Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'd have to think some more on this entrapment argument. I'd have to look at exactly what Flynn lied about. Entrapment generally means when the govt comes to you, and suggests you do something illegal that you did not have any "prior disposition to do."
I'm just an old hack. In my world its more about a copper (the filth) asking Flynn "hey Mike, next time you're in Turkey how about picking me up a couple of kilos of hash." I assume Flynn was not in the habit of bringing back drugs.
But I thought Flynn already lied to Pence about his Turkey dealings … even after he tried to get square by belatedly registering as a foreign agent and (choke) agreeing to give up the money.
LOL
I'd have to think some more on this entrapment argument. I'd have to look at exactly what Flynn lied about. Entrapment generally means when the govt comes to you, and suggests you do something illegal that you did not have any "prior disposition to do."
I'm just an old hack. In my world its more about a copper (the filth) asking Flynn "hey Mike, next time you're in Turkey how about picking me up a couple of kilos of hash." I assume Flynn was not in the habit of bringing back drugs.
But I thought Flynn already lied to Pence about his Turkey dealings … even after he tried to get square by belatedly registering as a foreign agent and (choke) agreeing to give up the money.
LOL
There was no entrapment.
They got information that he was talking to Russians about sanction response and when they questioned him about it he decided it was a better idea to lie to FBI than to tell the truth.
There have never been any claims that FBI somehow pushed him to talk to Russians or lie about talking to them.
Remember in 2018 when John Kerry was talking with Iranian leaders. It was considered a violation of Logan Act.Flynn's "entrapment" claim is basically: you had other evidence that let you determine the falsity of my statements, so you should never have asked me about those events in the first place. It's not my fault for lying, it's your fault for forcing me to lie by... Doing diligent investigative work...?Then why did he plead guilty?
Michael Flynn case should be dismissed to preserve justice
Some more documents reveal an unlawful reason for this case.thehill.com
Great timing !!!!!!!
From the article:
Previously undisclosed documents in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn offer us a chilling blueprint on how top FBI officials not only sought to entrap the former White House aide but sought to do so on such blatantly unconstitutional and manufactured grounds.
These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a “deep state” conspiracy.
***********************
Left wing ambush artists....fuck all of them.
It's calle EXTORTION, dumbass.
So you entrap a guy for no reason, and it is all good? You put a guy in jail for saying he didn't talk to someone, even though everyone knew he did nothing wrong when he did talk to them. But that is okay because you got him lying about something that is pointless. That is messed up.
LOL! And you are still a screaming little Buffoon on the Interwebs. Still.You mean he was forced to say that, dumbfuck. Statements made under duress aren't worth the paper they are written on. If I held a gun to your head and told you to sign over the dead to your property, would that mean I own it?No. Flynn TWICE under oath admitted he broke the law by lying to investigators. You're lying, not me.Do you know that there is never a penalty to Godvernment agents LYING to citizens?So I take it death angel that you'd be opposed to the FBI using the crime of lying to agents in order squeeze cooperation from an aider of a terrorist of child pornographerI'm not a liberal and it's not "entrapment." The OP link said even an FBI higher up (forgot who and am not going back) asked "are we investigating a crime here, or just trying to get 'a lie'" Flynn was the focking Natl Sec Advisor to the President, and he was also a foreign representative. If the FBI was investigating Flynn and Turkey in relation to how he advised the President, and he lied …. I'd say drop him in a deep and dark and unfriendly hole. What he did was arguably worse the Snowden or Chelsea Manning.For this reason, no REAL liberal should ever support a law that criminalizes "lying" to investigators. It becomes their immediate goal from the start. If they can get someone to lie (or even appear to have lied) they can abuse that person to no end. It is the very essence of entrapment and that law MUST go.He may well have pled just to get the Feds to stop racking him, but that doesn't mean he didn't lie to FBI agents. He did. What Barr/Turley are saying is that the FBI's reason to interview Flynn was primarily to get him to lie, and this would create a tool for the FBI to squeeze Flynn by giving him a choice between financial ruin for his family or to betray Trump.
Not because I give a particular shit about a life-long Democrat like Flynn. Rather, I care about liberty. This power given to the FBI is way too easy to abuse.
