Re-read your post. Looks the same as before. No time for a back-and-forth on reading comprehension, so I'll just concede your point, whatever it was.

Well if we're going to ignore that there are varying levels of infractions and varying levels of consequences, why don't we just start executing people for speeding?

The judge who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea was Rudolph Contreras. Mysteriously, just days after taking Flynn’s plea, Judge Contreras recused himself from the case. The press has been remarkably uncurious about this development. No rationale for the recusal has been offered, no explanation for why, if Judge Contreras had some sort of conflict, the recusal came after the guilty plea, not before. We can note that Contreras is one of the eleven federal district judges assigned to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. We do not know if Judge Contreras signed one or more of the FISA warrants the Justice Department sought for Trump campaign figures Carter Page and Paul Manafort (or even if signing a FISA warrant would constitute grounds for a conflict in Flynn’s case). We can note, however, that Contreras is one of just three FISA court judges who sits in the District of Columbia, where it is likely the Trump-Russia FISA warrants were sought. When Judge Contreras pulled out, Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. We now know that one of Judge Sullivan’s first actions on the case was to file an order directing Mueller to provide Flynn with any evidence in the special counsel’s possession that is favorable to Flynn, whether on the issue of guilt or of sentencing. Significantly, the order stresses that if Mueller has such evidence but believes it is not “material” and therefore that Flynn is not entitled to disclosure of it, Mueller must show the evidence to the court so that Judge Sullivan may decide whether to mandate its disclosure. Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated? Now, it could be that this is just Judge Sullivan’s standard order on exculpatory information, filed in every case over which he presides. But it is noteworthy that Flynn had already pled guilty, and in the course of doing so had agreed to Mueller’s demand that he waive “the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided” — in addition to forfeiting many other trial and appellate rights. (See plea agreement, pages 6–7.) It certainly appears that Sullivan’s order supersedes the plea agreement and imposes on the special counsel the obligation to reveal any and all evidence suggesting that Flynn is innocent of the charge to which he has admitted guilt. Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated? Would he have a viable legal basis to undo the plea agreement that he and his lawyer signed on November 30? We do not know at this point.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman just announced that a judge has granted a preliminary injunction preventing President Trump from ending DACA by executive memorandum.

Schneiderman's suit against the Trump administration for ending DACA is largely based on the contention that the memo rescinding DACA was motivated by animus towards Mexicans for their national origin, as is explained by the original complaint filed by Schneiderman and the attorney generals of 16 other states back in September 2017.

The ties between several congressional Democrats and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan have already become a 2018 campaign issue.

Four different Democrats have either attended a private event with Farrakhan — a notorious anti-Semite who describes Jews as “Satanic” — or publicly expressed support for the hate group leader.

In the scandal’s most recent development, three Democratic congressmen were revealed to have attended a private dinner with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Farrakhan.

Minnesota Rep. and Democratic National Committee vice-chair Keith Ellison, New York Rep. Gregory Meeks and Indiana Rep. Andre Carson all reportedly attended the dinner, the details of which only became public last week.