The Corrupt Obama FBI / DOJ and General Flynn's Miranda Rights

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES. That title is not really meant to be funny, but a day ago the America conservative world couldn't be effusive enough about US District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. • • • CONFECTED FELONIES, THE OBAMA / COMEY FBI, AND GENERAL FLYNN. That was the title of the Sunday American Thinker article by Clarice Feldman. She is a highly respected attorney and writer whose fans are numerous. On Sunday, Feldman wrote about "politics posing as law enforcement." In the article, Feldman wrote : "Michael Flynn caught a break when his case was assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who was monstrously played by a corrupt band of DOJ criminal attorneys and FBI agents in the case of former Senator Ted Stevens. After Stevens was convicted, the Senate Republicans lost their ability to filibuster and made it possible for the Democrats to ram through ObamaCare on a single-party vote. Subsequent to Steven’s death, their perfidy became known. Sullivan threw out the conviction. The judge then commissioned a 525-page report that presented withering evidence of DOJ misconduct. Irrefutable evidence of prosecutorial misconduct prompted the DOJ to assign Terrence Berg, an attorney in the DOJ’s Professional Misconduct Review Unit, to recommend a penalty for two trial attorneys (James Goeke and Joseph Bottini.) Berg was the bureaucracy’s first of two interventions on behalf of railroading prosecutors. Berg stalled for several months while he “studied” the evidence and finally concluded that the prosecutors had done nothing wrong. The agency then assigned the matter to the unit chief, who concluded that a 45-day suspension would be warranted. If you were a partisan DOJ attorney bent on meddling in future elections, would the risk of a 45-day suspension be enough to deter you? The attorneys appealed the 45-day suspensions, arguing they should be entitled to the benefit of Berg’s early assessment that they did nothing wrong. Then the bureaucracy intervened again to save the railroading prosecutors. The Merit Systems Protection Board granted their appeal, ruling that even though both prosecutors might be guilty of the misconduct as-charged, that they had the right to Berg’s original assessment. And that’s how two DOJ prosecutors got away with railroading Stevens and swinging an election for the US Senate. As for the FBI miscreant who played the largest role in this miscarriage of justice, she too got off Scott free : The poster nicknamed 'Daddy' reminds us : 'FBI Agent Mary Beth Kepner, who in the Ted Stevens case pencil whipped 302's [agent’s notes of interviews which are to be prepared within 5 days of such interviews] two whole years after the fact and lied to other FBI Investigators under oath that the 302's were contemporaneous, was 'severely disciplined' [by then Director James Comey], got a cautionary letter of warning in her official FBI jacket!!!' She remained the top FBI agent in Anchorage, so you know how 'severe' was the discipline she got for perjuring herself, handing the Obama administration its most cherished legislation -- ObamaCare." • Feldman noted on Sunday that then Director Comey explained that he did more : "On top of that, we pushed out refresher training to the entire workforce, especially about our discovery obligations and how we expect them to conduct themselves during those investigations. So, both broad remedial work was done, and individual discipline was imposed for the agent involved." In other words, Comey did nothing. • Clarice Feldman then shifted to the Flynn case and n example of just "how ineffective" was that “refresher training” and how seriously suspicious Judge Sullivan is of the Mueller team after that experience. Feldman reviewed the Flynn cas as it was then ongoing before Judge Sullivan : "US District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office Wednesday night to turn over all the government’s documents by mid-day Friday. The exculpatory documents requested by Sullivan include any memorandums regarding Flynn’s case because of the extraordinary circumstances of the information, according to Sullivan’s request. Further, Sullivan is also requesting any documentation regarding the first interviews conducted by former anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka -- known by the FBI as 302s -- which were found to be dated more than seven months after the interviews were conducted on January 24, 2017, a violation of FBI policy, say current and former FBI officials familiar with the process. According to information contained in Flynn’s memorandum, the interviews were dated August 22, 2017. • BUT, Feldman noted that FBI Supervisory Special Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that : "Sullivan must also request all the communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017 time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request 'the workflow chart, which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a supervisor and who approved them.' 