Alan Dershowitz argues that Flints lying to the FBI isn't a crime.....

[Moonbeam]

I watched him present his case here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-fbi-isnt-a-crime_us_5c17d292e4b0b1ea387f2bbc

My opinion has been in noticing Dershowitz defend Trump against the special council is that perhaps he's become senile or is maybe getting paid. But I watched the clip and found his point of view oddly compelling. Are we actually looking at a sin rather than a crime. Should the FBI assume the lie was really a lie with criminal intent since there was no real problem if he told the truth? The only issue is that he was caught in a lie, not a crime. Do we really want a system where the FBI may accuse you of a lie and a crime when the truth wasn't a crime? It gives me pause, frankly, after having it thus explained. What do you think?

 

[Bitek]

Somehow none of Trump's crimes are ever illegal...


.... Yet they wanted to imprison Hillary because email

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, I mean, he got OJ off, didn't he?

Asking a witness a question when they already know the answer is a common police technique used to judge the honesty of the witness. Flynn initially tried to bullshit his way thru & failed the test.

It's a plea deal structured to cover the Special Counsel's cards. Mueller keeps 'em close to his vest. Flynn could obviously be charged with more than that but more details would have to be revealed now rather than later. I'm sure Flynn agreed to it on that basis.

He's been a good little rat & therefore receives the beneficence of the Court.

 

[dank69]

I watched him present his case here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-fbi-isnt-a-crime_us_5c17d292e4b0b1ea387f2bbc

My opinion has been in noticing Dershowitz defend Trump against the special council is that perhaps he's become senile or is maybe getting paid. But I watched the clip and found his point of view oddly compelling. Are we actually looking at a sin rather than a crime. Should the FBI assume the lie was really a lie with criminal intent since there was no real problem if he told the truth? The only issue is that he was caught in a lie, not a crime. Do we really want a system where the FBI may accuse you of a lie and a crime when the truth wasn't a crime? It gives me pause, frankly, after having it thus explained. What do you think?

I think I'd like to ask Hatch circa 1999

 

[Meghan54]

First, lying to the FBI is a crime in itself, just ask Martha Stewart. And Flynn absolutely knew that was the case, given his work history.

Second, why would he lie in the first place? Do you automatically lie when asked questions, like Trump seems to do?

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, I mean, he got OJ off, didn't he?

Asking a witness a question when they already know the answer is a common police technique used to judge the honesty of the witness. Flynn initially tried to bullshit his way thru & failed the test.

It's a plea deal structured to cover the Special Counsel's cards. Mueller keeps 'em close to his vest. Flynn could obviously be charged with more than that but more details would have to be revealed now rather than later. I'm sure Flynn agreed to it on that basis.

He's been a good little rat & therefore receives the beneficence of the Court.

Personally, I feel the most likely reason Flynn lied was that the actual intent of his meetings with the Russians was something he knew was criminal and so the notion that he could simply tell the truth and that couldn't be construed as criminal on the face of it because it would be normal for a person in his position to meet with such Russian officials simply did not occur to him. So what undid him, in my opinion, was his own real guilt over what they met about, not that he could have said yes he met with them but the reasons were devoid of criminal intent. The question then becomes, if you lie about something that can't be proven as a crime, should you be charged with the crime of lying. On one level justice seems to have been served, but on another level not. The issue that troubles me is that while I think the truth of his guilt is what did him in, his knowledge that the intent of the meeting was illegal, he was hooked by the fact that he told a lie he could not have been charged with anything if he simply told the truth. It seems weird to catch somebody for a lie when you could not have caught him on anything if he didn't. They didn't ask him if he met with the Russians for purposes of criminal intent, to which he said no, because they had no proof that we know of yet that they can prove that he did. He got trapped in a way but only, I think,. because he was actually guilty. I have some conflicts about this and hope additional evidence of a real crime is forthcoming.

 

[thilanliyan]

He could have saved himself a lot of trouble by not lying...but maybe he would be a bit poorer? Actually the price he has paid so far is probably much bigger than any financial gain he got, so he should have just told the truth.

 

[Moonbeam]

First, lying to the FBI is a crime in itself, just ask Martha Stewart. And Flynn absolutely knew that was the case, given his work history.

Second, why would he lie in the first place? Do you automatically lie when asked questions, like Trump seems to do?

The problem I have is that when I think as you do here it tells me I am assuming guilt rather than innocence.

