The Right Side of the News

It's also the direct opposite of what the report says.Faith thinks she knows more about the law and investigation than Mueller.

The things he said were obstruction of justice. Telling McGahn to lie was obstruction of justice even though McGahn didn't do it. Telling Lewandowski to fire Mueller was obstruction of justice even though Lewandowski didn't do it (and couldn't but Trump’s too stupid to realize it).Attempting to obstruct justice is a crime, whether or not you succeed.Attempting to obstruct justice is a crime even if it turns out the investigation you want to obstruct doesn't find any crimes.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I spent some time on hold today, and extracted some of the report's evidence on Ordering McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel. I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel{Skip summary -- JonF}2. The President Seeks to Have McGahn Dispute the Press ReportsOn January 26, 2018, the President's personal counsel called McGahn 's attorney and said that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to tire the Special Counsel and that he had threatened to quit in protest. 784 McGahn's attorney spoke with McGahn about that request and then called the President's personal counsel to relay that McGahn would not make a statement. 785 McGahn 's attorney informed the President's personal counsel that the Times story was accurate in reporting that the President wanted the Special Counsel removed. 786 Accordingly, McGahn's attorney said, although the article was inaccurate in some other respects, McGahn could not comply with the President 's request to dispute the story. 787 Hicks recalled relaying to the President that one of his attorneys had spoken to McGahn 's attorney about the issue.788Also on January 26, 2017, Hicks recalled that the President asked Sanders to contact McGahn about the story .789 McGahn told Sanders there was no need to respond and indicated that some of the article was accurate. 79 Consistent with that position , McGahn did not correct the Times story.On February 4, 20 l 8, Priebus appeared on Meet the Press and said he had not heard the President say that he wanted the Special Counsel fired. 791 After Priebus's appearance, the President called Priebus and said he did a great job on Meet the Press. 792 The President also told Priebus that the President had "never said any of those things about" the Special Counsel. 793The next day, on February 5, 2018, the President complained about the Times article to Porter. 794 The President told Porter that the article was "bullshit" and he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel. 795 The President said that McGahn leaked to the media to make himself look good. 796 The President then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make clear that the President never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel. 797 Porter thought the matter should be handled by the White House communications office, but the President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file "for our records" and wanted something beyond a press statement to demonstrate that the reporting was inaccurate. 798 The President referred to McGahn as a "lying bastard" and said that he wanted a record from him .799 Porter recalled the President saying something to the effect of, "If he doesn't write a letter , then maybe I'll have to get rid of him."800Later that day, Porter spoke to McGahn to deliver the President's message .801 Porter told McGahn that he had to write a letter to dispute that he was ever ordered to terminate the Special Counsel. 802 McGahn shrugged off the request, explaining that the media reports were true. 803 McGahn told Porter that the President had been insistent on firing the Special Counsel and that McGahn had planned to resign rather than carry out the order, although he had not personally told the President he intended to quit. 804 Porter told McGahn that the President suggested that McGahn would be fired if he did not write the letter. 805 McGahn dismissed the threat, saying that the optics would be terrible if the President followed through with firing him on that basis. 806 McGahn said he would not write the letter the President had requested. 807 Porter said that to his knowledge the issue oMcGahn's letter never came up with the President again , but Porter did recall telling Kelly about his conversation with McGahn .808The next day, on February 6, 2018, Kelly scheduled time for McGahn to meet with him and the President in the Oval Office to discuss the Times article. 809 The morning of the meeting , the President's personal counsel called McGahn's attorney and said that the President was going to be speaking with McGahn and McGahn could not resign no matter what happened in the meeting. 810The President began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that the New York Times story did not "look good" and McGahn needed to correct it.811 McGahn recalled the President said , "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire. ' This story doesn't look good. You need to correct this. You're the White House counsel." 812In response, McGahn acknowledged that he had not told the President directly that he planned to resign , but said that the story was otherwise accurate. 813 The President asked McGahn , · "Did I say the word ' fire'?" 814 McGahn responded, "What you said is, ' Call Rod [Rosenstein] , tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can't be the Special Counsel. "' 8 15 The President responded, "I never said that. "816 The President said he merely wanted McGahn to raise the conflicts issue with Rosenstein and leave it to him to decide what to do. 817 McGahn told the President he did not understand the conversation that way and instead had heard , "Call Rod. There are conflict s. Mueller has to go." 818 The President asked McGahn whether he would "do a correction, " and McGahn said no.819 McGahn thought the President was testing his mettle to see how committed McGahn was to what happened. 82 Kelly described the meeting as "a little tense. "821The President also asked McGahn in the meeting why he had told Special Counsel's Office investigators that the President had told him to have the Special Counsel removed. 822 McGahn responded that he had to and that his conversations with the President were not protected by attorney-client privilege. 823 The President then asked , "What-about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don 't take note s. I never had a lawyer who took notes ." 824 McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a "real lawyer " and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing. 825 The President said , " I' ve had a lot of great lawyers , like Roy Cohn . He did not take notes. "826After the Oval Office meeting concluded , Kelly recalled McGahn telling him that McGahn and the President "did have that conversation " about removing the Special Counsel. 827 McGahn recalled that Kelly said that he had point ed out to the President after the Oval Office that McGahn had not backed down and would not budge. 828 Following the Oval Office meeting, the President's personal counsel called McGahn' s counsel and relayed that the President was '"fine" with McGahn. 