Looks Like the Trump Admin is Bringing Dark Secrets to The Light

[Toddsterpatriot]

And when this latest attack falls, flat like the rest

Latest attack...by whom? Flynn's lawyers? Wha? I literally just said it would fall flat. You complain about so much crap that you don't even remember what you are complaining about. You're not making sense.

oh like RUSSIA
IMPEACHMENT

any other attack on trump that has fallen flat and backfired.

y'all just and wait to be told what to be mad about today. fucking pathetic.

You're gonna follow Dear Leader straight the fuck off a cliff.
Enjoy the ride man - Enjoy the ride!!

Letting dangerous prisoners out of prisons ? Check.

Allowing babies to be aborted at late stage pregnancy ? Check.

Being authoritarian when ever get power ? Check.

Creating dependency in society beyond imagination ? Check.

Destroying an economy for millions in regards to myths and feel good assumptions ? Check.

Ignoring #metoo when it is inconvenient or detrimental to party officials ? Check.

Allowing traitor's to go free or get taxpayer funded services for elective procedures without taxpayer consent ? Check.

Promoting open borders ? Check.

Supporting illegals over American's ? Check.

Forcing taxpayers to be involved in leftist government controlled policies, it's thinking, it's cultures, and/or it's procedures as is promoted or forced by a leftist controlled government ? Check.

Destroying the economy in certain sectors by rules and regulation in an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole ? Check.

Feeling sorry for heinous criminals, otherwise that they might squirm a little when being administered the lethal drug upon execution for their heinous crimes, therefore taking not into consideration what they did to the innocent for whom they abused and terrorized prior to their deaths ? Check.

Supporting sanctuary areas/cities, and not reporting illegals to ICE, and therefore endangering American's who might be abused by an individual living off the grid for reasons of their cheap labor sought after.

On and on it goes..... Now who is following who off the cliff ??

WE'RE the party of authoritarianism when YOU elected a rat bastard who greatly prefers murderous dictators to the leaders of countries that used to be our allies? Comical!

The rest of your screed has no basis in fact either - And for the record, I'm not a Democrat, but rather one who knows the dire necessity of removing an amoral, self-absorbed, empathy and science free short-fingered vulgarian.

He "prefers" them you say? Hmm, lets look at your hero's, shall we? obummer gave the terrorist regime of Iran the bomb. They would never have had the ability if it weren't for bush, clinton, and of course obummer and his helpful idiot, john kerry. They talked tough, oh yes they talked real tough, and gave Iran everything they wanted. That is a fact.

trump comes in and talks to Iran like they are assholes (because they are0 and cancels the worst deal in world history, and kills one of their terrorist generals. In Korea, the fat little fool has been developing his rockets and nukes for decades. Once again, clinto, bush, and obummer talked tough, but the fat little bastard got everything he wanted. Trump, on the other hand, talks sweet as silk to the fat little bastard, AND GIVES HIM NOTHING!

You, are an idiot.

Well.

Under Trump did Kim Jung Un gave up his toys and stop updating his toys? Or stop firing blanks missiles towards Japan? Answer is NO.

Under Trump. Did he able stop the Iranian from making nuclear weapons? Answer is NO.

So What did Trump accomplish? NOTHING. The sad part of these, the mullahs are now building their nuclear weapons. Thanks to Trump.

.

The sad part of these, the mullahs are now building their nuclear weapons.

The sad part of these, the mullahs never stopped building their nuclear weapons.

Your evidence that they never stopped building their nuclear weapons is WHERE?

if they didn’t stopped that was five years ago when Obama the true leader of USA stepped in they could have the weapons by now. Don't you think?

Before you talk about any topics like this nuclear programs. You NEED to understand the process. Iran has already lots of nuclear grade plutonium to make a nuclear weapons. Except the facilities that makes hard water facilities in located Arak. That was completed late last year. Thanks to Trump.

if they didn’t stopped that was five years ago when Obama the true leader of USA stepped in they could have the weapons by now.

They could.

Except the facilities that makes hard water facilities in located Arak.

Hard water? DURR

Yes my dear. You may want to check the relationship of a hard water in making nuclear weapons. It is a very important process and special facilities in making a nuclear bomb.



Heavy water looks like water, but is about 10 percent heavier. Plain water (H2O) has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. In heavy water there is deuterium instead of hydrogen, and while regular hydrogen has one proton in its nucleus, the deutrium has both one proton and one neutron. Thus, it becomes heavier.

Hard vs heavy. You misspoke.

So prepare for 117 pages of the toddinator pointing it out.

In nuclear discussion and physicists that is the same. You do not get to pick and choose to fit your agenda.

No. Hard water is not the same as heavy water.
Physicists don't use the terms interchangeably.

You are just a Trump supporter. What do you know?

More than you.....really low bar, I know.

More than me? You are dreaming my dear.

Yes, I know more than the guy who thinks there are "hard water" reactors out there.

But a wee bit less than the guy who knows Iran stopped making nuclear bombs for a while. Which is most people

Yes, your faith in the trustworthiness of the mullahs is sweet......

No Todd. We rely on our source from the people that are handling this nuclear program. We believe in our own intelligence. Not from Russia or Qanon, or Facebook or conspiracies or unknown media. The nuclear inspectors are mostly US scientists. Did you hear any from them or any countries that are involved that Iran violated the agreement?

WHERE and WHAT is your EVIDENCE that Iran violated the agreement? You have nothing except coming from this lousy, liar and inept president.

Dat doesn’t mean we love the mullahs.
.

We rely on our source from the people that are handling this nuclear program. We believe in our own intelligence.

That's good to know. What did those sources say about nuclear research activity on Iranian military bases?

Our own intelligence CIA or American nuclear scientists inspectors. Provided NO such violations.

If there are or any reliable proof that Iran violated the agreement. I will publish it myself.

Who do you believe Todd’s?
.

Our own intelligence CIA or American nuclear scientists inspectors. Provided NO such violations.

And which military sites did our inspectors, or any inspectors, look at?

Dude you are a waste of my time. You are asking a question that is pure nonsense.

Let me entertain you. They inspected the nuclear reactor in Tijuana, Mexico. That’s right in Mexico.

You are asking a question that is pure nonsense.

Of course. Because those trustworthy mullahs would never do something in a place
where they didn't allow inspections...….DURR

Your sources told you that? LOL. This is the same topic that political chic had used over and over and over in last 3 years..
.

Your sources told you that? LOL.

Like your sources told you the mullahs never cheat or lie?

 

[Leo123]

The fact he could not recall exactly what he said

No, you can stop right there. He did not make a mistake. He intentionally lied. Please read up before commenting again.

Yeah intentionally lied when it was found out later that he didn't have too. He found out one thing though, and that is when dealing with a set up in which was hoping to find a bigger fish, him lying to throw off his assasins didn't do him any good in the long run, so yes it wasn't a good move for him, but thank God it all came out in the wash that the FBI went rogue.

