charwin95
Gold Member
From a BIG liar like you ABSOLUTELY???? You posted lots of lots of lies. My dear I don’t even read your post anymore because you are LIAR..... Something is wrong with you.
Judge Sullivan Scrambles For A Lifeline To Bail HIMSELF Out Of Dropped Flynn Case
- Thread starter easyt65
- Start date
charwin95
Gold Member
What made you think there are no longer any charges? We Americans don’t live in a KING or DICTATORS form of governments. We have a constitution.
I see "Thinker" is at it again.
Flynn's case is still very much open, he can and probably will still get convicted. Let me know what part of that you are too stupid to understand.
Since there are no longer any charges, what will he be convicted for...Einstein.
Just imagine if a ******* President or AG can just come in and dissolve any case because they are their friends? That is how a King and Dictator rule a country. Why is that acceptable?
In just 3 short years. How did we become so dumb and ignorant and supporter of a Traitor General?
Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
But you tolerate and allowed several of your buddies expressing very vulgar and disgusting profanities. Like Nostra. And lots of you even likes it. You are HYPOCRITE.
.my
My dear do you expect me to believe your unknown bias link? Why do you always used these kinds of nonsense link to boost your lies?I’m ext
"D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order Tuesday indicating that he'll soon accept "amicus curiae," or "friend of the court" submissions, in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn -- essentially allowing the court to use an "ask the audience" lifeline in what has already proved to be an unpredictable and chaotic prosecution.
Sullivan's minute order indicated that an upcoming scheduling order would clarify the parameters of who specifically could submit the amicus briefs, which are submissions by non-parties that claim an interest in the case. Sullivan specifically said he anticipates that "individuals and organizations" will file briefs "for the benefit of the court."
The move attracted immediate criticism -- and a planned ethics complaint against Sullivan, who had previously refused to hear amicus briefs in the case. ("Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court's docket is not an available option," Sullivan wrote in the past.)
"Judge Sullivan, who denied leave to file amicus briefs when he knew third parties would have spoken favorably of Flynn, now solicits briefs critical of Flynn," independent journalist Michael Cernovich wrote on Twitter. "This is a violation of the judicial oath and applicable ethical rules."
It appears Sullivan, who viciously rebuked Flynn in court based on the lies presented in court now doesn't want to simply drop the case and walk away with egg on his face.
The easiest thing to do to make this all go away quietly would have been to allow the case to be dropped....but it appears Sullivan wants the circus to continue...
Flynn judge to allow 'amicus' submissions, delaying immediate resolution and drawing planned ethics complaint
D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order Tuesday indicating he'll soon accept "amicus curiae," or "friend of the court" submissions, in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn -- drawing immediate scrutiny and a planned ethics complaint against Sullivan, who...www.foxnews.com
.
I’m extremely very proud of Judge Sullivan for not allowing this kind of corruption in his court. He is not intimidated and tough. This is a slap to the face of Barr’s corruption.
This is a corruption clear and simple by this administration against American justice system to the core.
Entrapments, coerced or any of that defending Flynn is just totally hogwash.
.
And, once again, you've proven to be the poster child for ignorance.
"Who was Brady, anyhow? We ask because of the incredible evidence “suggesting,” as the Wall Street Journal puts it, that the FBI withheld exculpatory information from General Michael Flynn when President Trump’s first national security adviser was being maneuvered into the guilty plea that he is now trying to withdraw. The obligation of prosecutors to disclose exculpatory material is called the “Brady Rule.” Hence our question.
It turns out that John Leo Brady was a 25-year-old murderer from Maryland. He entered the pantheon of precedent because of a Supreme Court case called Brady v. Maryland, decided in 1963. Brady and a 24-year-old companion were convicted of murdering a man they knew, William Brooks. The prosecution withheld from Brady’s defense that his companion had not only admitted doing the killing but also that he’d done it alone.
The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, decided that Brady’s due process right had been violated. It gave him a new sentencing hearing, which spared him the death sentence he was originally given and jailed him for life. Brady eventually was paroled. The precedent, though, has been in use since and the rule has even, in some jurisdictions (including New York) been tightened.
