Was Flynn entrapped?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Checking Robert Mueller
KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL DECEMBER 13, 2018

Robert Mueller has operated for 19 months as a law unto himself, reminding us of the awesome and destructive powers of special counsels. About the only possible check on Mr. Mueller is a judge who is wise to the tricks of prosecutors and investigators. Good news: That’s what we got this week.

Former national security adviser Mike Flynn a year ago pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Mr. Flynn’s defense team this week filed a sentencing memo to Judge Emmet Sullivan that contained explosive new information about the Flynn-FBI meeting in January 2017.

It was arranged by then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who personally called Mr. Flynn on other business, then suggested he sit down with two agents to clear up the Russia question. Mr. McCabe urged Mr. Flynn to conduct the interview with no lawyer present—to make things easier.

The agents (including the infamous Peter Strzok) showed up within two hours. They had already decided not to inform Mr. Flynn that they had transcripts of his conversations or give him the standard warning against lying to the FBI. They wanted him “relaxed” and “unguarded.” Former Director James Comey this weekend bragged on MSNBC that he would never have “gotten away” with such a move in a more “organized” administration.

The whole thing stinks of entrapment, though the curious question was how the Flynn defense team got the details. The court filing refers to a McCabe memo written the day of the 2017 meeting, as well as an FBI summary—known as a 302—of the Flynn interview. These are among documents congressional Republicans have been fighting to obtain for more than a year, only to be stonewalled by the Justice Department. Now we know why the department didn’t want them public.

They have come to light thanks to a man who knows well how men like Messrs. Mueller and Comey operate: Judge Sullivan. He sits on the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, and as he wrote for the Journal last year, he got a “wake-up call” in 2008 while overseeing the trial of then-Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. Judge Sullivan ultimately assigned a lawyer to investigate Justice Department misconduct.

The investigator’s report found prosecutors had engaged in deliberate and repeated ethical violations, withholding key evidence from the defense. It also excoriated the FBI for failing to write up 302s and for omitting key facts from those it did write. The head of the FBI was Mr. Mueller.

Judge Sullivan has since made it his practice to begin every case with a Brady order, which reminds prosecutors of their constitutional obligation to provide the defense with any exculpatory evidence. On Dec. 12, 2017, days after being assigned the Flynn case, Judge Sullivan issued such an order, instructing Mr. Mueller’s team to turn over “any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Had any other judge drawn the case, we likely would never have seen these details of the FBI’s behavior.

It’s clear that something has concerned the judge—who likely sees obvious parallels to the Stevens case. The media was predicting a quick ruling in the Flynn case. Instead, Judge Sullivan issued new orders Wednesday, demanding to see for himself the McCabe memo and the Flynn 302. He also ordered the special counsel to hand over by Friday any other documents relevant to the Flynn-FBI meeting.

Given his history with the FBI, the judge may also have some questions about the curious date on the Flynn 302—Aug. 22, 2017, seven months after the interview. Texts from Mr. Strzok and testimony from Mr. Comey both suggest the 302 was written long before then. Was the 302 edited in the interim? If so, by whom, and at whose direction? FBI officials initially testified to Congress that the agents did not think Mr. Flynn had lied.

Judges have the ability to reject plea deals and require a prosecutor to make a case at trial. The criminal-justice system isn’t only about holding defendants accountable; trials also provide oversight of investigators and their tactics. And judges are not obliged to follow prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations.

No one knows how Judge Sullivan will rule. His reputation is for being no-nonsense, a straight shooter, an advocate of government transparency. Whatever the outcome, he has done the nation a favor by using his Brady order to hold prosecutors to some account and allow the country a glimpse at how federal law enforcement operates. Which is the very least the country can expect.

Outline - Read & annotate without distractions

It is hard not to come to the conclusion that two different forms of justice exist in this country, one for democrats and another for their adversaries. Specifically anyone with ties to Trump.

Oh, and did you know that the iphones issued to Strozk and Page by the SCO were determined BY SOMEONE IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE to contain ‘No substantive texts, notes or reminders', so the phones were wiped clean and restored to factory settings, meaning anything on them was gone. That was done after both of them were removed from the SCO investigation back in the summer of 2017, but given that many within Mueller's organization were friends/supporters/associates/donors to the Clintons, how much credence should we give to those determinations?

