The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
The Case of General Michael Flynn: the Use of Law as a Political Weapon
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The audacious corruption of the FBI and the US Department of Justice (sic) is demonstrated by their frame-up of the three-star general, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and National Security Adviser to President Donald Trump.

US Department of Justice (DOJ) documents that the department was forced to turn over to General Michael Flynn’s attorney reveal that the FBI found no wrongdoing by Flynn in its investigation of him and recommended the investigation be closed. Corrupt FBI official Peter Strzok, a leader of the anti-Trump cabal in the FBI, intervened. Strzok convinced the official managing the investigation not to close the case as it was the wishes of the “7th floor” (top FBI officials) to keep the case open. In the absence of evidence against Flynn, released FBI documents prove that the FBI leadership decided to frame General Flynn. The documents reveal that the FBI’s plan is “to get him (Flynn) to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired. . . . we should try to frame them in a way we want.” General Flynn was forced to incriminate himself with a guilty plea. Otherwise, the corrupt DOJ prosecutors threatened to indict Flynn’s son.

When this proof of egregious government misconduct came to light, the DOJ had no choice but to drop the case against General Flynn. Otherwise it would be clear that law in the US is a weapon in the hands of government. This would mean that control of government would be a life and death matter for the two political parties as it is in Ecuador and Bolivia where incoming presidents arrest or attempt to arrest outgoing presidents.

But we didn’t hear a word about the frame-up of General Flynn from the corrupt presstitutes. On May 7 the editorial board of the New York Times published the largest and most egregious collection of lies in the entire history of the disreputable organization. The editorial— “Don’t Forget, Michael Flynn Pleaded Guilty. Twice.” —claimed the lies coerced from Flynn proved Flynn’s guilt, and that Attorney General William Barr is a “personal fixer for the president” and used the Department of Justice to protect friends and to go after political enemies.

The New York Times has it backwards. Going after political enemies is precisely what the Obama Regime’s concocted case against General Flynn (and Trump) was all about. Remember, it was General Flynn who said on television that it was a “willful decision” of the Obama Regime to send the mercenary jihadists to attack Syria, a decision Obama made in the face of contrary advice by General Flynn, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. When Flynn revealed this, it blew up the fake news story spread by the Obama Regime and the presstitutes that the Obama-supported invasion of Syria by CIA mercenaries was an uprising by Syrian moderates fighting for democracy. Flynn’s blood is blood that the corrupt Obama Regime wanted very badly.

Obama’s role in the frame-up of Flynn and the orchestration of the Russiagate hoax is now coming to light, making the former president nervous. On May 10 the Wall Street Journal editorial board asked if Obama’s nerves are getting in the way of his judgment:

“Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn. Since the former President chose to offer his legal views when he didn’t need to, we wonder what he’s really worried about.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-on-michael-flynn-11589148648

The Democrats’ frame-up of General Flynn and their two attempted frame-ups of President Trump show an extraordinary audacity and a corruptly compliant FBI and DOJ. They thought that they could get away with it, and, of course, they had all the help possible from the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the presstitute scum for whom lies are the currency of their fake news realm. The presstitutes have made clear that the US media is devoid of integrity.

After high officials such as James Clapper, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and others repeatedly claimed evidence of Trump and Flynn’s guilt, when under oath their story changed 180 degrees. Here is Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Susan Rice, Obama’s incompetent National Security Adviser, and Samantha Power, Obama’s Russia-baiting ambassador to the UN, along with the rest of the disreputable Obama cabal, have admitted that they saw no specific evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia. The entire thing was an orchestrated hoax that proves beyond all doubt that the Democrat Party and the US media are corrupt beyond redemption.

When the case against Flynn was dropped as a result of the damning evidence of egregious government misconduct in framing a senior official of the US government, the corrupt prosecutors who had prosecuted the innocent Flynn all resigned in a huff, pretending that it was Barr, not them, who used the Department of Justice for self-interested political purpose.

ORDER IT NOW

Two Georgetown University law professors, Kean K. Katyal and Joshua A. Geltzer, totally discredited themselves and the Obama contingent in the DOJ, by alleging in the New York Times that the dropped charge against Flynn has resulted in the “utter demoralization” of “the law enforcement community.” In other words, for these law professors and “the law enforcement community” for which they claim to speak, dropping a case consisting entirely of an orchestrated frame-up, a contrived perjury trap, and threats against family members is demoralizing. The professors are so thoroughly dishonest that they use the lies coerced from Flynn—the price of his “cooperation with the investigation” in order that his son would not also be framed-up—as “evidence” of Flynn’s guilt and proof of the political use of the Justice Department by Trump and Barr in dropping the contrived case.

The frame-up of Flynn is not acknowledged by the law professors as political use of the Justice Department. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/opinion/michael-flynn-trump-barr.html

Instead the law professors describe the vindication of an innocent man on the basis of undeniable evidence as political use of the Justice Department.

If this is the kind of law Georgetown University teaches, the law school should be promptly shut down.

The question that demands an answer is how do people as corrupt and devoid of integrity as Comey, Mueller, and Strzok get into top FBI positions?

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 39 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:

    FBI documents prove that the FBI leadership decided to frame General Flynn.

    This is standard modus operandi for the FBI – entrapment and blackmail. The only terrorist attacks the FBI prevents are the ones it instigates itself. Even after the Russians warned the FBI about the Tsarnaev brothers terrorist intent, the FBI failed to prevent the Boston marathon bombing.

    The public is propagandized with TV shows like Bones when in reality FBI labs have been repeatedly shut down for incompetence and test forgery. There is no reforming the FBI. It should have never been formed and needs to be immediately disbanded. The Justice Department got along without a permanent investigative force before the FBI. It can do so again.

    • Agree: Nosquat Loquat
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @SBaker
  2. Even after the Russians warned the FBI about the Tsarnaev brothers terrorist intent, the FBI failed to prevent the Boston marathon bombing.