Until that law is repealed, I will NEVER cooperate with the fucking suits without a hand-signed guarantee letter of absolute lifetime immunity from the FBI director him/herself. Even then, I might be hesitant. They can KISS MY ASS otherwise!!!
.
But the FBI already know the facts of what Flynn had done to dishonor himself and potentially harm the country.
When push comes to shove on this issue, the question is whether the FBI's underhanded tricks would bother you if they used them to lock up a child pornographer or even get a terrorist aider to flip.
Dont you see a problem there?
Btw, HE DIDNT LIE. He pled guilty to protect his son.
When a Godvernment with UNLIMITED RESOURCES comes against YOU, you cannot win.
Playing stupid on this is destroying your party with the few moderates you have left.
I personally agree that in this instance, the FBI interviewed him in HOPING that he'd lie, because they wanted to see if he'd tell them if Trump conspired with Vlad.
My question is whether it's ok for the FBI to interview a person suspected of aiding a terrorist or child pornographer hoping to catch a lie and use that to squeeze cooperation out of the liar. You appear to say it shouldn't be done. And I admit I'm all in favor of the FBI jamming it up these guys because I don't see another way to get the bad guys.
You Trump haters are terminally stupid.
How them coal jobs doin? What's the unemployment rate? Where's them infrastructure jobs?
Trump Loyalists are terminally stupid. Which is you.
Don't all the records say that there was absolutely no evidence to go after Flynn? What justified his entrapment?
Wrong, douchebag, that's exactly what they say. Don't you ever tell the truth? Your lying is pathological.Don't all the records say that there was absolutely no evidence to go after Flynn? What justified his entrapment?
Um, no the records say the opposite of that.
He was involved in a lot of stuff, including being an unregistered agent of Russia and Turkey, of taking gifts from Putin, of being invovled in several deals, and yes, of lying to the Vice President and the FBI about the content of his call to the Russian Ambassador.
He got a pass on all the other crimes except the last one, where he plead guilty (pretty much the end of the matter) to avoid him and his son getting prosecuted for all the other shit they were involved in.
Then he realized he might do better expecting Trump to give him a pardon or rig the system.
Wrong, douchebag, that's exactly what they say. Don't you ever tell the truth? Your lying is pathological.
The DOJ just said he's guilty of nothing, asshole. You're just flat out lying, as you always do.Wrong, douchebag, that's exactly what they say. Don't you ever tell the truth? Your lying is pathological.
Um, no, not really. Flynn was guilty of all sorts of shit, he copped a plea and then went back on it. Kind of a weasel, and you wonder how someone like this got to Flag rank in the military.
The DOJ just said he's guilty of nothing, asshole. You're just flat out lying, as you always do.
Flynn's "entrapment" claim is basically: you had other evidence that let you determine the falsity of my statements, so you should never have asked me about those events in the first place. It's not my fault for lying, it's your fault for forcing me to lie by... Doing diligent investigative work...?Then why did he plead guilty?Michael Flynn case should be dismissed to preserve justice
Some more documents reveal an unlawful reason for this case.
Great timing !!!!!!!
From the article:
Previously undisclosed documents in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn offer us a chilling blueprint on how top FBI officials not only sought to entrap the former White House aide but sought to do so on such blatantly unconstitutional and manufactured grounds.
These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a “deep state” conspiracy.
***********************
Left wing ambush artists....fuck all of them.
It's calle EXTORTION, dumbass.
No. Flynn TWICE under oath admitted he broke the law by lying to investigators. You're lying, not me.Do you know that there is never a penalty to Godvernment agents LYING to citizens?So I take it death angel that you'd be opposed to the FBI using the crime of lying to agents in order squeeze cooperation from an aider of a terrorist of child pornographerI'm not a liberal and it's not "entrapment." The OP link said even an FBI higher up (forgot who and am not going back) asked "are we investigating a crime here, or just trying to get 'a lie'" Flynn was the focking Natl Sec Advisor to the President, and he was also a foreign representative. If the FBI was investigating Flynn and Turkey in relation to how he advised the President, and he lied …. I'd say drop him in a deep and dark and unfriendly hole. What he did was arguably worse the Snowden or Chelsea Manning.For this reason, no REAL liberal should ever support a law that criminalizes "lying" to investigators. It becomes their immediate goal from the start. If they can get someone to lie (or even appear to have lied) they can abuse that person to no end. It is the very essence of entrapment and that law MUST go.He may well have pled just to get the Feds to stop racking him, but that doesn't mean he didn't lie to FBI agents. He did. What Barr/Turley are saying is that the FBI's reason to interview Flynn was primarily to get him to lie, and this would create a tool for the FBI to squeeze Flynn by giving him a choice between financial ruin for his family or to betray Trump.
