Imbecilic hackery
/2 "Not a rich man after decades in uniform, Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to avoid bankruptcy and spare his son from becoming a legal target." Well, maybe. Those are strong incentives. And the financial pressure of defending a case is huge. But @WSJ just takes this as given.
— ThankYouForNotSmockingHat (@Popehat) December 13, 2018
/4 Then this: "Mr. McCabe and FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”" Good God.
— ThankYouForNotSmockingHat (@Popehat) December 13, 2018
/6 "This is “something I probably wouldn’t have done or wouldn’t have gotten away with in a more organized administration,” Mr. Comey boasted on MSNBC this weekend." Look: he's not talking about not giving the "warning." Because NOBODY does ….
— ThankYouForNotSmockingHat (@Popehat) December 13, 2018
/8 "If the goal was to set a legal trap, it worked." Well, "legal trap" is sort of dignifying it. They went in thinking he might lie and thus provide leverage over him, and he did. It's a very common tactic. Wrong? Perhaps. Even slightly unusual or notable? No.
— ThankYouForNotSmockingHat (@Popehat) December 13, 2018
/10 Regarding the FBI agents not showing him the transcript they already had, by which they already knew what the truth was: again, an utterly routine and mundane tactic at every level of law enforcement. Let the target lie, use the lie as leverage.
— ThankYouForNotSmockingHat (@Popehat) December 13, 2018
/12 "He initially claimed he misremembered what was discussed, which is more believable than that a highly decorated officer would lie to FBI officers he agreed to see without counsel."
Oh God this is stupid. Smart, accomplished people tell stupid lies to the feds all the time.
— ThankYouForNotSmockingHat (@Popehat) December 13, 2018
/14 This might have reflected a sordid and low law enforcement tactic — going in knowing the facts fishing for a lie, then using the lie to leverage — but it's not entrapment, because they didn't INDUCE him to lie.
This op-ed is Trumpist garbage.
/end— ThankYouForNotSmockingHat (@Popehat) December 13, 2018
The WSJ is a very serious publication.
Its *editorials* are generally like this, unfortunately.
— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) December 13, 2018
H/t Screechy Monkey
FWIW, while the actual reporting in the WSJ is respuatable, the editorial page has been blatantly biased and dishonest for decades. Last time I checked, the real WSJ is behind a pay wall, while the editorial content is free to access. This is not a happenstance.
This distinction should be better known, I guess.
The WSJ editorial page was a cesspool of extreme far right hackery for decades BEFORE it was purchased by Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. Cataloguing outright lies, distortions, subtle (and not so subtle) racism, and just plain stupidity in WSJ editorials would be a full-time job.