    That narrative, like 9/11, has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.

    • Agree: Nosquat Loquat
  3. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    The question that demands an answer is how do people as corrupt and devoid of integrity as Comey, Mueller, and Strzok get into top FBI positions?

    This needed to be framed as a question?

    By the way, none above the level of Strzok will even be charged. A part of the puppet show to get out the Team Red vote.

  4. Separation of church and state means the court system is not confessional. Why should the accused person have to plead either way? Modern legal systems like the German one don’t allow a guilty plea. So the diabolical system of plea bargaining can’t exist there.

    So America needs to have a real separation of church and state.

    And advertising should be for love, not a form of prostitution. Ban paid advertising and there would be a free press, not presstitutes.

    We know that news sites that don’t advertise, like SOTT and ICH, are trustworthy new sources but the MSM are not.

  5. Corvinus says:
    @anon

    “This is standard modus operandi for the FBI – entrapment and blackmail.”

    That would be your wild imagination.

    The truth of the matter is that the handling of the Flynn case raises questions about the politicization of the Justice Department led by Barr, which is intent on protecting the president and undermining the outcomes of the Russia investigation. You would think the author of this piece would know better, as DOJ documents found wrongdoing of Flynn.

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-redux-what-those-fbi-documents-really-show

    • Replies: @Anon
  6. SBaker says:
    @anon

    Here’s a tip: there have been over a thousand terrorist cells busted in the US alone since 911.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @jack daniels
  7. SBaker says:

    Nonsense. You don’t know anyone that was there nor do you even care.

  8. Beb says:

    The question that demands an answer is how do people as corrupt and devoid of integrity as Comey, Mueller, and Strzok get into top FBI positions?

    A very good question! I hope that we can get to the bottom of it.

    • Replies: @SBaker
  9. PCR spot on.

    “Remember, it was General Flynn who said on television that it was a “willful decision” of the Obama Regime to send the mercenary jihadists to attack Syria, a decision Obama made in the face of contrary advice by General Flynn, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. When Flynn revealed this, it blew up the fake news story spread by the Obama Regime and the presstitutes that the Obama-supported invasion of Syria by CIA mercenaries was an uprising by Syrian moderates fighting for democracy. Flynn’s blood is blood that the corrupt Obama Regime wanted very badly.”

    This is the key right here. Very few on the right, not even the die-hard Trump defenders at Fox, will come out and state this very obvious truth. The Deep State has been freaking out, from the very day of Trump’s election, that the new administration would reverse their disastrous genocidal Middle Eastern policies and frontal confrontation with Russia. This is the reason for every single obstacle they’ve thrown up in Trump’s face: Flynn, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, and so on down the line. They want, at all costs, to maintain the “full spectrum dominance” policies that have brought the world to the brink.

    Would they be insane enough to release a bioweapon into the world, one just powerful enough to sow global chaos but not so deadly as to wipe out the human race, just to throw up another obstacle?

    Given their track record, we have to ask ourselves that question.

    • Agree: idrankwhat
    • Replies: @jack daniels
  10. SBaker says:
    @Beb

    How do half the lawyers and judges in the country turn corrupt? Bribery and personal politics. Politics is the most horrid infectious disease on the planet. Follow that closely with the superstitious conspiracy fabrications.

  11. Anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    “This is standard modus operandi for the FBI – entrapment and blackmail.”

    That would be your wild imagination.

    You are just showing your ignorance of events that should be common knowledge to you. Here is one famous example of FBI blackmail.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter

    One of many FBI entrapment examples besides the obvious Flynn case.

    https://narsol.org/2016/11/fbi-commits-crime-to-entrap-american-citizens-operates-half-of-child-porn-websites/

    The truth of the matter is that the handling of the Flynn case raises questions about the politicization of the Justice Department led by Barr, which is intent on protecting the president and undermining the outcomes of the Russia investigation.

    The trust is that William Barr is trying rectify the injustice done to Flynn and some of the massive politicization of the Obama Justice Department where Eric Holder resigned rather than be impeached.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  12. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @SBaker

    Here’s a tip: there have been over a thousand terrorist cells busted in the US alone since 911.

    Yes, we should thank the brave men and women of the FBI for saving us from the terror plots they manufacture.

    https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots-terrorism-isis-grave-threats/

    • Replies: @anon
  13. You don’t say . . . members of government framing people and manufacturing cases for which to prosecute or creating environments that manufacture a reason to prosecute —-

    you don’t say.

    Very interesting.

    Lying on official documents, perjuring themselves . . . creating hostile environments, interested parties directly supporting or do so by implicitly for their own political ends —

    Hmmmm . . you don’t say.

    Standing and sitting in courts of law and telling out and out lies . . .

    You don’t say.

    Interesting clerks, judges, and staff researchers aiding in the same . . . .

    Say it ain’t so . . . say it ain’t so.

    Interesting.

  14. Corvinus says:
    @Anon

    “You are just showing your ignorance of events that should be common knowledge to you.”

    Actually, I am quite aware of INSTANCES of the FBI engaging in malfeasance. I was not denying that fact. But what I am questioning is your assertion: This is standard modus operandi for the FBI – entrapment and blackmail. In order to prove it, then you must review every single FBI case, explain how/why their investigation entailed those two tactics, and then note an overall pattern. Best wishes on your endeavor.

    I would imagine that with the FBI and their child porn sting operations, most normal Americans would agree that with this specific type of crime there needs to enhanced methods to catch pedophiles. There is scant sympathy for this pedophiles and child porn peddlers. There is no hesitation in handing down “Guilty” verdicts on the part of the general public, even if judges and lawyers call into question FBI tactics that raise ethical concerns.

    By the way, don’t call the FBI if and when one of your loved one’s is ever involved in a federal case, whether it be because they engaged in criminal activity or if they were a victim of criminal activity (heaven forbid). Just take matters into your own hands, Charles Bronson style. Snicker snack.