The reason he lied is a mystery since he clearly didn't need to and had he said yes and then lied after that they couldn't have had him on a crime. I make the assumption then, that the reason he lied was because he was actually guilty of a crime during the meeting and thus foolishly denied it took place. He was slow on his feet. It can also mean that his contempt for himself for his crime was so great that he unconsciously fucked himself. If so he will be better off for it and especially for such a light sentence. Were I his judge, I would sentence him for time just for pulling the 'I was trapped routine". He fucked himself and now wants the best of all worlds.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think I'd like to ask Hatch circa 1999

Sen. Orrin Hatch, the outgoing Utah Republican and most senior GOP senator, issued a statement on Friday expressing regret for telling CNN "I don't care" when asked about President Donald Trump being implicated in crimes by Michael Cohen.

Some pretty weak sause in my opinion, but hey!

 

[Jhhnn]

I think Dershowitz is feeding us a line when he says the Special Counsel didn't have anything else to bust him for. How would he know? That's not how plea deals work. This was just the least of what they could bust him for. Flynn has counsel & I'm sure they would not have agreed to this if it were not beneficial to their client.

 

[Paratus]

Good to know Alan Dershowitz is giving out legal advice that lying to the FBI isn’t a crime.

Anyone know what the BAR has to say about that?

 

[Moonbeam]

I think Dershowitz is feeding us a line when he says the Special Counsel didn't have anything else to bust him for. How would he know? That's not how plea deals work. This was just the least of what they could bust him for. Flynn has counsel & I'm sure they would not have agreed to this if it were not beneficial to their client.

For all I know Flynn may have told them he lied because he was trying to avoid being placed at a meeting where he did commit a crime while in the course of what could have passed for innocent behavior. But I can only react to what is known I do find it odd that had he told the truth, that truth in and of itself would not have been a crime he had to plea to avoid.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Good to know Alan Dershowitz is giving out legal advice that lying to the FBI isn’t a crime.

Anyone know what the BAR has to say about that?

The Bar would have nothing to say. Dersh isn't giving legal advice, he's rendering an unofficial opinion. There's no client and no case he's involved in. That he may be a talking head full of it is different than legal malpractice.

 

[Moonbeam]

Good to know Alan Dershowitz is giving out legal advice that lying to the FBI isn’t a crime.

Anyone know what the BAR has to say about that?

That is not quite the issue. It is a crime to lie to the FBI. The problem is that most people lie to the FBI to conceal the fact they did something illegal. Flynn lied to them about doing something that on its face was not illegal. My personal take on this is that he lied because what he did at the meeting was illegal, not the meeting itself, but that's what they got him on, that he went to a meeting that for all we know at which nothing illegal happened and lied that he went. There is a nuance here that I find somewhat disturbing. Suppose you were up for ten years for lying to the FBI that you ever parked in front of a building with a 2 hour parking limit and you know that you were there for 3. They have a picture of you in the spot but the camera went dead after an hour and you lie that you ever parked there. So now while they can't prove you were there for more than 2 hours, they have you for a greater crime, you lied to the FBI. You would have walked had you just said I was there but for how long I don't remember. And maybe you actually don't remember.

 

[HomerJS]

I watched him present his case here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-fbi-isnt-a-crime_us_5c17d292e4b0b1ea387f2bbc

My opinion has been in noticing Dershowitz defend Trump against the special council is that perhaps he's become senile or is maybe getting paid. But I watched the clip and found his point of view oddly compelling. Are we actually looking at a sin rather than a crime. Should the FBI assume the lie was really a lie with criminal intent since there was no real problem if he told the truth? The only issue is that he was caught in a lie, not a crime. Do we really want a system where the FBI may accuse you of a lie and a crime when the truth wasn't a crime? It gives me pause, frankly, after having it thus explained. What do you think?

Fuck Flynn. He was given over a dozen chances to amend his story and he stuck to the lie. Sounds like a crime to me.

 

[HomerJS]

That is not quite the issue. It is a crime to lie to the FBI.

Save your breath and stop there.

 

[Jhhnn]

For all I know Flynn may have told them he lied because he was trying to avoid being placed at a meeting where he did commit a crime while in the course of what could have passed for innocent behavior. But I can only react to what is known I do find it odd that had he told the truth, that truth in and of itself would not have been a crime he had to plea to avoid.

