Read on Twitter
In one comment, you demonstrate conclusively that you were unfit to be an FBI agent.
Thread
Cc @PolitiBunny @wjjhoge @BarbMcQuade https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1296143082736496647
Thread
Cc @PolitiBunny @wjjhoge @BarbMcQuade https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1296143082736496647
This article and your comment suggests that somehow Flynn’s behavior was as bad or worse than Clinesmith’s. The fact that you cannot see the obvious ways that Clinesmith’s behavior was not only different but *worse* than Flynn’s shows how blinkered you are.
Now, it is true that both men were charged with the same offense—lying to the government—but the underlying conduct was much different.
In Flynn’s case, the alleged lie involved him failing to mention certain parts of an oral conversation with a Russian.
In Flynn’s case, the alleged lie involved him failing to mention certain parts of an oral conversation with a Russian.
“Poor memory” is a complete defense. Indeed, the two FBI agents who interviewed him and Comey himself believed that this was exactly the case. In other words, if these men were on the jury, THEY WOULD HAVE TO VOTE TO ACQUIT.
Now, let’s look at Clinesmith. Clinesmith allegedly forged a document and presented it as genuine in order to get a warrant to SPY ON A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. So there are several differences.
First, there was never any plausible defense. Flynn, as you can recall, can plausibly argue he forgot. In other words, he can argue he intended to tell the truth and accidentally failed to do so. How do you accidentally forge a document?
There are also several distinctions that relate to “policy,” but not in a partisan way. The first is that Clinesmith was not merely a random person or even a random government official, but rather he was in law enforcement itself.
Furthermore, forging a document in order to create a false finding of probable cause is worse than doing it in most other contexts. A normal person in law enforcement should be extra infuriated by this conduct, not dismissive of it as you apparently are.
It is also worth noting that unlike in the Flynn case, people were fooled. When Flynn was asked about his conversation, the agents had a full transcript of it. They were testing whether he would honestly and accurately recall what they already knew.
And as i mentioned, while he was definitely not accurate, the agents interviewing him believed he was being honest. Where he left something out, it was inadvertent.
By comparison, Clinesmith successfully fooled judges into granting a warrant when otherwise it probably would not have been granted. These statutes are about obstruction of justice, and Clinesmith successfully obstructed justice, while Flynn did not.
Finally, we can and should be uniquely concerned when the investigation is into a political campaign, especially when the campaign is seen as a rival to current administration.
So we have a difference in proof, a difference in impact, a difference based on who the actor is, and a difference because of the concern for FBI interference with the election.
And the fact you can’t see any of those obvious differences, tells me that you never should have been an FBI agent.
Particularly galling is that you don’t see any reason to be angry about his identity as a person in the law enforcement apparatus. You *should* think that such people should be held to a higher standard.
And the fact that you don’t believe Clinesmith should be held to a higher standard tells me that you don’t hod yourself to a higher standard, either.
/end of thread
/end of thread