829 In analyzing the President 's efforts to have McGahn deny that he had been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:a. Obstructive act. The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness if he testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.There is some evidence that at the time the New York Times and Washington Post stories were published in late January 2018, the President believed the stories were wrong and that he had never told McGahn to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. The President correctly understood that McGahn had not told the President directly that he planned to resign. Tn addition , the President told Priebus and Porter that he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel , and in the Oval Office meeting with McGahn , the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire."' That evidence could indicate that the President was not attempting to persuade McGahn to change his story but was instead offering his own-but different-recollection of the substance of his June 2017 conversations with McGahn and McGahn 's reaction to them.Other evidence cuts against that understanding of the President 's conduct. As previously described, see Volume IT, Section ILE, supra, substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President's directive ; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice , and should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn. In addition, the President's subsequent denials that he had told McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed were carefully worded. When first asked about the New York Times story, the President said, "Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story." And when the President spoke with McGahn in the Oval Office, he focused on whether he had used the word "fire, " saying, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said ' fire"' and "Did T say the word ' fire'?" The President's assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed thus runs counter to the evidence .Tn addition, even if the President sincerely disagreed with McGahn's memory of the June 17, 2017 events, the evidence indicates that the President knew by the time of the Oval Office meeting that McGahn's account differed and that McGahn was firm in his views . Shortly after the story broke, the President's counsel told McGahn 's counsel that the President wanted McGahn to make a statement denying he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel, but McGahn responded through his counsel that that aspect of the story was accurate and he therefore could not comply with the President's request. The President then directed Sanders to tell McGahn to correct the story, but McGahn told her he would not do so because the story was accurate in reporting on the President's order . Consistent with that position, McGahn never issued a correction. More than a week later, the President brought up the issue again with Porter, made comments indicating the President thought McGahn had leaked the story , and directed Porter to have McGahn create a record denying that the President had tried to fire the Special Counsel. At that point , the President said he might "have to get rid of' McGahn if McGahn did not comply. McGahn again refused and told Porter, as he had told Sanders and as his counsel had told the President 's counsel , that the President had in fact ordered him to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. That evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true . The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.b. Nexus to an official proceeding. By January 2018 , the Special Counsel 's use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments. The President also was aware that the Special Counsel was investigating obstruction-related events because, among other reasons, on January 8, 20 I 8, the Special Counsel's Office provided his counsel with a detailed list of topics for a possible interview with the President. 830 The President knew that McGahn had personal knowledge of many of the events the Special Counsel was investigating and that McGahn had already been interviewed by Special Counsel investigators. And in the Oval Office meeting, the President indicated he knew that McGahn had told the Special Counsel's Office about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel. The President challenged McGahn for disclosing that information and for taking notes that he viewed as creating unnecessary legal exposure. That evidence indicates the President's awareness that the June 17, 2017 events were relevant to the Special Counsel's investigation and any grand jury investigation that might grow out of it.To establish a nexus, it would be necessary to show that the President's actions would have the natural tendency to affect such a proceeding or that they would hinder, delay , or prevent the communication of information to investigators. Because McGahn had spoken to Special Counsel investigators before January 2018, the President could not have been seeking to influence his prior statements in those interviews . But because McGahn had repeatedly spoken to investigators and the obstruction inquiry was not complete , it was foreseeable that he would be interviewed again on obstruction-related topics. If the President were focus ed solely on a press strategy in seeking to have McGahn refute the New York Times article, a nexus to a proceeding or to further investigative interviews would not be shown. But the President's efforts to have McGahn write a letter "for our records" approximately ten days after the stories had come out- well past the typical time to issue a correction for a news story-indicates the President was not focused solely on a press strategy, but instead likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it.c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated , the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn 's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation.Several facts support that conclusion. The President made repeated attempts to get McGahn to change his story. As described above, by the time of the last attempt , the evidence suggests that the President had been told on multiple occasions that McGahn believed the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel terminated. McGahn interpreted his encounter with the President in the Oval Office as an attempt to test his mettle and see how committed he was to his memory of what had occurred . The President had already laid the groundwork for pressing McGahn to alter his account by telling Porter that it might be necessary to fire McGahn if he did not deny the story, and Porter relayed that statement to McGahn. Additional evidence of the President's intent may be gleaned from the fact that his counsel was sufficiently alarmed by the prospect of the President's meeting with McGahn that he called McGahn 's counsel and said that McGahn could not resign no matter what happened in the Oval Office that day. The President's counsel was well aware of McGahn's resolve not to issue what he believed to be a false account of events despite the President's request. Finally , as noted above, the President brought up the Special Counsel investigation in his Oval Office meeting with McGahn and criticized him for telling this Office about the June 17, 2017 events. The President's statements reflect his understanding-and his displeasure-that those events would be part of an obstruction-of-justice inquiry.

