Was Flynn entrapped?

[Lesh]

Show us anywhere in the constitution it says that you have to be given the miranda warning before you are questioned when you're *not* in custody.

Here's the constitution:

Constitution of the United States - We the People

Show us. Don't tell us. And remember, you have to use the actual constitution. Not the imaginary one you've made up.

Hey shit for brains!

The Miranda warning is not in the Constitution either!

I swear, the longer this thread goes, the dumber you get!

Laughing....so that's a "no" on you being able to show us the constitution saying anything you do about the Miranda warning?

Shocker.

Its always adorable to watch the ignorant keep insisting that their imagination is the law. Meanwhile.....the actual Miranda requirements remain the same:

The Miranda warning (from the U.S. Supreme Court's Miranda v. Arizona decision), requires that officers let you know of certain facts after your arrest, before questioning you. An officer who is going to interrogate you must convey to you that:

Miranda Rights: What Happens If the Police Don't Read You Your Rights

Sorry, kiddo......but you don't know what you're talking about.

Do your keepers know that you are out of your cage unsupervised?

Show me the reference to the Miranda warning in the Constitution. We both agree that it exists so it must be in the Constitution according to you! I never claimed it was. You did!

Laughing....you're the one saying your source is the Constitution. Show us the Constitution saying what you are regarding Miranda warnings.

You'll find that there's no mention of them. Yiou're not citing the constitution. You're citing yourself. And you're clueless.

Meanwhile, I've cited the *actual* Miranda ruling and its finding that miranda warnings are only required after a person has been taken into custody.

While you've only cited yourself. Our sources are not equal.[/QUOTE]

You are correct. Our sources are not equal. Mine are made on the law of the land and yours is based on your poor interpretation of the Miranda warning.

Stubbornness can sometimes be an admirable quality cappy...but stupid stubbornness never is. Unfortunately with you it's the latter

 

[Lesh]

Funny how lying about those discussions not only got him fired...but indicted...

 

[Skylar]

Show us anywhere in the constitution it says that you have to be given the miranda warning before you are questioned when you're *not* in custody.

Here's the constitution:

Constitution of the United States - We the People

Show us. Don't tell us. And remember, you have to use the actual constitution. Not the imaginary one you've made up.

Hey shit for brains!

The Miranda warning is not in the Constitution either!

I swear, the longer this thread goes, the dumber you get!

Laughing....so that's a "no" on you being able to show us the constitution saying anything you do about the Miranda warning?

Shocker.

Its always adorable to watch the ignorant keep insisting that their imagination is the law. Meanwhile.....the actual Miranda requirements remain the same:

The Miranda warning (from the U.S. Supreme Court's Miranda v. Arizona decision), requires that officers let you know of certain facts after your arrest, before questioning you. An officer who is going to interrogate you must convey to you that:

Miranda Rights: What Happens If the Police Don't Read You Your Rights

Sorry, kiddo......but you don't know what you're talking about.

Do your keepers know that you are out of your cage unsupervised?

Show me the reference to the Miranda warning in the Constitution. We both agree that it exists so it must be in the Constitution according to you! I never claimed it was. You did!

Laughing....you're the one saying your source is the Constitution. Show us the Constitution saying what you are regarding Miranda warnings.

You'll find that there's no mention of them. Yiou're not citing the constitution. You're citing yourself. And you're clueless.

Meanwhile, I've cited the *actual* Miranda ruling and its finding that miranda warnings are only required after a person has been taken into custody.

While you've only cited yourself. Our sources are not equal.[/QUOTE]

No. Mine are made on the law of the land ad yours is based on your poor interpretation of the Miranda warning.

No, yours is made on your imagination about the law of the land. Citing yourself.

You've claimed that federal investigators had 'no right' to ask him questions. The constitution doesn't say this. You do.

You've claimed that nothing Flynn said is admissible in court. The constitutiuon doesn't say this. You do.

Meanwhile, the *actual* Miranda ruling contradicts you explicitly:

"the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.

Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Note 'stemming from custodial interrogation'. And by custodial interrogation the court meant questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody.

Which Flynn never was when he lied to investigators.

So we have your imagination about the 5th amendment on one hand. And the USSC on the other. Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead accept whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you make up?

 

[deanrd]

This is what is so hilarious.

Republicans are trying to make the case that Flynn is such an idiot and a fool that he actually didn't know the National Security Advisor is not supposed to lie to the FBI.

Then the question becomes, why would you want a National Security Advisor that's so stupid that he didn't know it was wrong to lie to the FBI?

