...
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. ....
If you want to call it entrapment in order to paint the FBI ....
There is no need to impute motive to me when many articles use the phrase to describe the FBI actions. You are now making things up. From the article.
Yet in commonsense terms, what McCabe and his agents did was obviously entrapment. It may even have crossed the official legal line of entrapment to the effect that Flynns conviction might be thrown out. At first perusal, it appears to have done so....
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. ...
How much do you understand about FBI standard operating procedure? Google "FBI entrapment" maybe add "drugs".
OR if you still have problems understanding, go to Glocktalk.com, discussion forum for gun owners but mostly LEO, and ask the simple question, "Is entrapment a typical FBI technique." I am not seeing where you have a problem with me. You have a problem trying to thread a needle to get to some desirable conclusions, but that's no concern of mine.