Judge Emmet Sullivan has so far seemed reluctant to credit a Brady defense for the general. Yet the judge heroically overturned the case against Senator Ted Stevens over Brady violations. Will the new material in General Flynn be enough?
We’ve long since called on Judge Sullivan to reject General Flynn’s guilty plea. Our concern then — December 2018 —was the use by prosecutors of section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, a notoriously vague law that invites abuse. Add to that the Brady issues. The phrase the Journal uses to describe the government’s failure to hand over information in the prosecution of General Flynn is “beyond dispute.”
The thing that gets us here is the failure of the liberal press. It has long loved the Brady Rule. The New York Times has been particularly eloquent when it comes to Brady violations by, say, prosecutors in New Orleans. On the 50th anniversary of Brady, the Times backed “open files reform,” under which prosecutors’ files would be generally opened. Yet Brady abuses in the Flynn case have found the liberal papers loath to speak up for their own principles in the Trump era."
The Flynn Case: Liberal Press Fails To Speak Up for Its Own Principles
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.www.nysun.com
- Jan 19, 2010
- 84,234
- 84,849
- 3,605
Two words....Justice Department....I know you are use to the Holder style of injustice so I'll let you slide......no one is defending what is happening to Flynn right now but the purest of Trump haters.....
Sullivan was appointed by President Reagan to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 3, 1984. On November 25, 1991, Sullivan was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve as an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
charwin95
Gold Member
Bottom line. Barr and Trump will go down in history as the most corrupted people in the modern US American justice system.
Both should resign to save the embarrassment from around the world.
We have a crisis that this country has never seen before. People are lining up for food, no jobs, losing money, no money, people are getting sick and dying.
Yet we have to put up with all these kind of GARBAGES coming from this administration???? NON STOP.
And (TDS) Trump Derange Sympathizers wants 4 more years of this disaster and chaos???? WAKE UP.
This country deserves better.
Both should resign to save the embarrassment from around the world.
We have a crisis that this country has never seen before. People are lining up for food, no jobs, losing money, no money, people are getting sick and dying.
Yet we have to put up with all these kind of GARBAGES coming from this administration???? NON STOP.
And (TDS) Trump Derange Sympathizers wants 4 more years of this disaster and chaos???? WAKE UP.
This country deserves better.
charwin95
Gold Member
Oh please. Holder has nothing to do with Flynn. That is just a lame excuses. Flynn talked to Kislyak that is where Flynn started got in trouble. Period. Then your buddies added these and that like entrapment BS.
.
AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 39,010
- 12,211
- 1,560
From the OP:
The New York Times reported earlier Wednesday that a former FBI official whose notes the Justice Department used as an excuse for dropping the Flynn charges told FBI officials last week that DOJ was interpreting his notes wrong.
Bill Priestap, the Times reported, told members of his former bureau that notes about the “goal” of an FBI interview with Flynn were about his thoughts ahead of a meeting with FBI leadership about the Flynn interview. The Justice Department painted those notes as evidence of a perjury trap.
Judge Weighs Holding Michael Flynn In Contempt, Keeping Guilty Plea In Place
Judge Sullivan appointed a former judge to argue against a Justice Department motion to drop the charges against a former Trump administration official.www.huffpost.com
Specifically, how is this misinterpreted?
Unsealed FBI notes reveal the intent of the FBI’s 1/24/17 interview of Flynn:
“What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute [Flynn] or get him fired?”
FBI Notes confirm it was all a pretext.
FBI discussed interviewing Michael Flynn 'to get him to lie' and 'get him fired,' handwritten notes show
Explosive new internal FBI documents unsealed Wednesday show that top bureau officials discussed their motivations for interviewing then-national security adviser Michael Flynn in the White House in January 2017 -- and openly questioned if their "goal" was "to get him to lie, so we can prosecute...
what part of get Flynn to tell the Truth or Lie do you rightwingers not get?
Flynn had a choice and he chose to break the law. No one pushed him into lying. Why is this so hard for you idiots to understand?
Last edited:
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.
While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.www.justice.gov
Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...
Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...
This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..
Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..
Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 91,391
- 83,117
- 3,615
- Banned
- #409
You obviously are ignorant of the definition of "traitor", Moron.I did that. A TRAITOR. Not a single one supported traitor Gen. Flynn. This a US General sitting next to Putin eating dinner. Ask any military personnel retired or active if that is acceptable? They want to fry him. Why and since when that is acceptable? Then a dumb moron president hired him as NSA. God deng that is scary.Have about half a million veterans with Flynn signsLets all file an amicus brief telling judge sullivan he's an ASSHOLE!
show up at his next court session.
Don’t tell me Obama sent Flynn to Putin.
charwin95
Eric Arthur Blair
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2015
- 25,955
- 15,967
- 1,415
Is he a judge or a prosecutor? Sounds like a prosecutor looking to hang Flynn but he still wants the
cover of being a "fair impartial disinterested" arbiter of facts.
You love that bullshit don't you.
lennypartiv
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2019
- 28,221
- 21,830
- 2,320
More garbage from the left. The situation now is the prosecutor wants the charges dropped. What part of that don't you understand?
AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 39,010
- 12,211
- 1,560
Lead prosecutor quit and the only signature on the motion to dismiss is from Barr’s political appointee. Wtf are you even taking about?
AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 39,010
- 12,211
- 1,560
It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.
While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...
Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...
This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..
Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..
Carefully premeditated lying to Investigators is a “process crime”?? No silly, it’s just STRAIGHT UP CRIME.
Flynn was well aware that lying like this can land him in deep shit, and he did it anyway. Ever wonder why?
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.
While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...
Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...
This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..
Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..
Carefully premeditated lying to Investigators is a “process crime”?? No silly, it’s just STRAIGHT UP CRIME.
Flynn was well aware that lying like this can land him in deep shit, and he did it anyway. Ever wonder why?
Not in this case it was not "premeditated" at all.. The day before the ambush, the WashPo ran an article about how the OFFICIAL FBI investigation of Flynn found NOTHING criminal in connection to Russia either BEFORE or AFTER the election.. Article implied that investigation was officially over.. The NEXT DAY McCabe calls Flynn to a set-up a meeting 2 hours in the future... Flynn asks "do I need a lawyer"? McCabe tells him not to worry the details are trivial and getting lawyers involved would cause McCabe a lot of "paper work" with the DOJ"..
Meeting starts with a tour of a WH for the agents. No "rights" are mentioned. Everything is light and jolly., They ask him about that one Kislyak call.. It's one of about SIX he's had with Kislyak.. NEVER does Flynn ask or the agents VOLUNTEER that have the RECORDED conversion and are looking for PRECISE answers..
Flynn did not substantially lie about "discussing sanctions".. The only detail in the phone call where sanctions were ever mentioned is when Flynn asks Kislyak to "NOT retaliate on sanctions by expelling US diplomatic corps"... DID NOT discuss any substantial POLICY position on sanctions..
WHY HE PLEADED GUILTY?? Because the FBI threatened to go after his son.. It's on record. And because his crummy lawyers (firm which Eric Holder returned to 2015) were WITHHOLDING exculpatory critical evidence from HIM and the court... Which he now has seen thanks to his NEW legal team...
AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 39,010
- 12,211
- 1,560
It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.
While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...
Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...
This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..
Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..
Carefully premeditated lying to Investigators is a “process crime”?? No silly, it’s just STRAIGHT UP CRIME.
Flynn was well aware that lying like this can land him in deep shit, and he did it anyway. Ever wonder why?
Not in this case it was not "premeditated" at all.. The day before the ambush, the WashPo ran an article about how the OFFICIAL FBI investigation of Flynn found NOTHING criminal in connection to Russia either BEFORE or AFTER the election.. Article implied that investigation was officially over.. The NEXT DAY McCabe calls Flynn to a set-up a meeting 2 hours in the future... Flynn asks "do I need a lawyer"? McCabe tells him not to worry the details are trivial and getting lawyers involved would cause McCabe a lot of "paper work" with the DOJ"..