Footnotes:781 Sophie Tatum & Kara Scannell, Trump denies he called for Mueller's firing, CNN (Jan. 26,2018); Michael S. Schmidt & Maggie Haberman, Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit, New York Times (Jan. 25, 2018).782 The Post article stated, "Despite internal objections, Trump decided to assert that Mueller had unacceptable conflicts of interest and moved to remove him from his position. . . . In response, McGahn said he would not remain at the White House if Trump went through with the move .... McGahn did not deliver his resignation threat directly to Trump but was serious about his threat to leave." Rosalind S. Helderman & Josh Dawsey, Trump moved to fire Mueller in June, bringing White House counsel to the brink of leaving, Washington Post (Jan. 26, 2018).783 Rosalind S. Helderman & Josh Dawsey, Trump moved to fir e Mueller in June, bringing White House counsel to the brink of leaving, Washington Post (Jan. 26, 2018); see McGahn 3/8/17 302, at 3-4.784 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 3 ( agent note).785 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 3 (agent note).786 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 3-4 (agent note).787 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4 (agent note).788 Hicks 3/13/18 302, at 11. Hicks also recalled that the President spoke on the phone that day with Chief of Staff John Kelly and that the President said Kelly told him that McGahn had totally refuted the story and was going to put out a statement. Hicks 3/ 13/18 302, at 11. But Kelly said that he did not speak to McGahn when the article came out and did not tell anyone he had done so. Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 1-2.789 Hicks 3/13/18 302, at 11. Sanders did not recall whether the President asked her to speak to McGahn or if she did it on her own. Sanders 7 /23/ 18 302, at 2.790 Sanders 7 /23/18 302, at 1-2.791 Meet the Press Interview with Reince Priebus, NBC (Feb. 4, 2018).792 Priebus 4/3/ 18 302, at 10.793 Priebus 4/3/18 302, at 10.794 Porter 4/ 13/18 302, at 16-17. Porter did not recall the timing of this discussion with the President. Porter 4/ 13/18 302, at 17. Evidence indicates it was February 5, 2018. On the back of a pocket card dated February 5, 2018, Porter took notes that are consistent with his description of the discussion: "COS: (1) Letter from OM - Never threatened to quit- DJT never told him to fire M." SC_RRP000053 (Porter Undated Notes). Porter said it was possible he took the notes on a day other than February 5. Porter 4/13/ 18 302, at 17. But Porter also said that "COS" referred to matters he wanted to discuss with Chief of Staff Kelly, Porter 4/13/18 302, at 17, and Kelly took notes dated February 5, 2018, that state "POTUS - Don McGahn letter - Mueller + resigning." WH0000I 7684 (Kelly 2/5/18 Notes). Kelly said he did not recall what the notes meant, but thought the President may have "mused" about having McGahn write a letter. Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 3. McGahn recalled that Porter spoke with him about the President's request about two weeks after the New York Times story was published, which is consistent with the discussion taking place on or about February 5. McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.795 Porter 4/13/18 302, at 17.796 Porter 4/ 13/18 3 02, at 17.797 Porter 4/13/18 302, at 17.798 Porter 4/13/ 18 302, at 17; Porter 5/8/18 302, at 18.799 Porter 4/13/ 18 302, at 17; Porter 5/8/18 302, at 18.800 Porter 4/ 13/18 302, at 17.801 Porter 4/ 13/ 18 302, at 17; McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.802 Porter 4/ 13/18 302, at 17; McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 4.803 Porter 4/13/18 302, at 17; McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.804 Porter 4/13/18 302, at 17; McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.805 Porter 4/13/18 302, at 17; McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.806 Porter 4/ 13/ 18 302, at 17-18; McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.807 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.808 Potter 4/13/18 302, at 18.809 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 4; WH000017685 (Kelly 2/6/18 Notes). McGahn recalled that, before the Oval Office meeting, he told Kelly that he was not inclined to fix the article. McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 4.810 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 5 (agent note); 2/26/19 Email, Counsel for Don McGahn to Special Counsel's Office ( confirming February 6, 2018 date of call from the President's personal counsel).811 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4; Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2.812 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4; Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2.813 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.814 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 4; Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2.815 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5.816 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5.817 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 5.8 18 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 5.819 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5; Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2.820 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5.821 Kelly 8/2/ 18 302, at 2.822 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5.823 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5.824 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5. McGahn said the President was referring to Donaldson's notes, which the President thought of as McGahn's notes. McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 5.825 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 5.826 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 5.827 Kelly 8/2/ 18 302, at 2.828 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5. Kelly did not recall discussing the Oval Office meeting with the President after the fact. Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2. Handwritten notes taken by Kelly state, "Do n[:] Mueller discussion in June. - Bannon Priebus - came out okay." WH0000l7685 (Kelly 2/6/18 Notes).829 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5 (agent note).830 1/29/ I 8 Letter, President's Personal Counsel to Special Counsel's Office, at 1-2 ("In our conversation of January 8, your office identified the following topics as areas you desired to address with the President in order to complete your investigation on the subjects of alleged collusion and obstruction of justice"; listing 16 topics).