'The bureau policy -- the absolute FBI policy -- is that the notes must be placed in the system in a 1-A file within five days of the interview,' said Danik, who added that handwritten notes get placed into the FBI Sentinel System, which is the FBI’s main record keeping system. 'Anything beyond five business days is a problem, eight months is a disaster.' ” • As Feldman wisely states : "Given the fact that the infamous Peter Strzok, since removed from the Mueller investigation for demonstrated anti-Trump bias, conducted the interrogation, there’s every reason beyond the departure from the regulations to question whether the accounts are accurate. Indeed, even Comey testified to Congress that the interviewing agents did not think Flynn had deliberately lied to them. But, there is even more. Andrew McCabe, now also fired, recommended to the pair that they were not to offer Flynn a right to counsel nor a Miranda warning that whatever he said might be used against him. He wanted Flynn 'relaxed,' which is one way of saying off guard. And he was, thinking it was essentially a courtesy call." • • • LYING TO A FEDERAL AGENT. Here is the text of "18 U.S. Code § 1001. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -- (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both..." • In her Sunday article, Feldman said : "It is clear to me that Flynn’s pleading guilty was a defensive measure to protect his family, which was roughly $3 million in legal debt as he fought against a team with unlimited resources and unlimited partisan fervor (as was the situation in the Stevens case). The federal crime of which he is accused is Title 18 United States Code, Section 1001, which I deem (like the overbroad federal laws concerning obstruction and conspiracy) a tool for unscrupulous prosecutors like these. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shares my view of this provision as the NY Sun writing about Martha Stewart’s case observed : 'Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, in a concurring opinion in the 1996 Supreme Court case Brogan v. United States, warned of 'the sweeping generality' of Section 1001's language. Justice Ginsburg wrote : 'The prospect remains that an overzealous prosecutor or investigator -- aware that a person has committed some suspicious acts, but unable to make a criminal case -- will create a crime by surprising the suspect, asking about those acts, and receiving a false denial.' " • Justice Ginsburg was absolutely right, as General Flynn can attest. Federal prosecutors unable to make a criminal case against Martha Stewart for insider trading, but nonetheless found something to charge her with. Feldman points out that : "In many cases, prosecutors will use their discretion to avoid filing such charges. It's certainly hard to think of another case in which a person has been prosecuted for violating this section alone, without also being prosecuted for an underlying criminal act. The closest thing people seem to be able to remember is the matter of President Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Henry Cisneros, who paid a $10,000 fine and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the duration and amount of payments he made to a former mistress. Justice Ginsburg wrote, 'the Department of Justice has long noted its reluctance to approve §1001 indictments for simple false denials made to investigators.' For Ms. Stewart, whose celebrity may have made her a tempting target for prosecutors to overcome their traditional reluctance, it is already too late." • Who prosecuted the Martha Stewart case?? James Comey. • Last week, the DOJ Inspector General reported that 19,000 -- 19,000 !! -- text messages between Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page had not been properly preserved and created an investigative “gap.” That gap was significant -- between December 15, 2016 and May 17, 2017 -- exactly when the FBI -- under Comey -- was revving up its "collusion" fakery against President Trump and Strzok and Page were messaging about 'he will never be President, will he?' and 'No, we will stop him.' The Strzok and Page texts were "relevant to a matter being investigated by the OIG’s Oversight and Review Division, and so the OIG’s Cyber Investigations Office was asked to attempt recovery of these missing text message for the referenced period from FBI issued mobile devices issued to Strzok and Page,” the DOJ IG report states. The OIG finally recovered "thousands of text messages within the period of the missing text messages, December 15, 2016 through May 17, 2017, as well as hundreds of other text messages outside the gap period that had not been produced by the FBI due to technical problems with its text message collection tool.” Feldman reminds us that : "In that same report we learned that the phones issued to Page and Strzok when they were on the Special Counsel’s staff -- a critical period of time -- had been erased by that office and likely those messages are lost. Purportedly the phones were returned to factory settings to be used by