Judge Sullivan Scrambles For A Lifeline To Bail HIMSELF Out Of Dropped Flynn Case

[Nostra]

Lets all file an amicus brief telling judge sullivan he's an ASSHOLE!

Have about half a million veterans with Flynn signs
show up at his next court session.

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.

Don’t tell me Obama sent Flynn to Putin.

You obviously are ignorant of the definition of "traitor", Moron.

charwin95

Get a a life a Dude. Flynn is nothing but a TRAITOR.

Another single digit IQ Dimwinger who doesn’t know the definition of treason.

How cute.

And how low is your IQ? All your post are nothing but low class insults. What that makes you? Poorly uneducated American.

Unlike you, I know the definition of treason, Dummy.

 

[charwin95]

Lets all file an amicus brief telling judge sullivan he's an ASSHOLE!

Have about half a million veterans with Flynn signs
show up at his next court session.

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.

Don’t tell me Obama sent Flynn to Putin.

You obviously are ignorant of the definition of "traitor", Moron.

charwin95

Get a a life a Dude. Flynn is nothing but a TRAITOR.

Another single digit IQ Dimwinger who doesn’t know the definition of treason.

How cute.

And how low is your IQ? All your post are nothing but low class insults. What that makes you? Poorly uneducated American.

Unlike you, I know the definition of treason, Dummy.

Oh BULLSHIT. What treason? This been said here over and over Flynn pleaded guilty. Then lied and lied. PERIOD. You can wash your mouth with toilet water and drink it. It doesn’t change anything but you are low class uneducated ignorant American. Flynn is guilty. Period. Flynn is nothing but a TRAITOR piece of shit. Period. Then we have these dumbshit like you trying to pretend he is a good guy. Flynn is despicable and despised by US soldiers. That’s a fact.

 

[charwin95]

The Supreme Court just unanimously overturned a similar case from the 9th circuit where the Judge tried this.

Informative.

Even Judge Napolitano from Fox News disagree with you and Barr’s decisions.
.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This analysis shows that what Judge Sullivan does will ultimately fail for several reasons:

American Thinker

Judge Sullivan should be careful what he asks for

By James V. DeLong

May 15, 2020

Excerpt:

The latest development in the persecution of Michael Flynn was Judge Sullivan's unusual order reacting to the DOJ motion to dismiss. As the DOJ establishes, a decision to drop a prosecution is a prerogative of the Executive Branch, so a judge's role is limited. He should establish that the dismissal is requested not to harass the defendant and then sign off.

Instead, Sullivan opened the door to amicus briefs in opposition to dismissal and then appointed an outside party to argue the point and to argue, as well, that Flynn should be held in contempt of court for perjury because he said he was guilty when he was actually innocent. (Or perhaps Sullivan intends to charge him for claiming innocence — it is a bit murky.)

It is unlikely that this effort to extend things will go on too long. The DOJ and Flynn can request a writ of mandamus from an appellate court holding Sullivan to his duty, and there is square precedent that mandamus is proper in a matter such as this one.

But suppose the case does go on, with extensive briefs and a consideration of a perjury charge against Flynn. It is unlikely to develop as Sullivan seems to think it will.

The DOJ motion to dismiss was carefully crafted.

LINK

=============

What Judge Sullivan did was stupid as hell, as he will get smashed over it.

 

[the other mike]

Oh BULLSHIT. What treason? This been said here over and over Flynn pleaded guilty. Then lied and lied. PERIOD. You can wash your mouth with toilet water and drink it. It doesn’t change anything but you are low class uneducated ignorant American. Flynn is guilty. Period. Flynn is nothing but a TRAITOR piece of shit. Period. Then we have these dumbshit like you trying to pretend he is a good guy. Flynn is despicable and despised by US soldiers. That’s a fact.

Run out of your medication this morning ?

 

[charwin95]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

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 [email protected] 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..

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.

From Fox News? LOL. Absolutely. Read post #417. That sums up Flynn actions all the way from Moscow to Turkey to Trump administration.
From Fox News Obama knew Flynn talked to Kislyak....... Of course Obama knew Flynn talked to Kislyak. Why wouldn’t he? Why is that a problem?

You should ask your self. With so many generals available as NSA. Why did he hired this reject general Flynn in the first place?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Supreme Court just unanimously overturned a similar case from the 9th circuit where the Judge tried this.

Informative.