Like I said, this is designed to close the Flynn matter while divulging essentially nothing of what Mueller has learned from Flynn. I'm pretty sure Flynn's cooperation led to indictment of some of his former business partners but he's not being charged with them-

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/flynn-associate-arrested-illegal-lobbying-charges-59863489

 

[GodisanAtheist]

My take would be lying, that is deliberately saying something that is factually false, to a law enforcement agency is a form of obstruction that is preventing the pursuit and application of Justice.

I reject that it is a moral issue, and that it is definitely a legal one, in that it affects the enforcement of the law. This isn't telling your wife you ate a salad for lunch when you really had a cheeseburger.

 

[woolfe9998]

Dershowitz is incorrect. I fully understand the materiality requirement for perjury, but evidently this Harvard scholar does not or is pretending not to.

He's correct that since the FBI had already heard the tape, the content of Flynn's answer is not material in and of itself. However, the fact that Flynn lied is, in and of itself, extremely material. These investigators were definitely creating an opportunity for him to lie, but not so that they could prosecute him for perjury. Rather, because if Flynn lies about discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador, the lie itself is evidence that he is covering up a wider conspiracy which goes beyond the content of the phone call. This is the very type of thing their investigation is aimed at discovering and hence the fact that he lies in this context couldn't possibly be more material.

Frankly, I'm getting tried of these arguments that Flynn and Cohen are pleading guilty to conduct which is not criminal. They are both represented by competent counsel. No competent attorney is going to advise his client to plead guilty to a crime for which there is, as Dershowitz claims, a slam dunk defense. Dershowitz is on this, as with pretty much everything else these days, way out of the mainstream of legal opinions.

I also find it amusing that Dersh once made this same argument for Clinton's deposition testimony. There, it was a correct argument because his statements about Lewinsky would never have been admissible in the Paula Jones trial and were hence immaterial. Yet conservatives laughed at the argument and totally rejected it at the time. Now suddenly materiality is a brilliant argument even though here it isn't a winning argument at all.

 

[woolfe9998]

But I watched the clip and found his point of view oddly compelling.

Yes, you found it compelling because it is sophistry.

Dershowitz has created a clever construct whereby Flynn's lie is immaterial simply because the FBI already knew the answer to the questions they asked. However, it ignores the wider investigatory context wherein the fact that Flynn lies is relevant in and or itself because it suggests he is covering up criminal conduct not disclosed in the phone conversation itself. Like collusion which occurred between the Trump campaign and Russia during the campaign. That's why they asked him questions they already knew the answer to, and that is why his lies were material.

Also, see my post above.

 

[dank69]

Sen. Orrin Hatch, the outgoing Utah Republican and most senior GOP senator, issued a statement on Friday expressing regret for telling CNN "I don't care" when asked about President Donald Trump being implicated in crimes by Michael Cohen.

Some pretty weak sause in my opinion, but hey!

That would be Hatch circa this week.

 

[Moonbeam]

Dershowitz is incorrect. I fully understand the materiality requirement for perjury, but evidently this Harvard scholar does not or is pretending not to.

He's correct that since the FBI had already heard the tape, the content of Flynn's answer is not material in and of itself. However, the fact that Flynn lied is, in and of itself, extremely material. These investigators were definitely creating an opportunity for him to lie, but not so that they could prosecute him for perjury. Rather, because if Flynn lies about discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador, the lie itself is evidence that he is covering up a wider conspiracy which goes beyond the content of the phone call. This is the very type of thing their investigation is aimed at discovering and hence the fact that he lies in this context couldn't possibly be more material.

Frankly, I'm getting tried of these arguments that Flynn and Cohen are pleading guilty to conduct which is not criminal. They are both represented by competent counsel. No competent attorney is going to advise his client to plead guilty to a crime for which there is, as Dershowitz claims, a slam dunk defense. Dershowitz is on this, as with pretty much everything else these days, way out of the mainstream of legal opinions.

I also find it amusing that Dersh once made this same argument for Clinton's deposition testimony. There, it was a correct argument because his statements about Lewinsky would never have been admissible in the Paula Jones trial and were hence immaterial. Yet conservatives laughed at the argument and totally rejected it at the time. Now suddenly materiality is a brilliant argument even though here it isn't a winning argument at all.

Yes, you found it compelling because it is sophistry.

