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.