others but never were reassigned. Since the circumstances under which these two had been removed from the Special Counsel’s office related to biased text messages before this assignment, the explanation for why the phones were “wiped” can be believed only by the terminally credulous." • What does this have ot do with General Flynn? Plenty. Last Friday afternoon, the Special Counsel responded to Judge Sullivan's order and filed a response (some of which still is redacted). Feldman gives the key points : 1. Although Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI investigators, they did not believe at the time he was intentionally lying to them; "The documents include then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s notes after talking with Flynn to arrange his interview with the FBI. It also includes a so-called "302" report documenting what Flynn told anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok and one other agent during their conversation at the White House. That July 2017 report [the interview had taken place in January], though, specifically came from an interview with Strzok in which the Flynn encounter was discussed -- and not the original Flynn interview. The 302 report stated that Strzok and the other agent “both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.” 2.Then Acting Attorney-General Sally Yates was not happy with Comey's decision to interview Flynn. • There is also Michael Cohen’s pleas, only one of which relates to the presidential campaign -- in which he pleaded guilty to something that is not a crime -- paying off people who are threatening to make damaging statements about you, is not a campaign expense. Brad Smith, former head of the Federal Election Commission explained it for Feldman : "Not everything that is subjectively intended to influence an election is campaign expenditure. For example, if Trump (or any other businessman running for office) settled lawsuits against the business in order to get them off the table, so that they wouldn't become campaign issues, those settlements would not be campaign expenses, but would remain personal expenses, payable by Trump or the company sued. That is true even if the suits were deemed totally meritless by Trump's lawyers and paid solely as nuisance settlements to prevent bad campaign press...The obligations to Daniels or others (such as they were) were not created as a candidate. Moreover, even if Trump decided to pay the blackmail in part because he was running for President, in its implementing regulations, the FEC specifically rejected a mixed motive test, i.e., that something would count as a campaign expense if one of multiple motives was to help the campaign. It must exist solely because the candidate is running for office. But Daniels' blackmail threat exists whether or not Trump was running for office...Secondly, the prosecutors want 'for the purpose of influencing a campaign' to be a subjective test determined by the mindset of the actors. I believe that the test is intended as an objective test according to a reasonable observer, defining expenditures that one makes when running for office -- for example, hiring campaign staff, buying ads, purchasing phone service for the campaign, renting office space, printing bumper stickers, etc. I doubt any reasonable jury would deem 'payments to mistress' a 'campaign expenditure.' If it were literally 'anything' 'for the purpose of influencing a campaign' then virtually every personal expenditure made by a person in public life might be deemed a campaign expenditure." • And, Feldman raises a very key question : "It is amusing to note that in this same week Congress, which paid out without disclosure over $17 million in sexual misconduct settlements between 1997 and 2017 to 250 persons out of tax revenues, passed a law requiring that Congress will have to pay such settlements out of their own funds in future and regularly report and publish such settlements. If Trump’s payment were deemed to influence a campaign, how would you describe those 250 congressional settlements?" • I think it is time to ask why 18 USC § 1001 is not applied to federal agents who lie to the public or to their suspects !!! The words are not specifically directed to lying to a federal agent : "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -- (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;..." Why aren't Comey, McCabe, Mueller, Strzok, Page, and a lot of others being charged and prosecuted under 18 USC §1001??? • • • FLYNN WAS RAILROADED. The same day but after the Flynn sentencing hearing, the tone and attack changed radically. BizPac Review's article was titled " ‘Beyond unfair’: Flynn ‘got railroaded.’ Judge was ‘unprepared or vindictive,’ " taking the quote from ABC News analyst and attorney Dan Abrams, who said : "Michael Flynn 'got railroaded.' Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn 'got railroaded' at his sentencing hearing, and the irate presiding judge was 'beyond unfair.' " That’s coming from a liberal-leaning attorney, who was reacting to the scathing and misinformed rebuke that federal judge Emmet Sullivan directed at Michael Flynn at his sentencing hearing. Sullivan berated Flynn by saying : “All along, you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. That undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out....I'm not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense," Sullivan said. After a brief recess, Sullivan clarified his scathing statements, prompting the prosecutors to note Flynn’s work for Turkey as a foreign agent occurred before he took a job at the White House. He also walked back his treason comments, saying he wasn’t suggesting Flynn committed treason, but was “just curious.” The prosecutors told the Judge : “After looking at the definition of treason, we have no reason to believe he committed treason.” Sullivan backtracked after realizing he had made a mistake about the timeline of Flynn’s lobbying work for Turkey : “I made a statement about Mr. Flynn acting as a foreign agent in the White House,” Sullivan said, adding that he had gotten his facts wrong. “I feel terrible about that....I'm not suggesting he committed treason." • But, as Abrams rightly noted : "By then, the headlines had already circulated all around the world -- of a US federal judge calling President Trump’s former National Security Advisor a traitor to his country." Abrams said Judge Sullivan’s shocking outburst made him realize how unfairly Flynn is being treated : “He was treated unfairly today. I have sympathy for Michael Flynn now. And it’s fair to say that at this hearing he got railroaded. This judge was so -- it’s beyond unfair. He was either unprepared or he was just being vindictive…Words matter.” • Abrams isn’t the only legal expert who believes that Flynn is being unfairly targeted. BizPac Review also reported that former US Attorney Joe diGenova slammed the Obama FBI for framing Flynn, saying they used him to destroy President Trump : “Michael Flynn was framed to get Donald Trump....[Former Obama FBI officials] Sally Yates, James Comey, Peter Strozk, Andrew McCabe all planned it. What you are watching play out in an American courtroom is one of the most disgraceful events in American criminal justice.” DiGenova explained : “After the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton needed a reason for why she lost. Enter Russian collusion. Part of that was to find somebody in the Trump administration to frame for ‘talking to the Russians.’ They found General Flynn. But in fact, all of General Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador and everybody else were legal. So why did the FBI approach him? The answer is : They wanted to frame him. And they succeeded.” • BizPac hammers home the real treason : "The mainstream media and the left are viciously attacking Michael Flynn as a traitor to his country because of his association with President Trump, but they blithely ignore actual acts of treason, like Hillary Clinton’s self-dealing Uranium One deal." NOTE : While Secretary of State Hillary was presiding over the sale of 20% of America's uranium reserves to Russia, over at the Clinton Foundation, hubby Bill was raking in a total of $145 Million from Uranium One shareholders, $2.35 Million of it coming form the family foundation of Uranium One's chairman. • BizPAc Review also reminds us of the $400 Million that President Barack Obama gave to Iran -- the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism -- $400 million of US taxpayer money in cash sneaked into Teheran from Geneva by private jet in the middle of the night? That cash infusion has increased Iran's defense budget 145% and the US taxpayer money plus the billions of dollars unfrozen under Obama’s dishonest -- and actually possibly treasonous -- Iran Nuclear deal to build up its weapons stockpile. NO DEMOCRATS worried about the open mic that captured President Obama telling Russian President Medvedev that he would have more room to maneuver after the 2012 election. NOT ONE DEMOCRAT raised a red flay or even coughed. NOT ONE MEDIA OUTLET sounded the alarm. NOT ONE !!! And the Clintons, Obama, Comey, McCabe, Mueller, Strzok, Page -- the entire corrupt lot of them -- are free and under no FBI pressure to own up to their crimes. • BUT General Flynn may have "committted treason" !!! • It really makes my stomach sick. Literally. • • • THE FLYNN SET-UP PUT ON HOLD. Mark Wauck has read the 302 related to the questioning of General Flynn and his expert opinion as a former FBI official is that the now-released "original" FD-302 that agents Strzok and Pientka wrote after their interview with Flynn -- version probably run past Andrew McCabe before it was finalized -- "is that nothing that was discussed was in fact material to any legitimate FBI concerns or duties. It simply is not the FBI's job to interview every national security or foreign policy official of the US government after they have a contact with a foreign official in order to test their memory or even their truthfulness. The FBI has access to electronic intercepts of all those conversations. If they have any counterintelligence concerns