Could The Arrest of FBI Agent Undermine The Whitmer Kidnapping Case?

The arrest of an FBI agent would always be newsworthy. Richard Trask of Kalamazoo has gone from making cases to being a case for prosecution. He  faces up to ten years for allegedly assaulting his wife with intent to do great bodily harm. However, Trask was also key to the arrest of men in the alleged plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Those defendants — and some observers — have criticized the FBI for entrapping the men by pushing them into the conspiracy and facilitating their efforts.  The question is whether Trask’s arrest could undermine those cases.  The answer is yes.

There are legitimate concerns over the role of the FBI in the planning and preparation for this alleged conspiracy. As a criminal defense attorney, I have long been a critic of the degree to which the FBI often pushes defendants to take actions to trigger criminal charges. However, it is very difficult to make a case for entrapment and the agents know that.

In the Michigan case, six men are charged with a conspiracy that involved kidnapping Whitmer but news outlets like BuzzFeed News have raised serious concerns over how much of the conspiracy was directed and facilitated by the FBI. At every critical juncture, agents like Trask appear to push the effort along, even overcoming reluctance of the alleged conspirators. That includes calling meetings where the conspirators first met and structuring the planning stage for the crime. The FBI even paid for room and foods to keep the planning going. Reportedly, the FBI informant ultimately rose to second in command of the conspiracy.

Courts look to two elements in entrapment cases. While the government can encourage criminal conspirators, the courts ask whether the offense was induced by a government agent and whether “the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents.”  In Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992), the Court ruled that a Nebraska man convicting of receiving child pornography through the mail was entrapped.

This was a strong case for entrapment but was still a close vote. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Bryon White ruled that

“by waving the banner of individual rights and disparaging the legitimacy and constitutionality of efforts to restrict the availability of sexually explicit materials, the Government not only excited petitioner’s interest in sexually explicit materials banned by law, but also exerted substantial pressure on petitioner to obtain and read such material as part of a fight against censorship and the infringement of individual rights . . . convincing him that he had or should have the right to engage in the very behavior proscribed by law.”

These cases have raised a long debate over whether the test should be subjective or objective. In Sorrells v. United States287 U.S. 435 (1932), the Court followed a subjective test in showing the defendant had a “predisposition”  to commit the crime. Some states follow the objective standard advocated by figures like Justice Felix Frankfurter in  Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958), in showing that the crime would not have occurred with the involvement of the law enforcement officials.

So that brings us back to Trask, 39. Trask’s affidavit was used to arrest the men in the Michigan case. He and other agents are accused to prodding the alleged conspirators and ultimately organizing the effort. The FBI emphasizes that Whitmer’s home was “cased” before the arrests, showing a clear intent of the defendants to move forward with the plan.

The question is whether a federal judge will be open to the entrapment defense at trial. In any case, Trask will be key to any proceedings as the author of the key affidavit. However, Trask may decide that he is at odds with his former colleagues now that he is persona non grata at the Justice Department.  He could cooperate with the defense through admissions or otherwise damaging testimony. He could even invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in fear of self-incrimination. While the prosecutors could force his testimony with an immunity grant, they would risk testimony that could undermine the case by highlighting the reluctance of defendants to go forward with their alleged conspiracy.

Notably, Trask was charged by the Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s Office in Kalamazoo County District Court, not federal court. Those prosecutors may not be unduly concerned about his testimony in the federal case. However, federal prosecutors may be interested in reducing his exposure to keep him from becoming a liability in a major case.  Federal and state prosecutors often confer on such cases.

The problem is that the allegations are pretty dramatic and serious — and there is no entrapment issues. Trask and his wife were reportedly returning from a “swinger’s party” at an Oshtempo Township hotel when they argued over his wife’s saying that she did not enjoy the party. Once home, Trask is accused of jumping on top of his wife in bed and slamming her head into the nightstand. She reportedly resisted and he choked her. She says that she was able to force him off and seek aid. Police describe her as covered in blood and bruises. He was arrested but then released on bond.

