The Great Unmasking

[Kasandra]

Lol.  Yep, too many words - it's never stopped you when you want to rant without facts, only when you'd have to put something down that demonstrates your position.  Like I said, I don't believe you even know the basis for your opinions, other than which team supports them.

You don't understand that just because you pump out a massive heap of blather with your own version of the facts that you're not right because I've given up refuting them.  Flynn pled guilty (fact).  Nobody made him do it (fact).  What he lied about mattered (fact).  Trial's over (fact).  It's too late to take it back (fact).  2000 ex-DoJ lawyers and officials who worked for both Republican and Democratic Presidents and many legal scholars say Barr should resign (fact).  I've been saying facts like these over and over, but since you don't like them they aren't facts for you.

[Kasandra]

Which means they have to be extra-thorough in going over what these people were doing and building a credible case that no other motive/intent for their actions is within the realm of "reasonable doubt" as our justice systems standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You do realize that they didn't have to convict him or prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" since he confessed and pled guilty.

In his dramatic and surprise guilty plea in U.S. District Court on Dec. 1, 2017, early in Mueller's investigation, Flynn acknowledged that his false statements and omissions in FBI interviews a few days after Trump was sworn in "impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election," which the statement of offense he agreed to said. He specifically admitted to lying about asking the Russian ambassador to refrain from responding to Obama administration sanctions against Russia for its election interference and further requested Russia help block a United Nations vote on Israeli settlements which the incoming administration didn't agree with. Flynn also agreed that he lied about his lobbying activities in federal filings related to work on behalf of the Republic of Turkey throughout the 2016 campaign.

[yossarian22c]

The Obama administration was very likely the most corrupt in American history.

And yet there haven't been any officials going to prison yet.

Operative part is "yet."

It took over two years for Trump to get clear of what gifts the Obama Admin left him, and this investigation isn't even a year old at this point.
...

It's over a year old and followed up on a IG investigation into the same behavior. So there has been an investigation into it for 18 months to 2 years. At this point we still haven't seen any mid or senior level officials flipped or charged.

...
It's also weird how you're already concluding "they did nothing wrong" while only a year into the counter-investigation, while you were more than content to wait for 2 years on their own questionable investigation of Trump.

Also I never said they did nothing wrong, what I've concluded is that they likely didn't commit any crimes. There are unethical things that fall short of being illegal. See withholding aid to Ukraine while asking for an investigation into Biden. After hearing conservatives talk about how clearly the laws were broken for a really long time we've yet to see anyone charged. Its a little like the boy who cried wolf, I'll believe it when I see it.

...
4) Trump wants them to wait a little longer as it can make for a nice "October surprise" for the Democrats, but depending on factors in play, I'd expect they may be shooting to try to get at least one to trial in time for October just to make the Dems squirm. Rather than simply dropping indictments in October. (And I have doubts about his input in things mattering much to those involved, if its convenient and in line with something they're inclined to do anyway, they'll do it, otherwise, they'll ignore it)
...

Timing a prosecution to help your re-election campaign?!? I know that's unethical but also potentially illegal as well. Do you really think Trump is politicizing the justice department in this way? Because whatever Obama did with the investigation into Trump the only investigation that information leaked about during the campaign was the Clinton email investigation.

[Crunch]

You do realize that they didn't have to convict him or prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" since he confessed and pled guilty?

This is perhaps one of the most uninformed talking points on Flynn. It, once again, demonstrates that the law and legal precedent does not apply since orange man bad.

Please google “why innocent people plead guilty” and inform yourself.

[DonaldD]

Yes, and everybody in prison is innocent.  Just ask them.

[Kasandra]

Please google “why innocent people plead guilty” and inform yourself.

Thanks for the advice.  There are a lot of made up theories about how the FBI blackmailed and coerced Flynn to admit his guilt, but none of them are backed with any credible evidence, only increasingly angry insistence.  It's curious that nobody here, not even Seriati, claims that Flynn didn't do the things he pled guilty to doing.  Even Trump knows Flynn lied, which is why he fired him.  Now he wants to unfire him and unknow that he lied, but Trump's retraction/reversal/denial MO is another story.

It's also interesting to consider why guilty people plead guilty, which Flynn obviously was in this case.  I do admit it was a bit of a surprise to me that he did that, since it's much more common to do what virtually every other member of the Trump Administration who committed crimes have done.  They all resigned and insisted that they had done nothing wrong; some even paid back money they misdirected for personal uses even while they were insisting they hadn't done anything wrong.  Trump almost always backs them up, of course, because he knows how to get out of a jam with the law. 

I suspect the Mueller team let Flynn know that if he agreed to plead guilty to the charges he copped to they wouldn't dig deeper to find more.  That's not coercion or blackmail, just how criminal investigations work.  I suspect there is more to find, which may tie into why Obama fired him and warned Trump against hiring him.  Think how hard Republicans have been and are still digging to find dirt on Hillary and keep coming up empty.  Not even Barr has been willing to go there.  How hard they are digging to find dirt on Biden, but so far have only speculation and innuendo.

[yossarian22c]

You do realize that they didn't have to convict him or prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" since he confessed and pled guilty?

This is perhaps one of the most uninformed talking points on Flynn. It, once again, demonstrates that the law and legal precedent does not apply since orange man bad.

Please google “why innocent people plead guilty” and inform yourself.

Almost none of those reasons apply to rich, white, powerful people who haven't committed a crime. The 2 best reasons I've seen put forth are:

1) That lawyers are expensive and Flynn was running out of money. But if that was the case how is he paying his lawyers for this lengthy appeal process.
2) Flynn's consulting/lobbying business and therefore his son could come under further investigation.

If his business was 100% clean then other than legal fees there is very little reason for him to accept a plea deal. He could have cooperated with Mueller without pleading guilty if there wasn't anything to hide. It all comes down to legal fees and that seems like a bit of a weak reason for someone who would lose as much as Flynn would by a guilty plea. Also seems to be dispelled by his ability to keep the case going this long now. So instead of asking us to use google to get a list of reasons why mostly poor black kids would plead guilty without being guilty put forth a solid case why a senior administration official with access to at least a middle/upper class access to money would do so.

[Seriati]

You don't understand that just because you pump out a massive heap of blather with your own version of the facts that you're not right because I've given up refuting them.

You've never refuted anything in your life.  What you do is called disputing, you assert you disagree with things, but you don't prove a case.

Flynn pled guilty (fact).

That is a fact.

Nobody made him do it (fact).

That is an opinion.  Most people don't believe coerced confessions are real confessions.  It's also interesting that you seem to ignore the reality that a guilty plea is not necessarily the same thing as an admission in fact.  It's a legal claim in exchange for a deal.

It is simply a fact that defendants are routinely pressured into false guilty pleas.

What he lied about mattered (fact).

It actually didn't - which is the fact.  What he "lied" about - if there was even a lie - was not a violation of law or relevant to any criminal investigation.  It wasn't even connected to a valid counter-terrorism investigation.

Trial's over (fact).

There was a trial?  Not sure it can be a fact that it's "over" if it never happened, but it gets to the same place.

It's too late to take it back (fact).

Opinion, and honestly probably the wrong one. 

