Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,701
- 15,267
- 2,180
Not about "warning" him. Although if charges were even CONTEMPLATED, it should have been an OFFICIAL deposition so that TRANSCRIPTS and RECORDINGS would be available.
But instead a bigger question of WHY they were even trotting into the WHouse just days after the transition. Comey was asked that question yesterday and made up some bullshit excuse about the Logan Act.
Comey got LAUGHED at for that. The Logan act doesn't even APPLY to persons authorized to participate in foreign relations and affairs.. They had NO REASON to ambush him with intel acquired thru spying on an opposition political campaign. That's a LOT more important than whether he was "warned" or ambushed.
There's a lot of importance if he was warned or ambushed....according to you. Citing your imagination.
You're not citing the actual law or any requirement under the law. You're making shit up.
None of the pseudo-legal requirements you pulled out of your ass actually exist. Your babble about 'ambushes' has no legal relevance. Your babble ab out 'warnings' is legally meaningless.
As the only warning that is legally required is the Miranda Warnings....to somone in custody. Which Flynn never was. Shall we go through the Miranda V. Arizona ruling together and its commentary on 'custodial interrogation'?
Or am I boring you already with actual citations of actual case law.....rather than whatever you wish to make up?
Do you have anything but you making pseudo-legal gibberish up from your imagination?