Any way they try to spin it, only makes it worse.

And if his lawyers play it too cute by half, they will take a man with no jail sentence and force the judge to give him a sentence. I hope they do.

 

[OKTexas]

I've provided a link 3 times in this thread, look it up.

Then list the post number...unless it is the claim I respond to below. Then you might as well swallow your tongue

No, you have it dead wrong. He never denied talking to the Russians. Read the plea agreement one of the other libtards tried to use as a reference. It shows you are wrong as well as them. Flynn claimed he didn't discuss sanctions, which he may have not remembered or was confused. The FBI agents didn't seem to to think he was lying, so why was he charged? The deputy director and director of the FBI neither thought he was lying? Why was he charged?

He told the same lies to the FBI as he did to Pence...for which he was fired.

And you think the FBI describing his outward APPEARANCE is them saying he didn't lie...YOU are lying....or incredibly stupid. You pick. I say both

Look it up fagot, or you can fuck off and die, I'm not your secretary.

.

 

[Polishprince]

Flynn fucked himself

not one single human held a gun to his head and made him lie or answer questions without a lawyer present - NOT ONE.

If the FBI agents did not properly notify Gen. Flynn of his rights or otherwise tried to trick him, the judge needs to throw out the charges and order Flynn acquitted of all charges. Further, any statements or leads provided by Flynn afterwards, must be excluded as fruit from the poisoned tree.

 

[OKTexas]

Both Comey and McCabe told congress he didn't. So who lied?

Quote and link

Here's one, you can look up the others.

Former FBI director James Comey told lawmakers last March that the FBI agents who interviewed retired Gen. Michael Flynn, who briefly served in the Trump White House, said Flynn did not lie to them — which contradicts what the Russia probe has concluded.

Report: Comey Told Lawmakers Flynn Didn't Lie to FBI

.

Comey told lawmakers FBI agents saw 'no physical indications of deception' in Michael Flynn

"Director Comey testified to the committee that 'the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn't see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them,'" the report says, quoting Comey.


McCabe, the report continues, "confirmed the interviewing agent's initial impression and stated that the 'conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn't detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview … the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.'"

Both Comey and McCabe told congress he didn't. So who lied?

Quote and link

Here's one, you can look up the others.

Former FBI director James Comey told lawmakers last March that the FBI agents who interviewed retired Gen. Michael Flynn, who briefly served in the Trump White House, said Flynn did not lie to them — which contradicts what the Russia probe has concluded.

Report: Comey Told Lawmakers Flynn Didn't Lie to FBI

.

Comey told lawmakers FBI agents saw 'no physical indications of deception' in Michael Flynn

"Director Comey testified to the committee that 'the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn't see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them,'" the report says, quoting Comey.


McCabe, the report continues, "confirmed the interviewing agent's initial impression and stated that the 'conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn't detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview … the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.'"

Yep, that was all after they spent 7 months polishing that turd. Discrepancies were attributed to normal lapses in memory initially.

.

Flynn admits to lying to the FBI. So why would ignore Flynn and instead believe you?

Laughing.....that's quite the turd you're polishing.

Been addressed multiple times, look it up.

.

 

[Skylar]

Hey shit for brains!

The Miranda warning is not in the Constitution either!

I swear, the longer this thread goes, the dumber you get!

Laughing....so that's a "no" on you being able to show us the constitution saying anything you do about the Miranda warning?

Shocker.

Its always adorable to watch the ignorant keep insisting that their imagination is the law. Meanwhile.....the actual Miranda requirements remain the same:

The Miranda warning (from the U.S. Supreme Court's Miranda v. Arizona decision), requires that officers let you know of certain facts after your arrest, before questioning you. An officer who is going to interrogate you must convey to you that:

Miranda Rights: What Happens If the Police Don't Read You Your Rights

Sorry, kiddo......but you don't know what you're talking about.

Do your keepers know that you are out of your cage unsupervised?

Show me the reference to the Miranda warning in the Constitution. We both agree that it exists so it must be in the Constitution according to you! I never claimed it was. You did!

Laughing....you're the one saying your source is the Constitution. Show us the Constitution saying what you are regarding Miranda warnings.

You'll find that there's no mention of them. Yiou're not citing the constitution. You're citing yourself. And you're clueless.

Meanwhile, I've cited the *actual* Miranda ruling and its finding that miranda warnings are only required after a person has been taken into custody.