Not because I give a particular shit about a life-long Democrat like Flynn. Rather, I care about liberty. This power given to the FBI is way too easy to abuse.
Until that law is repealed, I will NEVER cooperate with the fucking suits without a hand-signed guarantee letter of absolute lifetime immunity from the FBI director him/herself. Even then, I might be hesitant. They can KISS MY ASS otherwise!!!
.
But the FBI already know the facts of what Flynn had done to dishonor himself and potentially harm the country.
When push comes to shove on this issue, the question is whether the FBI's underhanded tricks would bother you if they used them to lock up a child pornographer or even get a terrorist aider to flip.
Dont you see a problem there?
Btw, HE DIDNT LIE. He pled guilty to protect his son.
When a Godvernment with UNLIMITED RESOURCES comes against YOU, you cannot win.
Playing stupid on this is destroying your party with the few moderates you have left.
I personally agree that in this instance, the FBI interviewed him in HOPING that he'd lie, because they wanted to see if he'd tell them if Trump conspired with Vlad.
My question is whether it's ok for the FBI to interview a person suspected of aiding a terrorist or child pornographer hoping to catch a lie and use that to squeeze cooperation out of the liar. You appear to say it shouldn't be done. And I admit I'm all in favor of the FBI jamming it up these guys because I don't see another way to get the bad guys.
The record is clear about Flynn lying and selling the US out to curry favor with the Russians for Trump. Surely you have been keeping up with this subject. I mean really, we are how many years into DJTs presidency? If not, Google the info yourself. I for one am done spoon feeding you Orange Imbeciles information and facts about the Orange-COVID-19 Failure In Office.________Flynn is a traitor.
Could you elaborate?
I doubt it. Yours is the typical child-like playground remark customary for the Democrats/Bolsheviks who post on this board---likely from being educated in the Teacher Union controlled public schools of rotting cities in the North.
But if you do elaborate---if you undertake to show how this 33 year decorated combat veteran three star general is a "traitor"----You need to come with facts and documentation. Or I am going to assume you are a half-wit goddamn liar.
Please elaborate. How did he sell out the US for Russia? Of course he talked to them, but how exactly did he sell us out? There are records being released now saying that everyone knew Flynn did no such thing. They went after him anyway. Are you okay with that? Is that America? Political rivals can be jailed for the 'cause'.
Of course he lied. That's not the dispute. The dispute was 1)whether the FBI was actually investigating any crime when they interviewed him. Flynn already admitted he failed to register as a lobbyist for a foreign govt, and he belatedly registered and didn't get to keep his fees. 2) whether the FBI had any probable cause to be investigating his connections with Russia and Russia's ambassador.No. Flynn TWICE under oath admitted he broke the law by lying to investigators. You're lying, not me.Do you know that there is never a penalty to Godvernment agents LYING to citizens?So I take it death angel that you'd be opposed to the FBI using the crime of lying to agents in order squeeze cooperation from an aider of a terrorist of child pornographerI'm not a liberal and it's not "entrapment." The OP link said even an FBI higher up (forgot who and am not going back) asked "are we investigating a crime here, or just trying to get 'a lie'" Flynn was the focking Natl Sec Advisor to the President, and he was also a foreign representative. If the FBI was investigating Flynn and Turkey in relation to how he advised the President, and he lied …. I'd say drop him in a deep and dark and unfriendly hole. What he did was arguably worse the Snowden or Chelsea Manning.For this reason, no REAL liberal should ever support a law that criminalizes "lying" to investigators. It becomes their immediate goal from the start. If they can get someone to lie (or even appear to have lied) they can abuse that person to no end. It is the very essence of entrapment and that law MUST go.He may well have pled just to get the Feds to stop racking him, but that doesn't mean he didn't lie to FBI agents. He did. What Barr/Turley are saying is that the FBI's reason to interview Flynn was primarily to get him to lie, and this would create a tool for the FBI to squeeze Flynn by giving him a choice between financial ruin for his family or to betray Trump.
