Was Flynn entrapped?

[Skylar]

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.

And by 'educate', you mean replace the ACTUAL Miranda decision with whatever you imagine? Because I don't think that education means what you think it means.

What you're doing is called "willful ignorance". Let me demonstrate. Here's what the Supreme Court said about the Miranda requirements:

"....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)

And you ignore the Suprme Court and replace with your imagination about how the agents had 'no right' to ask Flynn questions and how nothing Flynn said is admissible in court.

Citing......your imagination. As the neither the law, the courts nor the constitution say what you do.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Really, the judges demands are mentioned in the OP. I guess you're in your typical state of confusion.

.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Here's the problem with your assessment:

Flynn has already admitted that the account of the agents is accurate. And that Flynn did indeed lie to those investigators.

So why would a jury ignore both federal agents AND Flynn himself....when they all agree on what Flynn said, and Flynn's lies to the federal investigators? Who claims that Flynn didn't say these things?

No one.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

FBI: "Ms. Skylar, we have evidence that you once cut the tag off a mattress you bought 5 years ago."

You: "I never tore the tag off my mattress."

You go home later to check your mattress and the tag is gone, remembering only then that that you cut it off after your dog vomited on it. Cutting the tag off by the consumer is perfectly legal so you did nothing wrong.

You just lied to the FBI, because they had surveillance video of you cutting off the tag while talking to your Russian counterpart, whom they were watching as part of their counterintelligence operations. They just happened to catch you. Your participation was supposed to be masked because you did nothing wrong, but the photos of you cutting off the tag show up on the front page of the Washing ton Post because the FBI leaked it to them.

 

[Skylar]

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.'"
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.

.

Your inability to provide a compelling reason why I would ignore Michael Flynn on Michael's Flynn's guilt is your problem.

Not mine.

 

[eagle1462010]

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

Really, the judges demands are mentioned in the OP. I guess you're in your typical state of confusion.

.

Not only that.............the 302's are required documents and the defense has every right under the law to get that copy..............via my last post...........They are violating the law by not disclosing the 302...............which took them 7 months to do .........LOL.. When they are supposed to be done as soon as possible to make sure the agents remember the notes correctly.................OR MAKE SHIT UP TO FRAG SOMEONE like in this case.................

Judge might very well slam them............and they are contempt of court for failing to produce the documents.

 

[Lesh]

FBI: "Ms. Skylar, we have evidence that you once cut the tag off a mattress you bought 5 years ago."

Response: You people are nuts. I have nothing to say until I have a lawyer present.

See...that's how it works

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

FBI: "Ms. Skylar, we have evidence that you once cut the tag off a mattress you bought 5 years ago."

You: "I never tore the tag off my mattress."

You go home later to check your mattress and the tag is gone, remembering only then that that you cut it off after your dog vomited on it. Cutting the tag off by the consumer is perfectly legal so you did nothing wrong.

You just lied to the FBI, because they had surveillance video of you cutting off the tag while talking to your Russian counterpart, whom they were watching as part of their counterintelligence operations. They just happened to catch you. Your participation was supposed to be masked because you did nothing wrong, but the photos of you cutting off the tag show up on the front page of the Washing ton Post because the FBI leaked it to them.

Which is why no one should testify to the FBI at all..............and if the are dumb enough to do so have it recorded.....and have 9 lawyers there like Clinton did.....

Remember these words...........I don't remember, to the best of my recollection, and I don't recall, and I'll get back to you after reviewing it..................

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

And by 'educate', you mean replace the ACTUAL Miranda decision with whatever you imagine? Because I don't think that education means what you think it means.

What you're doing is called "willful ignorance". Let me demonstrate. Here's what the Supreme Court said about the Miranda requirements:

"....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)

And you ignore the Suprme Court and replace with your imagination about how the agents had 'no right' to ask Flynn questions and how nothing Flynn said is admissible in court.

Citing......your imagination. As the neither the law, the courts nor the constitution say what you do.

We'll see what the judge says. In a few years, you may be hearing that the FBI must give "Flynn Warnings" before asking any questions that may lead to prosecution.

 

[Thinker101]

FBI: "Ms. Skylar, we have evidence that you once cut the tag off a mattress you bought 5 years ago."

Response: You people are nuts. I have nothing to say until I have a lawyer present.

See...that's how it works

Nah, you don't need a lawyer, it'll just be a brief questionnaire.

 

[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.

FBI: "Ms. Skylar, we have evidence that you once cut the tag off a mattress you bought 5 years ago."

You: "I never tore the tag off my mattress."

You go home later to check your mattress and the tag is gone, remembering only then that that you cut it off after your dog vomited on it. Cutting the tag off by the consumer is perfectly legal so you did nothing wrong.