Even Judge Napolitano from Fox News disagree with you and Barr’s decisions.
.

Napolitano has been wrong before.

As you know....I'm never wrong.


Let's see what Law Professor Johnathan Turley says:

Barr’s latest smack in Obama’s kisser, peeling back the trumped up charges against Flynn, produced the latest whopper from Hussein: “Barack Obama told former members of his administration he is disturbed by the Justice Department's move to dismiss its criminal case against retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
“The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama said.

“And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for somebody who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic, not just institutional norms, but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places," he added, misstating that Flynn was charged with perjury. Flynn was charged with false statements to the FBI about his conversations with a Russian envoy.” Obama warns 'rule of law is at risk' in leaked audio


“The Obama statement is curious on various levels. First, the exhaustive search may have been hampered by the fact that Flynn was never charged with perjury. He was charged with a single count of false statements to a federal investigator under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
I previously wrote that the Justice Department should move to dismiss the case due to recently disclosed evidence and thus I was supportive of the decision of Attorney General Bill Barr.”
President Obama Declares “There Is No Precedent That Anybody Can Find” For The Flynn Motion [He May Want To Call Eric Holder]

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

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 [email protected] 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..

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.

From Fox News? LOL. Absolutely. Read post #417. That sums up Flynn actions all the way from Moscow to Turkey to Trump administration.
From Fox News Obama knew Flynn talked to Kislyak....... Of course Obama knew Flynn talked to Kislyak. Why wouldn’t he? Why is that a problem?

You should ask your self. With so many generals available as NSA. Why did he hired this reject general Flynn in the first place?

You need further education???

No prob.

Glenn Greenwald

@ggreenwald


May 7 2020

I'd still like to understand what was improper about the incoming National Security Advisor of a newly elected administration calling his Russian counterpart to try to tamp down tensions in the weeks before he took office.


and….
“In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd, although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it. Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant general.

…the federal investigators who had interviewed him told their superiors they did not think that Flynn intentionally lied when he denied discussing sanctions against Russia with Kislyak. Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team changed all that and decided to bring the dubious charge. They drained Flynn financially then threatened to charge his son.”

Flynn never denied the conversation and knew the FBI had a transcript of it. Indeed, President Trump publicly discussed a desire to reframe Russian relations and renegotiate such areas of tensions.” The Flynn Case Should Be Dismissed In The Name Of Justice



Welcome to Ouch-town, bro…Population: you

 

[charwin95]

This analysis shows that what Judge Sullivan does will ultimately fail for several reasons:

American Thinker

Judge Sullivan should be careful what he asks for

By James V. DeLong

May 15, 2020

Excerpt:

The latest development in the persecution of Michael Flynn was Judge Sullivan's unusual order reacting to the DOJ motion to dismiss. As the DOJ establishes, a decision to drop a prosecution is a prerogative of the Executive Branch, so a judge's role is limited. He should establish that the dismissal is requested not to harass the defendant and then sign off.

Instead, Sullivan opened the door to amicus briefs in opposition to dismissal and then appointed an outside party to argue the point and to argue, as well, that Flynn should be held in contempt of court for perjury because he said he was guilty when he was actually innocent. (Or perhaps Sullivan intends to charge him for claiming innocence — it is a bit murky.)

It is unlikely that this effort to extend things will go on too long. The DOJ and Flynn can request a writ of mandamus from an appellate court holding Sullivan to his duty, and there is square precedent that mandamus is proper in a matter such as this one.

But suppose the case does go on, with extensive briefs and a consideration of a perjury charge against Flynn. It is unlikely to develop as Sullivan seems to think it will.

The DOJ motion to dismiss was carefully crafted.

LINK

=============

What Judge Sullivan did was stupid as hell, as he will get smashed over it.

Oh Lord! From AmericanThinker? LOL.... You may want to look who is this media.


American Thinker - Wikipedia

The magazine has been described as a conservative blog.[6][7] Right Wing Watch points out that American Thinker has published an excessively complimentary piece on a white nationalist, claimed women ruined public discourse by complaining about rape, and asserted that rainbow-colored Doritos are a "gateway snack to introduce children to the joys of homosexuality."[8] The site has published falsehoods about climate change.[9]

 

[Faun]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

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 [email protected] 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..

LOLOL

You're truly a fucking moron. Even after being shown how the courts have consistently sided with law enforcement's efforts in such fashion to extract information from suspects, you still cling to your idiocy that it's entrapment.