    “One of many FBI entrapment examples besides the obvious Flynn case.”

    No, it is NOT an example.

    “The trust is that William Barr is trying rectify the injustice done to Flynn.”

    We do know that Barr is Trump’s bitch. And, remember, Trump does rely on a number of Jews for political advice. Perhaps Barr should draw his attention on “the tribe”?

    • Replies: @anon
    , @The Alarmist
  15. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    Actually, I am quite aware of INSTANCES of the FBI engaging in malfeasance. I was not denying that fact. But what I am questioning is your assertion: This is standard modus operandi for the FBI – entrapment and blackmail. In order to prove it, then you must review every single FBI case, explain how/why their investigation entailed those two tactics, and then note an overall pattern. Best wishes on your endeavor.

    No I don’t. I just need to show that these tactics, like COINTELPRO were ordered by the FBI director himself. These weren’t some lower level bad apples. This was policy instituted from the top.

    I would imagine that with the FBI and their child porn sting operations, most normal Americans would agree that with this specific type of crime there needs to enhanced methods to catch pedophiles.

    I see. No constitutional rights for all Americans for you. Where do these enhanced methods stop for you? Water boarding? Sleep depravation? Maybe we should just preemptively execute people who we think may some day commit a crime rather than followIng the constitution. It’s sad to see Americans who don’t understand that the constitution is for everyone and not just people we like.

    “One of many FBI entrapment examples besides the obvious Flynn case.”

    No, it is NOT an example.

    Yes it is. Did you not read the FBI declassified notes which shows that the FBI strategy was to trick Flynn to lie? It’s also a perfect example of FBI blackmail where the FBI threatened to go after Flynn’s son unless he plead guilty. Not to mention the corrupt relationship between Flynn’s lawyers from Obama admin Eric Holder’s Covington law firm and the FBI. Flynn’s lawyers were supposed to be working for him, not for the FBI.

    By the way, don’t call the FBI if and when one of your loved one’s is ever involved in a federal case, whether it be because they engaged in criminal activity or if they were a victim of criminal activity

    Not being insane and not wanting to be subjected to FBI malfeasance, why would I or anyone call the FBI for anything?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  16. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    It’s still early but it looks like we may have another real terrorist attack the FBI failed to prevent while it was busy entrapping harmless drug addicts and retards for terrorism.

    https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/05/21/security-forces-member-at-nas-corpus-christi-injured-during-active-shooter-situation-shooter-neutralized-officials-say/

  17. Just when he thought he was out, they pulled him back in. The Judge, not accepting the DoJ decision to drop the case at face value, has decided to make himself jury and executioner as well by taking a novel tack that Flynn committed criminal contempt by pleading guilty and then retracting.

  18. @SBaker

    No doubt “alleged.” How curious that the remaining cells haven’t killed more than a handful of people. Worth a few trillion dollars? I think not.

  19. @Nosquat Loquat

    The only piece of the puzzle you have omitted is the reason they hate Russia. My theory: Russia is a nuclear power so we can’t bully them easily, and with Communism gone Russia is returning to its status as a Christian nation, which many Jews see as a slippery slope to Nazism. Russia potentially provides a valuable ally for other slavic states intending to recover their autonomy viz a viz the West. Many ex-communist oligarchs have been kicked out by Putin. They have parlayed their riches into political power in the West. They hope to regain control of Russia by replacing Putin with a “Democratic” leader. This is why we meddle extensively in Russian elections.

  20. Corvinus says:
    @anon

    “like COINTELPRO were ordered by the FBI director himself.”

    We know of these instances. In that context, COINTELPRO was a conservative reaction by the FBI to liberal civil rights groups deemed radical and subversive. This particular action does not mean the FBI pervasively and systematically cultivates entrapment and blackmail all of the time, in every single case or in most cases. If we assume your logic, then hundreds of cases each year would be in legal jeopardy due to these tactics, and there would be widespread reporting of these ongoing issues which led to the release of suspected criminals. No, you have to provide significant documentary evidence that there has been or is an ongoing plan in every or most FBI cases that they employed those two methods. If a distinct pattern was found of perpetual, continual misconduct, then your assertion would be true.

    “These weren’t some lower level bad apples. This was policy instituted from the top.”

    COINTELPRO by a conservative in the FBI at that time against (alleged) liberal “extremists”.

    “I see. No constitutional rights for all Americans for you.”

    That would be a strawman on your part.

    “Where do these enhanced methods stop for you? Water boarding? Sleep depravation?”

    Yes and yes.

    “Yes it is. Did you not read the FBI declassified notes which shows that the FBI strategy was to trick Flynn to lie? It’s also a perfect example of FBI blackmail where the FBI threatened to go after Flynn’s son unless he plead guilty.”

    I understand what I’m about to say seemingly is contradictory to my position, but the fact of the matter is that law does not prohibit the FBI lying to you. Federal agents can deceive you, lie to you, trick you, and misrepresent the truth. These tactics are common practice and have the support of Supreme Court decisions. Hate to break it to you, but deceptive interrogation practices are generally allowable, albeit there are limits, and deservedly so.

    https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/05/jn

    Now, I do agree that if a defendant believes the FBI or the police have overstepped their constitutional bounds, then he/she has the liberty to pursue that matter in court.

    “Not to mention the corrupt relationship between Flynn’s lawyers from Obama admin Eric Holder’s Covington law firm and the FBI. Flynn’s lawyers were supposed to be working for him, not for the FBI.”

    Perhaps, perhaps not.

    “why would I or anyone call the FBI for anything?”