2000 ex-DoJ lawyers and officials who worked for both Republican and Democratic Presidents and many legal scholars say Barr should resign (fact).

That's true.  Of course that's a tiny fraction of the legal community, the legal scholars and even the ex-DOJ and it's trivially easy to find those who say he shouldn't.  There's no basis for the opinion of the 2000 other than politics.

Literally none.

Barr's involvement has been to unwind a prosecution that never should have happened.  The revealed facts mean that every single one of those people is endorsing a preference for governmental abuse over the rule of law.

I've been saying facts like these over and over, but since you don't like them they aren't facts for you.

You like to pretend that certain of your opinions are facts, you love to pretend that 2000 leftist lawyers signing a politically motivated letter is some kind of inassailable fact, but mostly you utterly refuse to actually look at substance.

The law on this is pretty clear, the government has complete discretion to drop any prosecution.  The role of the court - as set forth in binding Supreme Court precedent - is ministerial, and their discretion is to protect the DEFENDANT (i.e.,Michael Flynn) to prevent the government from dropping charges when a trial is going badly and refiling the charges for a new trial (double jeopardy doesn't attach until judgement).  But you ignore that.

You also ignore the actual evidence that demonstrates there was no legal basis for the investigation of Flynn.  Even the original predicate was dangerously inadequate.  There was never any probable cause to suspect Flynn, which literally means for any criminal investigation his Constitutional rights were violated.  Even for counter intelligence operations he was cleared prior to this interview.  This was you government creating a crime - which again the Supreme Court has expressly said they are not permitted to do.

You ignore that the government did not share exculpatory evidence in its possession - as they are legally required to do.  That they obtained the plea under false pretenses, bad faith and on the basis of an unequal application of the law (no "crime" they pursued Flynn on has ever been regularly enforced), each of which is a violation of law and Constitutional rights.  You ignore that at the time Flynn's case was assigned to Mueller he'd already been cleared by the FBI (ergo it was an improper assignment as it required an actual properly predicated criminal investigation - which again didn't exist).  You ignore that Flynn was illegally spied upon by multiple members of the administration.  You ignore that the records turn over during the trial actually establish the government cut a deal on Flynn's son (again for a charge that has NEVER been uniformly enforced at that the largest "penalty" associated with it in other cases are minor fines).  You ignore that the prosecutor in the Flynn case make false statements to the court and to the defense about having complied with his legal obligations to turn over both relevant exculpatory evidence but also all conditions that went into the plea arrangements.

You literally don't understand the difference between facts and your opinion, and you prefer lies that you agree with to truth.  But please, go find the lie Flynn told and quote it to us.  Show us the binding legal principal that applies.  Quote me the Constitutional interpretation that overrides Flynn's rights that were abused.

Yes, and everybody in prison is innocent.  Just ask them.

   

I find this response offensive.  You seem to be implying by throwing this out there that it means that everyone that pleads guilty is guilty.  It's well known that racial minorities are routinely forced to plead guilty to lesser crimes to avoid over charged crimes with massive penalties.  You may not want to believe that happened to an old white guy that the government bankrupted on false pretenses and threatened his children, but it's racially offensive to try and waive away the actual history of bad acts on pleas by the government.  It's extensive and it's well documented.

[DonaldD]

I find this response offensive. 

Aren't you the sensitive one... Context is important - in response to a request to search the interwebs and randomly look for excuses, I sarcastically replied with an observation that was similarly absent context.

[Kasandra]

You've never refuted anything in your life.

I like it when you spiral out of control like this.  Tell me more!

Barr's involvement has been to unwind a prosecution that never should have happened.  The revealed facts mean that every single one of those people is endorsing a preference for governmental abuse over the rule of law.

These two statements are utter nonsense, but you believe them so completely that they seem like facts to you.  What you call "revealed facts" are assertions based on your own beliefs, hence opinions, and because these professionals say them based on their understanding of "the rule of law" you claim they favor "governmental abuse" for no reason other than your committed beliefs won't allow their opinions to have credibility.

Politics is religion for you, and your religion is Conservative Fundamentalism.

[Kasandra]

I find this response offensive. 

Aren't you the sensitive one... Context is important - in response to a request to search the interwebs and randomly look for excuses, I sarcastically replied with an observation that was similarly absent context.

[wmLambert]

You've never refuted anything in your life.

I like it when you spiral out of control like this.  Tell me more!

If only you had the capacity for self-evaluation. There was zero "out-of-control" statements posted. Hard answers to disinformed opinion should work with an honest person. Yet, you answer with insult. That sure looks as if you cannot refute anything and can only deflect.

Barr's involvement has been to unwind a prosecution that never should have happened.  The revealed facts mean that every single one of those people is endorsing a preference for governmental abuse over the rule of law.

These two statements are utter nonsense, but you believe them so completely that they seem like facts to you.  What you call "revealed facts" are assertions based on your own beliefs, hence opinions, and because these professionals say them based on their understanding of "the rule of law" you claim they favor "governmental abuse" for no reason other than your committed beliefs won't allow their opinions to have credibility.

Politics is religion for you, and your religion is Conservative Fundamentalism.

More deflection and insult. Hard facts are not opinion. Flynn rescinded his guilty plea on the basis of coercion. Did he or didn't he? Why blather on about opinion when you could prove it one way or the other by supplying hard facts. You can't so you have admitted being incorrect.

[DonaldD]

wmLambert, I think this should even penetrate your incredibly effective shields.  Seriati stated "You've never refuted anything in your life."  Not a single thing.  Not one in 70+ years.

It's just a really stupid thing to say.  I bet Seriati even regrets saying it at this point.

But there you go, jumping in to defend even the stupidest thing said by "your team"

[wmLambert]

wmLambert, I think this should even penetrate your incredibly effective shields.  Seriati stated "You've never refuted anything in your life."  Not a single thing.  Not one in 70+ years.

It's just a really stupid thing to say.  I bet Seriati even regrets saying it at this point.

But there you go, jumping in to defend even the stupidest thing said by "your team"

Sorta following the Trump strategy of reacting to attacks by attacking back harder. I guess that can be effective, when the original attacker is unmoved by gentlemanly responses. Again, like the 2x4 you need to whack the mule on the forehead to get its attention.

I think Seriati has tried harder than anyone in this forum to respond effectively without rancor, but sometimes that 2x4 looks pretty good when dealing with the intransigent.

BTW, you mistated his quote by clipping it: "You've never refuted anything in your life.  What you do is called disputing, you assert you disagree with things, but you don't prove a case." That is not the same as what you charged. She admitted she picked her name to indicate how she will post.

[Kasandra]

wmLambert, I think this should even penetrate your incredibly effective shields.  Seriati stated "You've never refuted anything in your life."  Not a single thing.  Not one in 70+ years.

It's just a really stupid thing to say.  I bet Seriati even regrets saying it at this point.

But there you go, jumping in to defend even the stupidest thing said by "your team"

Sorta following the Trump strategy of reacting to attacks by attacking back harder. I guess that can be effective, when the original attacker is unmoved by gentlemanly responses. Again, like the 2x4 you need to whack the mule on the forehead to get its attention.

I think Seriati has tried harder than anyone in this forum to respond effectively without rancor, but sometimes that 2x4 looks pretty good when dealing with the intransigent.