We don't know what information was summarily destroyed, but the whole process stinks to high heaven. Maybe it's all coincidental and innocent of wrong-doing, no proof that it wasn't because once again any possible incrimination evidence has been deleted. You know, after awhile a patttern kind of emerges.

The OIG was able to recover more than 19,000 texts between Strozk and Page on their old government-issued Samsung Galaxy S5 devices that had been lost due to the agency’s “collection tool failure.” The OIG did not include the content of these texts in the report. I suspect at some point maybe we'll find out more about what really happened.

DOJ Destroyed Missing Strzok/Page Texts Before IG Reviewed Them

It's simple for flynn, don't lie.

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

.

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?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If they don't advise him of his rights, nothing he says can be used against him.

Says you, citing yourself. Back in reality, Miranda warnings are required after arrest. Which Flynn wasn't when he lied to federal investigators.

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

Despite what you think you might have heard while watching an episode of Law and Order: SVU.....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

How many law classes have you taken or are you just playing one on the Internet?

I'm not quoting me.

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

While you are only quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.

It must be true because I read it on the Internet!

In comparison to what? You citing yourself?

Laughing.....you don't know what you're talking about.

The Miranda warnings are based on the 5th Amendment's right to not self-incriminate. If you think Flynn's rights were not violated by the FBI, you are full of shit.

Or....I don't accept whatever hapless pseudo-legal gibberish you make up as having any relevance.

As your only source....is yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Is that really it? Just you making shit up on a topic you know nothing about and then insisting your imagination is the law?

If so, that was easy.

My source is the United States Constitution. Surely you have heard of it. I am sure the judge has! So sorry for your hopes and dreams to be crushed, but that's what happens to dumbasses every day.

 

[Lesh]

See post 151.

YOU keep telling this lie and I keep demanding quote and link.

And yet you provide nothing.

Stop lying.

 

[Lesh]

His contacts with the Russians were perfectly legal.

I wonder why he lied about those meetings with the Russian Ambassador then?

He lied publicly. He lied to Pence and other in the Admin. nd he told that SME lie to the FBI.

I guess the FBI made him tell all those lies too huh?

Funny how he told those lies BEFORE he talked to the FBI

 

[Skylar]

Says you, citing yourself. Back in reality, Miranda warnings are required after arrest. Which Flynn wasn't when he lied to federal investigators.

Despite what you think you might have heard while watching an episode of Law and Order: SVU.....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

How many law classes have you taken or are you just playing one on the Internet?

I'm not quoting me.

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

While you are only quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.

It must be true because I read it on the Internet!

In comparison to what? You citing yourself?

Laughing.....you don't know what you're talking about.

The Miranda warnings are based on the 5th Amendment's right to not self-incriminate. If you think Flynn's rights were not violated by the FBI, you are full of shit.

Or....I don't accept whatever hapless pseudo-legal gibberish you make up as having any relevance.

As your only source....is yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Is that really it? Just you making shit up on a topic you know nothing about and then insisting your imagination is the law?

If so, that was easy.

My source is the United States Constitution. Surely you have heard of it. I am sure the judge has! So sorry for your hopes and dreams to be crushed, but that's what happens to dumbasses every day.

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.

 

[Lesh]

My source is the United States Constitution. Surely you have heard of it. I am sure the judge has! So sorry for your hopes and dreams to be crushed, but that's what happens to dumbasses every day.

WTF do you think you're talking about?

Where in the Constitution does it say you can lie to the FBI?

 

[OKTexas]

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

.

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.

.

How about NOT lying to federal investigators?

For about the 50th damn time, the interviewers, Comey and McCabe said he didn't. Comey and McCabe said it under oath to congress, should they now be prosecuted for perjury? And yes a link has been provided, feel free to look it up in this thread.

.

And for the 50th time facts proved flynn was lying and he plead guilty.

Funny, those doing the interview attributed it to normal lapses in memory, not an intent to deceive. But your hate will allow you to continue to ignore the facts. Run along commie.

.

 

[Skylar]

It's simple for flynn, don't lie.

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

.

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.

 

[JimH52]

Let's see....the Liar in Chief said he was fired because he lied....Mueller said he lied....Flynn said he lied...

