Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Among the things that you don't seem to be interested in discussing are the following:The one law professor they could find to testify on Trump's behalf on impeachment. Shocker that he also takes the administration position on this one. Nope, def not a hack.
Not discussed in this article:
1. Flynn was an unregistered agent of Russia.
2. Flynn was an unregistered agent of Turkey
3. Flynn did the crime (Call with Kislyak)
4. Flynn lied when asked about it.
5. Flynn lied to the Vice President and Sean Spicer about the call.
What part of the evidence discussed in this article disproves any of the fundamental features of the case? What part of the legal argument in this article transforms Flynn's statements into truths? Did he lie when he plead guilty twice?
The article is hacky because it doesn't even engage major portions of the case. It's just a laundry list recitation of Flynn's defense attorneys' filings.
1. The lead FBI agent (Peter Strzok) on this case has shown himself to be highly biased politically. His personal messages make it clear that he is not merely cheering for, but steering for specific outcomes in specific cases.
2. Calling Kislyak is not a crime (you said it was in point #3).
3. Recently released documents make the motivations and involvement of other players in the investigation seem extremely suspicious.
4. Flynn claims that the FBI threatened investigations into his son's affairs if he did not cooperate with Mueller. (I doubt any parent would want the FBI turning on their family members, regardless of what they had done.)
5. Mueller recommended that Flynn serve no jail time.