Again, these characterisations are easy. They are made on both sides. I can construct a similar line about the FBI incitement, casually throwing in disputed or hard-to-verify facts.

I'd pick you up on "lying about it" - I consider the FBI to be heavily politically active, esp in the Trump/Comey times, so describing them as "law enforcement" in these situations is misleading.

I added detail to my previous comment, but I don't really trust the outcome of an incitement where the FBI held all the cards - you get the same thing when people accept one-sided plea deals from the police - "they even admitted they did it".

There's a whole lot of context around this. For example, you can characterise the FBI as simply "Law enforcement", but you could characterise the DOJ-under-Barr the same. If you have reason to doubt/discredit the DOJ, them you should equally allow for the same wrt the FBI-under-Comey.

In 2015 Flynn was on RT, a Russian state-controlled international television network, funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government. He advocated for the US foreign policy actions across the world to work closely with Russia.

He was paid $45,000 for his appearance, but again "forgot" to report that income. What is the US bar for the word "treasonous"?

Apparently Flynn earns millions as a paid speaker - how much of that income was reported? Poor tax reporting/fraud isn't treason.

You are cherry picking facts without context, and just repeating tabloid headlines.