No it's not. Entrapment is not a crime, it is an affirmative defense raised by a defendant. It is not a crime you charge someone with. None of the people charged with a crime has raised entrapment as a defense. If they did, they would have to show that while they committed all elements of a crime, they were forced/tricked into doing so by law enforcement. Repeatedly asking someone to break the law doesn't isn't entrapment. It is another affirmative defense, which would be coercion, and it would be a terribly week claim, which is why none of Mueller's defendants are trying to raise it.
Entrapment for federal crimes generally comes down to two legal tests: 1) you look at the defendants state of mind and try to determine if he knowingly did the acts alleged with knowledge that they were illegal; 2) and you look at the actions of law enforcement and see if they would have caused an average person to commit that crime. This burden rests on the defendant. The prosecution has the burden to prove that the defendant performed every element of the crime. The defendant can either offer evidence that he did not fulfill those elements, or he can assert and affirmative defense such as self-defense, entrapment, etc.
This is why you and bobs talk of entrapment is retarded. Neither of you have made the argument that entrapment applies to any crime that anyone was actually charged with, and potential entrapment is not a thing. You can keep crying foul about law enforcement asking someone to do something unethical, and them ultimately doing it. But no one gives a shit because, 1) that person is an adult and can take responsibility for their actions; 2) repeatedly being asked to do it is hardly a justification for doing something wrong; 3) he was never charged with a criminal offense for those actions.