    Feel free to go that route, but that would not be wise if you or your loved ones required their level of expertise.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @the shadow
  21. There is a cover-up still going on in the Flynn case. Release the taped conversations between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak! Judge Sullivan couldn’t get them from the Trump Justice Department. The whole case revolves around those tapes, and yet no one seems interested in hearing them! Those tapes released would make everything crystal clear, and we would know the truth.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  22. MarkinLA says:
    @MInnesota Mary

    Know what truth? There has never been any assertion that Flynn ever said anything even remotely out of bounds. The whole case against him is that they got him to say something they could present as untruthful based on a conversation they had taped and knew what he said.

    What would we learn? Did you say to Kislyak …..? Flynn No. We have it on tape that you said it. Blah, blah, blah.

    • Agree: SBaker
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  23. @Corvinus

    Actually, I am quite aware of INSTANCES of the FBI engaging in malfeasance.

    Are you sure is wasn’t mere misfeasance?

  24. @MarkinLA

    Know what truth? There has never been any assertion that Flynn ever said anything even remotely out of bounds. The whole case against him is that they got him to say something they could present as untruthful based on a conversation they had taped and knew what he said.

    At the time of Flynn’s firing, there was some buzz that he had made a significant amount of money in dealings with the Turkish government. He might have been subjected to the §1001 charge for political reasons, but the firing was likely about something else.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  25. MarkinLA says:
    @The Alarmist

    His lawyer Sidney Powell wants the call made public but I am not sure why. There are videos where people are suggesting that Flynn was talking about exposing the Obama policies he disagreed with (to simplify it). All that would show was that the Obama administration was attacking him vindictively since we know Obama is not going to be charged and likely none of the others will also. I am not sure it would do much but tarnish Obama’s image to right wingers but the press would make it out that Flynn was some kind of traitor since Obama is the greatest American hero since Washington and everything he ever did was for the good of the country.

    I believe the firing was just because he lied. Probably about something insignificant but Trump could not afford to look weak and allow people into his administration that thought they could lie to his (actually Pence’s) face.

  26. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    We know of these instances. In that context, COINTELPRO was a conservative reaction by the FBI to liberal civil rights groups deemed radical and subversive.

    COINTELPRO spanned both the Kennedy and Johnson administration and targeted right wing groups as well. Your characterization of the FBI only targeting left wing groups is not only misleading but factually incorrect.

    This particular action does not mean the FBI pervasively and systematically cultivates entrapment and blackmail all of the time, in every single case or in most cases. If we assume your logic, then hundreds of cases each year would be in legal jeopardy due to these tactics, and there would be widespread reporting of these ongoing issues which led to the release of suspected criminals.

    They would only be in legal jeopardy if they were exposed. Do you actually think that the FBI voluntarily admits to any of its crimes?

    No, you have to provide significant documentary evidence that there has been or is an ongoing plan in every or most FBI cases that they employed those two methods.

    I have provided evidence that extrajudicial activity was standard policy (modus operandi) issued from the head of the FBI and flowed down to his minions. I do not need to show that they employed extrajudicial activity in every case. Obviously, if a criminal confessed or if relatives rat you out like with Ted Kaczynski, there is no need for blackmail.

    “I see. No constitutional rights for all Americans for you.”

    That would be a strawman on your part.

    How so? It was you who applauded the FBI child porn entrapment activities and stated that anyone who disagreed with your position wasn’t normal. How else should I have interpreted your statement?

    I understand what I’m about to say seemingly is contradictory to my position, but the fact of the matter is that law does not prohibit the FBI lying to you. Federal agents can deceive you, lie to you, trick you, and misrepresent the truth. These tactics are common practice and have the support of Supreme Court decisions

    What you say is true. The FBI can lie and deceive to get you to admit to a crime you have already committed. However, the FBI is not allowed to induce you to commit a crime which you would have not otherwise committed which is the very definition of entrapment and what they did to Flynn. The FBI had the complete tape of the Kislyak conversation before they interrogated Flynn and knew there was nothing incriminating on it. Instead of dropping the case, they decided to trick Flynn to lie and nail ,him with obstruction of justice.

    In the Kafkaesque world that Flynn is forced to inhabit, Obama appointed Flynn trial judge Sullivan is trying to charge Flynn with perjury for being blackmailed into confessing to a crime he did not commit!

    Now, I do agree that if a defendant believes the FBI or the police have overstepped their constitutional bounds, then he/she has the liberty to pursue that matter in court.

    As how how many people have the financial resources to do that? Almost none which is one of the reasons the FBI continues as an unchecked, tryannical entrapment and blackmail organization.

    Feel free to go that route, but that would not be wise if you or your loved ones required their level of expertise.

    I and my relatives are law abiding citizens and have no need for their blackmail expertise.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  27. @Corvinus

    I understand what I’m about to say seemingly is contradictory to my position, but the fact of the matter is that law does not prohibit the FBI lying to you. Federal agents can deceive you, lie to you, trick you, and misrepresent the truth. These tactics are common practice and have the support of Supreme Court decisions. Hate to break it to you, but deceptive interrogation practices are generally allowable, albeit there are limits, and deservedly so.

    Oh, the FBI can lie to you but it’s illegal to lie to them. Where then is equal protection of the law?

    It’s exactly by being allowed to lie to suspects that law enforcement traps innocent people into false confessions. Like, for example, “we have your fingerprints on the murder weapon, so go easy and confess and we’ll lower the charges.” And then as the case of the NY state troopers brought out about thirty years ago, they plant the guy’s fingerprints on something from the crime scene.

    You mean that kind of lying? Why not? It worked too, and few of the cops involved in the scheme were successfully prosecuted. Once the police are allowed to lie, there is no stopping them.

    And everyone keeps talking abouty a perjury trap. Exactly how do you set perjury up as a trap? Haven’t seen any proponent or opponent explain it, but everyone talks about it.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Corvinus
  28. MarkinLA says:

    Remember the Hutaree Militia? A bunch of pretend soldiers sitting around a campfire, getting drunk, one-upping each other on what they were going to do in the end times. The FBI tried to insert some informant (who was probably trying to get his sentence reduced) to induce these people into terrorist acts. They would sober up and tell the informant get lost. The whole thing was set up by the FBI.