What a patriot... lying to the FBI to throw them off the sent of the legitimate business he was conducting. That sounds like Brilliant logic. Are you nuts?!

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.

Perjury trap?! That’s a joke right? So because the FBI knew Flynn had been talking to the Russians and then asked him if he had been talking to the Russians which he chose to lie about and say NO... this is a devious perjury trap? Come on man. You don’t expect people to take that argument seriously do you?

So Flynn have you been talking to the Russians ? Flynn - (knowing why they've got him in the trap to begin with) says No......Otherwise he takes advantage of them not specifying what his conversation might have been, even though it was legal and harmless if he did speak with any Russians, so he said "No", and not giving them anymore information that would be misconstrued, and would fall into the context of what he knew they were probing him for (political assassination) in which was the trap they had set for him ??

Exactly... have you been talking to the Russians? Flynn Lied and said No... that’s obstruction and lying to federal officers. All he had to say was yes and told them what he remembered. He didn’t do that. He wasn’t tricked or forced.

He never said he had not been talking to the Russians. He was accused of making false statements about the content of the calls. The fact he could not recall exactly what he said and the FBI already had transcripts and were on a fishing expedition should not have been grounds to indict him in any way, shape or form. Flynn was only doing what every other transition team person has done. In addition, Comey broke protocol in sending agents into the White House and admitted doing so on national TV because he said he could get away with it. Also, the FBI falsely told Flynn that their questioning was really no big deal (after all they did not use protocols) and encouraged him NOT to have a lawyer present. They didn't even read him his Miranda rights. The whole thing was a dirty set-up in order to get Flynn and ultimately get to Trump.

Wait... you think he was arrested for not remembering exactly what was discussed in the two conversations?! Because the questions were about pretty significant things like asking Russians to temper their response to obama sanctions. It was the purpose of the call and Flynn denied making that request. That’s not forgetting details. That’s lying. If he was fuzzy about any details he could have easily said “I do not recall” but he didn’t say that. He lied and denied. When people lie to cops they break the law and they are going to get pressed harder to see what else they might be lying about. That’s how it works

Asking the Russians to do anything was not a crime, Flynn was in the transition team and did nothing more than any other transition team did with any other President. The FBI was on a fishing expedition. They knew what was in the call, did not tell Flynn, made it seem like a casual meeting, told him he did not need a lawyer and never gave him his Miranda rights. You seem to always leave out the details I guess because you are voluntarily ignorant of the facts. Flynn was not given the same rights as a common criminal. Also the FBI threatened to jail his son if he didn't go belly up. But I get it, you're perfectly OK with any malfeasance or sedition as long as the man (Trump) whom you hate so much, is is taken out by any means, including a Coup.

Also you haven't addressed the fact that Comey sent agents into the White House without following protocol and bragged about it. But, I know, dirty Comey is your hero....

Let’s not do the broken record repeat thing ok? Ive already made the point that the FBI wasn’t going after Flynn for a crime. They knew he had contacts with the Russians... contacts that he had publicly lied about and was fired for.... they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it. That’s a crime. Not a trap. Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t. Why are you making this complicated when it is not?!

I ya met said a word about Comey or trump. That’s you bringing them up. Try and stay on point.

Talk about a broken record. You've been spouting the exact same MSM-DNC talking points while completely ignoring most of the facts.

 

[charwin95]

And when this latest attack falls, flat like the rest

Latest attack...by whom? Flynn's lawyers? Wha? I literally just said it would fall flat. You complain about so much crap that you don't even remember what you are complaining about. You're not making sense.

oh like RUSSIA
IMPEACHMENT

any other attack on trump that has fallen flat and backfired.

y'all just and wait to be told what to be mad about today. fucking pathetic.

You're gonna follow Dear Leader straight the fuck off a cliff.
Enjoy the ride man - Enjoy the ride!!

Letting dangerous prisoners out of prisons ? Check.

Allowing babies to be aborted at late stage pregnancy ? Check.

Being authoritarian when ever get power ? Check.

Creating dependency in society beyond imagination ? Check.

Destroying an economy for millions in regards to myths and feel good assumptions ? Check.

Ignoring #metoo when it is inconvenient or detrimental to party officials ? Check.

Allowing traitor's to go free or get taxpayer funded services for elective procedures without taxpayer consent ? Check.

Promoting open borders ? Check.

Supporting illegals over American's ? Check.

Forcing taxpayers to be involved in leftist government controlled policies, it's thinking, it's cultures, and/or it's procedures as is promoted or forced by a leftist controlled government ? Check.

Destroying the economy in certain sectors by rules and regulation in an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole ? Check.

Feeling sorry for heinous criminals, otherwise that they might squirm a little when being administered the lethal drug upon execution for their heinous crimes, therefore taking not into consideration what they did to the innocent for whom they abused and terrorized prior to their deaths ? Check.

Supporting sanctuary areas/cities, and not reporting illegals to ICE, and therefore endangering American's who might be abused by an individual living off the grid for reasons of their cheap labor sought after.

On and on it goes..... Now who is following who off the cliff ??

WE'RE the party of authoritarianism when YOU elected a rat bastard who greatly prefers murderous dictators to the leaders of countries that used to be our allies? Comical!

The rest of your screed has no basis in fact either - And for the record, I'm not a Democrat, but rather one who knows the dire necessity of removing an amoral, self-absorbed, empathy and science free short-fingered vulgarian.

He "prefers" them you say? Hmm, lets look at your hero's, shall we? obummer gave the terrorist regime of Iran the bomb. They would never have had the ability if it weren't for bush, clinton, and of course obummer and his helpful idiot, john kerry. They talked tough, oh yes they talked real tough, and gave Iran everything they wanted. That is a fact.

trump comes in and talks to Iran like they are assholes (because they are0 and cancels the worst deal in world history, and kills one of their terrorist generals. In Korea, the fat little fool has been developing his rockets and nukes for decades. Once again, clinto, bush, and obummer talked tough, but the fat little bastard got everything he wanted. Trump, on the other hand, talks sweet as silk to the fat little bastard, AND GIVES HIM NOTHING!

You, are an idiot.

Well.

Under Trump did Kim Jung Un gave up his toys and stop updating his toys? Or stop firing blanks missiles towards Japan? Answer is NO.

Under Trump. Did he able stop the Iranian from making nuclear weapons? Answer is NO.

So What did Trump accomplish? NOTHING. The sad part of these, the mullahs are now building their nuclear weapons. Thanks to Trump.

.

The sad part of these, the mullahs are now building their nuclear weapons.

The sad part of these, the mullahs never stopped building their nuclear weapons.