BTW, you mistated his quote by clipping it: "You've never refuted anything in your life.  What you do is called disputing, you assert you disagree with things, but you don't prove a case." That is not the same as what you charged. She admitted she picked her name to indicate how she will post.

Well, to be fair, you're on record insisting that Trump is not only the greatest President in history, but never says anything negative about anybody.  So, well....praising Seriati doesn't go as far as you think it does.  Next you'll be saying nice things about Crunch and some people's heads will explode .  Bless your heart.

BTW, you mistated his quote by clipping it: "You've never refuted anything in your life.  What you do is called disputing, you assert you disagree with things, but you don't prove a case." That is not the same as what you charged. She admitted she picked her name to indicate how she will post.

You might want to read up on who Kasandra was.

[TheDeamon]

Almost none of those reasons apply to rich, white, powerful people who haven't committed a crime. The 2 best reasons I've seen put forth are:

1) That lawyers are expensive and Flynn was running out of money. But if that was the case how is he paying his lawyers for this lengthy appeal process.
2) Flynn's consulting/lobbying business and therefore his son could come under further investigation.

If his business was 100% clean then other than legal fees there is very little reason for him to accept a plea deal. He could have cooperated with Mueller without pleading guilty if there wasn't anything to hide. It all comes down to legal fees and that seems like a bit of a weak reason for someone who would lose as much as Flynn would by a guilty plea. Also seems to be dispelled by his ability to keep the case going this long now. So instead of asking us to use google to get a list of reasons why mostly poor black kids would plead guilty without being guilty put forth a solid case why a senior administration official with access to at least a middle/upper class access to money would do so.

Oh so he pled guilty because he knew his son was guilty of something?

More likely he didn't want to bankrupt his son as well by also putting him through a politically motivated prosecution due to his ties to Trump.

If they'd already bankrupted the father, who probably was better off than his son, bankrupting the son would likely be trivial for a federal prosecutor trying to score political points.

[TheDeamon]

What he lied about mattered (fact).

It actually didn't - which is the fact.  What he "lied" about - if there was even a lie - was not a violation of law or relevant to any criminal investigation.  It wasn't even connected to a valid counter-terrorism investigation.

Trial's over (fact).

There was a trial?  Not sure it can be a fact that it's "over" if it never happened, but it gets to the same place.

It's too late to take it back (fact).

Opinion, and honestly probably the wrong one. 

2000 ex-DoJ lawyers and officials who worked for both Republican and Democratic Presidents and many legal scholars say Barr should resign (fact).

That's true.  Of course that's a tiny fraction of the legal community, the legal scholars and even the ex-DOJ and it's trivially easy to find those who say he shouldn't.  There's no basis for the opinion of the 2000 other than politics.

Literally none.

Barr's involvement has been to unwind a prosecution that never should have happened.  The revealed facts mean that every single one of those people is endorsing a preference for governmental abuse over the rule of law.

Which isn't to mention the Judge in this should be able to take a look at the new exculpatory evidence brought forward and be able to conclude that even if he rules against Flynn despite the DOJ's new reccomendation, it is now very likely that his ruling would be promptly overturned by the appeals court. Most judges at least give some consideration to that particular statistic, how many of their rulings get reversed, as it tends to be an indicator of their ability to be nominated for a higher bench seat. Obviously there are judges out there that are happy where they are, or are partisan enough to not care for other reasons, but even the "happy" judges are unlikely to make a determination they know will be rejected by the higher courts. 

Yes, and everybody in prison is innocent.  Just ask them.

   

I find this response offensive.  You seem to be implying by throwing this out there that it means that everyone that pleads guilty is guilty.  It's well known that racial minorities are routinely forced to plead guilty to lesser crimes to avoid over charged crimes with massive penalties.  You may not want to believe that happened to an old white guy that the government bankrupted on false pretenses and threatened his children, but it's racially offensive to try and waive away the actual history of bad acts on pleas by the government.  It's extensive and it's well documented.

There actually was a case not far from here where something almost exactly like that happened. Google "Angie Dodge" for more. Police had "a suspect" which they coerced and even "coached" into confessing to participating in her rape and murder(but not being the killer himself). But he recanted his confession before making a plea before the court. Case went to trial, prosecution used his earlier confession as their primary evidence for conviction, they convicted him. Enter DNA forensics, they eventually identify the killer(case still pending), no connection at all between the killer and the guy they previously convicted for participation. He's now free, and getting a nice settlement from the city and county for wrongful imprisonment.

And since I know one of you are going to try to go there, the wrongfully accused individual was white in this case.

[yossarian22c]

Oh so he pled guilty because he knew his son was guilty of something?

More likely he didn't want to bankrupt his son as well by also putting him through a politically motivated prosecution due to his ties to Trump.

If they'd already bankrupted the father, who probably was better off than his son, bankrupting the son would likely be trivial for a federal prosecutor trying to score political points.

Or he pled guilty because he was guilty of something. This is the simplest explanation.

But it would only bankrupt his son if he went and hired high price, high power lawyers, if its just a political witch hunt with no crime it seems like an hiring a good lawyer - maybe negotiating for 50-100k in legal fees for representation would be sufficient and well within the means of Flynn and his son. Hiring a high powered legal team at 50-100k per month is what hurt Flynn. Remember he had just made 500k lobbying for Turkey during the campaign. To say he couldn't have had good (if not the best) representation for that amount of money sounds odd to me. If 500k couldn't get him through an investigation and trial with good representation, particularly if he found a lawyer who wanted the publicity and/or was sympathetic to Trump to take the case at that price then I don't understand how anyone affords an investigation and trial.

It still comes down to this, the argument is that a man with as much to lose by a guilty plea as Flynn did pled guilty to a crime he didn't commit because of money is a big claim. I would need a lot to convince me of that. If he had committed no crimes the fact he couldn't score a cooperation deal with no personal felony guilty plea despite his resources and political connections is just astounding to me.

[Kasandra]

And since I know one of you are going to try to go there, the wrongfully accused individual was white in this case.

Who cares?  Anecdotal stories about miscarriages of justice or real-life atrocities imposed by authority upon weak or disenfranchised individuals has always happened.  This is not that.  Somehow suggesting that Flynn was some poor dumb guy too addled to cling to his knowledge of his own innocence is ludicrous.  White color wealthy and powerful white men with high level connections routinely plead ot guilty and get away with the most heinous crimes.  Not this time.  He lied. He confessed. He pled guilty.  Let it go.

[TheDeamon]

You might want to read up on who Kasandra was.

A prophet who was cursed so that nobody would believe true her prophesies until it was too late.

Too bad for you, the curse seems to have been reversed to a degree. As I'm not sure where the people are who believe your own prophecies of doom. It's clear a great many of them were, and still are, false.

[Kasandra]

You might want to read up on who Kasandra was.

A prophet who was cursed so that nobody would believe true her prophesies until it was too late.

Too bad for you, the curse seems to have been reversed to a degree. As I'm not sure where the people are who believe your own prophecies of doom. It's clear a great many of them were, and still are, false.

There are worse things to be .

[TheDeamon]

And since I know one of you are going to try to go there, the wrongfully accused individual was white in this case.