    Luckily they were so pathetic it never went beyond the judge but it cost them a lot of money to stay out of prison. If it had gone to trial they could easily have been found guilty.

    • Agree: the shadow
  29. MarkinLA says:
    @the shadow

    I believe they mean that you are not interrogating somebody to find out any relevant information. You are interrogating them with the purpose of keeping them talking until they say something that you can claim is a lie. Then you charge them with lying under oath.

  30. Corvinus says:
    @the shadow

    “Oh, the FBI can lie to you but it’s illegal to lie to them. Where then is equal protection of the law?”

    There is equal protection under the law in that a person in custody states that they want a lawyer and are not obligated to answer any questions. If the FBI says to Person A that their partner in crime “gave them up”–when it does not have Person B in custody–then Person A has the CHOICE to believe law enforcement and tell them what they know OR to not believe law enforcement and remain silent.

    It’s called knowing your rights.

    https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/consequences-of-lying-to-fbi

    “It’s exactly by being allowed to lie to suspects that law enforcement traps innocent people into false confessions.”

    Take it up with the Supreme Court, who ruled that deceptive interrogation practices are generally allowable. I would also consult with the victims of crimes who had justice served when law enforcement extracted confessions. Do you think they would decidedly agree with your assessment?

    “Like, for example, “we have your fingerprints on the murder weapon, so go easy and confess and we’ll lower the charges.”

    If a person did not commit the crime, they should have nothing to worry about, right? Besides, as I stated earlier, know your rights. Say NOTHING to the police. DEMAND you have a lawyer present. If the person did commit the crime, the person can choose to confess OR roll the dice and say nothing. May

    “And then as the case of the NY state troopers brought out about thirty years ago, they plant the guy’s fingerprints on something from the crime scene.”

    Those cases unfortunately occur. But that does not mean that law enforcement is knowingly, willingly, and perpetually seeking to “trap innocent people”.

    “Once the police are allowed to lie, there is no stopping them.”

    Actually, there are policies and procedures and penalties in place. Do you honestly believe that all, most, or even the majority of members of law enforcement routinely engage in deception and deceit to “trap innocent people”?

    “Haven’t seen any proponent or opponent explain it, but everyone talks about it.”

    If you Google “perjury trap”, there are a number of high quality sources that discusses this topic.

    • Replies: @the shadow
    , @the shadow
  31. Corvinus says:
    @anon

    “COINTELPRO spanned both the Kennedy and Johnson administration and targeted right wing groups as well. Your characterization of the FBI only targeting left wing groups is not only misleading but factually incorrect.”

    I never said only targeting left wing groups. I made an accurate statement–It was conservative reaction by the FBI to liberal civil rights groups. Of course the KKK was in the sights of the FBI, and deservedly so. But most groups were found on the left side of the political spectrum, no?

    https://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro

    “I have provided evidence that extrajudicial activity was standard policy (modus operandi) issued from the head of the FBI and flowed down to his minions.”

    Your original claim was “This is standard modus operandi for the FBI – entrapment and blackmail”. Now you are adding “from the head of the FBI”. Are you not moving the goalposts here? Regardless, you have yet to offer the requisite evidence. Just because you say it is does not mean it is. You just have an assertion. Back it up, please.

    “It was you who applauded the FBI child porn entrapment activities and stated that anyone who disagreed with your position wasn’t normal.”

    I did not make such a claim. I said “I would imagine that with the FBI and their child porn sting operations, most normal Americans would agree that with this specific type of crime there needs to enhanced methods to catch pedophiles.” Catching this particular group of odious offenders is challenging, especially when they are using the Internet. Law enforcement needs all the tools at their disposal to bring to justice these monsters. The families of the victims of child porn peddlers would decidedly agree, no?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/a-move-designed-to-catch-pedophiles-will-lead-to-mass-government-hacking-critics-say/2016/09/29/0d4ba0e0-81c6-11e6-b002-307601806392_story.html

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/a969e07c-9f87-4d7a-9a42-0d1b0afa3aaa

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/03/06/exclusive-the-fbi-took-over-the-online-identity-of-a-pedophile-letting-child-porn-spread-for-18-months/#64373b615cb1

    “However, the FBI is not allowed to induce you to commit a crime which you would have not otherwise committed which is the very definition of entrapment and what they did to Flynn.”

    You are making an assumption here.

    https://www.mccarter.com/insights/fbi-notes-on-michael-flynn-unlikely-to-convince-judge-he-was-entrapped-legal-experts-say

    “These notes raise questions about the investigation, and it is not surprising that Flynn’s defense team is pressing the defense of entrapment,” said Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice. “But entrapment is a high bar. It is not enough simply to show that government agencies solicited a criminal act from a defendant. The critical issue for the defense is proving that investigators induced the defendant to engage in criminal conduct that the defendant would not otherwise have committed. In order to succeed her, the defense will have to prove not merely that the FBI anticipated that Flynn might lie during the interview, but that the FBI encouraged him to lie and induced him to commit a crime that he otherwise would not have committed.”

    “As how how many people have the financial resources to do that?”

    There are a number of high profile lawyers who would take those types of cases pro bono.

    “Almost none which is one of the reasons the FBI continues as an unchecked, tryannical entrapment and blackmail organization.”

    Again, you are making an assumption here.

    “I and my relatives are law abiding citizens…”

    Then you have nothing to worry about from the FBI!

    • Replies: @anon
  32. @Corvinus

    None of that is equal proptection. The issue you avoided except to say the USC has sanctioned toallow one [arty tyop lie while the other is proihinbiterd by law from doing so. That is inherently and totally unbalanced. To be equal, either or both must be entitled to do the same thing, otherwise equal protection goes out the window.