arising from such contacts, they can open a counterintelligence investigation. It's clear that this did not happen in this case. The interview was simply an attempt to elicit statements from Flynn that could be interpreted as contradicting the official record, i.e., the recording of the conversations. In other words, it was a setup and, as such, the case should be dismissed because the agents weren't conducting legitimate FBI business. • The case has not been dismissed, but as Fox News wrote on Tuesday : "A federal judge on Tuesday delayed sentencing once again for former national security adviser Michael Flynn -- a surprise decision at a dramatic hearing where the judge tore into the defendant and even questioned whether Flynn committed treason before walking back his comments. The delay came after Flynn’s attorneys initially declined an offer Tuesday from US District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to delay the sentencing on charges of making false statements to the FBI, amid the judge’s questions over Flynn’s cooperation in a separate case involving illegal lobbying for Turkey. After Sullivan tore into the defendant and warned he couldn’t guarantee that Flynn wouldn’t get jail time, the defense asked for a sentencing delay. Sullivan suggested a conference hearing for Flynn on March 13." Fox reported that Flynn's attorneys said, "General Flynn has held nothing back in regards to the special counsel's investigation," saying the case involving lobbying for Turkey is the only other area in which Flynn could be of further assistance to prosecutors. Mueller's prosecutors told Sullivan on Tuesday that Flynn's cooperation played a role in the indictment this week of two Flynn associates charged with illegally lobbying for Turkey without properly registering under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). They said Flynn could have been indicted in that case had he not cooperated. • The Tuesday hearing took place as the FBI is facing mounting criticism from Trump allies over its handling of the original Flynn interview that led to the false-statement charge, after it was revealed that FBI leaders discouraged Flynn from having a lawyer present and some inside the FBI had doubts about whether he intentionally lied. Mueller's team defended investigators' actions, but also urged a lenient sentence, undoubtedly at least partly in an attempt to paper over their illegal handling of the Flynn interview. Recent memos released by the FBI indicate the FBI discouraged Flynn from having an attorney present during the questioning. Those memos also show that FBI agents did not instruct Flynn that any false statements he made could constitute a crime, and decided not to "confront" him directly about anything he said that contradicted their knowledge of his wiretapped communications with Kislyak. One of the agents who conducted the Flynn interview, Peter Strzok, was later fired from the Russia probe in late July 2017 over his apparent anti-Trump bias. Fired FBI Director James Comey also admitted earlier this month that the FBI's move not to involve the White House Counsel -- which the FBI usually involves in any interviews with senior White House officials -- was not standard protocol, and that the FBI felt it could get "away with" the tactic in the early days of the Trump administration. Hours before Flynn was set to be sentenced, a new FD-302 witness report from the FBI was released shedding more light on Flynn’s fateful interview with the FBI -- indicating Flynn issued few definitive statements in response to FBI agents' questions, and at various points suggested that such conversations might have happened or that he could not recall them if they did. The 302 stated that Flynn told agents "not really" and "I don't remember" when they asked if he had requested Kislyak and the Russians not engage in a "tit-for-tat" with the US government over the Obama administration's sanctions in December 2016. Flynn was not charged with wrongdoing as a result of the substance of his calls with the Russian ambassador. • • • US JUSTICE SYSTEM OUT OF CONTROL? A truly troubling article was published by the Daily Caller on Monday. It was written by Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor. Powell states : "Countless people, including a former federal prosecutor, seem oblivious to one of the greatest abuses, outrages, and tragedies of our criminal justice system : innocent people are forced to plead guilty every day. Indeed, the Innocence Project alone has exonerated 31 people who spent a combined 150 years in prison on guilty pleas. That is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. This horrific injustice is solely attributable to the unchecked power of prosecutors who now function as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. They have unfettered discretion, no supervision, no limits, and most federal judges defer to them at every turn. There are two judges who I know do not simply defer. One is Judge Emmet G. Sullivan....The second is federal judge Jed Rakoff....who wrote: '[I]t is the prosecutor, not