BearGoggles said:
Cave Bear said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
bearlyamazing said:
Unit2Sucks said:
bearlyamazing said:
Unit2Sucks said:
bearlyamazing said:
What a joke. The Logan Act? Please tell me the last time anyone was ever prosecuted for that. Answer? Never.
You clowns want to throw the book at conservatives only and only when it suits your needs.
If the book should be thrown at General Flynn, the library should be thrown at Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, Page, Halper, Priestap and so many other people who have done FAR more damage legally then Flynn.
The joke is you want to prosecute people for doing their jobs but celebrate traitors like Flynn. On Election Day he should have been focused on the transition and preparing to be DNI but instead he was taking money to write an OpEd for Turkey. He was a foreign agent and a huge security risk as DNI but you worship him.
I guess it makes sense since you have fallen hook line and sinker for Trump and his cronies. I hope you enjoy sending your campaign donations to Kimberly Guildoyle and other Trump cronies on the campaign payroll.
When did conservatives stop start carrying water for traitors who are on foreign government payrolls and lie about it? You used to punish people like that.
Some of the nonsense you post here is absolutely laughable. Prosecute people for doing their job? Really? Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Strzok, Page, Priestap, McCabe and the rest of the sorry stooges just earnestly doing their jobs? How f'ing gullible are you? Seriously. This is just beyond belief, even from you.
Believe it or not I enjoy being lectured by someone with a PhD in right wing YouTube conspiracy theories. It would worry me if someone like you who is unable to discern reality from Alex Jones fantasy somehow agreed with me.
Fortunately there will always be another conspiracy theory to capture your fancy and entertain the rest of us.
Let us know when you contribute to Traitor Flynn's legal defense fund and how that works out for you.
You're pathetic. You've seen reams of evidence and people fired for cause from these clowns you say are "just trying to do their job" and when continually faced with facts and evidence, even reluctantly by the mainstream media, you turn to the stupid conspiracy theory crap. I don't believe you're stupid but you sure post some stupid and blatantly disingenuous bull**** here with regularity. Who exactly are you trying to convince with this crap? And your continuing to call General Flynn a traitor says a lot about your character. Or lack thereof.
Here in the real world Trump's DOJ prosecuted Flynn, Manafort, Gates, the coffee boy, Cohen and Stone and none of the people you've accused of wrongdoing. Flynn sold out his country for Turkish $$ and yet you breathlessly defend him. You Gish Gallop from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory and probably never wonder why it is that things don't work out the way you expect them to.
Call me when the number of convicted people you've criticized exceeds the number of Trump associates convicted. Meanwhile, and not coincidentally, thousands of Americans die every day in a crisis that Trump has completely botched. It's not a coincidence that Trump has been throwing out red meat for the base to distract from yet another disaster he's overseeing as commander in chief. How many more crises will Trump need to botch before you start to realize that he's not the night in shining armor that you dream about at night?
Please explain how Flynn is a traitor? By possibly lobbying (indirectly) for Turkey? By failing to file a proper FARA report - which for all other people is a minor violation that is routinely fixed after the fact and almost never criminally charged? Is he a traitor because he disagreed with Obama's foreign policy?
Here is an article from a VERY anti-Trump website that sets out how rare it is to prosecute FARA violations. https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-departments-new-unprecedented-use-foreign-agents-registration-act
And if you think FARA is a major thing, can you explain why Tony Podesta and MANY other people have not been prosecuted for FARA violations - only the guy closest to Trump. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/24/weber-podesta-investigation-foreign-lobbying-1509942
Note there's no argument made here that Flynn didn't break the law, only equivocation. No argument the law wasn't broken, not even an argument the law is wrong. Know what's really funny with what you wrote about the rareness of FARA prosecutions? The Trump Justice Department just tried and failed to convict a Democrat of breaking FARA. A Trump appointed DA brought a case again a Democrat who failed to register and he was acquitted -- but only because the statute of limitations had expired. As far as I know, it's the only case brought by a Trump appointed federal DA from the Mueller investigation.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/04/greg-craig-found-not-guilty-in-ukraine-lobbying-case-1481017
Quote:
You claimed that Flynn took money from Russia. Please provide evidence - I don't believe there is any.