It is documented that the FBI went there to get him fired, or trick him into lying.

That is a fact, but you never worry about those.

LOL

What a pity for Flynn that "trick him into lying" are your words, not Strozk's.

 

[Faun]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

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 [email protected] 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..

LOLOL

You're truly a fucking moron. Even after being shown how the courts have consistently sided with law enforcement's efforts in such fashion to extract information from suspects, you still cling to your idiocy that it's entrapment.

Why is your language always so.....low class?

If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This analysis shows that what Judge Sullivan does will ultimately fail for several reasons:

American Thinker

Judge Sullivan should be careful what he asks for

By James V. DeLong

May 15, 2020

Excerpt:

The latest development in the persecution of Michael Flynn was Judge Sullivan's unusual order reacting to the DOJ motion to dismiss. As the DOJ establishes, a decision to drop a prosecution is a prerogative of the Executive Branch, so a judge's role is limited. He should establish that the dismissal is requested not to harass the defendant and then sign off.

Instead, Sullivan opened the door to amicus briefs in opposition to dismissal and then appointed an outside party to argue the point and to argue, as well, that Flynn should be held in contempt of court for perjury because he said he was guilty when he was actually innocent. (Or perhaps Sullivan intends to charge him for claiming innocence — it is a bit murky.)

It is unlikely that this effort to extend things will go on too long. The DOJ and Flynn can request a writ of mandamus from an appellate court holding Sullivan to his duty, and there is square precedent that mandamus is proper in a matter such as this one.

But suppose the case does go on, with extensive briefs and a consideration of a perjury charge against Flynn. It is unlikely to develop as Sullivan seems to think it will.

The DOJ motion to dismiss was carefully crafted.

LINK

=============

What Judge Sullivan did was stupid as hell, as he will get smashed over it.

Oh Lord! From AmericanThinker? LOL.... You may want to look who is this media.


American Thinker - Wikipedia

The magazine has been described as a conservative blog.[6][7] Right Wing Watch points out that American Thinker has published an excessively complimentary piece on a white nationalist, claimed women ruined public discourse by complaining about rape, and asserted that rainbow-colored Doritos are a "gateway snack to introduce children to the joys of homosexuality."[8] The site has published falsehoods about climate change.[9]

And yet the publication is spot on.

What does that prove about your opinion?

 

[Sunsettommy]

This analysis shows that what Judge Sullivan does will ultimately fail for several reasons:

American Thinker

Judge Sullivan should be careful what he asks for

By James V. DeLong

May 15, 2020

Excerpt:

The latest development in the persecution of Michael Flynn was Judge Sullivan's unusual order reacting to the DOJ motion to dismiss. As the DOJ establishes, a decision to drop a prosecution is a prerogative of the Executive Branch, so a judge's role is limited. He should establish that the dismissal is requested not to harass the defendant and then sign off.

Instead, Sullivan opened the door to amicus briefs in opposition to dismissal and then appointed an outside party to argue the point and to argue, as well, that Flynn should be held in contempt of court for perjury because he said he was guilty when he was actually innocent. (Or perhaps Sullivan intends to charge him for claiming innocence — it is a bit murky.)

It is unlikely that this effort to extend things will go on too long. The DOJ and Flynn can request a writ of mandamus from an appellate court holding Sullivan to his duty, and there is square precedent that mandamus is proper in a matter such as this one.

But suppose the case does go on, with extensive briefs and a consideration of a perjury charge against Flynn. It is unlikely to develop as Sullivan seems to think it will.

The DOJ motion to dismiss was carefully crafted.

LINK

=============

What Judge Sullivan did was stupid as hell, as he will get smashed over it.

Oh Lord! From AmericanThinker? LOL.... You may want to look who is this media.


American Thinker - Wikipedia

The magazine has been described as a conservative blog.[6][7] Right Wing Watch points out that American Thinker has published an excessively complimentary piece on a white nationalist, claimed women ruined public discourse by complaining about rape, and asserted that rainbow-colored Doritos are a "gateway snack to introduce children to the joys of homosexuality."[8] The site has published falsehoods about climate change.[9]

Translation: I can't make a cogent counter to the article, therefore I give you this fallacy statement instead.

===

The Article was written by a retired Lawyer, who posted what the DOJ and Flynn can do to shut down this Kangaroo court bullshit. It really bothers so much that you avoid the contents of the article to make this smear, because you know deep down you can't counter it. That is why you are very unhappy to see the whole lets fuck Flynn edifice collapsing.