Who cares?  Anecdotal stories about miscarriages of justice or real-life atrocities imposed by authority upon weak or disenfranchised individuals has always happened.  This is not that.  Somehow suggesting that Flynn was some poor dumb guy too addled to cling to his knowledge of his own innocence is ludicrous.  White color wealthy and powerful white men with high level connections routinely plead ot guilty and get away with the most heinous crimes.  Not this time.  He lied. He confessed. He pled guilty.  Let it go.

With a statement like that in response to what I posted. I'm so very glad you're not my parent. So you're basically saying you'd have no compunction about destroying the lives of your children as a consequence of you having drawn the ire of over-zealous prosecutor with the resources of the Government at their disposal?

Your innocence is more important than the well-being of your adult children? Amazing.

[DonaldD]

There actually was a case not far from here...

I thought the point was obvious and went without saying, but the existence of bad faith on the part of the government does not mean that there was bad faith in any particular case, any more than the existence of incarcerated innocents means that all convicted are actually innocent. 

[TheDeamon]

There actually was a case not far from here...

I thought the point was obvious and went without saying, but the existence of bad faith on the part of the government does not mean that there was bad faith in any particular case, any more than the existence of incarcerated innocents means that all convicted are actually innocent.

Not going to disagree with that. But your sarcastic comment did still warrant rebuttal. Bad faith prosecutions and coerced confessions which are subsequently withdrawn can, and do happen in American far more frequently than most people are comfortable thinking about.

[Kasandra]

And since I know one of you are going to try to go there, the wrongfully accused individual was white in this case.

Who cares?  Anecdotal stories about miscarriages of justice or real-life atrocities imposed by authority upon weak or disenfranchised individuals has always happened.  This is not that.  Somehow suggesting that Flynn was some poor dumb guy too addled to cling to his knowledge of his own innocence is ludicrous.  White color wealthy and powerful white men with high level connections routinely plead ot guilty and get away with the most heinous crimes.  Not this time.  He lied. He confessed. He pled guilty.  Let it go.

With a statement like that in response to what I posted. I'm so very glad you're not my parent. So you're basically saying you'd have no compunction about destroying the lives of your children as a consequence of you having drawn the ire of over-zealous prosecutor with the resources of the Government at their disposal?

Your innocence is more important than the well-being of your adult children? Amazing.

You're a riot.  If I understand what you're saying, the only reason Flynn confessed to crimes he committed was because his adult child[ren] had also committed crimes?  So, what he did he did for the noblest of reasons?  Really, is that the new Flynn defense for why he should be set free?

[yossarian22c]

...
Your innocence is more important than the well-being of your adult children? Amazing.

Is there evidence his son was threatened with investigation? I know it has been asserted but I don't recall seeing any evidence of this fact.

There was talk of investigating his firm for undisclosed foreign lobbying related to the $500k Turkey was payed him. Maybe if you care so much for your adult children you should make sure the company you started and hire them into obeys all relevant laws. This isn't a prosecutor going after his son who was a farmer in Nebraska, his son was connected to some pretty shady dealings the Father had. I still don't see how Flynn and his son couldn't have had good representation from the $500k from Turkey without bankrupting them. If they had obeyed all relevant laws and were willing to cooperate with Mueller I don't see how he gets coerced into a confession.

[TheDeamon]

You're a riot.  If I understand what you're saying, the only reason Flynn confessed to crimes he committed was because his adult child[ren] had also committed crimes?  So, what he did he did for the noblest of reasons?  Really, is that the new Flynn defense for why he should be set free?

Most people have committed crimes that are chargeable under state or federal law, often while completely unaware of the fact they did so. You're forgetting how byzantine the legal and regulatory system in the United States has become. They "nailed" Flynn on a process violation under a law which hadn't seen enforcement in over 200 years.

And you're seemingly utterly oblivious to what kind of nightmare it can be to defend yourself against a government prosecutor's office which has decided they're "going to get you" one way or another.

Which is strange since I seem to recall you being one of those that is very mindful of "police retaliation" scenarios. Which is basically exactly what would be going on here, only taken to a much higher level. Not only do you have federal agents(rather than local cops) following you around waiting for you to step out of line. You now have them digging through every aspect of your life trying to find anything you might have done which might be in non-compliance with some law or regulation.

[TheDrake]

They "nailed" Flynn on a process violation under a law which hadn't seen enforcement in over 200 years.

I see this touted as proof that the law was being misapplied. Is it not also possible that no one has needed to enforce it in 200 years, because other administrations wait until they are actually in power before such discussions? One can also make the case that it wasn't needed, because outgoing administrations have avoided substantive change in policy during their lame-duck period.

[TheDeamon]

They "nailed" Flynn on a process violation under a law which hadn't seen enforcement in over 200 years.

I see this touted as proof that the law was being misapplied. Is it not also possible that no one has needed to enforce it in 200 years, because other administrations wait until they are actually in power before such discussions? One can also make the case that it wasn't needed, because outgoing administrations have avoided substantive change in policy during their lame-duck period.

Or the law was never intended to be applied during the transition phase between presidencies and was instead focused on the other 3.5 to 3.8 years of the president's term of officer?

As it still is entirely possible the "unique" thing about this situation was that the Obama Admin was both openly hostile to the incoming admin and willing to act on that hostility rather than leave things be, as prior admins did.

Just from memory, it would seem that by the logic being applied to Flynn, the Reagan Admin should have been hammered under the Logan Act by the Carter Admin for talking to Iran before assuming office. But they weren't. Which says the Obama Admin is the anomaly.

[Fenring]

As it still is entirely possible the "unique" thing about this situation was that the Obama Admin was both openly hostile to the incoming admin and willing to act on that hostility rather than leave things be, as prior admins did.

I was wondering about this earlier. Dunno if any of you have seen DS9, but there's a part in the series arc (SPOILERS) where the Federation has to give up the station back to the Cardassians, and as they're about to go they basically sabotage the entire station, destroying all computer systems, and rendering it inoperable. "Have fun with your victory." What is there to prevent such a scorched Earth tactic right now in transition between administrations? Like, is it actually feasible to place de facto booby traps and other surprises to undermine an incoming administration? I don't know if this actually happened here, but hypothetically let's say it had: how should such an eventuality be handled?

[Seriati]

These two statements are utter nonsense, but you believe them so completely that they seem like facts to you.  What you call "revealed facts" are assertions based on your own beliefs, hence opinions, and because these professionals say them based on their understanding of "the rule of law" you claim they favor "governmental abuse" for no reason other than your committed beliefs won't allow their opinions to have credibility.

What I refer to as "revealed facts" are statements in primary source documents, which you would know if you read anything before you spoke.  It's a fact that the FBI files show that no negative evidence was found on Flynn and the FBI moved to close his case prior to this meeting.  Its a fact that the call with Kislak revealed no crime and was not itself an adequate predicate for a counter intelligence investigation.  Its a fact that the DOJ has never brought a Logan Act claim, that its never been successfully prosecuted, that it is routinely violated, and that the dirty team had Lisa Page draft a memo on it to try and resurrect it for the sole purpose of getting Flynn.  It's a fact that we have seen their internal notes on that process, their inability to find anything criminal or intelligence related on Flynn.  We've seen the testimony of Sally Yates that undermines that what the FBI was doing was legitimate.  We've seen the records and testimony that show the FBI deliberately avoided DOJ and White House oversight.  The records that show both the DOJ and people inside the FBI said that Flynn should receive procedural warnings, heck the DOJ said he should not be interviewed without White House knowledge.

