Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'll bet he's been arrested for giving blowjobs in a gay bath house.The problem with your logic is......the only one saying that Michael Flynn was detained is you. Citing your imagination. And your imagination doesn't establish a violation of a 'fucking 1966 supreme court ruling'.Being detained by the law is in custody .
.
And who, pray tell, claim that Flynn was 'detained'.
There's you, citing yourself. And....who else? Not Flynn. Not any judge. Not the prosecutors. Not Flynn's lawyers.
Just your imagination. Do you see why your imagination might not be terribly compelling in an actual court of law?
It's funny how you bitch and moan the law kills kneegrows yet defend the law when going against a fucking 1966 supreme Court ruling..
.
It merely establishes whatever you choose to make up, based on nothing.
Can you see why your imagination doesn't amount to much as a legal argument?
Your the one trying to skirt supreme Court ruling not me...
Have you ever been arrested? It's obvious powder puff you have not..
.
Dude, you didn't even know how to spell California v. Prysock until I educated you. You've never read the case, as it has nothing to do with the definition of 'detention'. It has to do with the order in which Miranda warnings are given to someone *already* in custody.
The only one saying that questioning someone is detaning them.....is you citing whatever pseudo-legal horseshit you imagine.
And your imagination is legally irrelevant. Try again. This time reading the cases before you try to cite them.
That's how I fucking roll ..
25 years plus on the internet I use physcho warfare to get my point across .
.
Laughing...and by 'physcho warfare', you mean trying to cite cases you've never read and using your imagination as caselaw?
Good luck with that.
I'll stick with the actual court rulings. And none of them say that merely questioning someone is detaining them. That's just you ......making shit up.
Why does this bother you so much? I have expert knowledge on the 1966 law I used it so many times in my evil past to stay out of the jail .
Then use your 'expert knowledge' and show us where in the the '1966 law' it says that merely questioning someone is detaining them.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Go ahead. I'll wait.
You really forgot about 1984...?
In Berkemer v. McCarty
Dude, you didn't even know how to spell California v. Prysock until I educated you. You've never read the case, as it has nothing to do with the definition of 'detention'. It has to do with the order in which Miranda warnings are given to someone *already* in custody.
The only one saying that questioning someone is detaning them.....is you citing whatever pseudo-legal horseshit you imagine.
And your imagination is legally irrelevant. Try again. This time reading the cases before you try to cite them.
That's how I fucking roll ..
25 years plus on the internet I use physcho warfare to get my point across .
.
Laughing...and by 'physcho warfare', you mean trying to cite cases you've never read and using your imagination as caselaw?
Good luck with that.
I'll stick with the actual court rulings. And none of them say that merely questioning someone is detaining them. That's just you ......making shit up.
Why does this bother you so much? I have expert knowledge on the 1966 law I used it so many times in my evil past to stay out of the jail .
Then use your 'expert knowledge' and show us where in the the '1966 law' it says that merely questioning someone is detaining them.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Go ahead. I'll wait.
You really forgot about 1984...?
In Berkemer v. McCarty
The so-called "federal investigators" didn't make it known they were investigating anything, douchebag.Man, you are such a Stalinist scumbag it's positively scary. We are well down the road to what the people in the Soviet Union went through in the 1920s. Do you actually believe FBI agents should be allowed to show up at your door claiming it's just a social visit, and then treat everything you say as if you are under oath?Your belief that the FBI can trick people into allowing themselves to be interrogated without a lawyer present is thoroughly totalitarian and un-american. You're boot-licking Stalinist piece of shit, not to mention a fat ugly homosexual.
What 'interrogation'? Again, you've imagined it. Just like your imagined your 'stalinist' hysterics, and your 'totalitarian' gibberish.
And of course, your comic, almost childishly imaginary version of Miranda in which investigators have to read Miranda rights to anyone they ask any question. Even if they're not in custody.
Um, Brit......no such requirements exist. Your imaginary version of Miranda doesn't exist. You've hallicinated all of it.
Again, says the wasteland of your imagination. You're the same hapless soul that insisted that Michael Flynn's rights were violated because he wans't read his Miranda rights before he was asked a few questions.,....and while NOT in custody.
That's not how Miranda rights work, Brit. That's how your imagination works.
And again, the law says that willfully and knowingly making materially false, ficticious and fraudulent statements to federal investigators is a crime. Which Michael Flynn openly admits he did.
The only one saying that Michael Flynn didn't lie to investigators....is you citing your imagination. Which, as your blunders regarding the Miranda requirements demonstrate, is useless gibberish.
Laughing....there's no requirement that the FBI instruct someone that any false statements they make is a crime. Flynn agreed to be interviewed by the FBI. He lied to them. He commited a serious crime in the process.
