Key details from Flynn call in dispute?

So as is generally the case, both sides claim that the Flynn transcripts justify their own positions. 

Let's start with this. There is a murky grey area about whether or not the expulsion of diplomats (which was the base line subject of conversation between Flynn and Kislyak) would actually be what we might generally think of as "sanctions". While the expulsion of diplomats was part of the Obama administration response, there was also financial and trade restrictions (which are what most laypeople generally consider to be sanctions).

Secondly, there seems to be enough of a discussion surrounding the inevitable Russian response that you could make the case the Flynn did request that Russia not "escalate" the situation, even if he never really stated that. However, the fact that we are talking about "perjury" sort of makes whether or not he actually stated something more important than what can be "deduced" by the conversations at hand.

So depending on your perspective, either Flynn was damned or exonerated by the transcripts.

But here is the truth. Flynn was not being charged with any sort of "Logan Act" violation here.  Whether these transcripts justified charges against Flynn have nothing to do with whether or not Flynn was (or was not) negotiating with Kislyak. That seems to be the line I am reading from most liberals. They seem to actually believe that there was something inherently wrong (and illegal) about him even discussing the Obama response. Calls of "traitor" and such are prevalent in the liberal discussions surrounding this. Apparently they believe that it wasn't "his place" to interfere with Obama's response. The fact that he discussed anything regarding this is the smoking gun.

But such arguments are complete red herring, and inherently wrong minded. An incoming National Security Advisor  would be the one dealing with the fall out of the lame duck actions of a lame duck President. He has no obligation to defend those actions and he has every right to hit the ground running so to speak. He did not undermine anything by addressing them in passing or answering questions posed to him by the Russian ambassador. He didn't discount the Obama orders or tell Kislyak that they were going away when Trump took charge. These were prudent responses, not traitorous ones.

The question is solely whether or not the transcripts prove that Flynn was providing false statements to the FBI at the time of his questioning.

In terms of whether or not he discussed "sanctions", that all depends on what your personal concept of "sanctions" are. Most people, most of the time, view sanctions as financial or trade related actions. The conversations between Flynn and Kislyak did not appear to include any of that, and were related entirely to the withdraw of diplomats. While those withdrawals could be considered part of the sanctions, it's easy to see the viewpoint that Flynn would not have considered the withdrawal of diplomats as the "sanctions" in questions.

Did he actually tell Kislyak to not "escalate" the situation. Actually no. It may have been exactly what he implied without saying it, but does denying that he said something that he literally didn't say make him a perjurer? To put this into perspective, if it was the opposite, would we allow someone who "literally" stated something to deny that he said it, because it really wasn't what he meant? Perjury or false statements are not designed to be subjective concepts open to debate or argument, but rather objective falsehoods that can be easily proven. Given you are innocent until proven guilty, I don't see how something this ambiguous would make for a strong case for perjury. (Which is exactly what the original interview notes stated).

Either way, Flynn had his charges dropped for reasons "other" than whether or not he actually provided any false statements. The entire conversation is political fodder with very little legal bearing on what was happening. But that doesn't mean that we won't still hear about it.