    As for other points about knowing your rights and blah, blah, blah, the Innocent Project has identified hundred of capital cases in which the police used exactly suich methods to grame innocent suspect and extracted false confessions.

    The only purpose that allowing the police to lie in interrogatyipons serves is to enable them to extract false confessions using the lie as verbale third degree methods to break a suspect down with hte threats they pressure him with to confess.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  33. @Corvinus

    I got he following description of the so called “perjury trap” you claimed was at issue here that accounts for what’s going on.

    Perjury trap doctrine refers to a principle that a perjury indictment against a person must be dismissed if the prosecution secures it by calling that person as a grand-jury witness in an effort to obtain evidence for a perjury charge especially when the person’s testimony does not relate to issues material to the ongoing grand-jury investigation. The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and so must be affirmatively proven by the defendant. https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/perjury-trap-doctrine/

    Close but no cigar.

    I posted the following comments in a thread on a previous article Roberts wrote about Flynn’s perjury trap.

    The issue that has been raised about the FBI wrongdoing is they set a perjury trap for poor Flynn.

    Thus the key question is how do you set a perjury trap that can trap a witness to lie. After all, perjury is making a material affirmation under oath about to an issue at hand that is contrary to fact. The affirmation that is contrary to fact is a witness answering a direct question with a directly false answer. So how then can a direct question trap a witness into answering it directly by affirming something contrary to fact when he can avoid it simply by answering it directly and truthfully.

    Neither the proponents nor the opponents of the perjury trap charge have ever explained what it is and how the trap is set.

    So let me offer an explanation.

    My guess is that it’s based on the Supreme Court decision in Bronson v. US 409 U.S. 352 (1973) that the syllabus describes as: Federal perjury statute 18 U.S.C 1621 does not reach a witness’ answer that is laterally true, but unresponsive, even assuming the witness intends to mislead his questioner by the answer, and even assuming the answer is arguably ‘false by negative implication’/i>(e.a.). A perjury prosecution is not, in our adversary system, the primary safeguard against errant testimony; given the incongruity of an unresponsive answer it is the questioner’s burden to frame his interrogation acutely to elicit the precise information he seeks (pp. 409 U.S. 357-362) (e.a.)”

    So what is an unresponsive answer that is “false by negative implication” that the court held was not perjury.

    Well, here is an example from the Simpson case. Fung on cross-examination is asked: “And you were carrying that grey envelope” (the one allegedly containing Simpson’s blood sample that Vannatter acquired and was carrying around in an unsealed envelope contrary to the LAPD directions printed on the envelope). The simple, clear and direct truthful answer is either a case saving “yes, I was” or a case killing “no, I wasn’t” because the latter killed the chain of custody over the blood sample.

    So how did Fung answer it: “Either by itself, in a posse box or in a paper bag.” Fung’s answer is unresponsive to the direct question of whether he was carrying it, but it purports to say he was by identifying how he carried it rather than that he was carrying it that is not at all the same thing.

    Instead of drilling down to get a straight answer as the ruling called for Scheck do, he let it pass because he had on his possession a video tape showing Fung had nothing in his hands when he left the premises for the last time after Vannatter had arrived and could have given Fung the envelope supposedly containing Simpsopn’s blood sample that he then allegedly carried to the truck. He instead impeached Fung’s answer with the tape that showed he had never carried it using one of those three methods he identified.

    Here is where the Supreme Court ruling comes in. For while Fung’s answer was false by negative implication that he had carried the envelope to the truck by one of the three methods he identified, it was not a directly false answer to the direct question he was asked about was he carrying it. It was only false by the negative implication that he was carrying it that was implied by the methods he identified he used to do so.

    There you have the perjury trap. It wasn’t however Scheck who trapped Fung, it was Fung who trapped himself by giving a grossly misleading answer that implied he carried the envelope when in fact the video Scheck later showed proved it was impossible for him to have done it as he affirmed.

    Scheck would have been happy with any answer Fung gave to his original question because if he admitted not carrying it, he affirmed breaking the chain of custody. If he falsely tried to claim he had, he would impeach himself. His unresponsive answer that apparently claimed he did was impeached by the video that disproved it.

    It was the case killing truth that nailed him (along with the case).

    But Fung’s answer was not perjury under the basic Supreme Court ruling in Bronson.

    So how did it become a perjury trap.

    Simple. Prosecutors over the years have whittled away at the basic ruling by convincing courts that such unresponsive answers should be considered perjury when Supreme Court expressly declared it wasn’t for the very simple and obvious reason that an attorney sufficiently competent to appear in court should be able to spot an answer that was obviously unresponsive to the question and direct the witness to answer it using numerous ways to demonstrate to the jury the witness was being misleading, like asking”Did you not understand the question, because I can repeat it for you” or words of similar import.

    But having gotten those rulings, the perjury trap it forged for prosecutors became a great weapon against adverse witnesses who could now be threatened with perjury prosecutions for giving unresponsive answers that were misleading that they simply let slide when questioning a witness as Scheck did because he was going to impeach Fung with the video tape evidence not a perjury charge. Prosecutors, however, use it for the express purpose of setting up a perjury charge against witnesses who give evasive answers. The beauty of how prosecutors carved out this exception is that it’s practically useless to defense attorneys when prosecutors coach witnesses to give unresponsive answer who don’t have to worry about being prosecuted when they are doing the prosecution’s bidding, while the prosecution will defend their witnesses against perjury charges brought by the defense by relying on the Supreme Court ruling.

    That’s how prosecutors have their cake while they munch on it.

    And this passes for justice in America.

  34. Corvinus says:
    @the shadow

    “None of that is equal proptection.”

    Yes, it is equal protection under the law, as established by several precedent cases–Escobedo v. Illinois, Miranda v. Arizona, Berghuis v. Thompkins–that a person in police custody has the right to NOT answer questions until their lawyer is present.