Says who? Says Michael Flynn.
The 5th Amendment says you have a right not to incriminate yourself.And America's favorite lovers had their phone reset...why is that, it was a huge trick ..
It reminds me of the time I was detained by the cops and I let them look in my pack back on the ground and they threw down a pack of smokes filled with pot and asked if it was mine .
I told them what's that I could see pot was in it ..not mine. I hate weed..to bad it wasn't cocaine I would of picked it up and ran into the woods
Yeah, and who says that Michael flyn was detained by the federal agents?
There's you citing your imagination....and who else?
They tricked his ass and you know it .
And by 'tricking his ass', you mean they asked him questions....exactly like they told him they were going to do?
Again, who says Michael Flynn was detained? This is the beating heart of your entire argument about the '1966 Supreme Court ruling', and yet you've completely abandoned it.
If even you won't stand by the pseudo-legal horseshit you make up, what use would anyone else have for it?
Once the cops talk to you , you are being detained against your will .
Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.
Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?
Let me guess.....your imagination again?
They asked him questions without telling him that the wrong answers could mean a prison term.Your the one trying to skirt supreme Court ruling not me...
Have you ever been arrested? It's obvious powder puff you have not..
.
Says you, citing your imagination.
Michael Flynn wasn't arrested. You've completely imagined that Flynn was 'detained'. In reality, Flynn agreed to be interviewed by federal investigators. Voluntarily. At his office.
Says who? Says Michael Flynn.
Who then, says Michael Flynn was detained by the FBI? There's you, citing your imagination and....who?
And America's favorite lovers had their phone reset...why is that, it was a huge trick ..
It reminds me of the time I was detained by the cops and I let them look in my pack back on the ground and they threw down a pack of smokes filled with pot and asked if it was mine .
I told them what's that I could see pot was in it ..not mine. I hate weed..to bad it wasn't cocaine I would of picked it up and ran into the woods
Yeah, and who says that Michael flyn was detained by the federal agents?
There's you citing your imagination....and who else?
They tricked his ass and you know it .
And by 'tricking his ass', you mean they asked him questions....exactly like they told him they were going to do?
Again, who says Michael Flynn was detained? This is the beating heart of your entire argument about the '1966 Supreme Court ruling', and yet you've completely abandoned it.
If even you won't stand by the pseudo-legal horseshit you make up, what use would anyone else have for it?
That's how I fucking roll ..
25 years plus on the internet I use physcho warfare to get my point across .
.
Laughing...and by 'physcho warfare', you mean trying to cite cases you've never read and using your imagination as caselaw?
Good luck with that.
I'll stick with the actual court rulings. And none of them say that merely questioning someone is detaining them. That's just you ......making shit up.
Why does this bother you so much? I have expert knowledge on the 1966 law I used it so many times in my evil past to stay out of the jail .
Then use your 'expert knowledge' and show us where in the the '1966 law' it says that merely questioning someone is detaining them.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Go ahead. I'll wait.
You really forgot about 1984...?
In Berkemer v. McCarty
So nothing in Miranda v. Arizona that says that merely questioning someone is detaining them.
Shocker.
Do any of your poor souls have *anything* beyond the pseudo-legal horseshit you've imagined?
The so-called "federal investigators" didn't make it known they were investigating anything, douchebag.Man, you are such a Stalinist scumbag it's positively scary. We are well down the road to what the people in the Soviet Union went through in the 1920s. Do you actually believe FBI agents should be allowed to show up at your door claiming it's just a social visit, and then treat everything you say as if you are under oath?What 'interrogation'? Again, you've imagined it. Just like your imagined your 'stalinist' hysterics, and your 'totalitarian' gibberish.
And of course, your comic, almost childishly imaginary version of Miranda in which investigators have to read Miranda rights to anyone they ask any question. Even if they're not in custody.
Um, Brit......no such requirements exist. Your imaginary version of Miranda doesn't exist. You've hallicinated all of it.
Again, says the wasteland of your imagination. You're the same hapless soul that insisted that Michael Flynn's rights were violated because he wans't read his Miranda rights before he was asked a few questions.,....and while NOT in custody.
That's not how Miranda rights work, Brit. That's how your imagination works.
And again, the law says that willfully and knowingly making materially false, ficticious and fraudulent statements to federal investigators is a crime. Which Michael Flynn openly admits he did.
The only one saying that Michael Flynn didn't lie to investigators....is you citing your imagination. Which, as your blunders regarding the Miranda requirements demonstrate, is useless gibberish.
Laughing....there's no requirement that the FBI instruct someone that any false statements they make is a crime. Flynn agreed to be interviewed by the FBI. He lied to them. He commited a serious crime in the process.