All the questions have been answered. There was lots of evidence for collusion but not enough to prosecute(in no small part because of the administration's intransigence). Trump obstructed justice at least ten times but wasn't indicted because of DoJ policy. No matter how the investigation originated.We know how it originated. There are two ongoing investigations on that already. But Republicans like nothing more than superfluous investigations into long-settled questions.

Testimony under oath responding to targeted questions is not innuendo or gossip.Look at what I posted and identify the innuendo or gossip. Even if you could conquer your dread of facts you couldn't find any. There is none.You grab any stupid excuse for running from reality. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

What are those sources? Why is what they say preferable to quotes from the Mueller report itself?

They won't find anything that contradicts the report. They aren't looking into the content of the report.The three investigations are supposedly looking into the origin of the FBI's investigation. Which we know. But it doesn't fit the right-wing story.No matter how the investigation originated the evidence Mueller collected is what it is.Why are three separate simultaneous investigations needed?

The Executive Summary of volume 1 is also relevant:

quote:

---

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second , a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

---

Fundies are binary. Black or white. Collusion or no collusion. But in this case and most cases there is at least one alternative. "Not determined".They think that "did not establish collusion" means "established no collusion", which is false. "Did not establish collusion" could mean "didn’t determine one way or another" and pretty certainly does. If they had established "no collusion" they would have written "no collusion" (expanded into appropriate legalese). They wrote exactly what they meant.In order to claim the report said no collusion they have to ignore the most plain reading. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

No matter how often you complain, it is possible for an investigation to reach no conclusion. And it's clear that's what the report says and means.Lawyers, especially top-flight ones like Mueller, write what they mean and exactly what they mean. No more, no less. If Mueller had established no conclusion, he would have stated so explicitly. The undeniable fact that he did not state that leads inexorably to the conclusion that he meant "did not establish one way or the other".

Can't face the truth as usual.The current three investigations into how the FBI probe started cannot change anything in the report or produce their own report on the results of the Mueller investigation. That's outside their scope.

Then respond to the substance. What evidence do you have that "did not establish collusion" means "established there was no collusion". Are you saying that it's impossible to not reach a conclusion? Or what?Of course I predict you won't produce any substantive response.It's a fact that you can't face the truth. All you can do is regurgitate right-wing hallucinations. Over and over and over again, the same.It's also a fact that this is your standard behavior. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Actually the browser I use has a wide-ranging news aggregator. I see lots of right wing articles from Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, The Federalist Papers, Townhall,...I am often intrigued by their headlines (usually WTF?). When I open the article I can quickly find the lies or significant omissions around 90%of the time.

