Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
You keep choosing to ignore the fact I answered your question straight up. Then I just asked you to do the same.I told you before that until you answer the question we are on I'm not playing deflection games. Please feel free to read back and see me say that.That is exactly what you are doing.Really don't give a shit til you answer your own question. I don't do rabbit holes of deflection.and every other election no one cared. no one cares when we interfere with other countries elections.Testing his honesty is not a crime and it’s not inappropriate.
His honesty isn't an issue if they aren't conducting a legitimate investigation.
Flynn was not trustworthy
Not material.
They were conducting a legitimate investigation unless you think investigating Russian interference in our elections is not a concern.
And please, don't pull the crap of "what votes did they change" - interference isn't about just that.
but this one time, at band camp...
that is how this feels to me. you take something that happens all the time and suddenly use it to your advantage then sell yourself "it's different".
I will repeat myself (though I am sure this will be duly ignored) - we did not have the social media of today 10 - 20 years ago. Oh I know some idiot claimed he remembered it twenty years ago, but the fact is - then it was in it's infancy both in terms of number of people on it around the world and in the sophistication of the technologies that can harvest data and pin point messaging as well as create increasingly clever "fakes". In the 70's the old USSR used to doctor photos to remove those who fell out of grace - now, we have "deep fakes" (look it up).
The tools we have available now, to masses of people and governments are simply unbelievable and we lag behind in developing the means to deal with it. If you seriously are so blind you don't see this I don't know what to think. I can dig up links and such but it's probably a waste of time.
Pretending like we had this level of ability "all the time" is kind of like pretending...well, we had computers and the internet - for like forever - and you're just "pretending" that things are different now and that there is so much sophisticated hacking going on stealing data, money, disrupting business etc.(presumably because you hate *insert political leader of your choice*)
It happened all the time!
I'm supposed to answer my own question? So...I spend a good bit of time on a post and that is what you come up with.
I answered your question. I am merely out to determine if after I showed you they WERE treated differently, do you agree they were or was it as you state in your original question, they were treated the same.
How is answering a question WITH a question an answer? Or did I miss something in your post?
Comey took advantage of the Trump Administrations lack of protocols allowed him to circumvent them. He wouldn't have gotten away with that in the prior administrations but that isn't to say he wouldn't have tried if the same organizational leeways were open. In legal terms it changed nothing. No two cases are going to be treated exactly the same but now you seem to think they should be regardless of the circumstances surrounding them. You also overlook one simple fact - Flynn lied. He did not have to.
Now where did you actually answer my question or are you going to deflect again? Is Flynn being treated differently than any other white collar criminal/informant?
I said yes. I used comey quotes to illustrate.
You are still doing this deflection shit.
You know what asshole - this is a thread a with a hell of a lot of posts and replies. If I missed, I apologize.
Yes. Flynn is being treated differently - unlike other's in similar circumstances - you demand that Flynn should have been told everything the FBI suspected, told to bring his notes, told he should bring a lawyer (even though he wasn't under arrest) and wow...I mean why question him at all? Did the Enron people get all that special treatment?
and wow...I mean why question him at all?
You got that right.
If the transcript showed election interference, arrest him.
If the transcript showed a Logan Act violation, arrest him.
No need to question him about the call.
Really?
So....basically, we don't question potential criminals further if we found they lied. Okey Dokie. That's going to be a hell of a blow to the lawenforcment folks you claim to support.
So....basically, we don't question potential criminals further if we found they lied.
What else did they uncover, after the lie about the phone call?