Flynn took $65,000 from Russian government linked companies in 2015, including $45,000 from state-owned broadcaster RT for Flynn's infamous trip to Moscow and speech at a gala where he was seated next to Putin. This is while his own government is fighting proxy wars with Russia in Ukraine and Syria.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/michael-flynn-russia-paid-trip.html
Quote:
In fact, the recent release confirms that Flynn was cleared by the FBI of any wrongdoing involving Russia on 1/4/2017 - before the FBI interview. You have surprising hatred of the guy - the reality is he's not different than most of Washington - people who go in and out of government and take massive lobbying dollars. For every Flynn (who incidentally was a registered democrat) or republican grifter, there's a Clintonista doing the same thing. Its gross, but not criminalized.
In terms of Flynn's lying, I think the entrapment/perjury trap argument is just a rabbit hole and largely irrelevant. In order to be criminal, the alleged lie needs to be material to a proper FBI investigation/matter. So the question is, how could what Flynn have said been material when:
The first sentence is a big falsehood that will be dealt with below. For now let's just note the renewed equivocation, softening the ground for the ultimate conclusion that Flynn broke a bunch of laws but who cares.
Now let's look at the enumerated points i - iv
Quote:
(i) he had already been exonerated by the FBI of colluding with Russia;
Here's that special "conservative" understanding of what exoneration means that they put on display when Trump declared himself exonerated by a report that there was insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing with regard to collusion but that Trump had committed 10 acts that amount to obstruction of justice. Note that neither of these is what being exonerated looks like. To be exonerated is to be cleared from blame; it is not negative, as in "it is not conclusive that you are guilty", it is positive as in "it is conclusive that you are innocent". Is this what the FBI concluded of Flynn? No.
The FBI was prepared to close their Mueller-related investigation of Flynn on Jan 4 2017 because they had received no "derogatory" information related to him in the course of the investigation. No evidence had come in that Flynn was involved so they were going to stop investigating him. However, even if closing their Mueller-related investigation of Flynn did amount to "exonerating" him, Flynn still wouldn't be exonerated since ultimately the FBI chose NOT to close the investigation on Jan 4, due to the intervention of Peter Strzok (as far as I know there is no documentation regarding why Strzok wanted to keep going).
Moreover the memo in which closing Flynn's file is initiated, it is said "If new information is identified or reported to the FBI regarding the activities of [Flynn], the FBI will consider reopening the investigation if warranted."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/us/politics/trump-flynn-stone.html?smid=tw-share
Quote:
(ii) the FBI had no other proper investigation pending related to the phone call;
FBI management did not know about the phone call until after they had initially determined to close the investigation into Flynn. Whether Strzok might have known about it is something I wonder. The timing on how soon after Strzok countermanded the instruction to close Flynn's case the FBI hierarchy learned of the contents of Flynn's Dec 29 call (a week earlier) is not clear but it's also irrelevant. Even if the FBI had closed Flynn's file and then learned of the call several days later they would be justified in reopening the investigation into him based either on their stipulation about "new information" in the memo or just common sense.
Quote:
(iii) the FBI had a transcript of the call and knew exactly what was said, so whatever Flynn said couldn't have changed what they knew;
Funny thing about the disclosed FBI documents: right-wingers are loudly crying they show the FBI was out to get Flynn when they very clearly show their priority going into the interview was in assessing Flynn, not prosecuting him. Their idea was to "put him on notice and see what he does with that."
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.189.1.pdf
The tone of their internal dialogue plus their initial inclination to close their investigation of Flynn completely undercuts claims that the FBI was simply out to nail him for political purposes: "Our goal is to determine if Mike Flynn is going to tell the truth @ his relationship w/ Russians"
https://www.scribd.com/document/459057200/doc-188#fullscreen&from_embed
Quote:
and (iv) in any event, the FBI concluded he did not lie (i.e., have the requisite intent) and was probably only misremembering - this was confirmed by James Comey in congressional testimony. It was only after Mueller's team took over and they wanted to squeeze Flynn that the "lie" allegation, combined with bankrupting flynn and threatening his son, became part of the plan. But you're right - nothing to see here.
