Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Uh, where? Do you mean the interview prep notes? That's not entrapment. So I assume you're referring to something else?

If they did what they put in the prep notes, it is entrapment.
Also, the prosecutor is in trouble if there was a "side deal." If there was and it was not in the plea agreement, the judge must dismiss the case.

Entrapment strategy: Ask him a question. He'll lie.

That's a pretty sorry NSA. But you're correct that's why Trump was never questioned under oath. Because he cannot speak without lying. No wonder he likes Flynn so much.

PS - there was no side deal.

Really? If they knew he was going to lie, there shouldn't have been the need for a "strategy" to "get him to lie". Why do you need to "get him to lie" if you already know he is going to do it?

It wasn't much of a strategy. They went to the White House, asked him if he wanted counsel, he declined, and then asked if he spoke to Russia. He said no. He lied.

According to testimony, they said he could have counsel, but that he didn't need it and the interview would go faster without it.

Anonymous wrote:When you ask yourselves what your goal is--truth or to get him to lie, there is a problem.

Yes, Misha, there's a problem. A felony.

When you ask yourselves what your goal is--truth or to get him to lie, there is a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Uh, where? Do you mean the interview prep notes? That's not entrapment. So I assume you're referring to something else?

If they did what they put in the prep notes, it is entrapment.
Also, the prosecutor is in trouble if there was a "side deal." If there was and it was not in the plea agreement, the judge must dismiss the case.

Entrapment strategy: Ask him a question. He'll lie.

That's a pretty sorry NSA. But you're correct that's why Trump was never questioned under oath. Because he cannot speak without lying. No wonder he likes Flynn so much.

PS - there was no side deal.

Really? If they knew he was going to lie, there shouldn't have been the need for a "strategy" to "get him to lie". Why do you need to "get him to lie" if you already know he is going to do it?

Remember the timeline. The phone call was in December. Then in January, Flynn lied to Priebus about it, to Pence, to Spicer. Pence and Spicer both publicly repeated his lie, that he didn't discuss anything. So the FBI went to him to clear up the misunderstanding. He could have explained. He could have refused to answer. Instead he repeated his lie.

That's not entrapment. It's lying. He was lying to cover up the Logan Act violation, which was basically bad form, a faux pas. Instead he lied to everyone, including Pence and the FBI. He was fired, then charged, then pleaded guilty to the felony.

They went to him to get him to "clear up the misunderstanding", yet their "strategy" (from the notes) was to get him to lie/prosecute him?

This conspiracy is brought to you by the same people who brought you Seth Rich, Pizzagate and UraniumOne

Why do you enjoy being lied to so?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Uh, where? Do you mean the interview prep notes? That's not entrapment. So I assume you're referring to something else?

If they did what they put in the prep notes, it is entrapment.
Also, the prosecutor is in trouble if there was a "side deal." If there was and it was not in the plea agreement, the judge must dismiss the case.

Entrapment strategy: Ask him a question. He'll lie.

That's a pretty sorry NSA. But you're correct that's why Trump was never questioned under oath. Because he cannot speak without lying. No wonder he likes Flynn so much.

PS - there was no side deal.

Really? If they knew he was going to lie, there shouldn't have been the need for a "strategy" to "get him to lie". Why do you need to "get him to lie" if you already know he is going to do it?

Remember the timeline. The phone call was in December. Then in January, Flynn lied to Priebus about it, to Pence, to Spicer. Pence and Spicer both publicly repeated his lie, that he didn't discuss anything. So the FBI went to him to clear up the misunderstanding. He could have explained. He could have refused to answer. Instead he repeated his lie.

That's not entrapment. It's lying. He was lying to cover up the Logan Act violation, which was basically bad form, a faux pas. Instead he lied to everyone, including Pence and the FBI. He was fired, then charged, then pleaded guilty to the felony.

They went to him to get him to "clear up the misunderstanding", yet their "strategy" (from the notes) was to get him to lie/prosecute him?

Yes, they used their FBI skills to suspect that he might lie to them. They prepared for what he might say, including if he would lie. And that's what he did.

No. Their goal was to get him to lie so they could prosecute him. It's in their notes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Uh, where? Do you mean the interview prep notes? That's not entrapment. So I assume you're referring to something else?

If they did what they put in the prep notes, it is entrapment.
Also, the prosecutor is in trouble if there was a "side deal." If there was and it was not in the plea agreement, the judge must dismiss the case.

Entrapment strategy: Ask him a question. He'll lie.