Your evidence that they never stopped building their nuclear weapons is WHERE?

if they didn’t stopped that was five years ago when Obama the true leader of USA stepped in they could have the weapons by now. Don't you think?

Before you talk about any topics like this nuclear programs. You NEED to understand the process. Iran has already lots of nuclear grade plutonium to make a nuclear weapons. Except the facilities that makes hard water facilities in located Arak. That was completed late last year. Thanks to Trump.

if they didn’t stopped that was five years ago when Obama the true leader of USA stepped in they could have the weapons by now.

They could.

Except the facilities that makes hard water facilities in located Arak.

Hard water? DURR

Yes my dear. You may want to check the relationship of a hard water in making nuclear weapons. It is a very important process and special facilities in making a nuclear bomb.



Heavy water looks like water, but is about 10 percent heavier. Plain water (H2O) has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. In heavy water there is deuterium instead of hydrogen, and while regular hydrogen has one proton in its nucleus, the deutrium has both one proton and one neutron. Thus, it becomes heavier.

Hard vs heavy. You misspoke.

So prepare for 117 pages of the toddinator pointing it out.

In nuclear discussion and physicists that is the same. You do not get to pick and choose to fit your agenda.

No. Hard water is not the same as heavy water.
Physicists don't use the terms interchangeably.

You are just a Trump supporter. What do you know?

More than you.....really low bar, I know.

More than me? You are dreaming my dear.

Yes, I know more than the guy who thinks there are "hard water" reactors out there.

But a wee bit less than the guy who knows Iran stopped making nuclear bombs for a while. Which is most people

Yes, your faith in the trustworthiness of the mullahs is sweet......

No Todd. We rely on our source from the people that are handling this nuclear program. We believe in our own intelligence. Not from Russia or Qanon, or Facebook or conspiracies or unknown media. The nuclear inspectors are mostly US scientists. Did you hear any from them or any countries that are involved that Iran violated the agreement?

WHERE and WHAT is your EVIDENCE that Iran violated the agreement? You have nothing except coming from this lousy, liar and inept president.

Dat doesn’t mean we love the mullahs.
.

We rely on our source from the people that are handling this nuclear program. We believe in our own intelligence.

That's good to know. What did those sources say about nuclear research activity on Iranian military bases?

Our own intelligence CIA or American nuclear scientists inspectors. Provided NO such violations.

If there are or any reliable proof that Iran violated the agreement. I will publish it myself.

Who do you believe Todd’s?
.

Our own intelligence CIA or American nuclear scientists inspectors. Provided NO such violations.

And which military sites did our inspectors, or any inspectors, look at?

Dude you are a waste of my time. You are asking a question that is pure nonsense.

Let me entertain you. They inspected the nuclear reactor in Tijuana, Mexico. That’s right in Mexico.

You are asking a question that is pure nonsense.

Of course. Because those trustworthy mullahs would never do something in a place
where they didn't allow inspections...….DURR

Your sources told you that? LOL. This is the same topic that political chic had used over and over and over in last 3 years..
.

Your sources told you that? LOL.

Like your sources told you the mullahs never cheat or lie?

I never use any mullahs. I rely on US intelligence agencies the best in the world.

I will ask you again. Who do you believe? what sources do you use?
.

 

[Leo123]

Let’s not do the broken record repeat thing ok? Ive already made the point that the FBI wasn’t going after Flynn for a crime. They knew he had contacts with the Russians... contacts that he had publicly lied about and was fired for.... they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it. That’s a crime. Not a trap. Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t. Why are you making this complicated when it is not?!

I ya met said a word about Comey or trump. That’s you bringing them up. Try and stay on point.

Looks like you should watch the video I've already posted here. You asking questions from a place of ignorance.
And the video is the product of big time progressive leftists, so blather about "right wing talking points"
isn't helpful or pertinent.

I’m less interested in propaganda from either side and more interested in the simple reality of this case. Flynn lied about a pretty damn serious situation. I know it’s been pounded into your head that it was all a snowflake hoax so lying about it was no big deal but again that’s just propaganda at work

Oh BS...You're on here every day spouting DNC talking point propaganda. Who do you think you are fooling with the 'holier than thou' bullshit?

Here is some 'simple reality' that just came to light. It's a quote from the FBI...."What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," they obviously coerced him, did not read him his rights, pretended the interview was no big deal, and did not encourage him to have a lawyer.

Here is some more reality for you:

"Vice President Pence said Thursday he was "more inclined" to believe that former national security adviser Michael Flynn unintentionally misled him in early 2017 about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, an event that triggered Flynn's firing by the White House."

"Pence told reporters while traveling in Indiana that he was “deeply troubled” by new documents released in Flynn's criminal case, describing them as evidence of “investigative abuse.”

"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it."

Maybe now you can stop beating your dead-horse of an argument.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And when this latest attack falls, flat like the rest

Latest attack...by whom? Flynn's lawyers? Wha? I literally just said it would fall flat. You complain about so much crap that you don't even remember what you are complaining about. You're not making sense.

oh like RUSSIA
IMPEACHMENT

any other attack on trump that has fallen flat and backfired.

y'all just and wait to be told what to be mad about today. fucking pathetic.

You're gonna follow Dear Leader straight the fuck off a cliff.
Enjoy the ride man - Enjoy the ride!!

Letting dangerous prisoners out of prisons ? Check.

Allowing babies to be aborted at late stage pregnancy ? Check.

Being authoritarian when ever get power ? Check.

Creating dependency in society beyond imagination ? Check.

Destroying an economy for millions in regards to myths and feel good assumptions ? Check.

Ignoring #metoo when it is inconvenient or detrimental to party officials ? Check.

Allowing traitor's to go free or get taxpayer funded services for elective procedures without taxpayer consent ? Check.

Promoting open borders ? Check.

Supporting illegals over American's ? Check.

Forcing taxpayers to be involved in leftist government controlled policies, it's thinking, it's cultures, and/or it's procedures as is promoted or forced by a leftist controlled government ? Check.

Destroying the economy in certain sectors by rules and regulation in an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole ? Check.

Feeling sorry for heinous criminals, otherwise that they might squirm a little when being administered the lethal drug upon execution for their heinous crimes, therefore taking not into consideration what they did to the innocent for whom they abused and terrorized prior to their deaths ? Check.

Supporting sanctuary areas/cities, and not reporting illegals to ICE, and therefore endangering American's who might be abused by an individual living off the grid for reasons of their cheap labor sought after.

On and on it goes..... Now who is following who off the cliff ??

WE'RE the party of authoritarianism when YOU elected a rat bastard who greatly prefers murderous dictators to the leaders of countries that used to be our allies? Comical!

The rest of your screed has no basis in fact either - And for the record, I'm not a Democrat, but rather one who knows the dire necessity of removing an amoral, self-absorbed, empathy and science free short-fingered vulgarian.