Prove it.
I'm serious, show me proof the FBI concluded he did not lie because I have proof the FBI concluded he did lie: the notes from the interviewing agents which were taken at the FBI office immediately following the Flynn interview and filed in February 2017.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5633260/12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf
There is no FBI documentation at all that says Flynn did not lie. The only thing I know of that comes close is apparently from Strzok's June 2017 debriefing (the documentation either has not been released or I cannot find it) wherein he apparently said his read from Flynn's relaxed and unguarded demeanor that he was not lying. That is not the same as the FBI saying Flynn did not lie. Flynn very clearly lied and Strzok's own interview notes prove it -- he made "materially false statements" when directly asked three consecutive times whether he and Kislyak discussed the Obama sanctions. In March 2017 Comey apparently privately told the House Intelligence Committee the same thing, so this was original impression by Strzok. However, and this is very important, the fact that Strzok assessed Flynn's demeanor as indicating non-deception does not mean Flynn wasn't lying! Of course Flynn did not want to appear deceptive when he was telling lies!
Less important overall but more important for you to address re: your claims that "it was only after Mueller's team took over" that the FBI claimed Flynn had lied -- Mueller was not appointed until May 17 2017. The FBI had accused Flynn of lying almost immediately after their interview in January! Two days after the interview the FBI informed Attorney General Sally Yates of Flynn's lies and Flynn was fired in February by Trump for lying about the Kislyak call to Pence. It was not the Mueller probe that turned Flynn's false statements into a crime, you have completely fabricated that falsehood.
Quote:
What was the FBI properly investigating in its interview with Flynn? The answer is nothing. The interview was pretext to take out Flynn with either bogus Logan Act claims or a "lie." The fact that the FBI and Sally Yates even raised the Logan Act shows has objectively bad faith the endeavor was - it is laughable. And if you dispute that, please confirm that the FBI has similarly investigated John Kerry for his constant direct meddling with Iran since 2017.
First let's note the return of equivocation. "Others do it too" is now the (selective) approach to excusing law breaking by "conservatives". Second note that there is no actual evidence that Kerry advised Iran take an action contrary to the explicit policy of the US government, but there is a transcript of Flynn's talks. So even the equivocation is built on nothing.
Now let's talk about the Logan Act. It's been the law for over 200 years, and not one of those laws that doesn't get repealed because no one knows it exists. There have been attempts to repeal it and they fail despite the constitutional liberty questions and the fact that no one has ever been convicted of its breach, and I believe it is because the law actually does touch upon a compelling state interest. US citizens should not be directly conspiring with adversarial governments to sabotage the diplomatic policy of their own government. That said, I can respect an anti-Logan Act position, but only one assumed honorably. It is not honorable for a high public officer to purposefully break a law they don't like, and then break the law again by lying about it to cover it up. If the Logan Act is wrong, Flynn should have admitted his actions to the FBI when they came to interview him and dared them to give him a chance to have the law overturned through prosecution.
However, I don't think Flynn was worried about being prosecuted for violating the act when he lied about the Kislyak conversation. I think he was worried about the exposure of improper communications with the Russians at a moment when the Trump administration was under fire for having colluded with them to corrupt the 2016 election. Regardless of whether he would be prosecuted for the breach, admitting it happened exposes him and the Trump administration to more probing about the matter including perilous questions like "who told you to collaborate with Kislyak about defeating Obama's sanctions?"
A little historical note: Republicans have a proven history of this kind of behavior. In October 1968 the Johnson administration was trying to get a peace plan working while Nixon was secretly telling the government of South Vietnam to stonewall peace efforts, promising them a better deal once Nixon had won the White House. Nixon denied this on a phone call with Johnson, possibly not knowing that the president had transcripts of conversations between his campaign and South Vietnam. Later Nixon denied knowing about the secret negotiations and that denial held up in public for 50 years until his aide HR Halderman's notes on the operation personally implicating Nixon were discovered among his papers.