That's just a tiny handful.  We've seen the emails of Flynn's first lawyers that actually state that Flynn's son is part of the deal but that the DOJ won't put that in writing so they can get around the requirement of disclosure of that fact in court. 

Heck I linked above to the DOJ's last filing, did you even bother to read it?  It's filled with actual facts.

What have you actually seen?  As far as I can tell, nothing but articles written by people with a motive.

Politics is religion for you, and your religion is Conservative Fundamentalism.

Politics is a nasty business.  Its supposed to be there to help us achieve policy goals through collaboration.  But that's not what it does these days.  It's my not my religion, but it's clear its yours.  There is no fact pattern that convinces you that your opinion on something is wrong.  You dismiss actual facts with vague hand waiving about the "true" facts that only exist somewhere in your head, that it would be too big a bother to share when "everyone else" is arguing against you in some kind of bad faith.  I think projection is absolutely the correct term for the argument style you are employing.

[Seriati]

wmLambert, I think this should even penetrate your incredibly effective shields.  Seriati stated "You've never refuted anything in your life."  Not a single thing.  Not one in 70+ years.

It's just a really stupid thing to say.  I bet Seriati even regrets saying it at this point.

I don't regret it all.  I concede its certainly hyperbole, its possible he's refuted something at some point.  However, refutation is actually pretty rare, and for most people it's not an occurrence that comes up that often.

But there you go, jumping in to defend even the stupidest thing said by "your team"

In the vein of your response, I submit the following ridiculous and stupid statement.

I find this response offensive. 

Aren't you the sensitive one... Context is important - in response to a request to search the interwebs and randomly look for excuses, I sarcastically replied with an observation that was similarly absent context.

Nah, you dropped a racially sensitive jab as short hand to support your team for a proposition you knew was false - the idea that innocent people never plead guilty - and when you were called on it you deflected.

[Seriati]

If 500k couldn't get him through an investigation and trial with good representation, particularly if he found a lawyer who wanted the publicity and/or was sympathetic to Trump to take the case at that price then I don't understand how anyone affords an investigation and trial.

They plead guilty to a lesser crime.  I think what your missing is that for the vast majority of prosecutions its not political.  The prosecutor wants justice but they also want conviction or guilty plea and they are often dealing with a case load of dozens or even hundreds of cases.  They don't spend every waking moment on trying to get a conviction.  They have to have a reasonable predicate to investigate and probable cause to get access to most of the person's information.  They can't go to court without a good faith belief they can prove their case.

This case is different.  What they wanted was to flip Flynn to testify against others.  For that result they dedicated multiple lawyers full time to "getting" him.  They invaded his privacy without any evidence of a crime, let alone probable cause.   I would not be surprised if the time spent on the Flynn case is 100 times greater than average, even a 1000 times greater.  Bankrupting him with that kind of focus and attack is trivially easy.  Defending against it is virtually impossible for anyone not super wealthy.

This is the kind of focus you get in an organized crime case, where they spend thousands of man hours trying to build a case against a minor flunky.  But the difference is they keep that secret and the flunky is not incurring large legal bills every month trying to defend themselves.  The only other place you see this is when they go after a celebrity or CEO and there that defense bill goes into the millions almost without fail.

[Kasandra]

Most people have committed crimes that are chargeable under state or federal law, often while completely unaware of the fact they did so. You're forgetting how byzantine the legal and regulatory system in the United States has become. They "nailed" Flynn on a process violation under a law which hadn't seen enforcement in over 200 years.

What law that hasn't been used in over 200 years?  He lied to the FBI, which (I believe) didn't exist until the 1930's.  But your point is that the evil police state that has ruled with an iron hand over the country lo these many years was laying in wait for him.  It's not worth starting yet another pointless discuss about how that police state has been used to favor and disfavor different groups in our history.  But trust me that Flynn was not a member of any disfavored group.  He disfavored the country with his crimes and was caught.  Defending his honor is hard to do without looking foolish.

Which is strange since I seem to recall you being one of those that is very mindful of "police retaliation" scenarios. Which is basically exactly what would be going on here, only taken to a much higher level.

What's weird is that you are even trying to make this case.  What you are alleging to be "police retaliation" against Flynn is absolutely ludicrous.  No, I guess you don't see that.  Wow.  I don't know what else to say.

Seriati: What I refer to as "revealed facts" are statements in primary source documents, which you would know if you read anything before you spoke.

I've read them and I understand that you are making wishful interpretations about what they say.  You don't realize this, of course.  You believe this truly, with no reservation, and have no doubt not only that you are right, but that anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation hasn't read them, is stupid, or preferably both.  Stop complaining that I haven't read stuff.  I read news and underlying documents many hours every day.  You only make that charge because when I read them I don't come to the same "conclusion" you did.  My advice would be that you should read things that fall outside of the scope of the right-wing echo chamber from which you are provided your information.

Heck I linked above to the DOJ's last filing, did you even bother to read it?  It's filled with actual facts.

It's a 20pp argument with references to facts that are more assertions than actual facts.  And, yes, I read as much of it as I could stomach.  That the filing makes claims that sound like facts doesn't actually make them facts.  Are you taking the position that everything Barr's DoJ says is true?

I don't regret it all.  I concede its certainly hyperbole, its possible he's refuted something at some point.  However, refutation is actually pretty rare, and for most people it's not an occurrence that comes up that often.

I wouldn't expect you to.  I belong to a class of people who disagree with most of your opinions, and thereby am incapable of refuting anything you say.  In the years that I've observed and interacted with you on Ornery I don't think I've ever seen you concede a substantive point when you were proven wrong, and I assure you that you've had many opportunities to do that.

Over and out.

[Seriati]

...
Your innocence is more important than the well-being of your adult children? Amazing.

Is there evidence his son was threatened with investigation? I know it has been asserted but I don't recall seeing any evidence of this fact.

It's in the emails disclosed by the DOJ immediately prior to the filing.  Flynn's counsel, at the time, said that there was an understanding that there would be no prosecution of the son but that the DOJ would not put it in writing because they didn't intend to disclose it (as they are legally obligated to do) in the event they wanted to use Flynn's testimony in other trials.

That's the kind of disclosure that pretty much makes clear that Mueller's team had zero respect for their legal obligations.  It's an absolute act of bad faith to make a deal and then "paper it" to avoid a constitutional or legal obligation to disclose the deal.  It's a false statement and a fraud on the court as well.

There was talk of investigating his firm for undisclosed foreign lobbying related to the $500k Turkey was payed him. Maybe if you care so much for your adult children you should make sure the company you started and hire them into obeys all relevant laws. This isn't a prosecutor going after his son who was a farmer in Nebraska, his son was connected to some pretty shady dealings the Father had. I still don't see how Flynn and his son couldn't have had good representation from the $500k from Turkey without bankrupting them. If they had obeyed all relevant laws and were willing to cooperate with Mueller I don't see how he gets coerced into a confession.