The Latest: Judge orders parts of Mueller report unredacted

quote:

---

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the limited order Thursday. Portions of the report relating to Flynn are redacted and would be made public under the order.

​

It is the first time a federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to make public portions of the report the agency had kept secret.

---

ABE BREAKING: Flynn Told Mueller People Tied to Trump and Congress Tried to Obstruct Investigation

quote:

---

The reporting from NBC News’ Tom Winter is based off a newly un-redacted sentencing memo.

​

The memo stated that Trump’s former national security adviser “informed the government of multiple instances both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation.”

​

According to the unsealed documents, Flynn also apparently provided a voicemail of one of those efforts:

---

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Let's play spot the lies! BREAKING: Judge Orders Portions of Mueller Report Unredacted - Then Released to Public

quote:

---

As expected, Mueller and the media spun a voicemail President Trump’s personal counsel left for Flynn as a possible effort to obstruct the General’s cooperation with the special counsel.

​

General Flynn’s late 2016 phone calls to Kislyak were unmasked then illegally leaked to the Washington Post ” Flynn was then ambushed by two FBI agents, Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka without his lawyers present and he was ultimately fired from his job as NatSec Advisor.

​

Mueller and his team of angry Democrat thugs charged Flynn with making a false statement to the feds even though Flynn didn’t lie.

​

It is also widely believed that there was a FISA warrant on General Flynn ” the president should issue Flynn a full pardon and prosecute every corrupt official who illegally targeted Flynn for ruin.

​

Flynn is still awaiting sentencing after being harassed by Mueller and Obama’s corrupt officials for the past several years.

---

I'll start.

• He hasn't heard the voicemail, and presenting his assumption that it's innocuous as fact he's lying by omission.
• Flynn is a sufficiently smart adult to decide whether or not he wants a lawyer. Nevertheless, throughout he knew the consequences of lying to the FBI, and many of his lies were with his lawyer present (see below)
• "Ambushed" does not relate to what happened in any way. He was interviewed in a mutually agreeable setting.
• Mueller is, of course, a Republican and many on his team are Republicans or independents or have no affiliation.
• Flynn lied his ass off.
• There is no evidence that anyone "illegally targeted Flynn for ruin".
• There is no evidence of corruption in the Mueller probe, and there is no evidence of any relevant corruption in the Obama administration.

Any more?

---

From Mueller's reply to Flynn's sentencing memo at GOVERNMENT’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING

quote:

---

A sitting National Security Advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired Lieutenant General, and 33-year veteran of the armed forces knows he should not lie to federal agents. He does not need to be warned it is a crime to lie to federal agents to know the importance of telling them the truth. The defendant undoubtedly was aware, in light of his “many years” working with the FBI, that lying to the FBI carries serious consequences. See Def. Sent Mem. at 8. He, unlike Van der Zwaan and Papadapoulous, was a senior national security official with extensive federal government experience, had led an intelligence agency, had worked with the FBI, and was steeped in the importance of accurate information to decision making in areas of national security.

​

The defendant agreed to meet with the FBI agents, without counsel, and answer their questions. His obligation to provide truthful information came with that agreement; it did not turn on the presence of counsel. Moreover, as the defendant has admitted, weeks after the January 24 interview, he made materially false statements in filings he provided to another branch of the Department of Justice pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”). See Statement of Offense at 5, United States v. Flynn, No. 17-cr-232 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2017) (Doc. 4). The defendant made those false statements while represented by counsel and after receiving an explicit warning that providing false information was a federal offense. See, e.g., FARA Registration No. 6406, Flynn Intel Group (March 7, 2017), available at https://efile.fara.gov/...istration-Statement-20170307-1.pdf. The defendant was equally responsible for telling the truth to both Department of Justice entities, and under both circumstances he chose to make false statements.

​

Finally, the interviewing agents did not observe indicia of deception and had the impression at that time that the defendant was not lying or did not think he was lying. See Strzok 302 at 4. Members of the Presidential Transition Team were likewise misled by the defendant’s false denials. Those misimpressions do not change the fact”as the defendant has admitted in sworn testimony to this District Court”that he was indeed lying, and knowingly made false statements to FBI agents in a national security investigation. Those false statements were material, including by raising the question of why he was lying to the FBI, the Vice President, and others.

---

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.