Ultimately however it doesn't matter why Flynn lied. He did lie. They have him dead to rights on having made materially false statements. That's on top of the Logan Act and FARA violations (the latter his son is also implicated in).
Quote:
Flynn did what a lot of people in his situation would do. He took a deal. The question is would he have done so had he known - and had the FBI disclosed - all of the materials they failed to disclose. For example, if he'd have known the FBI had initially concluded he didn't lie, I think that's a game changer. And the feds had a standing obligation to disclose those items - that's not really in dispute. Not to mention the fact that the 302 was edited after the fact and all the other evidence coming out now that reflects very poorly on Mueller's prosecutors and the FBI.
Flynn may not be a hero. But he's entitled to the same due process and fairness that any other defendant would be. And if you can't see that he was targeted solely because he was a Trump supporter - and received disparate treatment - then you're partisan hatred is clouding your judgment.
Again, the FBI never concluded Flynn did not lie. As for the rest of the "revelations" in the documentation, they reflect what the law enforcement establishment in this country regards as legitimate investigatory techniques. The FBI did not entrap Mike Flynn, nor is it even clear from their internal communications that they were trying to target him for prosecution. What is clear is they were determined to understand his role in the larger Russia investigation, and ultimately they were successful in leveraging Flynn's culpability into turning him informant.
Not only has Flynn received the due process he's entitled to, but in fact he has been treated very sweetly by his supposed persecutors. He confessed to violating three different federal statutes and Mueller recommended six months. He has yet to serve a day and it's doubtful he ever will. If he's allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, the legal case against him may well be suspended. Otherwise he can expect a pardon from Trump.
Imagine the tables were turned, and it was an Obama official who was caught by the Bush administration collaborating with Russia or Iran in December 2008 with transcripts, and then lied to the FBI about it. Further that the official in question was hyper-partisan and had been paid by Russia/Iran $65,000 in that same year. Plus the US intelligence community reporting that the Russians had materially backed Obama in the election. Imagine all of that and then think about what the reaction from American "conservatives" would have been. You people really have a lot of nerve defending Flynn, Stone, Manafort, etc.
Comey and McCabe both told congress the FBI agents did not believe Flynn was lying.
False. That is what unnamed sources (Republicans) leaked to the press about Comey's closed-door Congressional testimony. Why should we believe the unverfiable characterization by (partisan) unnamed sources when we have it straight from the horse's mouth? This is from Comey's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Dec 7 2018:
Mr. Gowdy. Did either of those agents, or both, ever tell you that they did not adduce an intent to deceive from their interview with General Flynn? Mr. Comey. No. Mr. Gowdy. Have you ever testified differently?Mr. Comey. No.Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall being asked that question in a HPSCI hearing?Mr. Comey. No. I recall -- I don't remember what question I was asked. I recall saying the agents observed no indicia of deception, physical manifestations, shiftiness, that sort of thing.Mr. Gowdy. And, again, what was communicated on the issue of an intent to deceive? What's your recollection on what those agents relayed back?Mr. Comey. My recollection was he was -- the conclusionof the investigators was he was obviously lying, but they saw none of the normal common indicia of deception: that is, hesitancy to answer, shifting in seat, sweating, all the things that you might associate with someone who is conscious and manifesting that they are being -- they're telling falsehoods. There's no doubt he was lying, but that those indicators weren't there....Mr. Gowdy. And, again -- because I'm afraid I may have interrupted you, which I didn't mean to do -- your agents, it was relayed to you that your agents' perspective on that interview with General Flynn was what? Because where I stopped you was, you said: He was lying. They knew he was lying, but he didn't have the indicia of lying.