He "prefers" them you say? Hmm, lets look at your hero's, shall we? obummer gave the terrorist regime of Iran the bomb. They would never have had the ability if it weren't for bush, clinton, and of course obummer and his helpful idiot, john kerry. They talked tough, oh yes they talked real tough, and gave Iran everything they wanted. That is a fact.

trump comes in and talks to Iran like they are assholes (because they are0 and cancels the worst deal in world history, and kills one of their terrorist generals. In Korea, the fat little fool has been developing his rockets and nukes for decades. Once again, clinto, bush, and obummer talked tough, but the fat little bastard got everything he wanted. Trump, on the other hand, talks sweet as silk to the fat little bastard, AND GIVES HIM NOTHING!

You, are an idiot.

Well.

Under Trump did Kim Jung Un gave up his toys and stop updating his toys? Or stop firing blanks missiles towards Japan? Answer is NO.

Under Trump. Did he able stop the Iranian from making nuclear weapons? Answer is NO.

So What did Trump accomplish? NOTHING. The sad part of these, the mullahs are now building their nuclear weapons. Thanks to Trump.

.

The sad part of these, the mullahs are now building their nuclear weapons.

The sad part of these, the mullahs never stopped building their nuclear weapons.

Your evidence that they never stopped building their nuclear weapons is WHERE?

if they didn’t stopped that was five years ago when Obama the true leader of USA stepped in they could have the weapons by now. Don't you think?

Before you talk about any topics like this nuclear programs. You NEED to understand the process. Iran has already lots of nuclear grade plutonium to make a nuclear weapons. Except the facilities that makes hard water facilities in located Arak. That was completed late last year. Thanks to Trump.

if they didn’t stopped that was five years ago when Obama the true leader of USA stepped in they could have the weapons by now.

They could.

Except the facilities that makes hard water facilities in located Arak.

Hard water? DURR

Yes my dear. You may want to check the relationship of a hard water in making nuclear weapons. It is a very important process and special facilities in making a nuclear bomb.



Heavy water looks like water, but is about 10 percent heavier. Plain water (H2O) has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. In heavy water there is deuterium instead of hydrogen, and while regular hydrogen has one proton in its nucleus, the deutrium has both one proton and one neutron. Thus, it becomes heavier.

Hard vs heavy. You misspoke.

So prepare for 117 pages of the toddinator pointing it out.

In nuclear discussion and physicists that is the same. You do not get to pick and choose to fit your agenda.

No. Hard water is not the same as heavy water.
Physicists don't use the terms interchangeably.

You are just a Trump supporter. What do you know?

More than you.....really low bar, I know.

More than me? You are dreaming my dear.

Yes, I know more than the guy who thinks there are "hard water" reactors out there.

But a wee bit less than the guy who knows Iran stopped making nuclear bombs for a while. Which is most people

Yes, your faith in the trustworthiness of the mullahs is sweet......

No Todd. We rely on our source from the people that are handling this nuclear program. We believe in our own intelligence. Not from Russia or Qanon, or Facebook or conspiracies or unknown media. The nuclear inspectors are mostly US scientists. Did you hear any from them or any countries that are involved that Iran violated the agreement?

WHERE and WHAT is your EVIDENCE that Iran violated the agreement? You have nothing except coming from this lousy, liar and inept president.

Dat doesn’t mean we love the mullahs.
.

We rely on our source from the people that are handling this nuclear program. We believe in our own intelligence.

That's good to know. What did those sources say about nuclear research activity on Iranian military bases?

Our own intelligence CIA or American nuclear scientists inspectors. Provided NO such violations.

If there are or any reliable proof that Iran violated the agreement. I will publish it myself.

Who do you believe Todd’s?
.

Our own intelligence CIA or American nuclear scientists inspectors. Provided NO such violations.

And which military sites did our inspectors, or any inspectors, look at?

Dude you are a waste of my time. You are asking a question that is pure nonsense.

Let me entertain you. They inspected the nuclear reactor in Tijuana, Mexico. That’s right in Mexico.

You are asking a question that is pure nonsense.

Of course. Because those trustworthy mullahs would never do something in a place
where they didn't allow inspections...….DURR

Your sources told you that? LOL. This is the same topic that political chic had used over and over and over in last 3 years..
.

Your sources told you that? LOL.

Like your sources told you the mullahs never cheat or lie?

I never use any mullahs. I rely on US intelligence agencies the best in the world.

I will ask you again. Who do you believe? what sources do you use?
.

I never use any mullahs. I rely on US intelligence agencies the best in the world.

The agencies that didn't get to inspect any Iranian military sites?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Mr. Flynn... He lied. But who in the Trump admin doesn't lie? Or maybe didn't?

There were no lies. If you had watched the video I provided and educated yourself instead of regurgitating
media and DNC talking points you would know that.

 

[westwall]

And when this latest attack falls, flat like the rest

Latest attack...by whom? Flynn's lawyers? Wha? I literally just said it would fall flat. You complain about so much crap that you don't even remember what you are complaining about. You're not making sense.

oh like RUSSIA
IMPEACHMENT

any other attack on trump that has fallen flat and backfired.

y'all just and wait to be told what to be mad about today. fucking pathetic.

You're gonna follow Dear Leader straight the fuck off a cliff.
Enjoy the ride man - Enjoy the ride!!

Letting dangerous prisoners out of prisons ? Check.

Allowing babies to be aborted at late stage pregnancy ? Check.

Being authoritarian when ever get power ? Check.

Creating dependency in society beyond imagination ? Check.

Destroying an economy for millions in regards to myths and feel good assumptions ? Check.

Ignoring #metoo when it is inconvenient or detrimental to party officials ? Check.

Allowing traitor's to go free or get taxpayer funded services for elective procedures without taxpayer consent ? Check.

Promoting open borders ? Check.

Supporting illegals over American's ? Check.

Forcing taxpayers to be involved in leftist government controlled policies, it's thinking, it's cultures, and/or it's procedures as is promoted or forced by a leftist controlled government ? Check.

Destroying the economy in certain sectors by rules and regulation in an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole ? Check.

Feeling sorry for heinous criminals, otherwise that they might squirm a little when being administered the lethal drug upon execution for their heinous crimes, therefore taking not into consideration what they did to the innocent for whom they abused and terrorized prior to their deaths ? Check.

Supporting sanctuary areas/cities, and not reporting illegals to ICE, and therefore endangering American's who might be abused by an individual living off the grid for reasons of their cheap labor sought after.

On and on it goes..... Now who is following who off the cliff ??

WE'RE the party of authoritarianism when YOU elected a rat bastard who greatly prefers murderous dictators to the leaders of countries that used to be our allies? Comical!

The rest of your screed has no basis in fact either - And for the record, I'm not a Democrat, but rather one who knows the dire necessity of removing an amoral, self-absorbed, empathy and science free short-fingered vulgarian.