Not because I give a particular shit about a life-long Democrat like Flynn. Rather, I care about liberty. This power given to the FBI is way too easy to abuse.
Until that law is repealed, I will NEVER cooperate with the fucking suits without a hand-signed guarantee letter of absolute lifetime immunity from the FBI director him/herself. Even then, I might be hesitant. They can KISS MY ASS otherwise!!!
.
But the FBI already know the facts of what Flynn had done to dishonor himself and potentially harm the country.
When push comes to shove on this issue, the question is whether the FBI's underhanded tricks would bother you if they used them to lock up a child pornographer or even get a terrorist aider to flip.
Dont you see a problem there?
Btw, HE DIDNT LIE. He pled guilty to protect his son.
When a Godvernment with UNLIMITED RESOURCES comes against YOU, you cannot win.
Playing stupid on this is destroying your party with the few moderates you have left.
I personally agree that in this instance, the FBI interviewed him in HOPING that he'd lie, because they wanted to see if he'd tell them if Trump conspired with Vlad.
My question is whether it's ok for the FBI to interview a person suspected of aiding a terrorist or child pornographer hoping to catch a lie and use that to squeeze cooperation out of the liar. You appear to say it shouldn't be done. And I admit I'm all in favor of the FBI jamming it up these guys because I don't see another way to get the bad guys.
The problem that stops you dead in your tracks is that Flynn didn't lie.
_______Of course he lied. That's not the dispute. The dispute was 1)whether the FBI was actually investigating any crime when they interviewed him. Flynn already admitted he failed to register as a lobbyist for a foreign govt, and he belatedly registered and didn't get to keep his fees. 2) whether the FBI had any probable cause to be investigating his connections with Russia and Russia's ambassador.No. Flynn TWICE under oath admitted he broke the law by lying to investigators. You're lying, not me.Do you know that there is never a penalty to Godvernment agents LYING to citizens?So I take it death angel that you'd be opposed to the FBI using the crime of lying to agents in order squeeze cooperation from an aider of a terrorist of child pornographerI'm not a liberal and it's not "entrapment." The OP link said even an FBI higher up (forgot who and am not going back) asked "are we investigating a crime here, or just trying to get 'a lie'" Flynn was the focking Natl Sec Advisor to the President, and he was also a foreign representative. If the FBI was investigating Flynn and Turkey in relation to how he advised the President, and he lied …. I'd say drop him in a deep and dark and unfriendly hole. What he did was arguably worse the Snowden or Chelsea Manning.For this reason, no REAL liberal should ever support a law that criminalizes "lying" to investigators. It becomes their immediate goal from the start. If they can get someone to lie (or even appear to have lied) they can abuse that person to no end. It is the very essence of entrapment and that law MUST go.He may well have pled just to get the Feds to stop racking him, but that doesn't mean he didn't lie to FBI agents. He did. What Barr/Turley are saying is that the FBI's reason to interview Flynn was primarily to get him to lie, and this would create a tool for the FBI to squeeze Flynn by giving him a choice between financial ruin for his family or to betray Trump.
Not because I give a particular shit about a life-long Democrat like Flynn. Rather, I care about liberty. This power given to the FBI is way too easy to abuse.
Until that law is repealed, I will NEVER cooperate with the fucking suits without a hand-signed guarantee letter of absolute lifetime immunity from the FBI director him/herself. Even then, I might be hesitant. They can KISS MY ASS otherwise!!!
.
But the FBI already know the facts of what Flynn had done to dishonor himself and potentially harm the country.
When push comes to shove on this issue, the question is whether the FBI's underhanded tricks would bother you if they used them to lock up a child pornographer or even get a terrorist aider to flip.
Dont you see a problem there?
Btw, HE DIDNT LIE. He pled guilty to protect his son.
When a Godvernment with UNLIMITED RESOURCES comes against YOU, you cannot win.
Playing stupid on this is destroying your party with the few moderates you have left.
I personally agree that in this instance, the FBI interviewed him in HOPING that he'd lie, because they wanted to see if he'd tell them if Trump conspired with Vlad.
