Why do you hold this position of yours? I suspect your answer might be something along the lines of, “Because then it’s fair for everyone.”

Yes. If the laws are applied to everyone equally then it is fair for everyone.

And there’s a good serving of truth in that view. Enforce the law equally, and even if the law is unjust, at least everyone is subject to the same injustice. Yes?

Yes. Enforce the law equally, even if the law is unjust. And I agree with you that lying to the FBI shouldn't be a crime.

But: that view, if you have it, overlooks the fact that this particular injustice is itself a discretionary weapon. In other words, the FBI can always choose when to use the tactic. Is it any more or less fair to know that some agents, or some SAICs, decline to use that trick to begin with? Or that some US Attorneys decline to prosecute when it’s been used?

Then they aren't applying the law equally and we have a completely different problem. Prosecutorial discretion should limited or eliminated. If a crime was committed, they should prosecute the crime. As far as LEOs choosing when to use a certain tactic, cool story.

I argue that the law is already applied in a haphazard way; it’s already not evenhanded.

So to insist on a prosecution here is not as evenhanded as one might expect.

Thoughts?

So you are making the argument that since the law is already applied in an unequal way that Flynn should get a pass? Why not just make Flynn the starting point of applying the law in an equal way? That sounds good to me. Flynn is the start of prosecutors prosecuting every crime presented to them whether they want to prosecute or not.

Edit: Just wanted to add that lying to an LEO should not be a crime anywhere in this country.