the judge, who effectively exercises the sentencing power, albeit cloaked as a charging decision.' General Flynn is the quintessential example of why the innocent plead guilty. General Flynn knew the FBI had a complete recording of the conversation about which they came to question him. Comey deliberately and oh-so-cleverly dispatched the agents in an ambush interview against all protocols to set him up in their efforts to destroy Donald Trump. In addition, it appears Mueller has suppressed significant evidence exonerating Flynn and destroyed other evidence, as I have written. Yes, Flynn entered a guilty plea. But like many others, including a disproportionate number of young minority men who have no resources whatsoever, that does not mean that he did anything wrong. All it means is that he -- like so many others -- saw no other way out. When the full might and weight of the federal government -- especially the immeasurable hubris and endless funding of the “special prosecutor” and his relentless armored team are brought to bear against an individual -- there is no choice. The beating you take with a guilty plea is less than the beating you take if you -- like Paul Manafort -- dare to fight, find yourself in the literal torture of solitary confinement, and have your friends, family, and business associates harassed, threatened, and indicted. Prosecutions in Mueller’s and Weissmann’s prior inquisitions have extended 10 years. Several defendants pleaded guilty upon threat of facing their third trial....Weissmann is so adept at this practice he has coerced people into pleading guilty to things that were not crimes. Two defendants in my book had to be allowed to withdraw their guilty pleas -- one even after he had testified for the government in the Arthur Andersen trial. Of course, the Andersen case was reversed by the Supreme Court nine to nothing. Weissmann and Leslie Caldwell -- the Bush Department of Justice -- destroyed Andersen and 85,000 jobs for nothing. Can you even imagine what you would do if you had been a law-abiding good citizen all your life, suddenly found yourself the target of a 'special counsel' investigation, threatened with life in prison, threatened with the indictment of your children, your business associates, saw your savings completely drained, had to start a go-fund me account, and be interrogated for hour after hour by people dying to trap you and send you to prison? Those who have not endured a criminal prosecution, or been close to someone who has, cannot begin to imagine the toll it takes on everyone involved -- the entire family. The stress is incomprehensible. Right reason reasons wrong. The world is upside down. It’s the Twilight Zone. Prosecutors send innocent people to prison every day -- whether by guilty plea or wrongful conviction. Prosecutors withhold evidence of innocence, they destroy evidence, and they have absolute immunity. This must change now." • It happened to Ted Stevens. It happens to people the Innocence Project exonerates. The national registry of exonerations is full of names. It is happening in front of our eyes. There are innocent people in our prisons right now -- many on guilty pleas. Selective political persecutions with concocted crimes against people who have been targeted is contrary to everything the Department of Justice is supposed to represent." [Sidney Powell (@SidneyPowell1), a former federal prosecutor and veteran of 500 federal appeals, is the author of “LICENSED TO LIE : Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.” She is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.] • • • DEAR READERS, the General Flynn case presents a key issue that nobody seems to be talking about -- Miranda Rights labeled publicly instead of talking coyly about the fact that Comey decided to "try" to get away with entrapping Flynn just because he worked in the White House in the new Trump administration and Comey was hellbent on destroying Trump and his presidency. Does a white collar suspect who has not been charged -- but whom the FBI has sufficient evidence against to indict for an unrelated crime -- have Miranda Rights that may not be hidden by FBI or other prosecutors?? Of course he does. Entrapment is just this scenario -- a white collar suspect is baited to lie and does so because he is ignorant of the FBI's evidence and has not been warned properly that he is in danger of committing a felony and should seek legal counsel. THAT IS THE SIMPLE LEGAL ISSUE -- where are Flynn's lawyers and Mark Levin, et al, on this critical question? What is the difference between having evidence and using it to book or indict, which automatically triggers Miranda, and having the evidence to indict but choosing to hide it and entrap someone into a different felony perjury situation, thus being treated by the FBI as if he has no Miranda Rights? General Flynn may have been bait being used to entrap President Trump, but the General also has personal Miranda Rights under US law. Everyone does. That General Flynn worked for President Trump does not extinguish those rights. Nothing does.