On Friday, the transcripts of Flynn's discussion with Kislyak at the center of the entire Flynn story were declassified. This is the conversation that Flynn was accused of and admitted to lying about the contents and was not provided to Flynn's defense team despite numerous requests.
The New York Times says it proves Flynn "discussed sanctions at length" during conversation. Conversely, Margot Cleveland of The Federalist says the transcripts show the opposite.
I encourage everyone to read both, but start with Ms. Cleveland's take. Then, compare and decide which is the stronger case.
It is surprising to me that Cleveland's relies much more on facts and explanations than does the New York Times. The latter, for example, does not mention the difference between sanctions and expulsions. This question seems to be the crux of the discussion. Was Flynn talking about one but not the other, as Cleveland suggests, and are they actually distinct issues where the distinction matters. At least Cleveland points out this difference and makes the case; the Times story doesn't broach it at all.
Notice, too, how the New York Times, while claiming Flynn discussed sanctions, they never quote Flynn as ever saying sanctions, they just imply that Flynn's statements regarded the sanctions, not the expulsions (or both).
It is definitely possible that the Times authors believe them to be the same thing. It's also possible that Mueller's team believed them to be the same thing. But again, Cleveland makes a strong case that they are different, and her case is definitely strong enough that it should be a point of discussion and not omitted entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment