Quote from: Spendulus on February 04, 2020, 07:21:47 PM

Quote from: Viper1 on February 04, 2020, 06:35:03 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on February 04, 2020, 06:23:26 PM

Quote from: Viper1 on February 04, 2020, 05:57:32 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on February 04, 2020, 12:50:31 PM

The reasonable reason to think that Flynn was "entrapped" is because

In what way did they entrap him?

Here is a general article on the matter. Note McCabe and Strzuk's involvement.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-entrapment-11544658915

Do you have a way past the paywall? Disabling JS doesn't work for that one.
---------------
Found some other ones.

So I don't see it. One of the articles I read, despite the message clearly being that he was entrapped, actually pointed out that it appeared all legal. So if it was legal, then in what way was he entrapped?

He's an old guy. He has a ton of life experience. He's been around the block a few times. Even I know it's illegal to do that. And then when it came down to it he said he knew it was illegal to lie to them but did it anyway. He took personal responsibility for his actions. So what's the issue?

If people want to bitch about the law and say it's too broad and gives them too much leeway and the like, then fine. Argue that. That's a valid point and seems correct. But then don't cry about law enforcement doing what they're permitted to do. It's the fault of the politicians for writing crap laws. Put the blame where it belongs. Cause crying about the FBI won't change a damn thing. Bitching about the law to your representatives might if enough do it.

Although you can call it whatever you want, the most common word used to describe what happened to Flynn is "entrapment." I am curious, why would you want to argue about this now? I mean, think about it. These are events from 2016. The beginning of the hunt for the Russians under the bed. The article is from 2018. Today is 2020 and Flynn is likely to see the entire case against him thrown out. And in the four years, people directly involved in the Flynn interview and write-up - Strzok and McCabe - fired. In fair part for their handling of this exact case.

You brought it up and made a statement that it was "reasonable" to assume it was entrapment. And you said the FBI "always" do it.. with a little wiggle room. Strzok and McCabe have no bearing on whether or not it was entrapment.

That article says what I said. Doesn't appear to be anything illegal about it. They don't like it. Want to look at the FBI as bad boys cause that's what the cool kids all do these days. Ok. "Feelings" don't matter. "Commonsense terms" are immaterial... Just facts and the law matter and the facts so far seems to be that what they did was legal. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what the judge says though but from what I was looking at it seems to be that the laws in this area are far too broad and controversial in which case it's the fault of the law makers, not the FBI.

If you want to call it entrapment in order to paint the FBI as part of the "deep state".. or "corrupt".. or "out to get Trump", then fine. Just say that you choose to view it all like that. But that doesn't actually make it entrapment from a legal standpoint.