While you've only cited yourself. Our sources are not equal.[/QUOTE]

You are correct. Our sources are not equal. Mine are made on the law of the land and yours is based on your poor interpretation of the Miranda warning.

Stubbornness can sometimes be an admirable quality cappy...but stupid stubbornness never is. Unfortunately with you it's the latter

Yup. He knows he's wrong. He knows the Miranda ruling contradicts him. Yet he continues to offer his imagination about the constitution as the 'law of the land'.

Alas, his imagination isn't the any law. While the Supreme Court ruling on the matter is clear, compelling, and the standard that Flynn is held to:

"...the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. "

Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

So he ignores the Supreme Court too.

You can't fix stupid.

 

[deanrd]

I've provided a link 3 times in this thread, look it up.

Then list the post number...unless it is the claim I respond to below. Then you might as well swallow your tongue

No, you have it dead wrong. He never denied talking to the Russians. Read the plea agreement one of the other libtards tried to use as a reference. It shows you are wrong as well as them. Flynn claimed he didn't discuss sanctions, which he may have not remembered or was confused. The FBI agents didn't seem to to think he was lying, so why was he charged? The deputy director and director of the FBI neither thought he was lying? Why was he charged?

He told the same lies to the FBI as he did to Pence...for which he was fired.

And you think the FBI describing his outward APPEARANCE is them saying he didn't lie...YOU are lying....or incredibly stupid. You pick. I say both

Look it up fagot, or you can fuck of and die, I'm not your secretary.

.

Wow, you're lucky you don't get banned saying stuff like that. You must be "special".

 

[OKTexas]

BTW Mueller failed to provide the documents demanded by the Judge, I wonder what he's hiding.

.

 

[Skylar]

Quote and link

Here's one, you can look up the others.

Former FBI director James Comey told lawmakers last March that the FBI agents who interviewed retired Gen. Michael Flynn, who briefly served in the Trump White House, said Flynn did not lie to them — which contradicts what the Russia probe has concluded.

Report: Comey Told Lawmakers Flynn Didn't Lie to FBI

.

Comey told lawmakers FBI agents saw 'no physical indications of deception' in Michael Flynn

"Director Comey testified to the committee that 'the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn't see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them,'" the report says, quoting Comey.


McCabe, the report continues, "confirmed the interviewing agent's initial impression and stated that the 'conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn't detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview … the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.'"

Quote and link

Here's one, you can look up the others.

Former FBI director James Comey told lawmakers last March that the FBI agents who interviewed retired Gen. Michael Flynn, who briefly served in the Trump White House, said Flynn did not lie to them — which contradicts what the Russia probe has concluded.

Report: Comey Told Lawmakers Flynn Didn't Lie to FBI

.

Comey told lawmakers FBI agents saw 'no physical indications of deception' in Michael Flynn

"Director Comey testified to the committee that 'the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn't see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them,'" the report says, quoting Comey.


McCabe, the report continues, "confirmed the interviewing agent's initial impression and stated that the 'conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn't detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview … the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.'"

Yep, that was all after they spent 7 months polishing that turd. Discrepancies were attributed to normal lapses in memory initially.

.

Flynn admits to lying to the FBI. So why would ignore Flynn and instead believe you?

Laughing.....that's quite the turd you're polishing.

Been addressed multiple times, look it up.

.

You have yet to provide a compelling reason why I would ignore Michael Flynn on Michael Flynn's guilt.

Try again.

 

[Lesh]

So why did he plead guilty?

He was bankrupted and his family was threatened, what would you do? Classic extortion, but it's not illegal when the government does it.

.

So, “lock em up” flynn put his family’s financial future in jeopardy by lying about his contacts with Russians.


Not the governments fault.

His contacts with the Russians were perfectly legal. So he admitted to lying about something that is perfectly legal. Does that make any sense to you?

Lying about those contacts to federal investigators however, was not legal.

As Flynn demonstrated with his plea deal where he freedly admitted his crime and his responsibility for that crime.

They had no right to ask bout those contacts if he was not suspected of committing a crime!

My God, the stupid runs deep in you!

You want a good example of how stupid this is?

FBI: "Mr. Flynn, what is the moon made of?"

Flynn: "When I was a kid, I heard stories about it was made of cheese!" Chuckles for a few seconds.

Later they charge Flynn with lying about the moon being made of green cheese because one of the agents visited the Smithsonian and found out there were rocks from the moon on display.

You've reduced yourself to babbling!

Amazing.