My question is whether it's ok for the FBI to interview a person suspected of aiding a terrorist or child pornographer hoping to catch a lie and use that to squeeze cooperation out of the liar. You appear to say it shouldn't be done. And I admit I'm all in favor of the FBI jamming it up these guys because I don't see another way to get the bad guys.
The problem that stops you dead in your tracks is that Flynn didn't lie.
And I dont' think there's really any dispute that FBI was a heart trying to find something to hang on Flynn just to pressure him to give up something tying Trump to Russia.
www.newsweek.com
Just stop. Even his defenders acknowledge he lied. He either lied to the FBI or the Judge. It has to be one or the other. If he didn't lie to the FBI, he lied to the Judge when he said under oath TWICE that he lied.No. Flynn TWICE under oath admitted he broke the law by lying to investigators. You're lying, not me.Do you know that there is never a penalty to Godvernment agents LYING to citizens?So I take it death angel that you'd be opposed to the FBI using the crime of lying to agents in order squeeze cooperation from an aider of a terrorist of child pornographerI'm not a liberal and it's not "entrapment." The OP link said even an FBI higher up (forgot who and am not going back) asked "are we investigating a crime here, or just trying to get 'a lie'" Flynn was the focking Natl Sec Advisor to the President, and he was also a foreign representative. If the FBI was investigating Flynn and Turkey in relation to how he advised the President, and he lied …. I'd say drop him in a deep and dark and unfriendly hole. What he did was arguably worse the Snowden or Chelsea Manning.For this reason, no REAL liberal should ever support a law that criminalizes "lying" to investigators. It becomes their immediate goal from the start. If they can get someone to lie (or even appear to have lied) they can abuse that person to no end. It is the very essence of entrapment and that law MUST go.He may well have pled just to get the Feds to stop racking him, but that doesn't mean he didn't lie to FBI agents. He did. What Barr/Turley are saying is that the FBI's reason to interview Flynn was primarily to get him to lie, and this would create a tool for the FBI to squeeze Flynn by giving him a choice between financial ruin for his family or to betray Trump.
Not because I give a particular shit about a life-long Democrat like Flynn. Rather, I care about liberty. This power given to the FBI is way too easy to abuse.
Until that law is repealed, I will NEVER cooperate with the fucking suits without a hand-signed guarantee letter of absolute lifetime immunity from the FBI director him/herself. Even then, I might be hesitant. They can KISS MY ASS otherwise!!!
.
But the FBI already know the facts of what Flynn had done to dishonor himself and potentially harm the country.
When push comes to shove on this issue, the question is whether the FBI's underhanded tricks would bother you if they used them to lock up a child pornographer or even get a terrorist aider to flip.
Dont you see a problem there?
Btw, HE DIDNT LIE. He pled guilty to protect his son.
When a Godvernment with UNLIMITED RESOURCES comes against YOU, you cannot win.
Playing stupid on this is destroying your party with the few moderates you have left.
I personally agree that in this instance, the FBI interviewed him in HOPING that he'd lie, because they wanted to see if he'd tell them if Trump conspired with Vlad.
My question is whether it's ok for the FBI to interview a person suspected of aiding a terrorist or child pornographer hoping to catch a lie and use that to squeeze cooperation out of the liar. You appear to say it shouldn't be done. And I admit I'm all in favor of the FBI jamming it up these guys because I don't see another way to get the bad guys.
The problem that stops you dead in your tracks is that Flynn didn't lie.
www.nationalreview.com
Just stop. Even his defenders acknowledge he lied. He either lied to the FBI or the Judge. It has to be one or the other. If he didn't lie to the FBI, he lied to the Judge when he said under oath TWICE that he lied.No. Flynn TWICE under oath admitted he broke the law by lying to investigators. You're lying, not me.Do you know that there is never a penalty to Godvernment agents LYING to citizens?So I take it death angel that you'd be opposed to the FBI using the crime of lying to agents in order squeeze cooperation from an aider of a terrorist of child pornographerI'm not a liberal and it's not "entrapment." The OP link said even an FBI higher up (forgot who and am not going back) asked "are we investigating a crime here, or just trying to get 'a lie'" Flynn was the focking Natl Sec Advisor to the President, and he was also a foreign representative. If the FBI was investigating Flynn and Turkey in relation to how he advised the President, and he lied …. I'd say drop him in a deep and dark and unfriendly hole. What he did was arguably worse the Snowden or Chelsea Manning.For this reason, no REAL liberal should ever support a law that criminalizes "lying" to investigators. It becomes their immediate goal from the start. If they can get someone to lie (or even appear to have lied) they can abuse that person to no end. It is the very essence of entrapment and that law MUST go.He may well have pled just to get the Feds to stop racking him, but that doesn't mean he didn't lie to FBI agents. He did. What Barr/Turley are saying is that the FBI's reason to interview Flynn was primarily to get him to lie, and this would create a tool for the FBI to squeeze Flynn by giving him a choice between financial ruin for his family or to betray Trump.