As the author of the key affidavit, Trask could do considerable harm to the federal case. Even without such testimony in favor of the defense, his current status as an accused felon will likely be raised with the court. A judge could conclude that the two cases are unrelated and disclosure to a jury would be prejudicial and immaterial. However, the defense could argue that the pending charges could influence his testimony. He could seek to satisfy his former federal colleagues in the kidnapping case to improve his position in seeking a plea bargain with their state counterpart. Such testimony could also be cited to mitigate any sentence or charged the assault case. Finally, Trask’s FBI career is likely over even if he pleads guilty to a lesser charge.  However, any chance to stay a federal employee could depend on his federal testimony — a motivation that the defense could highlight in rebuttal if the court allowed it.

Any entrapment defense carries a very heavy burden that defendants can rarely shoulder successfully in federal cases. The advantage remains with the government in this case. However, this case has a credible claim of entrapment and one of the core witnesses for the government has suddenly become a liability. The Widner case is one o the “matinee” prosecutions of the Biden Administration but one of its stars may have just gone off-script.

50 thoughts on “Could The Arrest of FBI Agent Undermine The Whitmer Kidnapping Case?”

  1. Then there’s the FBI agent who changed a document for the purpose of continuing the spying on the Trump campaign. There was a time when we thought that the FBI existed to keep us safe from harm. Now the FBI leadership has turned us into people who do not trust the highest level of police authority in the nation. Thank you James Comey. Your legacy will always be looked to in the highest disregard. It makes you throw up in your mouth a little.

  2. Regression therapy has been found to induce false memories.

    Sting operations produce false law enforcement.

    There is no such thing as using the law to induce false criminals and crimes.

    What!? Who dreamed this —- up?

    Given the Constitution and Bill of Rights, sting operations don’t sound constitutional or wise.

    Memory Mondays: “Regression Therapy” Isn’t Real, but Hollywood Keeps the Myth Alive

    The science behind one of Freud’s most pernicious fables

    “Regression Therapy” Isn’t Real, but Hollywood Keeps the Myth Alive

    By Julia Shaw

    Regression therapy was first posited by the infamous Austrian psychotherapist Sigmund Freud, who believed that some of our most important but traumatic memories are hidden from us in a place called the subconscious. Credit: kimberrywood ©

    In October a movie appeared in cinemas around the world. It is a movie about a concept that has been a distinct part of our social consciousness for about a century. A concept that has many believers but even more non-believers. This incredibly contentious topic that I speak of, which has led to the so-called “memory wars” is that of regression, and along with it it’s sister concept repression.

    I don’t even like saying the words. They sound like a hissing snake, or one person trying to silence another. Regressssssion. Repressssssion. Apparently my concern regarding the palatable nature of these words is not shared by the movie’s director Alejandro Amenábar, since he made it the name of his new film: “Regression.”

    The movie’s long list of issues began with a ever-shifting release date, followed by an initial Rotten Tomatoes rating of a staggeringly low 6%, and a generally lukewarm and ‘forgettable’ reception.

    But the most important concern that we should all have with this movie is its rehashing of a concept that should be long dead, a concept that resulted in the so-called ‘satanic panic’ of the 1980s and 1990s. This was a wave of false allegations of horrific satanic sexual abuse rings based largely on memories that emerged during problematic psychotherapy.

    Clearly inspired by the satanic panic, the movie features a detective (Ethan Hawke) who is sent in to deal with a case where a father has confessed to sexually abusing his daughter (Emma Watson). The problem is that the daughter seems to have no recollection of it. This is where a psychotherapist is brought in to dig up the memory, and dig it up he does. The film then focuses on the horrific memories of satanic abuse that are uncovered.

    What are regression and repression?

    Regression therapy, which is central to this movie, is a process wherein a therapist has patients close their eyes and picture themselves as the child they once were. The idea is that this allows patients to access their childhood memories, particularly traumatic memories that they have repressed. The repression presumably happened because the patients weren’t able to deal with the memory, which has led to their innate coping mechanisms pushing it out of their conscious mind.

    The concept was first posited by the infamous Austrian psychotherapist Sigmund Freud, who believed that some of our most important but traumatic memories are hidden from us in a place called the subconscious. Regression therapy was thus born as a way to dig into the subconscious, recover these memories and bring them back to our conscious awareness. It has been particularly applied to attempts at recovering memories of sexual abuse.

    What does the science say?

    So, why do I care? Because I’m a psychological scientist who specializes in memory.

    In my research I demonstrate just how easily our memory can be messed with. I use techniques that mirror the kinds of suggestion and imagination exercises that therapists often use in regression therapy, but I use them to deliberately create dramatically inaccurate memories.
    newsletter promo

    Sign up for Scientific American’s free newsletters.

    My research shows that these techniques can generate complex memories, where people remember in vivid detail that they committed a crime, for example or that they physically injured themselves. But my participants never actually committed the crimes they so adamantly confess to, and never experienced the injuries they describe (for a quick description of how I do this you can go here).

    The memories that I create are called rich false memories, and in situations outside of the lab they can quite easily ruin lives and can lead to complex false memories of atrocities like those that are ‘recovered’ by our Emma Watson character in the Regression movie.

    At least in part, these memories can be created so easily because most people readily accept the idea of repression. They accept that we can experience things so terrible that they can be pushed out of our consciousness and into the special memory vault of the subconscious, a place where only a psychotherapist can unlock them.

    Why does it matter?

    The problem is that there is no empirical evidence to support such notions, certainly not in the way that Freud originally conceptualized them. As far as the scientific community is concerned, there is no secret repression vault, so there cannot be a secret technique to unlock it, thus eliminating the possibility of regression as a feasible therapeutic technique.

    There is also a tremendous problem with assuming that there is such a hidden emotional vault—particularly a vault that stores atrocious experiences like the satanic rituals “recalled” by Emma Watson’s character in the movie (“I could hear chanting, they were wearing robes. There was a black mask…”). The problem is that our expectations tend to influence their behavior. If we assume that a hidden, repressed memory exists, we start to hunt for it.

    If psychoanalytic therapists and patients go into a therapy session looking for the atrocities that ‘must’ be there, they can quite easily generate false memories in the process. The results can include families fractured by false accusations, and lawsuits based on ill-informed therapy that generated a memory of something terrible that never actually happened.

    Where does this leave us?

    The ideas of repression and regression tap into our inherent fears of losing or distorting our memories. It makes great fodder for psycho-thrillers. But, the fact that in 2015 I still regularly have conversations with intelligent people where I need to debunk their belief in the core concept of regression is, frankly, depressing. And, while I don’t blame Hollywood for running with an interesting concept (as poorly as they may have translated it onto the screen), I do blame them for helping to keep this myth alive.

    To summarize, and hopefully to help you sleep at night, let’s get this straight; there is no such thing as regression. In the name of science, let’s kill this myth.

    – Scientific American

  3. “Trump supporters are being hunted down by sexual predators like that Michigan FBI agent. I suspect it will be revealed that FBI agents regularly rape suspects – who are afraid to speak out due to corruption and terrorism of the department.” @cernovich

    1. I see why you post as anonymous. That is a ridiculous allegation to make.

      1. Maybe. Did you read what this FBI agent did to his own wife?


        Documents: Federal agents engaged in sex acts with victims

        “Lon Weigand, deputy special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in Arizona, described them as “Asian females” who may be sex-trafficking victims. He praised the joint operation between federal agents and local police in western Arizona that led to their rescue and credited “investigative techniques” with helping to crack a “transnational criminal organization.”

        What Weigand didn’t say at that September 2018 press conference – although HSI documents show some supervisors knew – was that federal undercover agents repeatedly paid for and engaged in sex acts with suspected victims.

        That fact, coupled with HSI’s refusal to let its agents testify, caused the collapse of a case that was more than three years in the making. All felony charges against the alleged ringleaders were dropped. And sex-trafficking experts said the women were likely re-traumatized.

      2. Agent Trask, “faces up to ten years for allegedly assaulting his wife with intent to do great bodily harm.”

        If he could do this to his own wife, what would stop him from raping and threatening a suspect if he thought he could get away with it?

        You know that even priests, clergy are guilty of it, right?

        “Theodore McCarrick, the once powerful Catholic church leader and Archbishop of Washington, DC was defrocked Saturday.

        The Vatican made the announcement after finding McCarrick guilty of sex abuse, including with minors. The Vatican said McCarrick was also found guilty of solicitation during confession.”

    2. Trump supporters ARE being hunted down, without question they are being targeted.

  4. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see the outcomes of actual Americans actually discovering that the FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI, ONI, USCBP et al., the global communist “Deep Deep State,” surreptitiously conducted and facilitated Pearl Harbor (for Comrade Roosevelt, Alger Hiss, convicted communist spy), the ongoing illegal alien invasion (Operation Wetback), the JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the Oklahoma City bombing, the shoot down by the Navy of Flight 800, the Twin Towers controlled demolition on 9/11, the Obama Coup D’etat* in America, featuring James Comey, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, his FBI paramour, Lisa Page, the disappearance of John “Dudley Do-Right” Durham, the theft of the 2020 presidential election, and other defining national episodes?

    What would happen if Americans found out that global communists run their country? Oops. My bad. The very definition of communism is globalism. And most Americans are communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs), huh? A momentary lapse, I assure you. Debilitating delusions of American grandeur. Sorry.

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

    James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,

    Sally Yates, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell,

    Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

    Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,

    Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

    Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

    Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, et al.

    1. Agree with much of what you posted, except where you refer to the deep state and globalists as “communists.” They are NeoCons and NeoLiberals–and increasingly fascists— but not communists.
      Those in power aren’t interested in critiquing or overthrowing capitalism. They’ve become insanely wealthy through global capitalism and wars—at the expense of the majority of the population.
      Biden has BlackRock aka Wall Street inside his administration. They are using MMT to hand out stimulus money to shut people up while they ramp up inflation and plan new wars.

    2. “DOJ exists to run interference for corrupt Democrats like Andrew Cuomo and Hunter Biden and to persecute and spy on conservatives, regardless of who is president.

      It’s a wholly corrupt and illegitimate agency that couldn’t care less about the rule of law.” @seanmdav

  5. Heaven do tell, this is nothing compared to those still languishing in jail (some in solitary confinement) for their suppose insurrection on the Capital.

    1. See real, actual, treasonous insurrection (unarmed) as the historical Obama Coup D’etat in America above.

  6. (Glen Greenwald has an excellent, in-depth article with facts, about how the FBI actually set up the entire fake phony kidnapping. And how they have done this kind of vile horse-shit time and again. I will give you a taste. Then you can read the rest at his website.)

    FBI Using the Same Fear Tactic From the First War on Terror: Orchestrating its Own Terrorism Plots

    “ The article never once hinted at let alone described the highly active role of these informants and agents themselves in encouraging and designing the plot. Instead, it depicted these anti-government activists as leading one another — on their own — to commit what CNN called “treason in a quaint town.” The more honest headline for this CNN article would have been: “Inside the FBI’s tale of the plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer.” But since CNN never questions the FBI — they employ their top agents and operatives once they leave the bureau in order to disseminate their propaganda — this is what the country got from The Most Trusted Name in News:”

    “Yet from the start, there were ample and potent reasons to distrust the FBI’s version of events. To begin with, FBI press releases are typically filled with lies, yet media outlets — due to some combination of excessive gullibility, an inability to learn lessons, or a desire to be deceived — continue to treat them as Gospel. For another, the majority of “terror plots” the FBI claimed to detect and break up during the first War on Terror were, in fact, plots manufactured, funded and driven by the FBI itself. “

    “Indeed, the FBI has previously acknowledged that its own powers and budget depend on keeping Americans in fear of such attacks. Former FBI Assistant Director Thomas Fuentes, in a documentary called “The Newberg Sting” about a 2009 FBI arrest of four men on terrorism charges, uttered this extremely candid admission:”

    “If you’re submitting budget proposals for a law enforcement agency, for an intelligence agency, you’re not going to submit the proposal that “We won the war on terror and everything’s great,” cuz the first thing that’s gonna happen is your budget’s gonna be cut in half. You know, it’s my opposite of Jesse Jackson’s ‘Keep Hope Alive’—it’s ‘Keep Fear Alive.’ Keep it alive.“

    (This next part pertains to another case the FBI set up to start with!!! There is a-lot more to the other case on his website.)


    “The U.S. federal judge who sentenced Cromitie to decades in prison, Colleen McMahon, said she did so only because the law of “entrapment” is so narrow that it is virtually impossible for a defendant to win, but in doing so, she repeatedly condemnedthe FBI in the harshest terms for single-handedly converting Cromitie from a helpless but resentful anti-government fanatic into a criminal. “

    “The defendant “was incapable of committing an act of terrorism on his own,” she said, adding: “only the government could have made a terrorist out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.” She added: “There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that James Cromitie could never have dreamed up the scenario in which he actually became involved.”

    “Her written ruling is worth quoting at length because of how relevant it is to current FBI activities. The judge began by noting that Cromitie “had successfully resisted going too far for eight months,” and agreed only after “the Government dangled what had to be almost irresistible temptation in front of an impoverished man from what I have come (after literally dozens of cases) to view as the saddest and most dysfunctional community in the Southern District of New York.” It was the FBI’s own informant, she wrote, who “was the prime mover and instigator of all the criminal activity that occurred.” She then wrote (emphasis added):”

    “The Government indisputably “manufactured” the crimes of which defendants stand convicted. The Government invented all of the details of the scheme – many of them, such as the trip to Connecticut and the inclusion of Stewart AFB as a target, for specific legal purposes of which the defendants could not possibly have been aware (the former gave rise to federal jurisdiction and the latter mandated a twenty-five year minimum sentence). The Government selected the targets.”

    “ The Government designed and built the phony ordnance that the defendants planted (or planned to plant) at Government-selected targets. The Government provided every item used in the plot: cameras, cell phones, cars, maps and even a gun. The Government did all the driving (as none of the defendants had a car or a driver’s license). The Government funded the entire project. And the Government, through its agent, offered the defendants large sums of money, contingent on their participation in the heinous scheme.“

  7. You can’t impose an objective test on undercover cops’s leadership role in a conspiracy, because that then gives a conspiracy leader a well-defined vetting “test”, forcing the an undercover cop to either back down from the conspiracy, or risk having the case thrown out. Keeping a more subjective, ex-post-facto judgment about leadership contribution allows infiltration to be more effective.

    However, the FBI should have a strict rule of engagement, where the undercover agent, if he determines that the group are just fantasy-players in it for vicarious self-entertainment, and not dangerous people, the agent should reveal to the group that they’ve been infiltrated by the FBI and warn them about what could happen if there’s ever a “next time”. I know, it’s a judgment call, but much of police work is.

  8. So the FBI: coordinated the first meeting to introduce the “conspirators” to each other AND created the plan for the crime AND paid for room and food to keep the planning going. Sounds like the FBI agents should be prosecuted as the ring-leaders.

    I’m okay with the FBI infiltrating EXISTING crime organizations. I am not okay with the FBI CREATING crime organizations, planning the strategy, and paying/reimbursing the participants to commit the crime. And why hasn’t the FBI been doing this to the real destroyers of US cities – the always-fa anti-fa groups!

    1. If you read Andy Ngo’s book, you’d understand that Antifa cells are designed to make it very difficult for infiltration by law enforcement. They are more steeped in long-term friendships. The right-wing militia groups are more porous and accepting of loner types, making them easier targets for undercover agents.

      1. How many times have “right wing militia” groups – actually done anything ?

        There is a single incident of real criminal violence of – and that is the OKC bombing – and even that was primarily by McVeigh acting OUTSIDE these groups.

        I would further note that McVeigh admitted his motivation was a response to the misconduct of the FBI and ATF at Ruby Ridge and Wacco

      2. “Antifa cells are designed to make it very difficult for infiltration by law enforcement.”
        Maybe. But I wonder how many Antifa actually are LE. Maybe the ‘longtime friendships’ are forged in Quantico.

      3. Doing in ANTIFA might require a longer game…and a slightly different method of introducing undercover agents but in the end it is still the same procedure….dangle the right bait and it will be swallowed by the target.

        Those groups need recruits….just give them the right kind.

        Been there…done that.

    2. I am not OK with the FBI for pretty much anything.

      Is there some reason that Michigan is unable to investigate and prosecute this – if there is actually something there ?

      The FBI’s prosecutions – of most everything – are self serving and fundimentally corrupt.

      I am hard pressed to think of an FBI case that could not have been handled by ordinary8 local law enforcement or that did not involve bad conduct on the part of the FBI.

      Ruby Ridge and Wacco brought us the IKC bombing.

      something like 43 of 44 prosecutions of “islamic terrorists” in the US involved FBI agents “infiltrating” muslim teen groups and persuading them to behave stupid – maybe.

      The FBI thoroughly botched the Anthrax case.

      We can go on and on,

      We have all now seen the innards of the FBI Crossfire Huricane case – do we really want the FBI doing ANYTHING to ANYONE on that flimsy a basis ?

      Get rid of ALL federal crimes that are also or overlap state and local crimes.

      Get rid of the nonsense that therfe is some general federal police power – there is not.

      Limit FBI to enforcing actual federal criminal laws – of which there should be very few – espionage, treason, maybe forgery.

      Nor should this be limited to FBI – DIJ is involved in far more BS than is their business.

  9. The FBI has been involved in too many shady deals. To me, that means it needs to be ended. Let a more honest law enforcement agency take it over. Alternatively, strip the FBI of its leadership, replacing them with others while changing how agents advance in the system.

    1. We will make a libertarian out of you yet.

      Any “federal” crime that substantially overlaps a state crime should not exist PERIOD.

      there is no general federal police power.

      The purpose of federal law enforcement is to enfore those FEW areas of criminal conduct that are uniquely federal.

      Treason, Forgery, as an example.

      Even to the extent that it is arguable that there should be coordination between state regarding crimes accross state lines – those should be handled by interstate cooperation OR by federal resources that assist and are subordinate to those of the state.

      1. “We will make a libertarian out of you yet.”

        John, libertarianism represents a broad spectrum. No, you will not ever put me in that limited portion of the spectrum where some reside. I don’t like streets that curve all around so one can’t get anywhere. I also believe in the Constitution and strict Constitutional rule even if it steps on the libertarian’s toes. Finally, I believe people have a limited lifespan, and though purity might theoretically be better, the people might all be dead by that time. I like federalism.

        1. Doctor Exposing Massive Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths Gives Update on Lawsuit



          Jul 23, 2021
          The Alex Jones Show
          The Alex Jones Show


          Emergency Saturday Broadcast! Republican Leaders Announce New Lock Down Plan



          Jul 24, 2021
          The Alex Jones Show
          The Alex Jones Show

          CDC officially admits that the PCR test are 100% fraud. The second lockdown will be permanent! Tune in and learn how humanity can peacefully rise up and stop it

  10. Maybe the entire Whitmer Plot was planned and advanced by the FBI and the defendants were only invited over for beer, pizza and a chance to b.s. with scary hoodlums a few times.

    Nothing would surprise me anymore.

    At the end of WW II we learned from the German rocket scientists.

    At the collapse of East Germany we seem to have learned from the Stasi.

  11. The question is – At what point do the FBI’s actions make it a criminal organization?

  12. Set a thief to catch a thief is a trope embraced by law enforcement to justify hiring corrupt individuals.

    But…You can’t cheat an honest man, so if you ask yourself if the act or acts you’re being asked to engage are legal, you can avoid this dilemma. It’s why I never feel sorry by people who are duped by the Nigerian fortune scam. They all agreed to engage in money laundering. Wire fraud. Probate laws of a foreign country. And they hoped for a share.

    That said, the FBI doesn’t need be to running around inducing people to commit crimes. I guess it is safer than trying to infiltrate a criminal gang, but then why are we hiring cowards? Stick to the real criminals until that element is locked up before you go looking for the feeble minded.

    1. The fundimental question is not wheether the defendants were “good people” it is whether “but for” the FBI they would have committed these specific crimes.

      Even if they MIGHT have committed lessor crimes – this is entrapment.

      Many many people are NOT GOOD people, but they still do not commit crimes.

  13. Is this the same FBI that under Mueller kept 3 innocent men in prison even though he knew they were innocent. Is this the same FBI, also under Mueller that gave cover to Whitey Bulger and used him as an informant so they could prosecute the the Italian Mafia in Eastern New England. While under the FBI’s cover Whitey did his business as usual. That is murdering people. When the FBI comes calling, you better lawyer up.

    1. Jesus Obama, via electronic drone strikes, ordered the murder of two innocent uncharged American citizens both named Anwar Al-Awlaki, the 2nd victim being the 16 year old son of the father with the same name. The two names appeared on Obama’s felonious secret “kill list.” IIRC Obama murdered them in Yemen.

      After those two felony murders, then-FBI Chief Mueller told Obama if he wants to murder in the USA, go ahead, it’s all good.

      John Cusack’s interview of Turley on this subject is superb.

  14. The “left” is desperate to shift focus away from the violence of Antifa and BLM, so they are pushing the “white supremacist” bogeyman. If Americans knew how disorganized, factionalized and incompetent rightwing groups are, they’d see through the propaganda. The FBI is doing the Democrats’ bidding. How long before we read about their pivotal role in the January 6th riot?

    1. I saw some videos recently showing white racist attacking Asian people. Funny thing, the white racists were in black face.

    2. Conservatives need to get past thinking of the corruption in government and the FBI as explicitly a Left thing.

      The FBI has engaged in disreputable conduct througout my entire lifetime. This is not new.

      They subject people they know are innocent to extreme preassures, they push people into committing crimes – it does not matter whether it is islamic teens or white militias.

      There is a LONG LONG list of misconduct by the FBI and DOJ – sometimes politics is an element, mostly it is just over zealous law enforcement flexing its muscle and bullying people.

      It does not matter if the target is on the left or the right.

      Conservatives should grasp that the “deep state” – whether DOJ, FBI, CIA, …. does not server the left or the right – it serves ITSELF,

      Sometimes it is aligned with the left, sometimes the right. ALWAYS its own interests.

      Most of us – do NOT support “defunding police” – we are aware that our local law enforfcement is there to actually protect and serve us.

      It may not be perfect, but it is of great value to us.

      The FBI however serves little or no purpose.

      The vast majority of cases that the FBI chases could be perfectly adequately handled by state or local police.

      There is nothing about the Witmer case that requires the FBI.

      There are very very few FBI cases that require federal law enforcement.

  15. Law enforcement saying: “If there’s no crime, we’ll create one.”

  16. Justice not only has to be fair, it has to be perceived as fair.

    Would the Michigan bozos have proceeded on their own?

    We will never know.

    But as Canuck stated, the FBI certainly gave the venture momentum.

    The FBI is certainly in the news a lot – and not in a good way.

    There is a growing perception of biased agents, cultural mendacity, and lax oversight.

    Not good, especially for an agency with their essentially unlimited powers.

    I would hesitate to speak with a FBI agent on any matter.

  17. The entire issue of the FBI, or any police officer, being involved in any way with a criminal activity is not right. Actions leading up to an ‘event’ have a momentum, and that momentum is required for them to occur. Otherwise, the planned ‘event’ withers and dies for lack of it. Let’s face it, a lot of conspirator types are not the brightest bulbs, whereas FBI agents most certainly are.
    The FBI has clearly been providing this momentum to people who might very well otherwise just grumble, mutter, have a couple of meetings and then give up – and the FBI needs to stop.

    1. Canuck: “Let’s face it, a lot of conspirator types are not the brightest bulbs, whereas FBI agents most certainly are.”
      That remains to be seen. Does this Keystone Cops plot seem to be the product of ‘bright bulbs’ to you?

  18. Put the photo up on the front of apt buildings to scare the rats away.

Comments are closed.