That's a pretty sorry NSA. But you're correct that's why Trump was never questioned under oath. Because he cannot speak without lying. No wonder he likes Flynn so much.

PS - there was no side deal.

Really? If they knew he was going to lie, there shouldn't have been the need for a "strategy" to "get him to lie". Why do you need to "get him to lie" if you already know he is going to do it?

Remember the timeline. The phone call was in December. Then in January, Flynn lied to Priebus about it, to Pence, to Spicer. Pence and Spicer both publicly repeated his lie, that he didn't discuss anything. So the FBI went to him to clear up the misunderstanding. He could have explained. He could have refused to answer. Instead he repeated his lie.

That's not entrapment. It's lying. He was lying to cover up the Logan Act violation, which was basically bad form, a faux pas. Instead he lied to everyone, including Pence and the FBI. He was fired, then charged, then pleaded guilty to the felony.

They went to him to get him to "clear up the misunderstanding", yet their "strategy" (from the notes) was to get him to lie/prosecute him?

Yes, they used their FBI skills to suspect that he might lie to them. They prepared for what he might say, including if he would lie. And that's what he did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Uh, where? Do you mean the interview prep notes? That's not entrapment. So I assume you're referring to something else?

If they did what they put in the prep notes, it is entrapment.
Also, the prosecutor is in trouble if there was a "side deal." If there was and it was not in the plea agreement, the judge must dismiss the case.

Entrapment strategy: Ask him a question. He'll lie.

That's a pretty sorry NSA. But you're correct that's why Trump was never questioned under oath. Because he cannot speak without lying. No wonder he likes Flynn so much.

PS - there was no side deal.

Really? If they knew he was going to lie, there shouldn't have been the need for a "strategy" to "get him to lie". Why do you need to "get him to lie" if you already know he is going to do it?

Remember the timeline. The phone call was in December. Then in January, Flynn lied to Priebus about it, to Pence, to Spicer. Pence and Spicer both publicly repeated his lie, that he didn't discuss anything. So the FBI went to him to clear up the misunderstanding. He could have explained. He could have refused to answer. Instead he repeated his lie.

That's not entrapment. It's lying. He was lying to cover up the Logan Act violation, which was basically bad form, a faux pas. Instead he lied to everyone, including Pence and the FBI. He was fired, then charged, then pleaded guilty to the felony.

They went to him to get him to "clear up the misunderstanding", yet their "strategy" (from the notes) was to get him to lie/prosecute him?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Uh, where? Do you mean the interview prep notes? That's not entrapment. So I assume you're referring to something else?

If they did what they put in the prep notes, it is entrapment.
Also, the prosecutor is in trouble if there was a "side deal." If there was and it was not in the plea agreement, the judge must dismiss the case.

Entrapment strategy: Ask him a question. He'll lie.

That's a pretty sorry NSA. But you're correct that's why Trump was never questioned under oath. Because he cannot speak without lying. No wonder he likes Flynn so much.

PS - there was no side deal.

Really? If they knew he was going to lie, there shouldn't have been the need for a "strategy" to "get him to lie". Why do you need to "get him to lie" if you already know he is going to do it?

It wasn't much of a strategy. They went to the White House, asked him if he wanted counsel, he declined, and then asked if he spoke to Russia. He said no. He lied.

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Clearly you have neither a law degree or past experience as a prosecutor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Uh, where? Do you mean the interview prep notes? That's not entrapment. So I assume you're referring to something else?

If they did what they put in the prep notes, it is entrapment.
Also, the prosecutor is in trouble if there was a "side deal." If there was and it was not in the plea agreement, the judge must dismiss the case.

Entrapment strategy: Ask him a question. He'll lie.

That's a pretty sorry NSA. But you're correct that's why Trump was never questioned under oath. Because he cannot speak without lying. No wonder he likes Flynn so much.

PS - there was no side deal.

Really? If they knew he was going to lie, there shouldn't have been the need for a "strategy" to "get him to lie". Why do you need to "get him to lie" if you already know he is going to do it?

Remember the timeline. The phone call was in December. Then in January, Flynn lied to Priebus about it, to Pence, to Spicer. Pence and Spicer both publicly repeated his lie, that he didn't discuss anything. So the FBI went to him to clear up the misunderstanding. He could have explained. He could have refused to answer. Instead he repeated his lie.