Take five minutes and look up the history of FARA prosecutions.  Seriously.  7 prosecutions in 80 years despite wide spread non-compliance with the rules.  Virtually every single instance was settled by a remedial filing.

Mueller's team?  They thought it was a godsend, and have prosecuted more people (related to Trump) on FARA violations than the entire US government in its history.  And its 100% true that FARA violations exist on both sides of the political spectrum, notwithstanding the focus.

This first link gives you some details on the Mueller team's novel expansion of the rule.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-departments-new-unprecedented-use-foreign-agents-registration-act

This link gives more general detail on the history:

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/12/06/prosecutions-under-the-foreign-agents-registration-act-the-past-present-and-future/

[wmLambert]

...You might want to read up on who Kasandra was.

Why? Everyone knows Cassandra from Greek history/myth as the "great whiner." You could have picked "Eeyore" for a more recent nom de plume. Pandora would work also, however; at least with her, the last thing out of the box was hope.

[wmLambert]

...https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/12/06/prosecutions-under-the-foreign-agents-registration-act-the-past-present-and-future/

Excellant article by Joshua R. Fattal.

[Seriati]

What law that hasn't been used in over 200 years?

The Logan Act.  Are you paying any attention?

He lied to the FBI, which (I believe) didn't exist until the 1930's.

Not a crime.  You're missing elements, which is exactly the point of the DOJ's last filing.

But your point is that the evil police state that has ruled with an iron hand over the country lo these many years was laying in wait for him.

Nope.  Politically motivated FBI agents from the prior administration, with support from their counterparts in the DOJ, the intelligence community and the outgoing administration.  So not hundreds of years of evil.

But trust me that Flynn was not a member of any disfavored group.

Again wrong.  Flynn was a Trump supporter, and someone that Obama disliked personally.  Trump supporters were absolutely disfavored by the FBI and DOJ, hence their multiple prosecutions for violations of little enforced laws while the DOJ and FBI ignored wide spread violations of those laws for decades and during the same time period for non-Trump supporters.

He disfavored the country with his crimes and was caught.

He didn't commit a crime.  He wasn't caught, he was "set-up" and charged with a process violation.

Defending his honor is hard to do without looking foolish.

What looks foolish is revealing how openly one can lie to themselves about what kind of person they really are by what they are willing to tolerate so long as its done to the "other."

I've read them and I understand that you are making wishful interpretations about what they say.

I'm just going to say I think you're lying.  No one could have read them and not known about the Logan act or make the irrational arguments your making.  If you had read them you would have explained why they don't apply or are misinterpretted.

You believe this truly, with no reservation, and have no doubt not only that you are right, but that anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation hasn't read them, is stupid, or preferably both.

No.  I do believe that 90% of the people with strong opinions on them never read them.

There are good faith arguments to be made, I'm aware of several.  You haven't made them.  What you've done is deny facts and excuse violations of civil rights.  And yes, anyone that does that has issues.  But you forgot the primary category, it's not too stupid to understand, it's politically motivated and convinced that the ends justify the means.  The left has good lawyers, but they are what you'd call in the gaming community rules lawyers.  They twist the words of the statutes and rules to generate the opposite effect of what was intended.  That's what Flynn's judge is doing when he's trying to use a power that is for the protection of the defendant to create a novel and new way to punish a defendant.  That's what Obama's administration did and that apparently the FBI has been doing for a very long time in connection with unmasking and using the FISA courts to violate the fourth amendment rights of US citizens.

I get it.  It's your team and you can't see it as wrong.  But not one person on this board could reasonably argue that your position wouldn't flip on a dime if Trump did this to someone on your team.

Stop complaining that I haven't read stuff.  I read news and underlying documents many hours every day.  You only make that charge because when I read them I don't come to the same "conclusion" you did.  My advice would be that you should read things that fall outside of the scope of the right-wing echo chamber from which you are provided your information.

I make that claim because you have no familiarity with their contents, lie about what they say  and can't construct even a basic defense of your position based on their actual contents.

Heck I linked above to the DOJ's last filing, did you even bother to read it?  It's filled with actual facts.

It's a 20pp argument with references to facts that are more assertions than actual facts.  And, yes, I read as much of it as I could stomach.  That the filing makes claims that sound like facts doesn't actually make them facts.  Are you taking the position that everything Barr's DoJ says is true?[/quote]

I see.  You don't like facts so you stop reading them.  Got it.  What's in that filing is referenced to actual documents.  Not documents written by Barr's team, documents written by Comey's team, Obama's team and in statements made by those teams.  it's literal recitation of your own teams words.

I wouldn't expect you to.  I belong to a class of people who disagree with most of your opinions, and thereby am incapable of refuting anything you say.

Your statement is false, your premise doesn't necessitate your conclusion.  Your inability to refute things is a personal failing not a consequence of your politics or positions.

In the years that I've observed and interacted with you on Ornery I don't think I've ever seen you concede a substantive point when you were proven wrong, and I assure you that you've had many opportunities to do that.

I have a few times over the years.  But asserting your disagreement of opinion is not persuasive to convince me to do so.

[Kasandra]

Seriati: The Logan Act.  Are you paying any attention?

Flynn wasn't charged with the Logan Act!?!?!?  What are you talking about?!?!?!

Seriati: Not a crime.  You're missing elements, which is exactly the point of the DOJ's last filing.

Check this out:

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal process crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States,[1] even by merely denying guilt when asked by a federal agent.[2] A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[3] Rod Blagojevich,[4] Michael T. Flynn,[5] Rick Gates,[6] Scooter Libby,[7] Bernard Madoff,[8] and Jeffrey Skilling.[9]

Seriati: Nope.  Politically motivated FBI agents from the prior administration, with support from their counterparts in the DOJ, the intelligence community and the outgoing administration.  So not hundreds of years of evil.

Really!  This never happened until evil Obama took charge?  Really?  I mean, REALLY?

Seriati: Again wrong.  Flynn was a Trump supporter, and someone that Obama disliked personally.

Objection, your Honor.  Argumentative and irrelevant.

Seriati: He didn't commit a crime.  He wasn't caught, he was "set-up" and charged with a process violation.

Tell that to the FBI agents who interviewed him and the DoJ lawyers who prosecuted him and the judge who accepted his guilty plea.  And, I almost forget, tell it to Flynn who confessed and pled guilty.  This is becoming a sad charade.

Seriati: I'm just going to say I think you're lying.  No one could have read them and not known about the Logan act or make the irrational arguments your making.  If you had read them you would have explained why they don't apply or are misinterpretted.

I'll assume you didn't read as carefully as I did.  If you missed it, here is the reference to the Logan Act. Note the highlighted portion:

The FBI had in their possession transcripts of the relevant calls. See Ex. 5 at 3; Ex. 13 at
3, FBI FD-302, Interview of Peter Strzok, July 19, 2017 (Date of Entry: Aug. 22, 2017).
Believing that the counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn was to be closed, FBI
leadership (“the 7th Floor”) determined to continue its investigation of Mr. Flynn on the basis of
these calls, and considered opening a new criminal investigation based solely on a potential
violation of the Logan Act, 18 U.S.C. § 953. See Ex. 3 at 2-3; Ex. 7 at 1-2; Ex. 8 at 1-5, FBI Emails RE: Logan Act Jan. 4, 2017. Yet discussions with the Department of Justice resulted in the
general view that the Logan Act would be difficult to prosecute. Ex. 3 at 2-3; Ex. 4 at 1-2, FBI
FD-302, Interview of Sally Yates, Aug. 15, 2017 (Sept. 7, 2017); Ex. 5 at 9. The FBI never
opened an independent FBI criminal investigation.