Not because I give a particular shit about a life-long Democrat like Flynn. Rather, I care about liberty. This power given to the FBI is way too easy to abuse.
Until that law is repealed, I will NEVER cooperate with the fucking suits without a hand-signed guarantee letter of absolute lifetime immunity from the FBI director him/herself. Even then, I might be hesitant. They can KISS MY ASS otherwise!!!
.
But the FBI already know the facts of what Flynn had done to dishonor himself and potentially harm the country.
When push comes to shove on this issue, the question is whether the FBI's underhanded tricks would bother you if they used them to lock up a child pornographer or even get a terrorist aider to flip.
Dont you see a problem there?
Btw, HE DIDNT LIE. He pled guilty to protect his son.
When a Godvernment with UNLIMITED RESOURCES comes against YOU, you cannot win.
Playing stupid on this is destroying your party with the few moderates you have left.
I personally agree that in this instance, the FBI interviewed him in HOPING that he'd lie, because they wanted to see if he'd tell them if Trump conspired with Vlad.
My question is whether it's ok for the FBI to interview a person suspected of aiding a terrorist or child pornographer hoping to catch a lie and use that to squeeze cooperation out of the liar. You appear to say it shouldn't be done. And I admit I'm all in favor of the FBI jamming it up these guys because I don't see another way to get the bad guys.
The problem that stops you dead in your tracks is that Flynn didn't lie.
Did Flynn Lie? | National Review
To believe Flynn told the agents the truth, you must believe that (a) he lied to the court when he pled guilty and (b) he is still lying to the court.
I realize you may be scoring points in your own mind by stating facts that cannot be true, but doing that doesn't further the argument for Flynn. But the FBI initially said that why Flynn's statements about what he did with the Russian ambassador were not correct, Flynn might not have been intending to deceive. Perhaps that's hard to believe, and I think he was trying to be deceptive, but he was simply out of his depth. Flynn was never a "develop policy guy." He was an intelligence officer.
But even if one assumes he lied four times …. why put the guy in jail. It makes no sense. We're letting out all kinds of non-violent (I hope not violent) criminals. Flynn may be a lot of things, but he's not a criminal. He didn't take other people's stuff.
Don't all the records say that there was absolutely no evidence to go after Flynn? What justified his entrapment?
Um, no the records say the opposite of that.
He was involved in a lot of stuff, including being an unregistered agent of Russia and Turkey, of taking gifts from Putin, of being invovled in several deals, and yes, of lying to the Vice President and the FBI about the content of his call to the Russian Ambassador.
He got a pass on all the other crimes except the last one, where he plead guilty (pretty much the end of the matter) to avoid him and his son getting prosecuted for all the other shit they were involved in.
Then he realized he might do better expecting Trump to give him a pardon or rig the system.
_______Of course he lied. That's not the dispute. The dispute was 1)whether the FBI was actually investigating any crime when they interviewed him. Flynn already admitted he failed to register as a lobbyist for a foreign govt, and he belatedly registered and didn't get to keep his fees. 2) whether the FBI had any probable cause to be investigating his connections with Russia and Russia's ambassador.No. Flynn TWICE under oath admitted he broke the law by lying to investigators. You're lying, not me.Do you know that there is never a penalty to Godvernment agents LYING to citizens?So I take it death angel that you'd be opposed to the FBI using the crime of lying to agents in order squeeze cooperation from an aider of a terrorist of child pornographerI'm not a liberal and it's not "entrapment." The OP link said even an FBI higher up (forgot who and am not going back) asked "are we investigating a crime here, or just trying to get 'a lie'" Flynn was the focking Natl Sec Advisor to the President, and he was also a foreign representative. If the FBI was investigating Flynn and Turkey in relation to how he advised the President, and he lied …. I'd say drop him in a deep and dark and unfriendly hole. What he did was arguably worse the Snowden or Chelsea Manning.For this reason, no REAL liberal should ever support a law that criminalizes "lying" to investigators. It becomes their immediate goal from the start. If they can get someone to lie (or even appear to have lied) they can abuse that person to no end. It is the very essence of entrapment and that law MUST go.He may well have pled just to get the Feds to stop racking him, but that doesn't mean he didn't lie to FBI agents. He did. What Barr/Turley are saying is that the FBI's reason to interview Flynn was primarily to get him to lie, and this would create a tool for the FBI to squeeze Flynn by giving him a choice between financial ruin for his family or to betray Trump.
