the call transcripts that Flynn *had* discussed sanctions with Kislyak and therefore there was a legit reason to interview Flynn to explore the apparent lie to Pence. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's true - what is alleged is not a true perjury trap, as explained in the wording I put in. As for the rest of your views - this is starting to get into WP:NOTFORUM territory, unless there's specific wording you want to add. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Korny O&#39;Near, thanks for the reminder about the bounds of the Talk page exchanges. As I said, I'm new to this, and it's helpful to me to get that reminder. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone cite this sentence to reliable sources? Thanks.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * starship .paint, in the "Proposal for alleged "perjury trap" wording" section below, I asked a question re: what constitutes a reliable source for a "Person A asserts X" claim. It seems to me that any source with a quote from person A saying X provides reliable evidence for a "Person A asserts X" claim, even if the source would not be considered a RS for an "X is true" claim. For me, this is the difference articulated in this RfC conclusion above "Q: May the incident be described as a "perjury trap"? A: Not in Wikipedia's voice. ... [But] The article may say for example that the Wall Street Journal's position is that this amounted to a perjury trap." Here are quotes from Flynn's attorneys with citations: “The FBI planned it as a perjury trap at best” (source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynns-lawyers-say-newly-unsealed-documents-show-fbi-tried-to-set-him-up-11588219544), “high-ranking  FBI officials orchestrated an ambush-interview of the new president’s National Security Advisor, not for the purpose of discovering any evidence of criminal activity … but for the purpose of trapping him into making statements they could allege as false.” (source: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.133.0.pdf). The WSJ article cited earlier, “The Flynn Entrapment,” is evidence of the WSJ editorial board claiming "entrapment." The CBS News article cited earlier is evidence for A.G. Barr claiming “[The FBI] kept [the investigation] open for the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn.” I think it's important to sort out what constitutes a reliable source for "Person A's position is X." What is your view on this? FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - if you want a source that says "This person thinks this is stupid", (this is reporting a fact), it will need to be generally reliable (green on WP:RSP - this includes news articles from CBS News, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal). If you can't find any reliable sources reporting on a fact, it's probably not WP:DUE for inclusion. Less reliable sources can be used for opinion. If you want to use the Wall Street Journal opinion piece, the article text will reflect: "the Wall Street Journal's editorial board thinks this is stupid". Or, if it's an article by a source with no consensus of reliability: "John Doe of the New York Post thinks this is stupid".  starship .paint  (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks, and your response make me realize that I was sloppy, as "Person A asserts X" is distinct from  "Person A asserts 'X,'" where X is a quote. Similarly, "This person thinks this is stupid" is distinct from "This person said 'this is stupid.'" The former is a characterization by a second party of what a primary speaker believes / is a paraphrase of what the primary speaker asserted, whereas the latter is a quote of the primary speaker's own words. In an op-ed, for example, there is no secondary party; the entire piece is in the author's (or authors') own words. Ditto for legal briefs (except where those briefs quote others or include evidence exhibits) and interview transcripts. I think we're most likely to make headway in coming up with acceptable text + citations if we start by identifying the relevant first person quotes and then craft a narrow claim characterizing those quotes, rather than starting with a characterization and seeing if we can find citations for it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - regardless of whether it's of a person's thinking or saying, it's still a statement of fact requiring a reliable source. Unless it's the saying of the source itself, which is opinion, then we can use less reliable sources. For example, if Donald Trump says: "Chuck Schumer, you are awesome", and only the unreliable One America News Network reports it, we shouldn't add it to Wikipedia, because it is simply WP:UNDUE without reliable source coverage.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)