Mr. Comey. Correct. All I was doing was answering your question, which I understood to be your question, about whether I had previously testified that he -- the agents did not believe he was lying. I was trying to clarify. I think that reporting that you've seen is the product of a garble. What I recall telling the House Intelligence Committee is that the agents observed none of the common indicia of lying -- physicalmanifestations, changes in tone, changes in pace -- that would indicate the person I'm interviewing knows they're telling me stuff that ain't true. They didn't see that here. It was a natural conversation, answered fully their questions, didn't avoid. That notwithstanding, they concluded he was lying.https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5470646/Comey-Interview-12-7-18-Redacted.pdfThere. Comey repeatedly said the agents told him they didn't detect the "common indicia of lying" but "That notwithstanding, they concluded he was lying". And he said that his recollection was testifying to the same in the closed door portion of his testimony. And note, no push back from the Republican members of this committee on that claim, though they would have known if it was false because they include the same members as the closed portion.
I can't find transcripts for relevant portions of McCabe's testimony, but if you post them and they say "the interviewing agents told me they didn't think Flynn intended to lie", I'll eat my lunch. Otherwise, admit you're peddling lies and then stop.
Quote:
It was only after mueller took over that charges were brought.
Note how you quietly changed your own Mueller claim. In your last post you said "It was only after Mueller's team took over and they wanted to squeeze Flynn that the "lie" allegation ... became part of the plan."
The FBI did not suddenly decide Flynn had lied when Mueller took over. They determined that Flynn had lied the day he did so, Jan 24 2017. The next day they told the Attorney General and the day after that she called the White House Counsel to report Flynn's lies. Less than three weeks later Trump meets with Comey and asks him to 'let Flynn go'. Mueller wasn't even appointed until months later.
It doesn't matter when charges were formally brought. Admit that the FBI said Flynn had lied from the beginning, not just after Mueller took over, and then stop peddling lies.
Quote:
"Collaborating"? Flynn was doing his job as part of the transition. And every new administration changes policy and lets foreign governments know changes are coming. I assure you that in 2008, President Elect Obama transition members were making the exact same type of calls. And before that, in 2000, Bush did the same thing.
The return of baseless equivocation. What Flynn did is illegal but we'll just alledge without any substantiation that Obama did the same thing and it will all be okay.
Tell you what Bear Goggles, show me a transcript (or official representation of one, such as by the FBI with Flynn's Kislyak phone call) of an Obama transition team senior member speaking with a senior member of an adversarial government explicitly planning the response to punitive measures by the US government and I will call for their investigation too. Same goes for Bush or any other incoming administration. Otherwise stop equivocating, especially when you're equating real illegal conduct with supposed illegal conduct.
Quote:
Your defense of the Logan Act is laughable. It is dead and has never been successfully prosecuted - not even an attempt in the last century. And if you think it has any basis in good policy, please explain why John Kerry (or for that matter, Jessie Jackson, Dennis Rodman, and a ton of other people) have never been threatened with prosecution. Literally, John Kerry and many others are actively meeting with the EU and Iran on an ongoing basis now - why no investigation?
The never-ending equivocation.
I will repeat the above. Kerry claims he did not speak with Iranians about how to respond to Trump's policies, and has not met with them since the Trump administration decided to pull out of the JCPOA. Show me proof that Kerry (or any of the others named) discussed with Iran how to defeat the new Trump administration US policy toward Iran and I will condemn him too. Otherwise stop equivocating, especially when you're equating real illegal conduct with supposed illegal conduct.
As far as the constitutionality of the Logan Act goes, tell me Bear Goggles: doesn't the state have a compelling interest in not having their citizens partnering with foreign governments to defeat the measures of the United States?
What if Biden's top national security advisor was caught on text or tape scheming with China defeat Trump's trade policy, telling them explicitly not to make a deal with Trump with the assurance that they would receive a more favorable deal from Biden. Would you really just pretend it's totally normal and not unethical, to say nothing of illegal?
Quote:
I'm not going to correct all of your factual misstatements.
Why, you're too busy? You've written over 1000 words in this thread to lay out your opinion but you can't be bothered with efforts to defend all of your position? I have comprehensively answered your offerings. If you had confidence in what you're selling, you would do the same.
Quote:
But Flynn did not plead guilty to lying three times.