Not because I give a particular shit about a life-long Democrat like Flynn. Rather, I care about liberty. This power given to the FBI is way too easy to abuse.
Until that law is repealed, I will NEVER cooperate with the fucking suits without a hand-signed guarantee letter of absolute lifetime immunity from the FBI director him/herself. Even then, I might be hesitant. They can KISS MY ASS otherwise!!!
.
But the FBI already know the facts of what Flynn had done to dishonor himself and potentially harm the country.
When push comes to shove on this issue, the question is whether the FBI's underhanded tricks would bother you if they used them to lock up a child pornographer or even get a terrorist aider to flip.
Dont you see a problem there?
Btw, HE DIDNT LIE. He pled guilty to protect his son.
When a Godvernment with UNLIMITED RESOURCES comes against YOU, you cannot win.
Playing stupid on this is destroying your party with the few moderates you have left.
I personally agree that in this instance, the FBI interviewed him in HOPING that he'd lie, because they wanted to see if he'd tell them if Trump conspired with Vlad.
My question is whether it's ok for the FBI to interview a person suspected of aiding a terrorist or child pornographer hoping to catch a lie and use that to squeeze cooperation out of the liar. You appear to say it shouldn't be done. And I admit I'm all in favor of the FBI jamming it up these guys because I don't see another way to get the bad guys.
The problem that stops you dead in your tracks is that Flynn didn't lie.
And I dont' think there's really any dispute that FBI was a heart trying to find something to hang on Flynn just to pressure him to give up something tying Trump to Russia.
Here is what is said above about Flynn:
"Of course he lied."
It is an example of a mindless sheep who has taken without question the hogwash and propaganda put out by rabid partisans like Adam Schiff and by the NY/DC Media which, as everyone knows is the Propaganda arm of the Democrat (read Socialist) Party.
But, here, from Newsweek, is an honest assessment:
The Curious Case of Michael Flynn
It may finally be over for Michael Flynn, but the search for answers goes on.
"From the beginning, my former boss, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), wanted to see the underlying evidence for himself. If Flynn engaged in nefarious business with the Russians, why would he do it on a phone call he knew was likely being monitored? Why would he think he could get away with lying about it?
We wanted to compare the transcript of the intercepted call to the agent's contemporaneous notes of the interview to understand exactly how Flynn allegedly deceived the FBI.
To this day, however, DOJ's oversight committees in Congress, Flynn's lawyers and the public have still never seen a transcript of the call. In Congress, we asked for it on a bipartisan basis in February 2017. Flynn's lawyers have been asking. Still, all the public knows is mostly from selective leaks to the press and spin about what Flynn allegedly said."
Two years ago, Grassley urged the Justice Department to prove that what it did to Flynn could withstand independent scrutiny. Turns out, it couldn't.
Under previous leadership, DOJ fiercely resisted transparency—and now we know why. Exasperated with our oversight letters, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein came to Senator Grassley's office to push back. He questioned whether I was working with Flynn's defense counsel. I wasn't. He insisted that Flynn's guilty plea should end all questions.
It didn't. And Senator Grassley had good reasons to be suspicious.
The FBI agent who interrogated Flynn has since had to answer for his own issues, but we knew that even Peter Strzok didn't think that Flynn had lied. Former FBI Director James Comey had told us that directly, indicating at a briefing in the Senate's secure facility in March 2017 that Flynn was unlikely to be prosecuted.