You just lied to the FBI, because they had surveillance video of you cutting off the tag while talking to your Russian counterpart, whom they were watching as part of their counterintelligence operations. They just happened to catch you. Your participation was supposed to be masked because you did nothing wrong, but the photos of you cutting off the tag show up on the front page of the Washing ton Post because the FBI leaked it to them.

The inane babble about mattresses, cheese and moon rocks, I leave to you.

Meanwhile, back in reality......the Supreme Court's findings on the Miranda requirement are clear as a bell:

"....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)

Please note 'stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant'. And by 'custodial interrogation' the courts meant questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody.

Flynn wasn't in custody when he lied to investigators. Destroying your pseudo-legal gibberish yet again.

Your imagination vs. the explicit findings of the Supreme Court have the same winner every time.

Not you.

 

[eagle1462010]

FBI: "Ms. Skylar, we have evidence that you once cut the tag off a mattress you bought 5 years ago."

Response: You people are nuts. I have nothing to say until I have a lawyer present.

See...that's how it works

They set him up playing we are your buddies.............BS.

They waited 7 months before doing the 302's.............which is BS.

3 of the ones involved with this..........ARE FIRED...............

Your side is DIRTY................this just like the Ford BS is how you unethical libs roll.

 

[Skylar]

FBI: "Ms. Skylar, we have evidence that you once cut the tag off a mattress you bought 5 years ago."

Response: You people are nuts. I have nothing to say until I have a lawyer present.

See...that's how it works

Nah, you don't need a lawyer, it'll just be a brief questionnaire.

Flynn doesn't need a lawyer if he's telling the truth.

 

[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

Really, the judges demands are mentioned in the OP. I guess you're in your typical state of confusion.

.

Did you read it?

The hack writer first notes that because of a previous case routinely makes this request...and then claims that the judge thinks there's something nefarious going on Because he made that request

But hey...if Flynn wants to take this to trial I'm sure Mueller would accommodate him. Of course considering everything that Mueller has on him he'll end up in jail so...

 

[Skylar]

FBI: "Ms. Skylar, we have evidence that you once cut the tag off a mattress you bought 5 years ago."

Response: You people are nuts. I have nothing to say until I have a lawyer present.

See...that's how it works

They set him up playing we are your buddies.............BS.

They waited 7 months before doing the 302's.............which is BS.

3 of the ones involved with this..........ARE FIRED...............

Your side is DIRTY................this just like the Ford BS is how you unethical libs roll.

'Your side' is an admitted liar and criminal. Who intentionally lied to the FBI.

But as is so common for Trumpies, they support the criminals. Not the law enforcement officers arresting them.

 

[Thinker101]

FBI: "Ms. Skylar, we have evidence that you once cut the tag off a mattress you bought 5 years ago."

Response: You people are nuts. I have nothing to say until I have a lawyer present.

See...that's how it works

Nah, you don't need a lawyer, it'll just be a brief questionnaire.

Flynn doesn't need a lawyer if he's telling the truth.

Yup, that's exactly what he thought....dumbass.

 

[Lesh]

FBI: "Ms. Skylar, we have evidence that you once cut the tag off a mattress you bought 5 years ago."

Response: You people are nuts. I have nothing to say until I have a lawyer present.

See...that's how it works

Nah, you don't need a lawyer, it'll just be a brief questionnaire.

Flynn doesn't need a lawyer if he's telling the truth.

Nah, you don't need a lawyer, it'll just be a brief questionnaire.

"That's OK...I'd prefer one."

Full stop

 

[OKTexas]

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

Really, the judges demands are mentioned in the OP. I guess you're in your typical state of confusion.

.

Not only that.............the 302's are required documents and the defense has every right under the law to get that copy..............via my last post...........They are violating the law by not disclosing the 302...............which took them 7 months to do .........LOL.. When they are supposed to be done as soon as possible to make sure the agents remember the notes correctly.................OR MAKE SHIT UP TO FRAG SOMEONE like in this case.................

Judge might very well slam them............and they are contempt of court for failing to produce the documents.

Yep, it was a trap from the start as Comey verified.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

Your inability to provide a compelling reason why I would ignore Michael Flynn on Michael's Flynn's guilt is your problem.

Not mine.

Senate chairman: Comey 'led us to believe' Flynn wouldn't be charged

.

 

[Thinker101]

FBI: "Ms. Skylar, we have evidence that you once cut the tag off a mattress you bought 5 years ago."

Response: You people are nuts. I have nothing to say until I have a lawyer present.

See...that's how it works

Nah, you don't need a lawyer, it'll just be a brief questionnaire.

Flynn doesn't need a lawyer if he's telling the truth.

Nah, you don't need a lawyer, it'll just be a brief questionnaire.

"That's OK...I'd prefer one."

Full stop

You need to get on the same page as your buddy Skylar, so is it gotta have a lawyer or you don't need a lawyer if you're telling the truth?