He "prefers" them you say? Hmm, lets look at your hero's, shall we? obummer gave the terrorist regime of Iran the bomb. They would never have had the ability if it weren't for bush, clinton, and of course obummer and his helpful idiot, john kerry. They talked tough, oh yes they talked real tough, and gave Iran everything they wanted. That is a fact.

trump comes in and talks to Iran like they are assholes (because they are0 and cancels the worst deal in world history, and kills one of their terrorist generals. In Korea, the fat little fool has been developing his rockets and nukes for decades. Once again, clinto, bush, and obummer talked tough, but the fat little bastard got everything he wanted. Trump, on the other hand, talks sweet as silk to the fat little bastard, AND GIVES HIM NOTHING!

You, are an idiot.

Well.

Under Trump did Kim Jung Un gave up his toys and stop updating his toys? Or stop firing blanks missiles towards Japan? Answer is NO.

Under Trump. Did he able stop the Iranian from making nuclear weapons? Answer is NO.

So What did Trump accomplish? NOTHING. The sad part of these, the mullahs are now building their nuclear weapons. Thanks to Trump.

.

The sad part of these, the mullahs are now building their nuclear weapons.

The sad part of these, the mullahs never stopped building their nuclear weapons.

Your evidence that they never stopped building their nuclear weapons is WHERE?

if they didn’t stopped that was five years ago when Obama the true leader of USA stepped in they could have the weapons by now. Don't you think?

Before you talk about any topics like this nuclear programs. You NEED to understand the process. Iran has already lots of nuclear grade plutonium to make a nuclear weapons. Except the facilities that makes hard water facilities in located Arak. That was completed late last year. Thanks to Trump.

if they didn’t stopped that was five years ago when Obama the true leader of USA stepped in they could have the weapons by now.

They could.

Except the facilities that makes hard water facilities in located Arak.

Hard water? DURR

Yes my dear. You may want to check the relationship of a hard water in making nuclear weapons. It is a very important process and special facilities in making a nuclear bomb.



Heavy water looks like water, but is about 10 percent heavier. Plain water (H2O) has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. In heavy water there is deuterium instead of hydrogen, and while regular hydrogen has one proton in its nucleus, the deutrium has both one proton and one neutron. Thus, it becomes heavier.

Hard vs heavy. You misspoke.

So prepare for 117 pages of the toddinator pointing it out.

In nuclear discussion and physicists that is the same. You do not get to pick and choose to fit your agenda.

No. Hard water is not the same as heavy water.
Physicists don't use the terms interchangeably.

You are just a Trump supporter. What do you know?

More than you.....really low bar, I know.

More than me? You are dreaming my dear.

Yes, I know more than the guy who thinks there are "hard water" reactors out there.

But a wee bit less than the guy who knows Iran stopped making nuclear bombs for a while. Which is most people

Yes, your faith in the trustworthiness of the mullahs is sweet......

No Todd. We rely on our source from the people that are handling this nuclear program. We believe in our own intelligence. Not from Russia or Qanon, or Facebook or conspiracies or unknown media. The nuclear inspectors are mostly US scientists. Did you hear any from them or any countries that are involved that Iran violated the agreement?

WHERE and WHAT is your EVIDENCE that Iran violated the agreement? You have nothing except coming from this lousy, liar and inept president.

Dat doesn’t mean we love the mullahs.
.

We rely on our source from the people that are handling this nuclear program. We believe in our own intelligence.

That's good to know. What did those sources say about nuclear research activity on Iranian military bases?

Our own intelligence CIA or American nuclear scientists inspectors. Provided NO such violations.

If there are or any reliable proof that Iran violated the agreement. I will publish it myself.

Who do you believe Todd’s?
.

Our own intelligence CIA or American nuclear scientists inspectors. Provided NO such violations.

And which military sites did our inspectors, or any inspectors, look at?

Dude you are a waste of my time. You are asking a question that is pure nonsense.

Let me entertain you. They inspected the nuclear reactor in Tijuana, Mexico. That’s right in Mexico.

I don't know what you are smoking, but there is no nuke in TJ. Mexico has one nuclear power plant, and it's on the opposite coast.

I was responding to Todds rebuttal. Asking me a question that is pure nonsense. Of course it’s in Iran.
I said previously that I relied on our US intelligence to provide us of any reports of any such Iran violations. Our intelligence agencies are the best in the world. Am I supposed to ignored that? Then believe all these nonsense conspiracies and accusations? We have not heard any violations. Did you hear anything?
.

However you ignore the fact that the iran deal specifically prevented inspectors from inspecting military sites, and any site that was being inspected had to have at least a 24 day warning, but iran could delay them for up to 54 days. How do you expect ANY actual inspection to be going on with those sorts of limitations?

"The final agreement announced on July 14, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), does contain significant enhancements to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) current ability to monitor Iran’s nuclear facilities. The deal, President Obama told the nation, “is not built on trust, it is built on verification.” Yet, one critical provision of the JCPOA puts unexpected limitations on inspectors’ access to certain facilities by requiring them to notify Iran first if they suspect a site might be being used for illicit nuclear activity and then undergoing a long process in order to gain entry to that site. This obstacle to inspections is worrying for several reasons:

• Iran could delay inspectors for as long as 54, not the commonly reported 24, days
• The burden of proof is on IAEA
• It chills intelligence sharing
• It discourages long shots
• It does not address a parallel enrichment program
• And it could allow for weaponization activities

Iran Deal Limits Inspectors’ Access to Suspicious Sites | Bipartisan Policy Center

The merits of the final deal's verification measures have to be judged on the basis of the authority it gives inspectors to access potential…

bipartisanpolicy.org

 

[Faun]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Like your sources told you the mullahs never cheat or lie?

Ah, so you don't actually have a link to support your bogus claim. Rather, you used piss por logic to deduce it from the fact that mullahs have lied and cheated. Glad we got that cleared up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like your sources told you the mullahs never cheat or lie?

Ah, so you don't actually have a link to support your bogus claim. Rather, you used piss por logic to deduce it from the fact that mullahs have lied and cheated. Glad we got that cleared up.

Ah, so you don't actually have a link to support your bogus claim.

You need a link to the mullahs cheating and lying?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

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

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."

Like hiding exculpatory evidence?

 

[Faun]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

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

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."

Like hiding exculpatory evidence?

Oh? What exculpatory evidence would that be?

 

[Slade3200]

The fact he could not recall exactly what he said

No, you can stop right there. He did not make a mistake. He intentionally lied. Please read up before commenting again.

Yeah intentionally lied when it was found out later that he didn't have too. He found out one thing though, and that is when dealing with a set up in which was hoping to find a bigger fish, him lying to throw off his assasins didn't do him any good in the long run, so yes it wasn't a good move for him, but thank God it all came out in the wash that the FBI went rogue.