____
I would suggest that you Bolsheviks take time to get better information, so as to get nearer the Truth....but it's obvious that you don't really want the Truth...what you want is talking points from Pathological Liars like Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi and from their Propaganda Arms in New York and Jeff Bezos's Rag in Washington, D. C.
______
Stick with the Ouija board. Flynn was hogtied, sheep dipped and sheered, but he lied like a champ.Just stop. Even his defenders acknowledge he lied. He either lied to the FBI or the Judge. It has to be one or the other. If he didn't lie to the FBI, he lied to the Judge when he said under oath TWICE that he lied.No. Flynn TWICE under oath admitted he broke the law by lying to investigators. You're lying, not me.Do you know that there is never a penalty to Godvernment agents LYING to citizens?So I take it death angel that you'd be opposed to the FBI using the crime of lying to agents in order squeeze cooperation from an aider of a terrorist of child pornographerI'm not a liberal and it's not "entrapment." The OP link said even an FBI higher up (forgot who and am not going back) asked "are we investigating a crime here, or just trying to get 'a lie'" Flynn was the focking Natl Sec Advisor to the President, and he was also a foreign representative. If the FBI was investigating Flynn and Turkey in relation to how he advised the President, and he lied …. I'd say drop him in a deep and dark and unfriendly hole. What he did was arguably worse the Snowden or Chelsea Manning.For this reason, no REAL liberal should ever support a law that criminalizes "lying" to investigators. It becomes their immediate goal from the start. If they can get someone to lie (or even appear to have lied) they can abuse that person to no end. It is the very essence of entrapment and that law MUST go.He may well have pled just to get the Feds to stop racking him, but that doesn't mean he didn't lie to FBI agents. He did. What Barr/Turley are saying is that the FBI's reason to interview Flynn was primarily to get him to lie, and this would create a tool for the FBI to squeeze Flynn by giving him a choice between financial ruin for his family or to betray Trump.
Not because I give a particular shit about a life-long Democrat like Flynn. Rather, I care about liberty. This power given to the FBI is way too easy to abuse.
Until that law is repealed, I will NEVER cooperate with the fucking suits without a hand-signed guarantee letter of absolute lifetime immunity from the FBI director him/herself. Even then, I might be hesitant. They can KISS MY ASS otherwise!!!
.
But the FBI already know the facts of what Flynn had done to dishonor himself and potentially harm the country.
When push comes to shove on this issue, the question is whether the FBI's underhanded tricks would bother you if they used them to lock up a child pornographer or even get a terrorist aider to flip.
Dont you see a problem there?
Btw, HE DIDNT LIE. He pled guilty to protect his son.
When a Godvernment with UNLIMITED RESOURCES comes against YOU, you cannot win.
Playing stupid on this is destroying your party with the few moderates you have left.
I personally agree that in this instance, the FBI interviewed him in HOPING that he'd lie, because they wanted to see if he'd tell them if Trump conspired with Vlad.
My question is whether it's ok for the FBI to interview a person suspected of aiding a terrorist or child pornographer hoping to catch a lie and use that to squeeze cooperation out of the liar. You appear to say it shouldn't be done. And I admit I'm all in favor of the FBI jamming it up these guys because I don't see another way to get the bad guys.
The problem that stops you dead in your tracks is that Flynn didn't lie.
Did Flynn Lie? | National Review
To believe Flynn told the agents the truth, you must believe that (a) he lied to the court when he pled guilty and (b) he is still lying to the court.
I realize you may be scoring points in your own mind by stating facts that cannot be true, but doing that doesn't further the argument for Flynn. But the FBI initially said that why Flynn's statements about what he did with the Russian ambassador were not correct, Flynn might not have been intending to deceive. Perhaps that's hard to believe, and I think he was trying to be deceptive, but he was simply out of his depth. Flynn was never a "develop policy guy." He was an intelligence officer.
But even if one assumes he lied four times …. why put the guy in jail. It makes no sense. We're letting out all kinds of non-violent (I hope not violent) criminals. Flynn may be a lot of things, but he's not a criminal. He didn't take other people's stuff.
At this point my only viable option is to accept that you don't and won't understand what has happened.
That's the problem. The nature of their crime should be irrelevant.So I take it death angel that you'd be opposed to the FBI using the crime of lying to agents in order squeeze cooperation from an aider of a terrorist of child pornographer