And by the way...get back to us when you can come up with someone with a brain claiming that the FBI can't ask questions about conversations between Americans and Russians. Americans don't have to answer those questions but what they can't do is LIE

 

[Lesh]

BTW Mueller failed to provide the documents demanded by the Judge, I wonder what he's hiding.

You're goinna have to do better than that vague bullshit...oh and take it to another thread because it doesn't belong here

 

[Skylar]

Flynn fucked himself

not one single human held a gun to his head and made him lie or answer questions without a lawyer present - NOT ONE.

If the FBI agents did not properly notify Gen. Flynn of his rights or otherwise tried to trick him, the judge needs to throw out the charges and order Flynn acquitted of all charges. Further, any statements or leads provided by Flynn afterwards, must be excluded as fruit from the poisoned tree.

The FBI had no requirement to notify Gen Flynn of his rights. As Miranda warnings are only required for those in custody.

Which Flynn never was when he lied to investigators.

You conservatives can keep repeating the same fallacious pseudo-legal gibberish to each other.....but it doesn't actually change the law, the miranda requirements, 5th amendment protections, or the Miranda ruling.

 

[OKTexas]

I've provided a link 3 times in this thread, look it up.

Then list the post number...unless it is the claim I respond to below. Then you might as well swallow your tongue

No, you have it dead wrong. He never denied talking to the Russians. Read the plea agreement one of the other libtards tried to use as a reference. It shows you are wrong as well as them. Flynn claimed he didn't discuss sanctions, which he may have not remembered or was confused. The FBI agents didn't seem to to think he was lying, so why was he charged? The deputy director and director of the FBI neither thought he was lying? Why was he charged?

He told the same lies to the FBI as he did to Pence...for which he was fired.

And you think the FBI describing his outward APPEARANCE is them saying he didn't lie...YOU are lying....or incredibly stupid. You pick. I say both

Look it up fagot, or you can fuck of and die, I'm not your secretary.

.

Wow, you're lucky you don't get banned saying stuff like that. You must be "special".

Or I know how to stay within the rules, you figure it out.

.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hey shit for brains!

The Miranda warning is not in the Constitution either!

I swear, the longer this thread goes, the dumber you get!

Laughing....so that's a "no" on you being able to show us the constitution saying anything you do about the Miranda warning?

Shocker.

Its always adorable to watch the ignorant keep insisting that their imagination is the law. Meanwhile.....the actual Miranda requirements remain the same:

The Miranda warning (from the U.S. Supreme Court's Miranda v. Arizona decision), requires that officers let you know of certain facts after your arrest, before questioning you. An officer who is going to interrogate you must convey to you that:

Miranda Rights: What Happens If the Police Don't Read You Your Rights

Sorry, kiddo......but you don't know what you're talking about.

Do your keepers know that you are out of your cage unsupervised?

Show me the reference to the Miranda warning in the Constitution. We both agree that it exists so it must be in the Constitution according to you! I never claimed it was. You did!

Laughing....you're the one saying your source is the Constitution. Show us the Constitution saying what you are regarding Miranda warnings.

You'll find that there's no mention of them. Yiou're not citing the constitution. You're citing yourself. And you're clueless.

Meanwhile, I've cited the *actual* Miranda ruling and its finding that miranda warnings are only required after a person has been taken into custody.

While you've only cited yourself. Our sources are not equal.[/QUOTE]

No. Mine are made on the law of the land ad yours is based on your poor interpretation of the Miranda warning.

No, yours is made on your imagination about the law of the land. Citing yourself.

You've claimed that federal investigators had 'no right' to ask him questions. The constitution doesn't say this. You do.

You've claimed that nothing Flynn said is admissible in court. The constitutiuon doesn't say this. You do.

Meanwhile, the *actual* Miranda ruling contradicts you explicitly:

"the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.

Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Note 'stemming from custodial interrogation'. And by custodial interrogation the court meant questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody.

Which Flynn never was when he lied to investigators.

So we have your imagination about the 5th amendment on one hand. And the USSC on the other. Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead accept whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you make up?

I am tired of trying to educate the consummate dumbass. You just wait until next week when Mueller gets owned by the judge, Flynn walks out of court with no charges whatsoever, and then files suit against Mueller for prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[JimH52]

He has spent over 30 years in public service and in the military. Him arguing that he did not know lying to the FBI is wrong is like a man shooting someone down in the street and then stating, "I had no idea that was against the law!"

PS: He was FIRED for lying to the, so called, Vice President...

 

[OKTexas]

Here's one, you can look up the others.
.