What a patriot... lying to the FBI to throw them off the sent of the legitimate business he was conducting. That sounds like Brilliant logic. Are you nuts?!

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.

Perjury trap?! That’s a joke right? So because the FBI knew Flynn had been talking to the Russians and then asked him if he had been talking to the Russians which he chose to lie about and say NO... this is a devious perjury trap? Come on man. You don’t expect people to take that argument seriously do you?

So Flynn have you been talking to the Russians ? Flynn - (knowing why they've got him in the trap to begin with) says No......Otherwise he takes advantage of them not specifying what his conversation might have been, even though it was legal and harmless if he did speak with any Russians, so he said "No", and not giving them anymore information that would be misconstrued, and would fall into the context of what he knew they were probing him for (political assassination) in which was the trap they had set for him ??

Exactly... have you been talking to the Russians? Flynn Lied and said No... that’s obstruction and lying to federal officers. All he had to say was yes and told them what he remembered. He didn’t do that. He wasn’t tricked or forced.

He never said he had not been talking to the Russians. He was accused of making false statements about the content of the calls. The fact he could not recall exactly what he said and the FBI already had transcripts and were on a fishing expedition should not have been grounds to indict him in any way, shape or form. Flynn was only doing what every other transition team person has done. In addition, Comey broke protocol in sending agents into the White House and admitted doing so on national TV because he said he could get away with it. Also, the FBI falsely told Flynn that their questioning was really no big deal (after all they did not use protocols) and encouraged him NOT to have a lawyer present. They didn't even read him his Miranda rights. The whole thing was a dirty set-up in order to get Flynn and ultimately get to Trump.

Wait... you think he was arrested for not remembering exactly what was discussed in the two conversations?! Because the questions were about pretty significant things like asking Russians to temper their response to obama sanctions. It was the purpose of the call and Flynn denied making that request. That’s not forgetting details. That’s lying. If he was fuzzy about any details he could have easily said “I do not recall” but he didn’t say that. He lied and denied. When people lie to cops they break the law and they are going to get pressed harder to see what else they might be lying about. That’s how it works

Asking the Russians to do anything was not a crime, Flynn was in the transition team and did nothing more than any other transition team did with any other President. The FBI was on a fishing expedition. They knew what was in the call, did not tell Flynn, made it seem like a casual meeting, told him he did not need a lawyer and never gave him his Miranda rights. You seem to always leave out the details I guess because you are voluntarily ignorant of the facts. Flynn was not given the same rights as a common criminal. Also the FBI threatened to jail his son if he didn't go belly up. But I get it, you're perfectly OK with any malfeasance or sedition as long as the man (Trump) whom you hate so much, is is taken out by any means, including a Coup.

Also you haven't addressed the fact that Comey sent agents into the White House without following protocol and bragged about it. But, I know, dirty Comey is your hero....

Let’s not do the broken record repeat thing ok? Ive already made the point that the FBI wasn’t going after Flynn for a crime. They knew he had contacts with the Russians... contacts that he had publicly lied about and was fired for.... they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it. That’s a crime. Not a trap. Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t. Why are you making this complicated when it is not?!

I ya met said a word about Comey or trump. That’s you bringing them up. Try and stay on point.

they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it.

Lies about a non-crime that aren't part of a legitimate criminal investigation aren't material.

Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t.

If the call contained criminal acts, he should have been charged with those crimes. He wasn't.

Lies about conversations with Russians when Russians were interfering with our election is a big deal. Flynn should have been honest and transparent. He wasn’t. He lied to the public, got fired. He lied to the FBI, got arrested. But you keep defending him.... just try and find a more convincing argument.

Lies about conversations with Russians when Russians were interfering with our election is a big deal.

Unless the conversations involved election interference, not material.

Of course it’s material. How is it not? Trump had been saying for weeks “no contacts with Russia” Flynn lied to Pence who in turn spread that lie to us all... there were in fact contacts with Russia. Trump and Flynn spread the lie that there wasn’t. But no big deal right? Talk about the swamp

What was the crux of those contacts with Russia? Election interference?

Good question. The FBI was investigating Tussian interference into our election where they took measures to try and help the Trump campaign. Trump and his people had been spreading lies that there were no contacts with Russia. Well now there is contacts with Russia. When people lie they deserve to be scrutinized. Their words can’t be trusted. You do understand that right?

 

[Slade3200]

So you think you know everything I think about this subject... that’s quite the statement... wow, the hubris

I know you think Flynn lied because you said so yourself. That's not hubris. That's reading what you posted.
Aaron Mate' of Push Back disagrees with you and it's his business to know.

Wait hold up... you don’t think he lied?!

why did Trump fire him? Why did the Feds arrest him?

 

[Slade3200]

The fact he could not recall exactly what he said

No, you can stop right there. He did not make a mistake. He intentionally lied. Please read up before commenting again.

Yeah intentionally lied when it was found out later that he didn't have too. He found out one thing though, and that is when dealing with a set up in which was hoping to find a bigger fish, him lying to throw off his assasins didn't do him any good in the long run, so yes it wasn't a good move for him, but thank God it all came out in the wash that the FBI went rogue.

What a patriot... lying to the FBI to throw them off the sent of the legitimate business he was conducting. That sounds like Brilliant logic. Are you nuts?!

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.

Perjury trap?! That’s a joke right? So because the FBI knew Flynn had been talking to the Russians and then asked him if he had been talking to the Russians which he chose to lie about and say NO... this is a devious perjury trap? Come on man. You don’t expect people to take that argument seriously do you?

So Flynn have you been talking to the Russians ? Flynn - (knowing why they've got him in the trap to begin with) says No......Otherwise he takes advantage of them not specifying what his conversation might have been, even though it was legal and harmless if he did speak with any Russians, so he said "No", and not giving them anymore information that would be misconstrued, and would fall into the context of what he knew they were probing him for (political assassination) in which was the trap they had set for him ??

Exactly... have you been talking to the Russians? Flynn Lied and said No... that’s obstruction and lying to federal officers. All he had to say was yes and told them what he remembered. He didn’t do that. He wasn’t tricked or forced.

He never said he had not been talking to the Russians. He was accused of making false statements about the content of the calls. The fact he could not recall exactly what he said and the FBI already had transcripts and were on a fishing expedition should not have been grounds to indict him in any way, shape or form. Flynn was only doing what every other transition team person has done. In addition, Comey broke protocol in sending agents into the White House and admitted doing so on national TV because he said he could get away with it. Also, the FBI falsely told Flynn that their questioning was really no big deal (after all they did not use protocols) and encouraged him NOT to have a lawyer present. They didn't even read him his Miranda rights. The whole thing was a dirty set-up in order to get Flynn and ultimately get to Trump.