That's not entrapment. It's lying. He was lying to cover up the Logan Act violation, which was basically bad form, a faux pas. Instead he lied to everyone, including Pence and the FBI. He was fired, then charged, then pleaded guilty to the felony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Uh, where? Do you mean the interview prep notes? That's not entrapment. So I assume you're referring to something else?

If they did what they put in the prep notes, it is entrapment.
Also, the prosecutor is in trouble if there was a "side deal." If there was and it was not in the plea agreement, the judge must dismiss the case.

Entrapment strategy: Ask him a question. He'll lie.

That's a pretty sorry NSA. But you're correct that's why Trump was never questioned under oath. Because he cannot speak without lying. No wonder he likes Flynn so much.

PS - there was no side deal.

“We have a lawyers’ unofficial understanding that [prosecutors] are unlikely to charge Junior in light of the Cooperation Agreement,” -- from 1st released email.

It was not in the plea deal. Thus, a side deal.

If the prosecutors say there's no side deal, there's no side deal. How could there be?

If it's not in the agreement, it's not in the agreement.

Because there was no "official" deal...i.e. one that Flynn knew about. If there was, they would have had to disclose it.

That is WHY there WAS an "official understanding" between counsel.

**unofficial

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Uh, where? Do you mean the interview prep notes? That's not entrapment. So I assume you're referring to something else?

If they did what they put in the prep notes, it is entrapment.
Also, the prosecutor is in trouble if there was a "side deal." If there was and it was not in the plea agreement, the judge must dismiss the case.

Entrapment strategy: Ask him a question. He'll lie.

That's a pretty sorry NSA. But you're correct that's why Trump was never questioned under oath. Because he cannot speak without lying. No wonder he likes Flynn so much.

PS - there was no side deal.

“We have a lawyers’ unofficial understanding that [prosecutors] are unlikely to charge Junior in light of the Cooperation Agreement,” -- from 1st released email.

It was not in the plea deal. Thus, a side deal.

If the prosecutors say there's no side deal, there's no side deal. How could there be?

If it's not in the agreement, it's not in the agreement.

Because there was no "official" deal...i.e. one that Flynn knew about. If there was, they would have had to disclose it.

That is WHY there WAS an "official understanding" between counsel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Uh, where? Do you mean the interview prep notes? That's not entrapment. So I assume you're referring to something else?

If they did what they put in the prep notes, it is entrapment.
Also, the prosecutor is in trouble if there was a "side deal." If there was and it was not in the plea agreement, the judge must dismiss the case.

Entrapment strategy: Ask him a question. He'll lie.

That's a pretty sorry NSA. But you're correct that's why Trump was never questioned under oath. Because he cannot speak without lying. No wonder he likes Flynn so much.

PS - there was no side deal.

Really? If they knew he was going to lie, there shouldn't have been the need for a "strategy" to "get him to lie". Why do you need to "get him to lie" if you already know he is going to do it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Uh, where? Do you mean the interview prep notes? That's not entrapment. So I assume you're referring to something else?

If they did what they put in the prep notes, it is entrapment.
Also, the prosecutor is in trouble if there was a "side deal." If there was and it was not in the plea agreement, the judge must dismiss the case.

Entrapment strategy: Ask him a question. He'll lie.

That's a pretty sorry NSA. But you're correct that's why Trump was never questioned under oath. Because he cannot speak without lying. No wonder he likes Flynn so much.

PS - there was no side deal.

“We have a lawyers’ unofficial understanding that [prosecutors] are unlikely to charge Junior in light of the Cooperation Agreement,” -- from 1st released email.

It was not in the plea deal. Thus, a side deal.

If the prosecutors say there's no side deal, there's no side deal. How could there be?

If it's not in the agreement, it's not in the agreement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you believe the FBI agents are guilty of?

Entrapment. They put it in writing.

Uh, where? Do you mean the interview prep notes? That's not entrapment. So I assume you're referring to something else?

If they did what they put in the prep notes, it is entrapment.
Also, the prosecutor is in trouble if there was a "side deal." If there was and it was not in the plea agreement, the judge must dismiss the case.

Entrapment strategy: Ask him a question. He'll lie.

That's a pretty sorry NSA. But you're correct that's why Trump was never questioned under oath. Because he cannot speak without lying. No wonder he likes Flynn so much.

PS - there was no side deal.

“We have a lawyers’ unofficial understanding that [prosecutors] are unlikely to charge Junior in light of the Cooperation Agreement,” -- from 1st released email.

It was not in the plea deal. Thus, a side deal.