I never said Flynn plead guilty to lying three times, or that he was charged with three counts of lying. I said in their interview the FBI asked him three consecutive times whether he discussed the new Obama sanctions with Kislyak and he said no each time. This is what the 302 says. Go back and read what I wrote. If I'm wrong right now, show me and I'll retract. Otherwise come back and admit you just stabbed a straw man.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5633260/12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdfThe point being that it's not like the FBI just slipped the sanctions matter into other questioning and Flynn didn't notice what they were talking about. They were very explicit with what they were asking, and repeated themselves twice just to make sure there was no misunderstanding. It's not plausible that Flynn didn't understand what they were referring to, or forgot that part of the discussion somehow.
Quote:
Also, contrary to your assertion, there is evidence as to why Strzok intervened to prevent closure of the Flynn investigation. In contemporaneous texts, it was based on instructions from the "7th floor" which is Comey/McCabe, etc. And they did it so they could have a pretext for the interview.
FBI didn't need to avert the closure of their Flynn investigation in order to have a pretext to interview him, because even if they had officially closed the investigation the closure came with the stipulation that "If new information is identified or reported to the FBI regarding the activities of [Flynn], the FBI will consider reopening the investigation if warranted." Well new information did reach the FBI regarding Flynn's activities, they discovered at this time that Flynn had talked with Kislyak about the Obama sanctions and had a transcript of his conversation. Doesn't that qualify as "new information" regarding Flynn's unauthorized activities relevant to their Russia investigation?
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.189.1.pdf"Need to decide what to do with him [regarding] the [redacted]
7th floor involved"We do not know why Strzok intervened to ensure the case was not closed, just that "7th Floor" was "involved". We do not know which direction the decision initiated from and we don't know exactly why one or more agents wanted the case to remain open either -- whether one or more of them were already aware of the existence and content of the Kislyak call or if the Flynn case was kept open for other reasons.
At any rate, we should be able to agree that "the FBI exonerated Flynn before they said he lied" stuff is absurd because closing an investigation into a person of interest is not synonymous with exonerating them, right? And the memo initiating the closure said nothing about exonerating Flynn, just that no bad info about him had come in so far, agreed?
Quote:
Point of irony - the link to the 302s your posted actually supports my position. Those 302s were not disclosed in violation of the Court's standing order and constitutional requirements. They also show that the 302 from Flynn's interview was edited multiple times by people who had no business making changes, all in coordination with the 7th floor. This was highly irregular and improper under standing FBI rules and regs. Can you provide any innocent explanation for why this took place?
So you say. What does the federal judge presiding over the case say?
"For starters, the Court agrees with the government that there were no material changes in the interview reports, and that those reports track the interviewing FBI agents' notes."..."Having carefully reviewed the interviewing FBI agents' notes, the draft interview reports, the final version of the FD302, and the statements contained therein, the Court agrees with the government that those documents are "consistent and clear that [Mr. Flynn] made multiple false statements to the [FBI]agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017" https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016f-109b-d105-af6f-97bb428b0000pages 42, 43Maybe there were irregularities in parts of the internal process of the FBI in the Flynn investigation. I'm not an FBI agent. Even if there were, however, those would be process complaints. They're not okay where they exist, but they don't exonerate the accused. The FBI has maintained from the day of the interview that Flynn lied. Flynn confessed when confronted with the transcripts and even to this day has not contested the twin facts that the FBI asked him about whether he and Kislyak discussed the Obama sanctions and that he denied that they did (one of his several denials was couched in the terms 'I don't remember us doing so, but if we did it was just in passing'
Now don't hide from this next part. You want to pretend Flynn didn't lie to the FBI when he claimed he did not have those discussions with Kislyak, but Trump demanded Flynn's resignation because he lied to Pence when asked the same question by the VP nine days earlier. Note that this part has nothing to do with the FBI. Pence knew what Flynn told him, and would know Flynn had lied just by discovering the transcript of the Kislyak conversation.
Quote:
Flynn was targeted and railroaded to besmirch Trump and hopefully get Flynn to flip. That doesn't mean he is innocent or, separate from criminality, blameless in some moral sense. However, the question of why he was prosecuted when others weren't under identical circumstances tells you everything you need to know.
