Talk:United States v. Flynn

11 25 2020 The Flynn Case
Hello & good day to the humans that have added to this post (the Flynn Case), I am still a bit unfamilar with the specifics of how to post & respond to people that I want to perssonally thank for their efforts; my apologies. So, thank you for posting in an informative manner. Stay safe, keep calm, & be well everyone. v Vltyree (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed illustrations for the existing paragraph that describes the DOJ's misleading filing of McCabe evidence
In the US v Flynn page, the last paragraph of section Subsequent Proceedings would benefit from a display of details cropped from the originally submitted evidence and the subsequently resubmitted evidence, as shown below. A cautious reader will confirm from the references provided that the details shown are authentic. An astute reader comparing the images and the DOJ’s explanation of them will discern a troubling inconsistency. I have submitted for publication elsewhere an explicit description of the inconsistency, and once published will propose a subsequent change to the US v Flynn page that states it explicitly in the text. In the meantime, the inconsistency is left as "an exercise for the reader", and I propose to just illustrate the existing paragraph without comment.

GreenEyewash (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The change can be effected by just prepending two "File:" markups before the existing paragraph, which will then display the before and after details to the left and right of the paragraph, as shown below:



On October 7, the DOJ told the court it had "inadvertently" altered the Strzok and McCabe documents it had submitted on September 24, asserting that sticky notes with "estimated dates" had been applied to the Strzok documents but not removed when the documents were scanned for delivery to the court. The DOJ asserted a similar occurrence with the McCabe documents. On October 23, Sullivan ordered the Justice Department to present by October 26 a declaration under penalty of perjury that exhibits provided to the court are true and correct. Just before midnight on October 26, the DOJ filed a brief in which assistant U.S. Attorney Jocelyn Ballantine asserted “the content of those exhibits was not altered in any way, as confirmed by attorneys for both former FBI employees,” though correspondence with Ballantine showed that the McCabe and Strzok attorneys had affirmatively refused to vouch for the accuracy of the exhibits.

References


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's not completely clear what you want changed. Please state your changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, it appears as though what you have written may be original research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles. Please use reliable, independent sources to back up your proposed changes.  Seagull123  Φ  19:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Response 1 To Seagull123: It's not completely clear what you want changed. Please state your changes in a "change X to Y" format.  The existing paragraph in the article (to which I have not contributed) nicely states the history of what has occurred in the case, and documents it with secondary sources such as published articles written in the mainstream media. My proposal is to add two figures, with captions, that illustrate what the existing article says. The figures are details (i.e., zoomed-in images) of the primary sources being described in the existing text, i.e., sections of the actual court documents that are available in the public case docket, which is published on the web. As such, my proposed insertion is unassailable "ground truth", i.e., the actual primary source at issue in the case. So, my request is to "Change X to Y", where X=the existing unillustrated paragraph, and Y=the existing paragraph illustrated with two relevant images cropped from the <U>primary sources</U> being described in the existing article. In terms of the Wikitext, I have bracketed the proposed insertion within HTML comments so that it is absolutely clear exactly what Wikitext must be inserted and where. </ul> <B>Response 2 To Seagull123:</B> Also, it appears as though what you have written may be original research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles. Please use reliable, independent sources to back up your proposed changes. <UL> <li>My proposed change is not “original research”, as it makes no new claims. I only propose to incorporate into the article two displays of <U>primary source</U> material, i.e., the very evidence that is at issue in the case. These two displays allow a reader to better understand what the existing paragraph in the article is saying. <LI>In the spirit of full disclosure, however, I alluded (on this Talk page only) to the fact that with the benefit of these two displays, an astute reader will readily spot an inconsistency between the actual evidence and the DOJ’s description of that evidence, but I do not propose in the article itself to mention this fact, as I understand that such a mention (and a specific claim of inconsistency) would require a “reliable, independent source” under Wikipedia rules.</ul>

GreenEyewash (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Seagull123: I am sort of a novice at this, and am not sure that my previous attempt to draw your attention to my reply to your rejection was done correctly. The help desk made a suggestion, so here goes

GreenEyewash (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly it was concluded that DOJ can modify the documents for cataloging however it wants, besides that date for McCabe was correct as was reaffirmed by DOJ (as you said), and some other notes were said to be around that date, like Peter's "Logan Act" from "VP" Biden. 2A00:1370:812D:1FC5:DCD2:D4CD:7B8A:B21D (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I am having a little trouble following what you are saying. First, let me be absolutely clear what I am proposing vis-à-vis an addition to the paragraph that is currently in the main article. Then, I will imbed a response to your points in a bulleted paragraph in context.