Meeting starts with a tour of a WH for the agents. No "rights" are mentioned. Everything is light and jolly., They ask him about that one Kislyak call.. It's one of about SIX he's had with Kislyak.. NEVER does Flynn ask or the agents VOLUNTEER that have the RECORDED conversion and are looking for PRECISE answers..
Flynn did not substantially lie about "discussing sanctions".. The only detail in the phone call where sanctions were ever mentioned is when Flynn asks Kislyak to "NOT retaliate on sanctions by expelling US diplomatic corps"... DID NOT discuss any substantial POLICY position on sanctions..
WHY HE PLEADED GUILTY?? Because the FBI threatened to go after his son.. It's on record. And because his crummy lawyers (firm which Eric Holder returned to 2015) were WITHHOLDING exculpatory critical evidence from HIM and the court... Which he now has seen thanks to his NEW legal team...
Cool story bro but you are straight out of your mind if you think ANYONE is buying your bs about Flynn simply not remembering anything about getting Russians to change their response to Obama's sanctions.
Trump clearly appreciated Flynn's good work:
But hey, who can remember something like that when talking to investigators
He also pled guilty to lying about his efforts in asking multiple countries, including Russia to change United Nation vote, forgetful fella isn't he?
But wait there is more! He also pled guilty to lying about his work as an undeclared foreign agent for Turkey during the transition. Man, you really know how to pick your "victims".
read up dupe: https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download
And then get real, even straw grasping Barr's team was not insane enough to try to argue that laughable fantasies you post.
Last edited:
Everything I post is linked, sourced and documented, and 100% true, accurate and correct.
That gets under your scales, huh?
It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.
While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...
Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...
This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..
Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..
Carefully premeditated lying to Investigators is a “process crime”?? No silly, it’s just STRAIGHT UP CRIME.
Flynn was well aware that lying like this can land him in deep shit, and he did it anyway. Ever wonder why?
The only lies, we have learned, are from Obamunists. Flynn didn't lie......
“The FBI possessed word-for-word transcripts of Flynn's December 2016 conversations with Kislyak, and publicly admitted to reviewing those transcripts and clearing Flynn of any wrongdoing.” Obama knew details of wiretapped Flynn phone calls, surprising top DOJ official in meeting with Biden, declassified docs show
Obama knew details of wiretapped Flynn phone calls, surprising top DOJ official in meeting with Biden, declassified docs show
President Obama was aware of the details of then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn's intercepted December 2016 phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, apparently surprising then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, according to documents released Thursday as...
www.foxnews.com
“Strzok later would intervene and push to keep the Flynn probe open in January 2017, even after the FBI's Washington office signaled it wanted to close it because no "derogatory" information had been unearthed after consulting with other intelligence agencies in an exhaustive search….The stunning development came after internal memos were released raising serious questions about the nature of the investigation that led to Flynn’s late 2017 guilty plea of lying to the FBI as his legal fees mounted.
Both during and before the January 24, 2017 White House interview that led to Flynn's prosecution for one count of lying to the FBI, the bureau acknowledged having those full transcripts, raising the question of why agents would need to ask Flynn about what he said during the calls with Kislyak, except potentially as a pretext to obtain a false statements charge.
The FBI possessed word-for-word transcripts of Flynn's December 2016 conversations with Kislyak, and publicly admitted to reviewing those transcripts and clearing Flynn of any wrongdoing.” Obama knew details of wiretapped Flynn phone calls, surprising top DOJ official in meeting with Biden, declassified docs show
So…Flynn was used by the Obama/Russia Hoax as a wedge, tying him to Russia, the bête noire presented in this imbroglio, and by association, Trump as ‘a Russian agent/asset,’ something we’ve learned was totally false.
wamose
Diamond Member
What a joke this Sullivan guy is. I guess if you keep your hair neat and your moustache trimmed, you can never lose your government job. Our government is filled with idiots like him who will do whatever they are told. Hell, Democrats are about to nominate one of them for President. This is what the deep state is.
New Topics
-
Problem With a Particle Being an Excitation in a Field- Started by talanum1
- Replies: 0
-
Is the Guru Going All-In on Energy? Breaking Down the Mohnish Pabrai 13F for Q4 2025- Started by BellaJones
- Replies: 0
-