Says who? Says Michael Flynn.
We don't know exactly what he agreed to, do we? Comey just told Flynn he was sending over two agents. He didn't say what their purpose was. He obviously didn't tell Flynn that it was a criminal investigation of him. You obviously have not problem with the FBI lying to innocent people to lure them into incriminating themselves in a non crime.
Anyone who thinks this is acceptable is a Stalinist douchebag.
What a maroonMichigan voters pushed for a ballot initiative that raised minimum wage to $12 and mandated sick leave
So what did Republicans do?
They passed a law that raised minimum wage to $12 by 2022 with automatic increases and required employers to provide sick leave. Once they did this the ballot initiative was withdrawn
Once the election was over and before a Democratic Governor took over, Republicans pushed through a law changing the date of the $12 minimum wage to 2030 and removing inflation based increases and sick leave
Analysis | Why Michigan Republicans are working to undermine the minimum wage bill they passed
View attachment 234797
Laughing...and by 'physcho warfare', you mean trying to cite cases you've never read and using your imagination as caselaw?
Good luck with that.
I'll stick with the actual court rulings. And none of them say that merely questioning someone is detaining them. That's just you ......making shit up.
Why does this bother you so much? I have expert knowledge on the 1966 law I used it so many times in my evil past to stay out of the jail .
Then use your 'expert knowledge' and show us where in the the '1966 law' it says that merely questioning someone is detaining them.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Go ahead. I'll wait.
You really forgot about 1984...?
In Berkemer v. McCarty
So nothing in Miranda v. Arizona that says that merely questioning someone is detaining them.
Shocker.
Do any of your poor souls have *anything* beyond the pseudo-legal horseshit you've imagined?
You don't understand the game do you, the FBI tricked him...to give up his 1966 Miranda rights .
Game over..
McCabe even told him he didn't need a lawyer. He should go to prison for that.And by 'tricking his ass', you mean they asked him questions....exactly like they told him they were going to do?
Again, who says Michael Flynn was detained? This is the beating heart of your entire argument about the '1966 Supreme Court ruling', and yet you've completely abandoned it.
If even you won't stand by the pseudo-legal horseshit you make up, what use would anyone else have for it?
Once the cops talk to you , you are being detained against your will .
Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.
Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?
Let me guess.....your imagination again?
Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..
.
Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.
Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.
With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.
Not merely your imagination.
It was a ruse to get him to set down his 5th amendment rights.
Rhode Island v. Innis
.
One of the most respected and credible news sources in the worldOnly fat homosexual idiots accept the Washington Post as a credible source.And Trump lied 5000 times according to you.I examined Obama's 2008 inauguration speech, and I counted 22 lies in it.
22 lies according to you. And you make up shit constantly.
Not according to me. Trump has made over 5000 false or misleading statements according to the Washington Post....who has a running list of every false or misleading statement.
Analysis | President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims
With you laughably insisting that any evidence of Trump's lies are 'fake news'.
If not, name one better
McCabe even told him he didn't need a lawyer. He should go to prison for that.Once the cops talk to you , you are being detained against your will .
Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.
Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?
Let me guess.....your imagination again?
Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..
.
Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.
Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.
With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.
Not merely your imagination.
It was a ruse to get him to set down his 5th amendment rights.
Rhode Island v. Innis
.
McCabe even told him he didn't need a lawyer. He should go to prison for that.Once the cops talk to you , you are being detained against your will .
Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.
Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?
Let me guess.....your imagination again?
Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..
.
Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.
Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.
With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.
Not merely your imagination.
It was a ruse to get him to set down his 5th amendment rights.
Rhode Island v. Innis
.
What a gang of colossal douchebags, and all the forum snowflakes defend this behavior.
McCabe even told him he didn't need a lawyer. He should go to prison for that.Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.
Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?
Let me guess.....your imagination again?
Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..
.
Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.
Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.
With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.
Not merely your imagination.
It was a ruse to get him to set down his 5th amendment rights.
Rhode Island v. Innis
.
What a gang of colossal douchebags, and all the forum snowflakes defend this behavior.
That's the weird thing he should of known it was a set up...
I don't get why he wasn't street smart..
McCabe even told him he didn't need a lawyer. He should go to prison for that.Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.
Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?
Let me guess.....your imagination again?
Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..
.
Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.
Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.
With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.
Not merely your imagination.
It was a ruse to get him to set down his 5th amendment rights.
Rhode Island v. Innis
.
Nope. As there's no need for a lawyer if you're going to tell the truth.
Flynn fucked himself by lying to federal investigators.
But tell us again about the Miranda warnings. Just so we can all get a full snootful of the pseudo-legal gibberish that is the basis of your 'legal analysis'.
