Hal Turner worker for the FBI from 2003 until 2007 as an agent provacateur"

Attorney: FBI trained NJ blogger to incite others

Aug 18 03:51 PM US/Eastern
By KATIE NELSON
Associated Press Writer Comments (105) Share on Facebook


HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A New Jersey blogger facing charges in two states for allegedly making threats against lawmakers and judges was trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative, his attorney said Tuesday.
Hal Turner worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an "agent provocateur" and was taught by the agency "what he could say that wouldn't be crossing the line," defense attorney Michael Orozco said.


"His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest," Orozco said.

Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.

<snip>

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A5GCC80&show_article=1

A Fuckface-era FBI snitch. And they're dumb enough to prosecute this sucker?

Oh, this is rich. This is priceless.

Wouldn't you just love to know all the names of all the snitches?

I would...............................................

One which will get his ass kicked in the slammer.

Oh, I so completely disagree.

This is a variation of the "Manchurian Candidate" defense.

Pass the popcorn......................:popcorn:

If he can prove he worked for them, I'd like to see it.

Clearly, you didn't.

You didn't even read the blurb in the OP.

Read it, and then reconsider what you posted here............................

If they do they are lying. And if you believe them you are an idiot.

This knuckle dragger should get ten years hard labor just for his stupidity alone.

Don

a jury trial?) buys the defense, which is going to be that the FBI created this monster, and he was unable to turn it off once he left their employ?

It could happen.

This is just damn fine entertainment now...................... :popcorn:

They don't let people throw everything up against the wall just to see what will stick there. I think the conviction rate in federal courts is about 98%.

Don

and I don't know what you mean by that assertion about "what the government wants them to hear."

Even in Federal courts, you know, the Rules of Evidence apply.................

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/fed.htm

Adjudication

During 2006, criminal cases were commenced against 87,650 defendants in U.S. district court. Most (89%) were charged with a felony offense. Thirty-seven percent of felony defendants were charged with a drug offense; 38% of all defendants were charged with a public-order offense -- including 20% with an immigration offense and 11% with a weapons offense. Fifteen percent were charged with a property offense.

Cases were terminated against 88,094 defendants during 2006. Most (91%) defendants were convicted. Of the 79,904 defendants convicted, 76,778 (or 96%) pleaded guilty or no-contest.

look at the last and the penultimate sentences. They blend those who pled and those who went to trial, making any kind of reasonable assessment impossible.

Lies, lies, and statistics - how anyone can write, with a straight face, a line like "Of the 79,904 defendant convicted, 76, 778 ... pled guilty or no-content (sic)." is beyond me! Talk about nonsense.

You cannot combine those who were convicted with those who pled. Two different animals entirely.

And that would change those numbers quite dramatically.

You have to be able to read those things with a critical eye, my friend. Especially when they were put out by a Justice Department headed by George W. Bush's Attorney General. Be suspicious - be very suspicious.

Those numbers are worthless.

I thought your 98% figure was off the wall. Thanks for affirming that for me.

And, as for the Rules of Evidence, you do understand that they apply in Federal courts........................................

eom