"Riots in the streets" if Trump indicted

[Res Ipsa]

Insinuating that Canpakes or I “edited” your post is flat out dishonest.

The ink was red, Res. Relax and lighten up. Your feigned indignation is dishonest. Jesus Christ.

Insinuating that Canpakes or I “edited” your post is flat out dishonest.

[Binger]

The ink was red, Res. Relax and lighten up. Your feigned indignation is dishonest. Jesus Christ.

Insinuating that Canpakes or I “edited” your post is flat out dishonest.

LMFAO! Okay Res. I dishonestly think that seeing my posts in red ink has nothing to do with the moderators who use red ink, and visa versa.

Are you two good now?

[Res Ipsa]

Insinuating that Canpakes or I “edited” your post is flat out dishonest.

LMFAO! Okay Res. I dishonestly think that seeing my posts in red ink has nothing to do with the moderators who use red ink, and visa versa.

Are you two good now?

Insinuating that Canpakes or I “edited” your post is flat out dishonest.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It is not one piece. It is the whole damn thing. And, like Gad says, the process has always been dicey. Seeing it laid out like that to "catch" someone in a crime that they are vulnerable to commit but not actually committing is scary AF. The busted dudes are likely real POS's. No doubt. But damn. Setting up people to commit impossible crimes and then telling the jury to judge them based on a propensity and not an actual act is some scary ass crap.

Again, the whole piece is disturbing. But this should scare the “F” out of people.

Asking juries to judge "willingness" is screwed. At that point, why even bother to sit the damned jury, just roll dice or ask someone that you like to make the decision you like. So yeah. Scary. I don't take a criminal trial with that standard seriously nor do I take the FBI that goes out enticing people like that very seriously. And I certainly don't take the media's report of the incident in 2020 seriously.

You’re confusing the elements of the crime with the affirmative defense of entrapment. The government has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendants violated the law — not that they were willing to violate the law or had a propensity to violate the law — that they violated the law.

The entrapment defense essentially says “yes, I violated the law, but I shouldn’t be held responsible for violating it because LEOs tricked me into doing something I would not have otherwise done.” The accused has the burden of proof to show that the entrapment defense applies. The jury gets to decide whether the accused’s claim that he wouldn’t have otherwise broken the law is true.

The article is about the entrapment defense — not about what the government has to show that a crime has been committed.

RI’s post should be required reading for every poster who subscribes to the notion the FBI set ups political enemies for a ginned up crime in order to, I dunno, not allow them to be political or something.

- Doc

[Binger]

You’re confusing the elements of the crime with the affirmative defense of entrapment. The government has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendants violated the law — not that they were willing to violate the law or had a propensity to violate the law — that they violated the law.

The entrapment defense essentially says “yes, I violated the law, but I shouldn’t be held responsible for violating it because LEOs tricked me into doing something I would not have otherwise done.” The accused has the burden of proof to show that the entrapment defense applies. The jury gets to decide whether the accused’s claim that he wouldn’t have otherwise broken the law is true.

The article is about the entrapment defense — not about what the government has to show that a crime has been committed.

RI’s post should be required reading for every poster who subscribes to the notion the FBI set ups political enemies for a ginned up crime in order to, I dunno, not allow them to be political or something.

- Doc

I think, despite the clunky writing, that I agree with you.

If RI's explanation is the basis for that what the FBI is doing and how the courts tolerate the FBI's use of entrapment and informants, then yes. All should read and understand. Agreed. And it should scare TF out of the reader.

[canpakes]

Insinuating that Canpakes or I “edited” your post is flat out dishonest.

It is your rulebook, not mine. But sure, do whatever you do and think whatever you think.

The rule book is Shades’s. If you didn’t know before, now you do.
; )

[Binger]

It is your rulebook, not mine. But sure, do whatever you do and think whatever you think.

The rule book is Shades’s. If you didn’t know before, now you do.
; )

Everything Shades has said and done since the moderator thread fiasco assures me that this is not his forum and he is a bit player (literal definition) in the joint. I also place zero value on your explanation of anything about anything.

[Marcus]

Insinuating that Canpakes or I “edited” your post is flat out dishonest.

LMFAO! Okay Res. I dishonestly think that seeing my posts in red ink has nothing to do with the moderators who use red ink, and visa versa.

no, it's not L your FA off funny. MeDotOrg, who isn't here that much, emphasized some of your words in red. He did not edit anything, and the use of moderator red was obviously inadvertent. your comments after that were posted with awareness of the situation combined with your usual lack of character:

Check your rulebook, buddy.

It is your rulebook, not mine. But sure, do whatever you do and think whatever you think.

The ink was red, Res. Relax and lighten up. Your feigned indignation is dishonest. Jesus Christ.

your behavior is inappropriate. i am using extremely mild terms because of the forum we are in. Your vile treatment of your fellow human beings has been covered by others elsewhere.

[canpakes]

The rule book is Shades’s. If you didn’t know before, now you do.
; )

Everything Shades has said and done since the moderator thread fiasco assures me that this is not his forum and he is a bit player (literal definition) in the joint. I also place zero value on your explanation of anything about anything.

No worries. You can choose to believe whatever you want, and to be wrong about it, but that doesn’t affect how things actually are.

[canpakes]

This was Lindsay Graham's warning to the DOJ if they decided to prosecute the disgraced former President.

Lindsay’s prediction doesn’t seem to have held up.