McCabe even told him he didn't need a lawyer. He should go to prison for that.Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..
.
Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.
Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.
With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.
Not merely your imagination.
It was a ruse to get him to set down his 5th amendment rights.
Rhode Island v. Innis
.
Nope. As there's no need for a lawyer if you're going to tell the truth.
Flynn fucked himself by lying to federal investigators.
But tell us again about the Miranda warnings. Just so we can all get a full snootful of the pseudo-legal gibberish that is the basis of your 'legal analysis'.
You can't change the law to fit the crime as Mulller is doing .
To many of us our making fun of you , this is not about the law but public opinion..
.
What a maroonMichigan voters pushed for a ballot initiative that raised minimum wage to $12 and mandated sick leave
So what did Republicans do?
They passed a law that raised minimum wage to $12 by 2022 with automatic increases and required employers to provide sick leave. Once they did this the ballot initiative was withdrawn
Once the election was over and before a Democratic Governor took over, Republicans pushed through a law changing the date of the $12 minimum wage to 2030 and removing inflation based increases and sick leave
Analysis | Why Michigan Republicans are working to undermine the minimum wage bill they passed
View attachment 234797
When the FBI came to my door, I told them I don't talk to the FBI. I knew they could use anything I told them against me. The FBI led Flynn to believe they were just colleagues paying a friendly work related visit. McCabe even told him he didn't need a lawyer. A judge is going to take a very narrow view of that. The violated his 5th Amendment rights all over the place. Only a fat homosexual Stalinist would deny it.The so-called "federal investigators" didn't make it known they were investigating anything, douchebag.Man, you are such a Stalinist scumbag it's positively scary. We are well down the road to what the people in the Soviet Union went through in the 1920s. Do you actually believe FBI agents should be allowed to show up at your door claiming it's just a social visit, and then treat everything you say as if you are under oath?
Again, says the wasteland of your imagination. You're the same hapless soul that insisted that Michael Flynn's rights were violated because he wans't read his Miranda rights before he was asked a few questions.,....and while NOT in custody.
That's not how Miranda rights work, Brit. That's how your imagination works.
And again, the law says that willfully and knowingly making materially false, ficticious and fraudulent statements to federal investigators is a crime. Which Michael Flynn openly admits he did.
The only one saying that Michael Flynn didn't lie to investigators....is you citing your imagination. Which, as your blunders regarding the Miranda requirements demonstrate, is useless gibberish.
Laughing....there's no requirement that the FBI instruct someone that any false statements they make is a crime. Flynn agreed to be interviewed by the FBI. He lied to them. He commited a serious crime in the process.
Says who? Says Michael Flynn.
We don't know exactly what he agreed to, do we? Comey just told Flynn he was sending over two agents. He didn't say what their purpose was. He obviously didn't tell Flynn that it was a criminal investigation of him. You obviously have not problem with the FBI lying to innocent people to lure them into incriminating themselves in a non crime.
Anyone who thinks this is acceptable is a Stalinist douchebag.
Again, Bri....there's no requirement that they tell Flynn about a criminal investigation. Just like there's no requirement to read Flynn his Miranda rights before asking him questions when he's not in custody.
Flynn agreed to be interviewed by FBI agents. Flynn willfully and knowingly made materially false, ficticious and fraudulent statements to them.
Says who? Says Michael Flynn.
Remember, you don't know what you're talking about.
McCabe even told him he didn't need a lawyer. He should go to prison for that.Says who? Not the courts. Not law. Not Miranda v. Arizona or any other supreme court ruling in 1966. The Miranda court was very clear on what they meant by custodial interrogation. And it wasn't merely being questioned.
Where, pray tell, did you get this load of pseudo-legal horseshit?
Let me guess.....your imagination again?
Liar I know what you are trying to do California vs Pysock..
.
Laughing....you don't know a thing. Its California v. Prysock. You couldn't even spell it correctly. Prysock was about the order in which the Miranda warnings were given. Not the definition of 'detained'. In it, Prysock had been taken into custody and interrogated at a police substation.
Flynn was never taken into custody or detained in any way. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed in his own office.
With Miranda V. Arizona makes it very clear what custodial interrogation is. And its not merely questioning by police. If you believe otherwise, show us the law or relevant court rulings.
Not merely your imagination.
It was a ruse to get him to set down his 5th amendment rights.
Rhode Island v. Innis
.
Nope. As there's no need for a lawyer if you're going to tell the truth.
Flynn fucked himself by lying to federal investigators.
But tell us again about the Miranda warnings. Just so we can all get a full snootful of the pseudo-legal gibberish that is the basis of your 'legal analysis'.
