It smacks of, “When I do something, we appeal to the idealized principles and most minimal requirements for what I’m allowed to do, but when my opponents do something, it has to be pretext for bad motivations and we can’t let bad motivations stand.” This is why there was a lot of haranguing about this in the immigration EO SCOTUS case – you can’t have the public perception be that some politicians aren’t allowed to do the same things that any other politician can do because we think they’re a bad person doing things for bad reasons in their heart. That said, the guest’s spin on this is that the judge is using this as an opportunity to get at the motives of the gov’t behind this filing. I know they’re not a party to the case, but I understand how non-party equities can sometimes be important. Unlike some on r/law, I have little problems with amicus briefs. I don’t think anyone has put forth a worthwhile rationale (stipulating that Logan Act don’t count) for why that conversation was evidence in their investigation that he was an agent of the Russian government. After Jan 4 (when they were going to close the investigation, but learned of his conversation with Kislyak), it was almost two weeks before VPOTUS publicly stated the falsehood. On top of that, there’s still a gap (thanks Conrad for pointing this out). The time had long passed for them to provide defensive briefings to the WH and wash their hands of it – and many many officials have been on record saying that such a thing would have been the normal course of events in any other administration. It is entirely plausible that Flynn told VPOTUS the truth, and the two of them got together and said, “Here’s the story we’re going to roll with in public, because of political reasons.” I don’t like it, but I know that all politicians on both sides almost certainly do these things sometimes, and I don’t want the FBI basing barely-credibly, seemingly politically-motivated prosecutions on this type of thing. I don’t like it, but we don’t ever treat those things like grounds for prosecution. It’s known that VPOTUS said something that was not true it is assumed that Flynn lied to VPOTUS and VPOTUS was repeating that lie. They buy McCord’s argument that there is predication due to “Flynn lying publicly” and waving toward possible blackmail, but that’s not actually what they have evidence for. It reeks of, “Rules for thee, but not for me.” The guest even says, “Yes, I think there are problems with general use against the public,” but focuses more on, “I bet the gov’t won’t take this approach in any other case.” Well, unfortunately, that runs pretty hard into the principles they used for applying 1001 in other high profile cases. They broadly compare the use of 1001 to general use against the public.
![postal 2 apocalypse weekend open hospital doo postal 2 apocalypse weekend open hospital doo](http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/4/0/9/207409_v2.jpg)
![postal 2 apocalypse weekend open hospital doo postal 2 apocalypse weekend open hospital doo](https://gamefabrique.com/screenshots2/pc/postal-2-apocalypse-weekend-02.big.jpg)
![postal 2 apocalypse weekend open hospital doo postal 2 apocalypse weekend open hospital doo](https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steamcommunity/public/images/items/223470/4c32736ed1de81ac20bc82a78452710993f95963.png)
Stream of consciousness of things they’re missing because they’re not thinking like a rightist.