GEE...I GUESS HE LIED!

 

[JimH52]

Says you, citing yourself. Back in reality, Miranda warnings are required after arrest. Which Flynn wasn't when he lied to federal investigators.

Despite what you think you might have heard while watching an episode of Law and Order: SVU.....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

How many law classes have you taken or are you just playing one on the Internet?

I'm not quoting me.

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

While you are only quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.

It must be true because I read it on the Internet!

In comparison to what? You citing yourself?

Laughing.....you don't know what you're talking about.

The Miranda warnings are based on the 5th Amendment's right to not self-incriminate. If you think Flynn's rights were not violated by the FBI, you are full of shit.

Or....I don't accept whatever hapless pseudo-legal gibberish you make up as having any relevance.

As your only source....is yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Is that really it? Just you making shit up on a topic you know nothing about and then insisting your imagination is the law?

If so, that was easy.

My source is the United States Constitution. Surely you have heard of it. I am sure the judge has! So sorry for your hopes and dreams to be crushed, but that's what happens to dumbasses every day.

You realize that John Wayne a conscientious objector who faked being a hero in movies....right?

 

[eagle1462010]

.His conversations with Russians was completely legal.

He probably shouldn't have lied about them then...and he did...over and over.

That's what he was fired for...the lies

It was part of his job dumb ass.......perfectly legal.............He got set up and unless you are a brain dead Liberal you know that........oh.......you are one of those............

They went we are your buddies......thanks for the help on training..........they had the transcipts for the questions they were asking..................He may or may not have remembered correctly..........They stated we he wasn't lying.....

But Mueller needed to turn some screws on his fishing trip................So the ruined the man who served 33 in the service of his country.

3 were FIRED and DISAVOWED...........4 if you count Yates.........One with EXTREME BIAS............

This is BS............this was a SETUP..............and the JUDGE SMELLS A RAT................

 

[Lesh]

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. These rights are often referred to as Mirandarights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings.

Was Flynn in CUSTODY?

No?

He agreed to the interview? He agreed to do so without a lawyer?

Oh

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How many law classes have you taken or are you just playing one on the Internet?

I'm not quoting me.

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

While you are only quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.

It must be true because I read it on the Internet!

In comparison to what? You citing yourself?

Laughing.....you don't know what you're talking about.

The Miranda warnings are based on the 5th Amendment's right to not self-incriminate. If you think Flynn's rights were not violated by the FBI, you are full of shit.

Or....I don't accept whatever hapless pseudo-legal gibberish you make up as having any relevance.

As your only source....is yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Is that really it? Just you making shit up on a topic you know nothing about and then insisting your imagination is the law?

If so, that was easy.

My source is the United States Constitution. Surely you have heard of it. I am sure the judge has! So sorry for your hopes and dreams to be crushed, but that's what happens to dumbasses every day.

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!

 

[Lesh]

Or rather than your stupidly complicated, wildly elaborate and increasingly unhinged conspiracy theory involving everyone from the FBI to the Justice Department to Facebook.......there's a much simpler explaination that's overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

Trump is a liar. And he surrounded himself with liars.

Oh, and as usual.....you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Federal agents only have to read a person their miranda rights if that person is in custody. Which Flynn wasn't when he lied to federal investigators.

Remember Brit.....you're clueless. So your pseudo-legal rants about topics you clearly don't comprehend don't amount to much.

If they don't advise him of his rights, nothing he says can be used against him.

Says you, citing yourself. Back in reality, Miranda warnings are required after arrest. Which Flynn wasn't when he lied to federal investigators.

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

Despite what you think you might have heard while watching an episode of Law and Order: SVU.....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

How many law classes have you taken or are you just playing one on the Internet?

I'm not quoting me.

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

While you are only quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.

It must be true because I read it on the Internet!

The Miranda warnings are based on the 5th Amendment's right to not self-incriminate. If you think Flynn's rights were not violated by the FBI, you are full of shit.

The judge is going to do a tap dance on Mueller's head after he tosses the case and sets Flynn free. We will see next week!

It doesn't matter anyway! Trump has already written his pardon and it is sitting on his desk ready for signature!

