Oh ffs.
A court filing shows the ugly tactics employed by James Comey’s FBI: https://t.co/Q1wMsmR3D4 via @WSJOpinion
— Wall Street Journal Opinion (@WSJopinion) December 13, 2018
This shit must have been dictated over the phone by Trump and then put into coherent English by someone at the WSJ. It reeks of Trumpism.
Of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s many targets, the most tragic may be former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The former three-star general pleaded guilty last year to a single count of lying to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Now we learn from Mr. Flynn’s court filing to the sentencing judge that senior bureau officials acted in a way to set him up for the fall.
So we’re supposed to think it’s no big deal that Flynn buddied up with the Russian ambassador but an OUTRAGE that the FBI didn’t remind Flynn that lying to the FBI is a crime? Aren’t Flynn and the FBI supposed to be on the same team? Both working for the good of the country, both on the side of legality and justice?
According to the FBI summary of the interview—known as a 302—Mr. McCabe and FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”
Shocking, shocking. But so then the Journal’s point is that Flynn should have been free to lie to the FBI? That his lying to the FBI about his dealings with Russia should have been given a pass? That the problem here is not Flynn’s coziness with Putin’s gang but the FBI’s not telling the National Security Adviser to refrain from lying? Seriously?
If the goal was to set a legal trap, it worked. The two agents showed up at the White House within hours of Mr. McCabe’s call, and they reported in the 302 that General Flynn had been “relaxed and jocular” and “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies.” One of the agents was Peter Strzok, who is famous for his anti-Trump texts to his FBI paramour.
That’s the bit where I decided this has to have been dictated by Trump. The sheer stupid vulgarity of it.
Lol right on cue, the right-o-verse spins up the narrative of Flynn "entrapment"
He took money from an adversary of America and lied about it. He plotted to kidnap a US resident for money. He is a disgrace. This WSJ editorial is also a disgrace. pic.twitter.com/21qzs5Sv1d
— Molly McKew (@MollyMcKew) December 13, 2018
Comments
10 responses to ““Flynn entrapment””
Counterpoint: Ok, so a guy who was NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES pulls a classic Louis Renault and claims that he is shocked – SHOCKED I SAY to learn that lying to the FBI is a crime.
I’ve come up with a metric to help:
1-who does background checks on all candidates for sensitive positions in the US government?
a-The FBI b-The FBI c-The FBI d-a,b and c
2-True or false, the following was part of the SCOTUS ruling in Brogan vs The United States: “Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government’s right to ask questions — lying is not one of them.”
3-Have you ever watched a TV or movie procedural that illustrated the consequences of lying to the FBI?
4-Have you ever watched a TV or movie procedural that suggested there were NO consequences of lying to the FBI?
5-Have you lived in a bunker all your life with only Fox News for knowledge of the outside world?
6-Rate how you would answer the following: How detrimental to one’s effectiveness as NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES would lying or woeful ignorance be? None at all Minimal Can’t Say Somewhat Pretty fucking crucial
7- On average, how many times is the following phrase uttered in a US courtroom on a daily basis? “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”
a-0 b-10 c-100 d-1000 e-a billion
Flynn was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was a particularly inept head, but surely in his time there he must have picked up some tips about interrogation techniques. Like the easiest way to get someone to talk is to make yourself their BFF.
[…] a comment by Pliny the in Between on “Flynn […]
Remember when, the day after Benghazi, Susan Rice used some talking points on television that Republicans claimed were incorrect, and the GOP proceeded to go apeshit for YEARS over this?
I don’t, because I paid no attention to the Benghazi apeshittery. I suppose if I had I would have been a little more prepared for all this.
Also in the WSJ, breaking news on police interrogation techniques, in which officers display sympathy to the accused, call them “son,” and suggest they probably never meant to do it and would no doubt feel better “getting it off your chest,” thereby tricking them into thinking the cops are their friends and giving detailed confessions.
Ah but you see they are not Important Generals but riff-raff with unfortunate choices in skin color, so the rules are entirely different.
Popehat tweet thread on this WSJ piece (“imbecilic hackery”) starts here.
Ha – number 9 is exactly what I said.
On the other hand, the word “paramour” would seem to rule Trump out as the author. Although your earlier suggestion that someone at the WSJ was responsible for turning his frothing logorrhea into “coherent English” could plausibly explain it.