Don't you feel silly now?

...and furthermore, and furthermore....Enough!  As usual, I got way too tired to finish reading your logorrheic post.  I'll stipulate for the court that the remainder of the client advocate's argument is as specious as what has come before. 

Seriati, you should take a course in how to state a case succinctly.

[wmLambert]

...

Seriati: Again wrong.  Flynn was a Trump supporter, and someone that Obama disliked personally.

Objection, your Honor.  Argumentative and irrelevant.

The motivation for the takedown of Flynn is evident: According to  Caroline B. Glick (an award-winning columnist and author of "The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East") "Obama fired him for rejecting Obama's claim that al Qaeda was in disarray. He foresaw and warned in granular detail of the rise of ISIS following the US sudden withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 and its failure to adequately assist the forces fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad. For his efforts, Obama fired Flynn from his position as DIA director in 2014.

"...Flynn served as a close adviser to then candidate Trump and pledged to help Trump "drain the swamp" of Washington. The Obama intelligence chiefs were so concerned about Flynn returning as national security adviser that during his meeting with president-elect Trump immediately after the election, Obama himself explicitly urged Trump not to appoint Flynn." ...They were terrified of Flynn and were afraid he would drain the swamp and they were the big frogs in that swamp. Hillary warned all her supporters that "if we didn't win, then we're all in trouble."

[Kasandra]

...

Seriati: Again wrong.  Flynn was a Trump supporter, and someone that Obama disliked personally.

Objection, your Honor.  Argumentative and irrelevant.

The motivation for the takedown of Flynn is evident: According to  Caroline B. Glick (an award-winning columnist and author of "The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East") "Obama fired him for rejecting Obama's claim that al Qaeda was in disarray. He foresaw and warned in granular detail of the rise of ISIS following the US sudden withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 and its failure to adequately assist the forces fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad. For his efforts, Obama fired Flynn from his position as DIA director in 2014.

"...Flynn served as a close adviser to then candidate Trump and pledged to help Trump "drain the swamp" of Washington. The Obama intelligence chiefs were so concerned about Flynn returning as national security adviser that during his meeting with president-elect Trump immediately after the election, Obama himself explicitly urged Trump not to appoint Flynn." ...They were terrified of Flynn and were afraid he would drain the swamp and they were the big frogs in that swamp. Hillary warned all her supporters that "if we didn't win, then we're all in trouble."

Also argumentative and irrelevant.  These "facts" are not evidence of anything, just more scattershot to confuse the confused.

[wmLambert]

...Also argumentative and irrelevant.  These "facts" are not evidence of anything, just more scattershot to confuse the confused.

Facts are always solid evidence. The only confused are those who are unaware of Flynn's history with Obama. You must now present your evidence that Obama was not terrified of Flynn, as to why he launched an unfounded and illegal intelligence operation against him.

[Seriati]

Seriati: The Logan Act.  Are you paying any attention?

Flynn wasn't charged with the Logan Act!?!?!?  What are you talking about?!?!?!

The law that hasn't been charged in 200 years, which you apparently didn't know.

Seriati: Not a crime.  You're missing elements, which is exactly the point of the DOJ's last filing.

Check this out:

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal process crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States,[1] even by merely denying guilt when asked by a federal agent.[2] A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[3] Rod Blagojevich,[4] Michael T. Flynn,[5] Rick Gates,[6] Scooter Libby,[7] Bernard Madoff,[8] and Jeffrey Skilling.[9]

Wow you wiki'd me.  Not a primary source by the way.  It leaves aside the fact that the FBI agents who conducted the interview - and who are the sole source for the claim that Flynn knowingly lied - said he they didn't believe he knowingly lied.  It also misses that the statute requires the lies be material to an investigation.  Lying about things that are not material to an investigation is not a crime (which is why were you note below that there wasn't a criminal investigation of the Logan act you are shooting yourself in the foot).

Seriati: Nope.  Politically motivated FBI agents from the prior administration, with support from their counterparts in the DOJ, the intelligence community and the outgoing administration.  So not hundreds of years of evil.

Really!  This never happened until evil Obama took charge?  Really?  I mean, REALLY?

Who cares?  The point is to refute your nonsensical implication of a 200 year conspiracy of evil to get Flynn.

Seriati: Again wrong.  Flynn was a Trump supporter, and someone that Obama disliked personally.

Objection, your Honor.  Argumentative and irrelevant.

Objection overruled, directly responsive to the nonsensical assertion that Flynn was not a member of a disfavored group.  Which was a clearly false and self serving statement.

Seriati: He didn't commit a crime.  He wasn't caught, he was "set-up" and charged with a process violation.

Tell that to the FBI agents who interviewed him and the DoJ lawyers who prosecuted him and the judge who accepted his guilty plea.  And, I almost forget, tell it to Flynn who confessed and pled guilty.  This is becoming a sad charade.

Why would I have to?  The FBI agents that interviewed him wrote in their own notes that he didn't seem to be lying.  That's end of story on a charge that requires a knowing lie, unless there's some other proof floating around?  I

I find it fascinating that the actual things he said such as that he knew they had his recordings, that they recorded that he answered somethings equivocally (as in, I don't think we talked about that but we may have), literally means that there was no real proof of a lie, let alone of an intent to lie.  I've never heard you once complain that Hillary lied when she claimed not to recall things under oath, you've never once called for Brennan to go to jail -even though he's been caught lying under oath, Comey lied to Congress in his testimony about his reasons for recording  memo after his conversations for Trump, the prosecutor in the Flynn case lied to the judge by repeatedly asserting he had turned over evidence he had not, the FBI agents falsified information and lied to the FISA court repeatedly in obtaining FISA warrants, Andrew McCabe was literally removed from the FBI for documented lie.

All of that is verifiable in the record.  Yet, there is no record of Flynn's lies.  They exist only in a statement that Peter Strook re-edited multiple times, and that there are text messages between him and Page joking about how he edited it so much that the other FBI agent's voice was no longer detectable in the report.

Again, if on this set of facts you can't see a problem, you are literally not someone who is convinceable by facts.  Whatever you think about the Trump administration or Trump generally there is zero question this was an abuse of power.

Seriati: I'm just going to say I think you're lying.  No one could have read them and not known about the Logan act or make the irrational arguments your making.  If you had read them you would have explained why they don't apply or are misinterpretted.