Flynn could have refused to talk to the FBI. He did not HAVE to talk to them. He CHOSE to

 

[OKTexas]

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

.

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.

.

How about NOT lying to federal investigators?

For about the 50th damn time, the interviewers, Comey and McCabe said he didn't.

No they didn't. Says who? Says Comey.

“What I recall telling the House Intelligence Committee is that the agents observed none of the common indicia of lying — physical manifestations, changes in tone, changes in pace — that would indicate the person I’m interviewing knows they’re telling me stuff that ain’t true,” Comey said. “They didn’t see that here. It was a natural conversation, answered fully their questions, didn’t avoid. That notwithstanding, they concluded he was lying.”

AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims Flynn didn't lie to FBI

And of course, Flynn insisted that he *did* lie to federal investigators.

You're literally insisting I ignore both Comey AND Flynn on Flynn's crimes....and instead believe you.

Um, why would any rational person ever do that?

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

.

 

[eagle1462010]

My source is the United States Constitution. Surely you have heard of it. I am sure the judge has! So sorry for your hopes and dreams to be crushed, but that's what happens to dumbasses every day.

WTF do you think you're talking about?

Where in the Constitution does it say you can lie to the FBI?

Where in the Constitution does it say the FBI can Lie under oath and get away with it........when they do the same to others for smaller reasons...............hmmmm

 

[Care4all]

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.'"

 

[Lesh]

I'm not quoting me.

While you are only quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.

It must be true because I read it on the Internet!

In comparison to what? You citing yourself?

Laughing.....you don't know what you're talking about.

The Miranda warnings are based on the 5th Amendment's right to not self-incriminate. If you think Flynn's rights were not violated by the FBI, you are full of shit.

Or....I don't accept whatever hapless pseudo-legal gibberish you make up as having any relevance.

As your only source....is yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Is that really it? Just you making shit up on a topic you know nothing about and then insisting your imagination is the law?

If so, that was easy.

My source is the United States Constitution. Surely you have heard of it. I am sure the judge has! So sorry for your hopes and dreams to be crushed, but that's what happens to dumbasses every day.

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!

Hey shit for brains. The 5th Amendment only says that you can choose to keep your mouth shut.

He CHOSE not to

 

[OKTexas]

My source is the United States Constitution. Surely you have heard of it. I am sure the judge has! So sorry for your hopes and dreams to be crushed, but that's what happens to dumbasses every day.

WTF do you think you're talking about?

Where in the Constitution does it say you can lie to the FBI?

The FBI can be found no where in the Constitution.

.

 

[Dragonlady]

Or rather than your stupidly complicated, wildly elaborate and increasingly unhinged conspiracy theory involving everyone from the FBI to the Justice Department to Facebook.......there's a much simpler explaination that's overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

Trump is a liar. And he surrounded himself with liars.

Oh, and as usual.....you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Federal agents only have to read a person their miranda rights if that person is in custody. Which Flynn wasn't when he lied to federal investigators.

Remember Brit.....you're clueless. So your pseudo-legal rants about topics you clearly don't comprehend don't amount to much.

If they don't advise him of his rights, nothing he says can be used against him.

Says you, citing yourself. Back in reality, Miranda warnings are required after arrest. Which Flynn wasn't when he lied to federal investigators.

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

Despite what you think you might have heard while watching an episode of Law and Order: SVU.....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

How many law classes have you taken or are you just playing one on the Internet?

I'm not quoting me.

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

While you are only quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.

It must be true because I read it on the Internet!

The Miranda warnings are based on the 5th Amendment's right to not self-incriminate. If you think Flynn's rights were not violated by the FBI, you are full of shit.

The judge is going to do a tap dance on Mueller's head after he tosses the case and sets Flynn free. We will see next week!

It doesn't matter anyway! Trump has already written his pardon and it is sitting on his desk ready for signature!

None of that is going to happen because nothing you posted has any relationship to the facts.

Flynn wasn't arrested for talking to Russian officials. That wasn't illegal. He was arrested for LYING to the FBI about talking to Russian officials. Flynn was telling people in government and the media he hadn't talked to the Russian ambassador and the FBI knew that was a lie. There could have been a very good reason why he was lying, but when the FBI asked Flynn about the lie, he LIED to them.