Wait... you think he was arrested for not remembering exactly what was discussed in the two conversations?! Because the questions were about pretty significant things like asking Russians to temper their response to obama sanctions. It was the purpose of the call and Flynn denied making that request. That’s not forgetting details. That’s lying. If he was fuzzy about any details he could have easily said “I do not recall” but he didn’t say that. He lied and denied. When people lie to cops they break the law and they are going to get pressed harder to see what else they might be lying about. That’s how it works

Asking the Russians to do anything was not a crime, Flynn was in the transition team and did nothing more than any other transition team did with any other President. The FBI was on a fishing expedition. They knew what was in the call, did not tell Flynn, made it seem like a casual meeting, told him he did not need a lawyer and never gave him his Miranda rights. You seem to always leave out the details I guess because you are voluntarily ignorant of the facts. Flynn was not given the same rights as a common criminal. Also the FBI threatened to jail his son if he didn't go belly up. But I get it, you're perfectly OK with any malfeasance or sedition as long as the man (Trump) whom you hate so much, is is taken out by any means, including a Coup.

Also you haven't addressed the fact that Comey sent agents into the White House without following protocol and bragged about it. But, I know, dirty Comey is your hero....

Let’s not do the broken record repeat thing ok? Ive already made the point that the FBI wasn’t going after Flynn for a crime. They knew he had contacts with the Russians... contacts that he had publicly lied about and was fired for.... they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it. That’s a crime. Not a trap. Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t. Why are you making this complicated when it is not?!

I ya met said a word about Comey or trump. That’s you bringing them up. Try and stay on point.

they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it.

Lies about a non-crime that aren't part of a legitimate criminal investigation aren't material.

Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t.

If the call contained criminal acts, he should have been charged with those crimes. He wasn't.

Lies about conversations with Russians when Russians were interfering with our election is a big deal. Flynn should have been honest and transparent. He wasn’t. He lied to the public, got fired. He lied to the FBI, got arrested. But you keep defending him.... just try and find a more convincing argument.

Lies about conversations with Russians when Russians were interfering with our election is a big deal.

Unless the conversations involved election interference, not material.

Of course it’s material. How is it not? Trump had been saying for weeks “no contacts with Russia” Flynn lied to Pence who in turn spread that lie to us all... there were in fact contacts with Russia. Trump and Flynn spread the lie that there wasn’t. But no big deal right? Talk about the swamp

Of course it’s material. How is it not?

Flynn wasn't being investigated for a crime committed during the campaign, was he?
Nothing in the phone call was criminal, was it?
So how is a misremembrance or an out right lie about the call material?

Trump had been saying for weeks “no contacts with Russia”

Trump's statement doesn't make Flynn's call a crime.
Trump's claim was probably about the campaign, which
was long over at the time of the call, right?

there were in fact contacts with Russia.

Yup. Perfectly legal contacts.

Misrememberance?! Are you shitting me? Haha, you’re done man. Flynn didn’t misremember that he asked the Russians to temper their response to Obama’s sanctions. Not unless he hit his head and got amnesia. That is a straight up lie. If he lies about that then what else was he lying about? That’s the natural question and that’s why he opened the door to justified scrutiny

 

[Slade3200]

The fact he could not recall exactly what he said

No, you can stop right there. He did not make a mistake. He intentionally lied. Please read up before commenting again.

Yeah intentionally lied when it was found out later that he didn't have too. He found out one thing though, and that is when dealing with a set up in which was hoping to find a bigger fish, him lying to throw off his assasins didn't do him any good in the long run, so yes it wasn't a good move for him, but thank God it all came out in the wash that the FBI went rogue.

What a patriot... lying to the FBI to throw them off the sent of the legitimate business he was conducting. That sounds like Brilliant logic. Are you nuts?!

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.

Perjury trap?! That’s a joke right? So because the FBI knew Flynn had been talking to the Russians and then asked him if he had been talking to the Russians which he chose to lie about and say NO... this is a devious perjury trap? Come on man. You don’t expect people to take that argument seriously do you?

So Flynn have you been talking to the Russians ? Flynn - (knowing why they've got him in the trap to begin with) says No......Otherwise he takes advantage of them not specifying what his conversation might have been, even though it was legal and harmless if he did speak with any Russians, so he said "No", and not giving them anymore information that would be misconstrued, and would fall into the context of what he knew they were probing him for (political assassination) in which was the trap they had set for him ??

Exactly... have you been talking to the Russians? Flynn Lied and said No... that’s obstruction and lying to federal officers. All he had to say was yes and told them what he remembered. He didn’t do that. He wasn’t tricked or forced.

He never said he had not been talking to the Russians. He was accused of making false statements about the content of the calls. The fact he could not recall exactly what he said and the FBI already had transcripts and were on a fishing expedition should not have been grounds to indict him in any way, shape or form. Flynn was only doing what every other transition team person has done. In addition, Comey broke protocol in sending agents into the White House and admitted doing so on national TV because he said he could get away with it. Also, the FBI falsely told Flynn that their questioning was really no big deal (after all they did not use protocols) and encouraged him NOT to have a lawyer present. They didn't even read him his Miranda rights. The whole thing was a dirty set-up in order to get Flynn and ultimately get to Trump.

Wait... you think he was arrested for not remembering exactly what was discussed in the two conversations?! Because the questions were about pretty significant things like asking Russians to temper their response to obama sanctions. It was the purpose of the call and Flynn denied making that request. That’s not forgetting details. That’s lying. If he was fuzzy about any details he could have easily said “I do not recall” but he didn’t say that. He lied and denied. When people lie to cops they break the law and they are going to get pressed harder to see what else they might be lying about. That’s how it works

Asking the Russians to do anything was not a crime, Flynn was in the transition team and did nothing more than any other transition team did with any other President. The FBI was on a fishing expedition. They knew what was in the call, did not tell Flynn, made it seem like a casual meeting, told him he did not need a lawyer and never gave him his Miranda rights. You seem to always leave out the details I guess because you are voluntarily ignorant of the facts. Flynn was not given the same rights as a common criminal. Also the FBI threatened to jail his son if he didn't go belly up. But I get it, you're perfectly OK with any malfeasance or sedition as long as the man (Trump) whom you hate so much, is is taken out by any means, including a Coup.

Also you haven't addressed the fact that Comey sent agents into the White House without following protocol and bragged about it. But, I know, dirty Comey is your hero....

Let’s not do the broken record repeat thing ok? Ive already made the point that the FBI wasn’t going after Flynn for a crime. They knew he had contacts with the Russians... contacts that he had publicly lied about and was fired for.... they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it. That’s a crime. Not a trap. Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t. Why are you making this complicated when it is not?!

I ya met said a word about Comey or trump. That’s you bringing them up. Try and stay on point.

they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it.

Lies about a non-crime that aren't part of a legitimate criminal investigation aren't material.

Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t.

If the call contained criminal acts, he should have been charged with those crimes. He wasn't.

Lies about conversations with Russians when Russians were interfering with our election is a big deal. Flynn should have been honest and transparent. He wasn’t. He lied to the public, got fired. He lied to the FBI, got arrested. But you keep defending him.... just try and find a more convincing argument.

Lies about conversations with Russians when Russians were interfering with our election is a big deal.

Unless the conversations involved election interference, not material.

Of course it’s material. How is it not? Trump had been saying for weeks “no contacts with Russia” Flynn lied to Pence who in turn spread that lie to us all... there were in fact contacts with Russia. Trump and Flynn spread the lie that there wasn’t. But no big deal right? Talk about the swamp

Of course it’s material. How is it not?

Flynn wasn't being investigated for a crime committed during the campaign, was he?
Nothing in the phone call was criminal, was it?
So how is a misremembrance or an out right lie about the call material?

Trump had been saying for weeks “no contacts with Russia”

Trump's statement doesn't make Flynn's call a crime.
Trump's claim was probably about the campaign, which
was long over at the time of the call, right?

there were in fact contacts with Russia.

Yup. Perfectly legal contacts.

I never said Flynn’s call was a crime. Now you’re putting words in my mouth because you don’t have a solid argument to stand behind... that’s pretty weak Todd

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

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

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."

Like hiding exculpatory evidence?

Oh? What exculpatory evidence would that be?

You know, the agents notes. It's been in all the papers.

Justice Department provides Flynn's attorneys with documents from Barr's re-examination | CNN Politics

The Justice Department said Friday it shared with Michael Flynn's lawyers a number of documents uncovered in a review ordered by Attorney General William Barr, raising the prospect that the department now believes potentially exculpatory information wasn't turned over as required before the...

www.cnn.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

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

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."

Like hiding exculpatory evidence?

Oh? What exculpatory evidence would that be?

Michael Flynn's lawyers seize on note showing how FBI official approached key interview in White House

Michael Flynn's attorneys made public on Wednesday a handwritten note from Bill Priestap, the then-counterintelligence director at the FBI, that mused how agents should approach a critical interview with President Donald Trump's first national security adviser in the White House in January 2017...

www.cnn.com

 

[Slade3200]

The fact he could not recall exactly what he said

No, you can stop right there. He did not make a mistake. He intentionally lied. Please read up before commenting again.

Yeah intentionally lied when it was found out later that he didn't have too. He found out one thing though, and that is when dealing with a set up in which was hoping to find a bigger fish, him lying to throw off his assasins didn't do him any good in the long run, so yes it wasn't a good move for him, but thank God it all came out in the wash that the FBI went rogue.

What a patriot... lying to the FBI to throw them off the sent of the legitimate business he was conducting. That sounds like Brilliant logic. Are you nuts?!

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.

Perjury trap?! That’s a joke right? So because the FBI knew Flynn had been talking to the Russians and then asked him if he had been talking to the Russians which he chose to lie about and say NO... this is a devious perjury trap? Come on man. You don’t expect people to take that argument seriously do you?

So Flynn have you been talking to the Russians ? Flynn - (knowing why they've got him in the trap to begin with) says No......Otherwise he takes advantage of them not specifying what his conversation might have been, even though it was legal and harmless if he did speak with any Russians, so he said "No", and not giving them anymore information that would be misconstrued, and would fall into the context of what he knew they were probing him for (political assassination) in which was the trap they had set for him ??

Exactly... have you been talking to the Russians? Flynn Lied and said No... that’s obstruction and lying to federal officers. All he had to say was yes and told them what he remembered. He didn’t do that. He wasn’t tricked or forced.

He never said he had not been talking to the Russians. He was accused of making false statements about the content of the calls. The fact he could not recall exactly what he said and the FBI already had transcripts and were on a fishing expedition should not have been grounds to indict him in any way, shape or form. Flynn was only doing what every other transition team person has done. In addition, Comey broke protocol in sending agents into the White House and admitted doing so on national TV because he said he could get away with it. Also, the FBI falsely told Flynn that their questioning was really no big deal (after all they did not use protocols) and encouraged him NOT to have a lawyer present. They didn't even read him his Miranda rights. The whole thing was a dirty set-up in order to get Flynn and ultimately get to Trump.

Wait... you think he was arrested for not remembering exactly what was discussed in the two conversations?! Because the questions were about pretty significant things like asking Russians to temper their response to obama sanctions. It was the purpose of the call and Flynn denied making that request. That’s not forgetting details. That’s lying. If he was fuzzy about any details he could have easily said “I do not recall” but he didn’t say that. He lied and denied. When people lie to cops they break the law and they are going to get pressed harder to see what else they might be lying about. That’s how it works

Asking the Russians to do anything was not a crime, Flynn was in the transition team and did nothing more than any other transition team did with any other President. The FBI was on a fishing expedition. They knew what was in the call, did not tell Flynn, made it seem like a casual meeting, told him he did not need a lawyer and never gave him his Miranda rights. You seem to always leave out the details I guess because you are voluntarily ignorant of the facts. Flynn was not given the same rights as a common criminal. Also the FBI threatened to jail his son if he didn't go belly up. But I get it, you're perfectly OK with any malfeasance or sedition as long as the man (Trump) whom you hate so much, is is taken out by any means, including a Coup.

Also you haven't addressed the fact that Comey sent agents into the White House without following protocol and bragged about it. But, I know, dirty Comey is your hero....

Let’s not do the broken record repeat thing ok? Ive already made the point that the FBI wasn’t going after Flynn for a crime. They knew he had contacts with the Russians... contacts that he had publicly lied about and was fired for.... they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it. That’s a crime. Not a trap. Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t. Why are you making this complicated when it is not?!

I ya met said a word about Comey or trump. That’s you bringing them up. Try and stay on point.

Talk about a broken record. You've been spouting the exact same MSM-DNC talking points while completely ignoring most of the facts.

I’m ignoring the weak propaganda that the right wing is trying to use to defend Flynn when the simple facts show that he lied.... now he may have been mistreated after he lied and committed his crime. If that’s the case then we can explore that debate. But the line that he was tricked or trapped into lying is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard in a while.

 

[Faun]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

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

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."

Like hiding exculpatory evidence?

Oh? What exculpatory evidence would that be?

You know, the agents notes. It's been in all the papers.

Justice Department provides Flynn's attorneys with documents from Barr's re-examination | CNN Politics

The Justice Department said Friday it shared with Michael Flynn's lawyers a number of documents uncovered in a review ordered by Attorney General William Barr, raising the prospect that the department now believes potentially exculpatory information wasn't turned over as required before the...

www.cnn.com

That's old news. Flynn tried that excuse back in 2018. It was reviewed by the court and adjudicated and Flynn lost.