I really pity you for your lack of zeal for the truth, you prefer being a low grade thinker, which must be the easier route for you to follow.

 

[Faun]

This analysis shows that what Judge Sullivan does will ultimately fail for several reasons:

American Thinker

Judge Sullivan should be careful what he asks for

By James V. DeLong

May 15, 2020

Excerpt:

The latest development in the persecution of Michael Flynn was Judge Sullivan's unusual order reacting to the DOJ motion to dismiss. As the DOJ establishes, a decision to drop a prosecution is a prerogative of the Executive Branch, so a judge's role is limited. He should establish that the dismissal is requested not to harass the defendant and then sign off.

Instead, Sullivan opened the door to amicus briefs in opposition to dismissal and then appointed an outside party to argue the point and to argue, as well, that Flynn should be held in contempt of court for perjury because he said he was guilty when he was actually innocent. (Or perhaps Sullivan intends to charge him for claiming innocence — it is a bit murky.)

It is unlikely that this effort to extend things will go on too long. The DOJ and Flynn can request a writ of mandamus from an appellate court holding Sullivan to his duty, and there is square precedent that mandamus is proper in a matter such as this one.

But suppose the case does go on, with extensive briefs and a consideration of a perjury charge against Flynn. It is unlikely to develop as Sullivan seems to think it will.

The DOJ motion to dismiss was carefully crafted.

LINK

=============

What Judge Sullivan did was stupid as hell, as he will get smashed over it.

There's no reason for Judge Sullivan to let Flynn off the hook. Flynn is a convicted felon who admitted he broke the law by lying to federal investigators.

 

[AntonToo]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

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 [email protected] 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..

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.

From Fox News? LOL. Absolutely. Read post #417. That sums up Flynn actions all the way from Moscow to Turkey to Trump administration.
From Fox News Obama knew Flynn talked to Kislyak....... Of course Obama knew Flynn talked to Kislyak. Why wouldn’t he? Why is that a problem?

You should ask your self. With so many generals available as NSA. Why did he hired this reject general Flynn in the first place?

You need further education???

No prob.

Glenn Greenwald
@ggreenwald


May 7 2020

I'd still like to understand what was improper about the incoming National Security Advisor of a newly elected administration calling his Russian counterpart to try to tamp down tensions in the weeks before he took office.


and….
“In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd, although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it. Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant general.

…the federal investigators who had interviewed him told their superiors they did not think that Flynn intentionally lied when he denied discussing sanctions against Russia with Kislyak. Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team changed all that and decided to bring the dubious charge. They drained Flynn financially then threatened to charge his son.”

Flynn never denied the conversation and knew the FBI had a transcript of it. Indeed, President Trump publicly discussed a desire to reframe Russian relations and renegotiate such areas of tensions.” The Flynn Case Should Be Dismissed In The Name Of Justice



Welcome to Ouch-town, bro…Population: you

Conducting such diplomacy by civilians, without co-ordination from the current President's administration is exactly why Logan Act exists. It is ridiculous to say that Flynn's conduct could not be investigated as a possible violation.

But even if you believe that Logan Act does not apply, you still are not accounting for the simple fact that Flynn lied to VP's office and FBI about his discussions of sanction response with Russians and he lied to FBI about his efforts to try to change United Nation vote.

You will just have to find some sane way to deal with that clear as day violation of the law and so far you haven't been able to.

 

[meaner gene]

Instead, Sullivan opened the door to amicus briefs in opposition to dismissal and then appointed an outside party to argue the point and to argue, as well, that Flynn should be held in contempt of court for perjury because he said he was guilty when he was actually innocent. (Or perhaps Sullivan intends to charge him for claiming innocence — it is a bit murky.)

This is a unique situation. Where there is only one side in an adversarial system, hence the need to put an opponent into the mix.

As noted Flynn also faces the problem of having told one story to one judge, and the opposite story to another judge.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This analysis shows that what Judge Sullivan does will ultimately fail for several reasons:

American Thinker

Judge Sullivan should be careful what he asks for

By James V. DeLong

May 15, 2020

Excerpt:

The latest development in the persecution of Michael Flynn was Judge Sullivan's unusual order reacting to the DOJ motion to dismiss. As the DOJ establishes, a decision to drop a prosecution is a prerogative of the Executive Branch, so a judge's role is limited. He should establish that the dismissal is requested not to harass the defendant and then sign off.