Comey told lawmakers FBI agents saw 'no physical indications of deception' in Michael Flynn

"Director Comey testified to the committee that 'the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn't see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them,'" the report says, quoting Comey.


McCabe, the report continues, "confirmed the interviewing agent's initial impression and stated that the 'conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn't detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview … the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.'"

Here's one, you can look up the others.
.

Comey told lawmakers FBI agents saw 'no physical indications of deception' in Michael Flynn

"Director Comey testified to the committee that 'the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn't see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them,'" the report says, quoting Comey.


McCabe, the report continues, "confirmed the interviewing agent's initial impression and stated that the 'conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn't detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview … the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.'"

Yep, that was all after they spent 7 months polishing that turd. Discrepancies were attributed to normal lapses in memory initially.

.

Flynn admits to lying to the FBI. So why would ignore Flynn and instead believe you?

Laughing.....that's quite the turd you're polishing.

Been addressed multiple times, look it up.

.

You have yet to provide a compelling reason why I would ignore Michael Flynn on Michael Flynn's guilt.

Try again.

Your inability to comprehend the written word is your problem, not mine.

.

 

[JimH52]

Laughing....so that's a "no" on you being able to show us the constitution saying anything you do about the Miranda warning?

Shocker.

Its always adorable to watch the ignorant keep insisting that their imagination is the law. Meanwhile.....the actual Miranda requirements remain the same:

Sorry, kiddo......but you don't know what you're talking about.

Do your keepers know that you are out of your cage unsupervised?

Show me the reference to the Miranda warning in the Constitution. We both agree that it exists so it must be in the Constitution according to you! I never claimed it was. You did!

Laughing....you're the one saying your source is the Constitution. Show us the Constitution saying what you are regarding Miranda warnings.

You'll find that there's no mention of them. Yiou're not citing the constitution. You're citing yourself. And you're clueless.

Meanwhile, I've cited the *actual* Miranda ruling and its finding that miranda warnings are only required after a person has been taken into custody.

While you've only cited yourself. Our sources are not equal.[/QUOTE]

No. Mine are made on the law of the land ad yours is based on your poor interpretation of the Miranda warning.

No, yours is made on your imagination about the law of the land. Citing yourself.

You've claimed that federal investigators had 'no right' to ask him questions. The constitution doesn't say this. You do.

You've claimed that nothing Flynn said is admissible in court. The constitutiuon doesn't say this. You do.

Meanwhile, the *actual* Miranda ruling contradicts you explicitly:

"the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.

Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Note 'stemming from custodial interrogation'. And by custodial interrogation the court meant questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody.

Which Flynn never was when he lied to investigators.

So we have your imagination about the 5th amendment on one hand. And the USSC on the other. Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead accept whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you make up?

I am tired of trying to educate the consummate dumbass. You just wait until next week when Mueller gets owned by the judge, Flynn walks out of court with no charges whatsoever, and then files suit against Mueller for prosecutorial misconduct.

Please hold your breath....

 

[eagle1462010]

What is an FBI 302? The Problematic Nature of FBI Agents’ Interview Memos

A witness who was not represented by counsel during the interview cannot effectively challenge the accuracy of the 302. It becomes a witness-said/agent-said situation. And who is the jury going to believe? Two clean-cut FBI agents who insist the 302 is an accurate summary of what the witness said, or the witness?

In other words, a witness can be effectively coerced into testifying not to the truth of what happened but the “truth” as it was captured by the handwritten notes of an FBI agent. As explained above, the witness notes may not be accurate for all sorts of innocent reasons. It also may not be accurate because an FBI agent has a strong interest in finding evidence of a crime.

The only silver lining to this whole situation is that 302s that capture exculpatory statements about the defendant must be disclosed under Brady, and the government must disclose 302s for testifying witnesses under the Jencks Act. 302s are a very effective discovery tool when they are disclosed to the defense after indictment. After a long investigation, you can finally learn what the witnesses said (or what the FBI agents heard).

This silver lining only benefits the defendant, not poor Mr. McKinley, who is still stuck between a rock and a hard place.



Basically since Flynn didn't have witnesses...............the FBI agents like the lunatic Peter can write whatever he wants. Normally they are written the next day or within a month from their notes.........It is said done 7 months later which is BS............The Judge sees this shit.............and wants answers................knows it's a standard set up.............

The FBI likes the hand written because if they recorded the whole thing they could get nabbed themselves .......which is why Flynn should have had and attorney and forced this to be electronically recorded.....Now it's his word versus 2 FBI guys who don't have to write the 302 how it really went down.