This is bullshit and the judge already ruled against this argument.
Things happened between Jan 4 and Jan 24. This has been explained. Any argument that ignores this is invalid.
I’m surprised show trials haven’t started. I won’t be surprised by probes of Deep State conspiracies.* Yes, expect Barr’s DoJ to target Obama-Clinton-Biden-Pelosi associates and families with nasty charges in carefully-selected courts. It’s so Stalinist.** Expect more darkness at noon.
- Total bullshit, of course. If an effective Deep State actually existed, Ms Clinton would [del]infest[/del] occupy the Oval Office. Or she would have until being impeached in February 2017.
** I’ll avoid Godwin’s Law but does any online law cover invocations of Stalin?
Another account of Bill Barr’s dishonesty: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/opinion/bill-barr-michael-flynn.html?smid=tw-share
Barr is one of the most knowingly corrupt government officials in living memory.
Because people lie. That’s what we do. Especially when government agents come to you and start asking questions about shit you did. Deny, deny, deny is your first instinct.
It is so strong that in my state the law against lying to the police specifically excludes a person who is under investigation.
But the situation here was absurd. They had the tapes. They knew he didn’t violate the Logan Act. They knew he didn’t collude with Russia or anyone else. The investigation was to be closed. But the notes from the agents show that they didn’t want it to be closed.
They wanted an interview with Flynn solely for the purpose of hoping he would lie about something so they could charge him with that. Read that last sentence again. Do you think that is a legitimate function of our law enforcement agencies? I don’t. It’s abusive and politically motivated. I’m against that whether it is Flynn or Hillary or the mayor of a small town.
Investigate crimes, not people.
Also, nobody on either side of this seems at all concerned that the FBI just wiretaps phone conversations between high ranking officials for no cause. Welcome to the Land of the Free, I guess.
This is the Barr/Trump line, but you’ve ignored numerous facts, like those described in detail in linked articles from law professionals who point out the many dishonest representations by Barr.
Having met Mike Flynn years ago, and talked to him for maybe 45 minutes, I can state clearly that the dude was a nut, loose cannon, a few chips short of a bag, and deserved some kind of investigation. And this was well before he hooked up with Trump.
They had the tapes, and they had evidence that Flynn was lying about what he said on the tapes. This is important because Flynn could have been compromised as a result of these lies. Lies told after the January 4 notes about closing the case.
Contact with an agent of a hostile foreign power is a perfectly good predicate to open or continue a counterintelligence investigation, especially when national security is at stake.
Evidence that Flynn was compromised was a perfectly good predicate for questioning Flynn.
The fact that the prosecution did not disclose important information (e.g. that the FBI has decided Flynn was clean) came out only recently - well after the judge’s ruling.
False.
For multiple reasons.
Well, that’s what some of us do, anyway. And that’s a bad thing. Which is why we have laws against lying in certain important circumstances.
I’d rather have the power in this nation wielded by the people who don’t lie.
So do I, but I include the FBI in that. YMMV.
Regards,
Shodan
And if you have any evidence that the FBI lied, then I’d welcome hearing about it.
Note that neither changing their position when new evidence comes to light, nor refraining from telling the subject of an investigation everything they know, constitutes lying.
Flynn lied, admitted lying, and his behavior was characterized as lying by both the VP and the President… and now they think it would be fine to welcome him back to high government service.
What’s it like to be forced, day after day, to defend and rationalize this kind of incredibly dishonorable and indecent behavior? I can’t imagine. Must really, really suck – even just for those who variously use snark and one-liners to try and dismiss it. That can’t be good for your soul, day after day after day.
I keep coming back to this same thought. Just rip the bandaid off and admit you were wrong.
I mean, it must be exhausting to keep pretending. Being conned is not shameful, but insisting on being conned is.
They were wiretapping high level Russian officials. If an ex-military private citizen with close government contacts (which describes Flynn at the time of the call) happens to call a high level Russian official that’s being wiretapped, are you suggesting they should turn off the tape?
IIRC, the judge didn’t think the prosecution went far enough and questioned why Flynn wasn’t charged with treason.
Team Tramp CANNOT admit mistakes. The only options are lie, deny, deflect, and blame. Admission of error is fatal. Only luzers apologize; winners gloat because perfect, doing nothing wrong, we’re the greatest, yada yada.
They’ve mostly pretended enough to avoid jail. But the hard part of pretending is memory, continuity, remembering which lies were told last. Team Tramp just issues new lies irrespective of prior bullshit. Old bullshit dries up and blows away fast; the faithful herd and the exhausted, frantic press only notice the latest, freshest bullshit. Lead on, oh diarrhetic one!
But, I don’t even mean the Trump administration. I mean the supporters. The Republicans who somehow simultaneously venerate Reagan and also support Trump, despite the fact that the former would never share a party with the latter.
Funny. Nearly 2,000 US attorneys disagree (The Hill) with Barr’s interpretation of the law in the instant case and have signed a petition calling on Barr to resign for his actions.
I know which side I find more credible between 2,000 DOJ officials/Judge Emmet Sullivan, and “Judge” Jeanine Pirro.
Ann Hedonia, your recollection is correct.
The aforementioned <sarcasm>distinguished</sarcasm>Fox “News” propagandist Jeanine Pirro opines (Youtube at 7:55) on how Judge Emmet Sullivan would rule in Flynn’s favor at sentencing, because he is an outstanding judge who can see through the Deep State Conspiracy™ and will throw out the conviction because it is so obviously unlawful. She got the first part right, at least. Judge Emmet Sullivan certainly saw through all the BS. He wondered aloud on the record if the prosecutors had explored treason charges for Flynn.
Interesting how Pirro’s opinion tracks almost in lockstep with those in this thread expressing their outrage over Flynn’s treatment. It’s as if they can’t be bothered to read Judge Sullivan’s actual ruling, or indeed any of the underlying documents such as Mueller’s full report.
This seems like a strange position to take. Do you similarly feel that state and local law enforcement should not be allowed to lie as well?