a reply to: Grambler
Strzok does the interviews, charges flynn with lying, and lets Huma and mills off of the hook.
Not up to Strzok whether Abedin or Mills were charged. Charging is done by prosecutors. As for Flynn, not only was he again, not the prosecutor, he
hasn't been involved with the Mueller investigation since the middle of August.
We are fast approaching tyranny. While some lament Russian facebook posts, the most powerful intel agency in the world is being used as a
political hit machine to attack an elected President, and to let another candidates team off of the hook.
Wow, that escalated quickly. I think you're talking yourself into a bit of hysteria here. I agree that it looks like both Mills and Abedin lied to
investigators and should be charged with lying to the FBI. But you're mistaken in this characterization of the prosecuting of Flynn being strictly
about him lying to the FBI.
He admitted to the FBI that he committed other crimes, including unregistered lobbying for Turkey that was occurring at the same time that he was
advising Trump on foreign policy. Section #5 of the statement of offense. And when he did do his FARA filings, he lied on those too.
Yet you deliberately mischaracterize the nature of Flynn's offenses and pretend that he's somehow having a book thrown at him for lying to the FBI
when that's not true. He's essentially getting a slap on the wrist for a multitude of crimes for which other defendants, namely Manafort and Gates,
are both being prosecuted.
Flynn isn't the victim of a hit job, he's a cooperating witness that got a good deal for his cooperation.
This idea that the Mueller investigation is the FBI "being used as a political hit machine" is completely unsubstantiated and I'd guess a lot of that
opinion stems from your suspicions about the FISA warrants and the dossier which we've discussed at length.
You've put a whole bunch of carts before the horse here. It's a string of assumptions that starts with an apparent belief that nobody should have
given a # about Russian meddling in the election. You start with this assumption that the dossier was the reason for the investigation (rather than
the Russian meddling). You then assume that as part of this conspiracy to what? Falsely investigate Russian meddling? That uncorroborated information
from the dossier was used to obtain FISA warrants which were in turn used to spy on the Trump campaign. To what end? Manafort is a corrupt, criminal
piece of # with more than a decade of close ties to the Kremlin, including being paid tens of millions of dollars to lobby for Putin's agenda. You
know all of that just as you know that he had previously been subject to a FISA warrant prior to any involvement with Trump.
It would have been malfeasance NOT to investigate Manafort under those circumstances.
You're going to great lengths to say that you think the Mueller investigation should continue but at the same time you're saying that the
investigation is in effect an act of tyranny. How's that not cognitive dissonance?
And of course this follows all those months of the pro-Trump crowd saying that if Russia had stolen the DNC emails (which revealed no criminal
activity) they were doing us a favor by exposing corruption and that it didn't matter how we found out blah blah, all that mattered was that
corruption was being exposed, blah blah blah. Not one tiny bit of concern over "bias" ("ERMAHGERD ASSANGE HATES CLINTON WE MUST IGNORE THESE EMAILS!"
-- said by no Trump supporter EVER) let alone due process or the fact that the emails were released as part of a crime almost certainly committed by a
Months of that and now all of that # is out the window. Now it's all the pro-Trump crowd pretending that the hapless Flynn has been victimized by the
"weaponized FBI." Arguing that domestic law enforcement uncovering criminal conduct and bringing charges in court where defendants will have due
process is creeping tyranny.
It's bull#. The hypocrisy is astounding. And how about all these investigations that the GOP has carried out for decades? Did we read every
investigators personal texts to their lovers to scrutinize them for possible bias? Did we look through all their emails to see if we could catch them
giving words of encouragement to their colleague who was tanking her career out of principal?
Hell no. They sicked Ken Starr on Bill Clinton after he'd investigated the Clintons for White Water. Trey Gowdy authorized a settlement of $150k in
tax payer money to a investigator who was wrongly terminated because he wouldn't acquiesce to
influence. A dozen Benghazi investigations, impeachment for lying about oral sex, Witchfinder General Daryl Issa running a political kangaroo court
What's it that I hear so often? "Where's you outrage over that?"
Now if you want to argue that they soft pedaled the Clinton investigation in 2016, I think there's enough evidence for that to be a legitimate
concern. As of three weeks ago, it was being reported that AG Sessions was considering a special counsel to reopen the investigation into Clinton.
Sessions, Trump's appointee, a member of his campaign, a surrogate in fact, runs the DOJ. He can do that. If he doesn't do that, what does that mean
to your hypothesis? What if he does do it? Are you going to cry the approach of tyranny when the appointee of the winning candidate opens an
investigation into the losing candidate? Because many will and they'll feel just as self-righteous as you do now. In fact, they'll be talking just
like you but of course you won't feel that way, you'll feel like the investigation was more than justified.
edit on 2017-12-6 by
theantediluvian because: (no reason given)