    “The issue you avoided except to say the USC has sanctioned toallow one [arty tyop lie while the other is proihinbiterd by law from doing so.”

    I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

    “As for other points about knowing your rights and blah, blah, blah…”

    That’s not how discourse works.

    “the Innocent Project has identified hundred of capital cases in which the police used exactly suich methods to grame innocent suspect and extracted false confessions.”

    They do yeoman’s work there. However, it does not mean that the police or FBI are repeatedly and routinely making efforts to “trap innocent people”. Do you honestly believe that all, most, or even the majority of members of law enforcement routinely engage in deception and deceit to “trap innocent people”?

    “The only purpose that allowing the police to lie in interrogatyipons serves is to enable them to extract false confessions…”

    No. The purpose of deceptive tactics is an invaluable tool and a strategy often employed when a suspect chooses NOT to remain silent or waives his or her rights to a lawyer. Thus, it is highly advisable that suspects request a lawyer and refuse to answer questions posed by police.

    Law enforcement does not necessarily lie outright–they may make you believe he or she is understanding or sympathetic of your situation in an effort to get you to share more information. In other cases, they may work to make the suspect believe the crime committed really is not all that serious, or minimize the suspect’s fault or blame in the situation. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. Supreme Court in Frazier v. Cupp (1969) found deception used by law enforcement to be permissible. Of course, there are stipulations and limits.

  35. “As for other points about knowing your rights and blah, blah, blah…”
    That’s not how discourse works.
    “the Innocent Project has identified hundred of capital cases in which the police used exactly suich methods to grame innocent suspect and extracted false confessions.”

    Real discourse works by the parties accurately quoting the statement they want to challenge or address. As you cited my comment, you split the sentence and interjected your comment to my starting to refer your regaling about knowing your rights, etc., etc., etc . that I thereby pointed out did nothing to protect untold numbers of innocents being convicted by exactly those techniques they use to trample on rights that makes them next to useless with the powers at their disposal and the courts backing up their third degree methods which is what their lying and sting operations add up to that brain dead jurors they make sure sit on juries will buy into and convict the patsies to convince the public of the illusion they are beset by “terrorists”the FBI manufactures. I have yet to hear of a case in which the patsies they set up would on their own have done anything.

    They do yeoman’s work there. However, it does not mean that the police or FBI are repeatedly and routinely making efforts to “trap innocent people”. Do you honestly believe that all, most, or even the majority of members of law enforcement routinely engage in deception and deceit to “trap innocent people”?

    Like Contelpro and all the other police operations against individuals exercising their rights – like the Michigna State Police during the Vietnam era who were forced to disghorge their secret illegal surveillance operations. People gunned down like Hampton in Chicago and all those black people gunned down by gangster cops. Spare me.

    “The only purpose that allowing the police to lie in interrogatyipons serves is to enable them to extract false confessions…”

    No. The purpose of deceptive tactics is an invaluable tool and a strategy often employed when a suspect chooses NOT to remain silent or waives his or her rights to a lawyer. Thus, it is highly advisable that suspects request a lawyer and refuse to answer questions posed by police.

    There is also a huge difference between mere deception that involves asking misleading questions and tripping up suspects who give evasive answers and then confronting them with conflicts or contradictions in statements they make and lying outright. The former are examples from the Columbo series. The latter is cops lying oputright like “we have your fingerprints on the murder weapon” when they don’t even when they don’t even have a weapon. That’s not deception, but hey, it’s sort of like it so if the patsy falsely confesser for a lighter senence that’s okay especially when the public defender tells him he better take it because the cops have the goods on him.

    The fact is deception doesn’t work except to extract false confessions like what the NYPD did with the jogger Central park “confessions” they extracted using falsehoods. Indeed, I knew the cops were lying about it when they claimed the facts they confessed to had be true because the interrogators made sure they didn’t know the facts of the case when they interrogated the kids. What BS. The fact is that any interrogation manual you consult will tell you as both German and US intelligence officers have conformed that the best way to extract information is for the interrogator to be as fully informed as possible about the fact so he can lead the prisoner to reveal more. Using lies has the exactly opposite effect because it tells the prisoner you know nothing and he had better keep his mouth shut.

    There is, however, a difference when you can threaten a prisoner with harm and promise to give him a break if he confirms it.

    Law enforcement does not necessarily lie outright–they may make you believe he or she is understanding or sympathetic of your situation in an effort to get you to share more information. In other cases, they may work to make the suspect believe the crime committed really is not all that serious, or minimize the suspect’s fault or blame in the situation. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. Supreme Court in Frazier v. Cupp (1969) found deception used by law enforcement to be permissible. Of course, there are stipulations and limits.

    Of course the court did. That’s what they are for. To legitimize whatever the cops need to be able to do to keep the multitudes in line.

    I love also that “do not necessarily lie outright” which really means they necessarily do. Courts are no protection because they routinely rubber stamp whatever cops do in the name of “law and order” and “protecting public security.” How do you imagine the 5th Amendment has been turned into a leaky sieve.

    Spare me, spare me, spare me the illusory lecture about justice in America. There is none for the multitudes, while the the rich run over everybody with FBI and Justice doing nothing about it.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  36. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    I never said only targeting left wing groups. I made an accurate statement–It was conservative reaction by the FBI to liberal civil rights groups. Of course the KKK was in the sights of the FBI, and deservedly so. But most groups were found on the left side of the political spectrum, no?

    No. But by leaving out the targeting of right wing groups and that this occurred in both Conservative (republican) and Liberal (Democrat) administrations you deceptively bolster your narrative that this was some kind of Conservative reaction. This is exactly the way the Fake News works and why they can still claim to present accurate facts while spewing pure propaganda. The Fake news reports only facts that support their narrative and throw out any facts that don’t – just like you.

