Quote (bogie160 @ Nov 26 2020 01:34am)
There is clear evidence of disparate treatment, and your argument against that is that the FBI director being accused of disparate treatment didn't think that that was the case. Color me shocked.
There's no appeal to authority, you're going to have to construct some reality in which Hillary Clinton might possibly not have known that classified material was being trafficked through a private server that handled the entirety of her classified job correspondence.
When confronted with evidence, you do your best to fit that evidence into a coherent narrative. The evidence was clear. Flynn was having a prospective policy conversation with Kislyak and the outgoing administration was making a stink through the media. The FBI understood it the exact same way. Mueller ended up pursuing the process crime because it was a process crime, and like Starr with Clinton, special prosecutors are tasked with getting results.
Again, if Flynn had come out in public and said "Trump does not support sanctions against Russia", would that have been verboten? Of course not, so what exactly is so wrong about Flynn making that same statement over the phone?
Now, if the Obama administration intended to have Russia reciprocate sanctions, causing real Americans harm, and knowing full well that the policy would soon be reversed, then that's despicable.
Sure. Among Trump cultists Comey has no credibility, but I consider him credible, and many others do as well. He was ultimately responsible for the investigation.
Considering that there were only a handful of emails that contained material with classified markings, it's reasonable to assume Hillary intended to not use that email to send or receive classified information. She shouldn't have used a private email on a private server, but she didn't intentionally break the law. I assume Hillary used appropriate email systems to send or receive classified information when that was her intention.
Counter-intelligence agents don't rule out an investigative avenue by making assumptions. It would've been negligent for them to not ask Flynn about his conversation with the Russian ambassador... because after all, they were investigating Russian interference. In reality, Flynn got a good deal... there were other crimes he could've been prosecuted for.
I don't know what's hard to get about this... transition officials should not be engaging in diplomacy. In the aftermath of a Russian attack on our election, Flynn made an ask of the Russian ambassador, which was inappropriate. He also asked Russia to act a certain way on the Israeli UN vote.
Ultimately, even though his behavior was inappropriate, it wouldn't have been prosecutable. Then he told multiple lies to the FBI. He admitted that in court twice. Then he decided not to take responsibility for his actions because he knew the corrupt, incompetent buffoon in the Oval Office would pardon him.