Instead, Sullivan opened the door to amicus briefs in opposition to dismissal and then appointed an outside party to argue the point and to argue, as well, that Flynn should be held in contempt of court for perjury because he said he was guilty when he was actually innocent. (Or perhaps Sullivan intends to charge him for claiming innocence — it is a bit murky.)

It is unlikely that this effort to extend things will go on too long. The DOJ and Flynn can request a writ of mandamus from an appellate court holding Sullivan to his duty, and there is square precedent that mandamus is proper in a matter such as this one.

But suppose the case does go on, with extensive briefs and a consideration of a perjury charge against Flynn. It is unlikely to develop as Sullivan seems to think it will.

The DOJ motion to dismiss was carefully crafted.

LINK

=============

What Judge Sullivan did was stupid as hell, as he will get smashed over it.

There's no reason for Judge Sullivan to let Flynn off the hook. Flynn is a convicted felon who admitted he broke the law by lying to federal investigators.

Another useless comment you make, who ignored a lot of recently released documents that Flynn was illegally prosecuted. I have yet see you make a cogent argument beyond "he lied" bullshit, which is unsurprising since he was pushed hard into it.

I posted the documents several times showing they CONSPIRED against him, talking about how to make him lie on something. You ignored it because you are a partisan hack.

 

[charwin95]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

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 [email protected] 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..

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.

From Fox News? LOL. Absolutely. Read post #417. That sums up Flynn actions all the way from Moscow to Turkey to Trump administration.
From Fox News Obama knew Flynn talked to Kislyak....... Of course Obama knew Flynn talked to Kislyak. Why wouldn’t he? Why is that a problem?

You should ask your self. With so many generals available as NSA. Why did he hired this reject general Flynn in the first place?

You need further education???

No prob.

Glenn Greenwald
@ggreenwald


May 7 2020

I'd still like to understand what was improper about the incoming National Security Advisor of a newly elected administration calling his Russian counterpart to try to tamp down tensions in the weeks before he took office.


and….
“In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd, although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it. Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant general.

…the federal investigators who had interviewed him told their superiors they did not think that Flynn intentionally lied when he denied discussing sanctions against Russia with Kislyak. Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team changed all that and decided to bring the dubious charge. They drained Flynn financially then threatened to charge his son.”

Flynn never denied the conversation and knew the FBI had a transcript of it. Indeed, President Trump publicly discussed a desire to reframe Russian relations and renegotiate such areas of tensions.” The Flynn Case Should Be Dismissed In The Name Of Justice



Welcome to Ouch-town, bro…Population: you

You are missing something big. Yes it’s improper to warn a Russian about a new sanctions against Russia. That is very wrong. Period. Just because you use a link from an anti Obama didn’t change a bit that Flynn is a traitor.

Sure Flynn can talk to anybody during transition. That kind of discussion will take place in a scheduled meeting with other NSA officials to record the meeting and the topic. But you don’t just WILLY WILLY NILLY warm an ambassador of new sanctions that is going to take place. Then he lied plead guilty. Then lied. That’s a fact. You can give me as many link as many as you want. That doesn’t change anything but Flynn is guilty.

What part of that don’t you understand?

 

[meaner gene]

You can dance around simple facts all you want to but Flynn lied to FBI about his discussions of sanction response with Russians and he lied to FBI about his efforts to try to change United Nation vote.

You will just have to find some sane way to deal with that, so far you haven't been able to.

The answer is simple. Like when Trump released the transcript of his conversation with the Ukraine president, they should declassify and release the NSA transcript of Flynns conversation with Kislyak.

Let pedople conclude for themselves whether or not Flynn discussed sanctions, and hence whether his denial is a lie.

 

[meaner gene]

Another useless comment you make, who ignored a lot of recently released documents that Flynn was illegally prosecuted. I have yet see you make a cogent argument beyond "he lied" bullshit, which is unsurprising since he was pushed hard into it.

I posted the documents several times showing they CONSPIRED against him, talking about how to make him lie on something. You ignored it because you are a partisan hack.

Let's play devils advocate. And say that everything the FBI did to prosecute Flynn was completely illegal.

How does Flynn escape what you would call a "perjury trap" where Flynn swore under oath he was guilty, and then swore under oath that he wasn't guilty.