Yes, if only all the things you've presented to substantiate this argument so far weren't demonstrably false.
I am curious about some of the things the right wing is saying is evidence that Flynn was railroaded: they were out to get him, they were politically biased, they misled him, they violated procedures, they had no reason to investigate him, they illegally gathered evidence, their accounts of interviews are false, the law he was being investigated under is BS, his attorneys were incompetent, the judge had it out for him -- when I see actually egregious examples of this LE conduct, right-wingers always seem to back LE. What's different this time? It's a right-winger under prosecution.
Quote:
For example, Andrew McCabe was found to have lied repeatedly and knowingly to FBI investigators. It was an active leak investigation and McCabe lied to: (i) hide the fact that he was the leaker; and (ii) actually blamed the leaks on other parties to deflect suspicion. Under what theory of justice is it ok to prosecute Flynn but not McCabe?
They DID attempt to prosecute McCabe!
In July 2018 a Trump appointed federal DA brought a False Statements case against McCabe before a grand jury which failed to return an indictment! The Trump Justice Department then dragged the proceedings out for over a year, which pissed off the (Reagan and Bush) appointed federal judge overseeing McCabe's case. In February 2020 the Trump Justice department finally announced that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute McCabe and that the case would be dropped.
Additionally, it apparently is Justice Department policy not to prosecute under the federal statute against false statements its own personnel who give false statements during internal investigations, which is what McCabe did. The prosecution was politically motivated, as implied by the Republican appointed judge in the case.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/mystery-mccabe-grand-juryQuote:
Same argument for FARA. How is it that Flynn and his son get threatened with that law, but the Podestas (and many, many others) are not prosecuted or even given a civil penalty?
Seriously, are you aware how much of your Flynn position is based on wild equivocation?
In your last post you claimed it was exceedingly rare for a FARA violation to be prosecuted. Then I showed you the case of a Democrat prosecuted for FARA violations by the Trump DOJ. I guess this was one of those "factual misstatements" you claim I made and you just weren't going to bother correcting. Before I address more of your pointless FARA equivocation, how about you acknowledge the problem with your initial claim about FARA violations being "almost never criminally charged". Why would we be giving Mike Flynn a pass for violating a federal statute that the Trump DOJ just tried (and incompetently failed) to make a prosecution under?
Quote:
You can't answer these questions (honestly) because it shows that Flynn was taken out for political reasons. Your shoe on the other foot argument is apt - if what happened to Flynn is ok, then wait until the next president comes into office.
You have us confused. Practically speaking, I covered your last post line for line, just like this one. It's you who can't answer my points, and it's because your defense of Flynn is completely partisan and there are no good partisan responses to many inconvenient facts. I have very little doubt that you would be livid if Russia partnered with a Democratic campaign to corrupt an election and would view a Democratic Flynn as a traitor for his relationship with Russia, but because it was a Republican campaign and Flynn was playing for Red Team, it's all good.
Quote:
There has been a ton of proven misconduct and irregularities at the FBI and above - the Horowitz IG reports make that very clear, not to mention all the FISA misconduct. And all of those errors and misconduct (or "mistakes") were directed at the same objective - attacking Trump and his administration. The Flynn prosecution did not happen in a vacuum - it is part of the larger misconduct.
It's a joke you're bringing up the Horowitz report because it ultimately refuted the right-wing allegations about the political bias of the FBI determining the course of the Russia investigation. Horowitz even concluded that Strzok and Lisa Page, despite their anti-Trump feelings, conducted their professional activities without partisanship. The Horowitz report also contains no disparaging content of the FBI's actions in their investigation of Michael Flynn. In fact, his case figures little into the reports findings, which are directed toward the genesis of the Russia investigation, the investigation into Carter Page (which was both abusive and in error, but not a part of the "General Flynn Travesty"), and the investigation's use of FISA authorizations (which were not used for Flynn anyway). If you want to talk more about the Horowitz report findings I'll be glad to, but you first have to acknowledge the above is accurate.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6571534/OIG-Russia-Investigation-Report.pdf