I'll assume you didn't read as carefully as I did.  If you missed it, here is the reference to the Logan Act. Note the highlighted portion:

The FBI had in their possession transcripts of the relevant calls. See Ex. 5 at 3; Ex. 13 at
3, FBI FD-302, Interview of Peter Strzok, July 19, 2017 (Date of Entry: Aug. 22, 2017).
Believing that the counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn was to be closed, FBI
leadership (“the 7th Floor”) determined to continue its investigation of Mr. Flynn on the basis of
these calls, and considered opening a new criminal investigation based solely on a potential
violation of the Logan Act, 18 U.S.C. § 953. See Ex. 3 at 2-3; Ex. 7 at 1-2; Ex. 8 at 1-5, FBI Emails RE: Logan Act Jan. 4, 2017. Yet discussions with the Department of Justice resulted in the
general view that the Logan Act would be difficult to prosecute. Ex. 3 at 2-3; Ex. 4 at 1-2, FBI
FD-302, Interview of Sally Yates, Aug. 15, 2017 (Sept. 7, 2017); Ex. 5 at 9. The FBI never
opened an independent FBI criminal investigation.

Don't you feel silly now?

Why would I?  You literally quoted what I already told you about.  The Logan act was a dead letter and they never opened a criminal investigation.  That's exactly the reasoning that the DOJ laid out in the recent filing demonstrating that there was no valid investigation of Flynn open. They'd already determined that there was no basis to continue the counter terrorism  investigation weeks earlier.  The fact is they seriously considered opening an investigation based on a law that hasn't been enforced in 200 years, that is most likely (by all legal accounts) unConstitutional, that is routinely and openly violated, that - as applied to Flynn - could never have been enforced specifically because of his legal rights as a member of the incoming administration and that there is no indication he even violated because they needed a pretext to interview him tells you everything about their motives.  But in case it wasn't clear enough for you, the DOJ revealed their own note on the mater that laid out that they were persuing a goal of either catching him on a process crime or "getting him to admit to a Logan Act violation" and turning it over to the DOJ.

See what happens when you look at something other than option pieces?  You find your premise is not supported (even if you aren't reading well enough to understand that).

...and furthermore, and furthermore....Enough!  As usual, I got way too tired to finish reading your logorrheic post.  I'll stipulate for the court that the remainder of the client advocate's argument is as specious as what has come before. 

Seriati, you should take a course in how to state a case succinctly.

Lol, would love too.  Unfortunately those of us arguing in support of the truth can't get away with lies and misleading one liners, we actually have to build out the case.

[Kasandra]

Flynn wasn't charged with the Logan Act!?!?!?  What are you talking about?!?!?!

The law that hasn't been charged in 200 years, which you apparently didn't know.

You didn't notice my incredulity?  I know he wasn't charged with a Logan Act violation.  What do you think I was saying?

Wow you wiki'd me.

I didn't want to, but you deserved it.

Who cares?  The point is to refute your nonsensical implication of a 200 year conspiracy of evil to get Flynn.

What the hell are you talking about?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I'm dropping out this back and forth with you.  You're not even making sense any more.

[wmLambert]

...What the hell are you talking about?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I'm dropping out this back and forth with you.  You're not even making sense any more.

Don't. That is one of the new strategies out of the Democrat Party.

At least when James Carville and Paul Begala spelled out chapter and verse in their book, "Culture of Corruption: Take It Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future". Bush 43 beat Gore. They blamed their own party as too weak in attacking the bad guys, and told them to attack their political opponents mercilessly. It didn't matter how or what the attack entailed, because in their world, the ends justified the means.

The internet has many posters, yet most IT guys are flaming radical leftists who set parameters and algorithms for their search engines to the advantage of their fellow Leftists. (One of the Left-leaning founders of Wikipedia bragged that he deleted almost every scientific research article on Global Cooling because they were inconvenient for hid AGW crowd.)

Carville and Begala boasted of how their focus groups and think tanks could craft clichés and phrases that resonated with just a few words. These things were laden with disinformation, but to refute them took time and many, many words. By the time anyone could explain away the disinformation, readers like Kasandrs were proud to announce they didn't need to understand the rebuttal. It was just too long, or too erudite for their limited attention-spans. Don't let this dishonest strategy affect the way you post. Your way is better.

One thing I've learned; however, is to archive all the good stuff you find, because, dollars to doughnuts, they won't be up long. I give most Leftists the benefit of the doubt that they aren't dishonest, just disinformed. Those who purposefully disinform are the problem.

[TheDeamon]

Flynn wasn't charged with the Logan Act!?!?!?  What are you talking about?!?!?!

The law that hasn't been charged in 200 years, which you apparently didn't know.

You didn't notice my incredulity?  I know he wasn't charged with a Logan Act violation.  What do you think I was saying?

No, instead he was prosecuted for "lying to the FBI" while being interviewed about possible Logan Act Violations.

It takes a certain amount of sophistry to say it doesn't essentially boil down to a Logan Act Prosecution by another means.

[DonaldD]

No, instead he was prosecuted for "lying to the FBI" while being interviewed about possible Logan Act Violations.

Michael Flynn was caught "making false statements and omissions in FBI interviews" which "impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election".

The Logan Act has nothing to do with interfering in an investigation into possible election law violations.

Flynn "also agreed that he lied about his lobbying activities in federal filings related to work on behalf of the Republic of Turkey throughout the 2016 campaign"

Again, not a Logan act issue.

Pretending that all of the laws that Flynn broke had to do with the Logan Act is disingenuous.

[TheDeamon]

No, instead he was prosecuted for "lying to the FBI" while being interviewed about possible Logan Act Violations.

Michael Flynn was caught "making false statements and omissions in FBI interviews" which "impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election".

The Logan Act has nothing to do with interfering in an investigation into possible election law violations.

Flynn "also agreed that he lied about his lobbying activities in federal filings related to work on behalf of the Republic of Turkey throughout the 2016 campaign"

Again, not a Logan act issue.

Pretending that all of the laws that Flynn broke had to do with the Logan Act is disingenuous.

Oh so why were they asking him about phone calls that happened after the election was over? I understand the lies in question involved post-election phone calls.

That's a little late for planning nefarious election interference.

[Fenring]

Flynn "also agreed that he lied about his lobbying activities in federal filings related to work on behalf of the Republic of Turkey throughout the 2016 campaign"

Putting aside the rest of this issue, if you're going to hang your hat on this then by this standard the vast majority of the Congress should probably be charged by the FBI for tax fraud. Not trying to do whataboutism, but actually observing that the Panama Papers went pretty much without much interest by most people, even though I actually would agree that this is a serious matter. So on the contrary to whataboutism, I actually agree that this is a significant problem, but I have my suspicions that others really think so too, or else it wouldn't only be when someone on the other team admits it that "we got'em". Have at it - go get'em! I'll be with you, about lobbyists, tax shelters, offshore bank accounts, you name it. I'm all over that, but I don't think I'd have much backup.

[Kasandra]

wmLambert: That is one of the new strategies out of the Democrat Party.

The Republic Party...

theDeamon: No, instead he was prosecuted for "lying to the FBI" while being interviewed about possible Logan Act Violations.

It takes a certain amount of sophistry to say it doesn't essentially boil down to a Logan Act Prosecution by another means.

Lying to the FBI is a §1001 violation.  That's what he was charged with and pled guilty to.  Give it up trying to make it about the Logan Act, since that was not used in this case, as it's never been used in any federal prosecution.  It's like an irresistible itch to come up with some sort of conspiracy theory every time a Republican or Trump crony commits a crime for not only why they didn't do it, but the FBI or the Democrats are the guilty ones themselves.