DOJ submitted to the Court <B>scanned images</B> of what I will call the “McCabe evidence”. (It is confusing to call this evidence the “McCabe notes”, because then when we start talking about “sticky notes”, we have two kinds of “notes”, and we have difficulty keeping track of which kind we are talking about.)

Two different scanned images were delivered to the Court, what I call the <B>originally submitted</B> scanned image and the <B>subsequently resubmitted</B> scanned image. The actual <B>McCabe evidence</B> itself is back somewhere in the DOJ.

The question before the Court was whether the <B>originally-submitted</B> scanned image showed the original unaltered McCabe evidence, or rather gave some sort of altered or otherwise distorted or misleading view of it. When this question was raised, DOJ admitted that the originally-submitted scanned image had given a misleading view of the evidence itself. They then filed a subsequently resubmitted scanned image, which they asserted was now a fully-faithful view.

The <B>subsequently resubmitted</B> scanned image was accompanied by an <B>explanation</B>: that the date had been written on a sticky note, and that because the sticky-note had not been removed, it gave the false impression that the date was written on the McCabe evidence itself. Once the sticky-note was removed, they asserted, the unaltered undated McCabe evidence was shown.

<UL><LI>Your post seems to go to questions like: was DOJ entitled to put the sticky note on the evidence, was DOJ entitled to write on the actual evidence; was the date actually correct or not, was there corroborating evidence that the date was correct, etc. None of these points were at issue. What was at issue was whether or not the originally-submitted scanned image was an accurate reflection of the McCabe evidence, and the DOJ admitted in its filing that it was not. Notwithstanding whether they were entitled to alter the evidence or not (and I don’t know anything about that) DOJ stated in its explanation that the original evidence was unaltered.</UL>

Judge Sullivan was not satisfied with DOJ’s explanation, and ordered DOJ to resubmit the explanation with further details, all <B>under penalty of perjury</B>. The DOJ’s resubmitted explanation did not change. In particular, they reiterated that the “<U>content</U>” of the exhibit “<U>was not altered in any way.</U>” (Their underlining, not mine.)

My proposed addition to the paragraph is just zoomed-in cropped relevant portions of the two different scanned images, original and corrected. I believe these will greatly assist the reader in seeing what was at issue. In the spirit of the Wikipedia, I believe that at this time I should say no more <B>in the article itself</B>, as there is currently no published reference that I can cite that supports making any claims.

However, in the spirit of full disclosure and honesty, I alluded here <B>in Talk</B> to the fact that “An <B>astute</B> reader comparing the images and the DOJ’s explanation of them will discern a troubling inconsistency.” I was pulling my punches because I was not sure to what extent I was permitted to make unreferenced claims in Talk. So, I was leaving it to each reader to discover for themself the nature of the “inconsistency”, and to delight in it. There is essentially an Easter Egg hiding in those two images and the DOJ’s explanation that is utterly delicious. More importantly, to my mind it speaks to the very essence of the Rule 48A issue before the Court (or at least that was before the Court before the Flynn pardon). That issue is the DOJ’s credibility and good faith (or lack thereof).

I am not averse to spelling out the claim in full detail if, as a representative of the Wikipedia authorities, tells me that it is OK to do so. I just don’t want to make the effort, only to have it reverted. I guess I also don't want to deprive readers of the pleasure of solving the puzzle for themselves.

GreenEyewash (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Hi just a quick point first: I'm not a "representative of the Wikipedia authorities": everyone you meet here is just a volunteer - see Wikipedians for more. Also, I'm sorry for the slow reply, I've been busy with other things. In terms of your request, I'm personally not convinced of the benefit of adding these images to the article, so I won't be doing so myself now. However, if you can build up consensus that this change should be made, you are welcome to make another edit request asking that this change be made. If you need anymore help, you can leave another message at the help desk or Teahouse, you can, or just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. <b style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 18:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits to reflect that the case is now over
Given that Judge Sullivan has now dismissed the case as moot following the pardon, several parts of the article should be edited to reflect that. In the lead, it should say "United States v. Flynn was a criminal case..." rather than "United States v. Flynn is a criminal case...“. In the infobox, it should no longer say that the case is "ongoing“. It also may be a good idea to mention the pardon and dismissal in the lead.2600:6C40:1900:166E:9068:8471:EA93:9E0E (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)JMM

Pardon section should include something from noted law Professor Turley
This article: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/529397-flynns-case-finally-ends-but-not-before-judge-sullivan-flogs-a-corpse has some good material in it. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Holding
This section of the info box should be excised; it's not nearly expansive enough to explain the end results of the various rulings. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)