    Regardless, your comment was a complete deflection from proof that the FBI at least was massively criminal whose crimes included anything from entrapment, blackmail and even hiring goon squads to beat up their targets and this was standard policy (modus operandi) directed from the top. We have no reason to believe that the FBI stopped their criminal activity and plenty of evidence from the Flynn case and their terrorism entrapment convictions that blackmail and entrapment continue to this day.

    https://www.mccarter.com/insights/fbi-notes-on-michael-flynn-unlikely-to-convince-judge-he-was-entrapped-legal-experts-say

    Not sure why think this disproves the FBI entrapment of Flynn – especially since the FBI already had the Kislyak tape, knew there was nothing incriminating on it, wanted to close the Flynn investigation until criminal FBI agent Peter Strzok intervened.

    “It was you who applauded the FBI child porn entrapment activities and stated that anyone who disagreed with your position wasn’t normal.”

    I did not make such a claim. I said “I would imagine that with the FBI and their child porn sting operations, most normal Americans would agree that with this specific type of crime there needs to enhanced methods to catch pedophiles.

    You are still making the claim and refuse to state unequivocally that all Americans, including potential viewers of child porn should be afforded their constitutional rights and not be entrapped. In addition, you label anyone who wants to follow the constitution as not normal. Why don’t you just agree you are a totalitarian, at least your views certainly are and then we can move on?

    ” Catching this particular group of odious offenders is challenging, especially when they are using the Internet. Law enforcement needs all the tools at their disposal to bring to justice these monsters.

    Law enforcement should only use legal tools otherwise they are criminals and should be thrown in jail.

    There are a number of high profile lawyers who would take those types of cases pro bono.

    Yes, that’s why Flynn had to sell his town home to pay his legal bills,- because there are lawyers who take these cases for free.

    “Almost none which is one of the reasons the FBI continues as an unchecked, tryannical entrapment and blackmail organization.”

    Again, you are making an assumption here.

    No. this is a fact evidenced by the Flynn case and all the other FBI entrapment. An example follows.
    https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots-terrorism-isis-grave-threats/

    “I and my relatives are law abiding citizens…”

    Then you have nothing to worry about from the FBI!

    What don’t you understand the fact that FBI blackmailing and entrapping of innocent Americans puts everyone at risk? Even if you do not have any respect for the Constitution, which you clearly do not, I would think you would want to heed the words of Martin Niemöller.

  37. Corvinus says:

    “No. But by leaving out the targeting of right wing groups and that this occurred in both Conservative (republican) and Liberal (Democrat) administrations you deceptively bolster your narrative that this was some kind of Conservative reaction.”

    It was a conservative reaction. There was one group right wing group targeted. As the link I provided showed, COINTELPRO aimed at undermining and eradicating groups almost all of which were part of the left deemed a threat to the EXISTING SOCIAL ORDER. Its origins began in the 1950’s as a direct response to the communist threat. That is, those groups were seeking to change our institutions, i.e. the establishment. The efforts by the FBI at that time was to REPRESS THREATS TO THE STATUS QUO.

    “This is exactly the way the Fake News works…”

    Spare me the “Fake News” mantra.

    “Regardless, your comment was a complete deflection from proof that the FBI at least was massively criminal…”

    You mean your speculation. Has the FBI engaged in corrupt activities? Absolutely. Was it patently offensive? Definitively. Do they pervasively and routinely seek in every or most cases today to “set up innocent people”? No. Do they use methods that some people may find constitutionally troubling? Certainly. Nonetheless, from my position, the FBI on the whole has furthered American justice.

    “You are still making the claim and refuse to state unequivocally that all Americans, including potential viewers of child porn should be afforded their constitutional rights and not be entrapped.”

    That is a strawman on your part. I never made that statement directly or indirectly.

    “In addition, you label anyone who wants to follow the constitution as not normal.”

    Another strawman.

    “Why don’t you just agree you are a totalitarian, at least your views certainly are and then we can move on?”

    A trifecta!

    “Law enforcement should only use legal tools otherwise they are criminals and should be thrown in jail.”

    It does use legal tools, as evidence by the Supreme Court rulings I have provided. It is well within your liberty to disagree with their rationale.

    “No. this is a fact evidenced by the Flynn case and all the other FBI entrapment. An example follows.”

    No, it remains an assumption on your part. More likely, it seems to appear that Flynn is guilty of all charges.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/politics/flynn-trump-conspiracy-theories-pardon/index.html

    “What don’t you understand the fact that FBI blackmailing and entrapping of innocent Americans puts everyone at risk?”

    You mean in those cases where the FBI has been unequivocally shown to engage in blackmailing and entrapment, then our constitutional rights are placed in jeopardy.

    • Replies: @anon
  38. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    It’s clear by your responses, like all Americans do not deserve constitutional rights, that you are a totalitarian apologist for the FBI and their many crimes. For those following this thread who believe in the constitution and justice, I have provided a link to journalist/lawyer Glenn Greenwald who completely demolishes the Flynn case and exposes the criminal behavior of the FBI.

    For an example of how the Fake News operates, I have provided a link to an interview of The Guardian’s premier Russia Gate conspiracy theorist Luke Harding by award winning journalist Aaron Maté.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  39. Corvinus says:
    @anon

    “It’s clear by your responses, like all Americans do not deserve constitutional rights, that you are a totalitarian apologist for the FBI and their many crimes.”

    That would be a patently false characterization on your part.

    “For those following this thread who believe in the constitution and justice, I have provided a link to journalist/lawyer Glenn Greenwald who completely demolishes the Flynn case and exposes the criminal behavior of the FBI.”

    That is certainly one opinion on the matter. A counter to Greenwald is Seth Abramson’s twitter account and trilogy of books on the matter, sourced with about 14000 major media reports.

    “For an example of how the Fake News operates…”

    That’s called research. Merely calling out a source you oppose does not mean the work is other than factual or accurate.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS