It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Affidavit for the Cleveland Five- FBI Entrapment?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 



(Really wish I could figure out how to quote from that PDF)


If you can't copy/paste from the PDF file, try searching online for the PDF file name, you might get a Google result that let's you view it as HTML.




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I just find it mind boggling that they said weapons of mass destruction as the key weapon that was suppose to be used by these 5 individuals...They look like they couldn't pull the pin from a grenade...Just saying I find this strange...WMD's as the key weapon...They didn't use that term during the OKC bombing with McVeigh and Nichols..It was simply a Ammonium Nitrate bomb...Not a WMD!



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by MrWendal


In #41 one of the suspects talks to the FBI Undercover officer who is supplying the C4 about working for him in order to pay for the C4. Of course if you read the earlier parts, this is of particular amusement because they group had previously discussed selling weed as a way to pay for the share that the Confidential Informant was not able to cover.


I'm not sure I see your point. They didnt have the money, but they stil asked for the explosives. It was Wright who asked the informant if he knew where he could get some C4. Then they even TOLD the informant they would sell drugs to GET the money. That's not exactly making them appear innocent in my mind.

As early as #15, Wright was telling the CHS (informant) that they had been planning on using explosives to destroy property. At #17 he said he had scoped out bridges as a possible target.

At #22 he is telling the CHS (informant) that he will show him how to make explosives.

At #25 it is Wright who brings up to the informant that he wants to buy C4. It is NOT the informants suggestion. It is the perps. NOT entrapment.

(Really wish I could figure out how to quote from that PDF)


edit on 3-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)


No where in that PDF did I read anything about Wright asking where he can get some C4. What I read sure seemed more like it was the Confidential Informant who suggested it to begin with.

Now the point I am making that you seem to be missing is this.....

Let us say you are in the market to buy explosives. You are planning to blow up a bridge and commit a terrorist act. You get connected to someone who can supply you with C4 explosives. Do you really think for one second that the person selling you the explosives will take a payment plan? This is not Walmart. You can not get that kind of deal buying a firearm on the street, but you are going to get a payment plan for some C4? Come on man.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

No where in that PDF did I read anything about Wright asking where he can get some C4. What I read sure seemed more like it was the Confidential Informant who suggested it to begin with.


Not sure how you missed it. It's right where i said it was,in item #25:





Now the point I am making that you seem to be missing is this.....

Let us say you are in the market to buy explosives. You are planning to blow up a bridge and commit a terrorist act. You get connected to someone who can supply you with C4 explosives. Do you really think for one second that the person selling you the explosives will take a payment plan? This is not Walmart. You can not get that kind of deal buying a firearm on the street, but you are going to get a payment plan for some C4? Come on man.


But what I already asked is what do you think that proves? They ASKED to buy explosives from the informant. Them not having the immediate funds to pay for it implies they arent guilty how? If you are going to argue entrapment, you have to show it was the informant who suggested the explosives. There is no evidence of that. The fact that they offered to sell drugs to pay for the explosives IN NO WAY makes them innocent. To imply it does really makes no sense, as Ive already stated.



edit on 4-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Yes, and where did the idea for C4 come from?

I will give you a hint... read before #25. The first "recorded" conversation.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Yes, and where did the idea for C4 come from?

I will give you a hint... read before #25. The first "recorded" conversation.


Cite the paragraph. Thats the least you could do.

:-)




top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join