Dershowitz has created a clever construct whereby Flynn's lie is immaterial simply because the FBI already knew the answer to the questions they asked. However, it ignores the wider investigatory context wherein the fact that Flynn lies is relevant in and or itself because it suggests he is covering up criminal conduct not disclosed in the phone conversation itself. Like collusion which occurred between the Trump campaign and Russia during the campaign. That's why they asked him questions they already knew the answer to, and that is why his lies were material.

Also, see my post above.

I summed up my attitude to this more or less here as quoted from an earlier post: "The reason he lied is a mystery since he clearly didn't need to and had he said yes and then lied after that they couldn't have had him on a crime. I make the assumption then, that the reason he lied was because he was actually guilty of a crime during the meeting and thus foolishly denied it took place. He was slow on his feet. It can also mean that his contempt for himself for his crime was so great that he unconsciously fucked himself. If so he will be better off for it and especially for such a light sentence. Were I his judge, I would sentence him for time just for pulling the 'I was trapped routine". He fucked himself and now wants the best of all worlds.

In shour, I am in on Flynn's guilt and not too happy he may walk. For whatever negative or stupidity on my part you wish to attribute to me for finding interest in Dershowitz's analysis, I find in the abstract the notion that a person, by lying about something the truth of which would make him guilty of nothing, but the lie itself creates criminality, I find a bit disturbing. It will trap people who aren't quick on their feet who are actually lying because they are guilty, but it can also entrap people who feel guilty about just being alive and there are billions of those in my opinion. You are looking at the specific case and I am looking at it from the abstract and the general. I have watch any number of videos on youtube that warn people never ever answer any questions asked by cops. Name, address, serial number, etc.

 

[woolfe9998]

I summed up my attitude to this more or less here as quoted from an earlier post: "The reason he lied is a mystery since he clearly didn't need to and had he said yes and then lied after that they couldn't have had him on a crime. I make the assumption then, that the reason he lied was because he was actually guilty of a crime during the meeting and thus foolishly denied it took place. He was slow on his feet. It can also mean that his contempt for himself for his crime was so great that he unconsciously fucked himself. If so he will be better off for it and especially for such a light sentence. Were I his judge, I would sentence him for time just for pulling the 'I was trapped routine". He fucked himself and now wants the best of all worlds.

In shour, I am in on Flynn's guilt and not too happy he may walk. For whatever negative or stupidity on my part you wish to attribute to me for finding interest in Dershowitz's analysis, I find in the abstract the notion that a person, by lying about something the truth of which would make him guilty of nothing, but the lie itself creates criminality, I find a bit disturbing. It will trap people who aren't quick on their feet who are actually lying because they are guilty, but it can also entrap people who feel guilty about just being alive and there are billions of those in my opinion. You are looking at the specific case and I am looking at it from the abstract and the general. I have watch any number of videos on youtube that warn people never ever answer any questions asked by cops. Name, address, serial number, etc.

First off, I don't think you're stupid for at least partially buying in to Dersh's sophistry. It's an argument that close to a 100% of non-lawyers could buy into. Many lawyers would too. I happen to be knowledgeable about materiality in the context of perjury mainly because years ago I researched it in connection with the question of whether Clinton's lying about Lewinsky was "material" in the legal context in which it was given.

While I respect your broader concern, I don't think I've adequately explained why the FBI's actions were proper here and why Flynn's lie was so material. If I had, you wouldn't be holding this case up as an example to illustrate your broader concern.

Recall that in July, 2016 senior Trump people met with a Kremlin connected Russian lawyer in Trump Tower? All participants in that meeting admit that two matters were discussed: 1) repeal of the Magnitsky Act (sanctions), and 2) the fact that the Russians had "dirt" on Clinton. None admit that these two topics were linked by an actual or proposed "quid pro quo" arrangement which would have been a serious crime.

Fast forward to 1/2017, the FBI, who is now investigating whether that very conspiracy may have occurred, hears a tape recording of Flynn promising the Russian ambassador that they will ease up on sanctions once Trump takes office. Naturally, the FBI wants to know if this conversation, which in and of itself and in total isolation is not criminal, is nonetheless part of an ongoing criminal conspiracy between the Trump camp and the Russian government. They decide that the best way to determine this is to ask Flynn about it and see if he lies. The reasoning is, why would Flynn expose himself to potential perjury charges to deny a conservation which, in and of itself, appears to be sleazy but not criminal? Unless he is lying to cover up a more serious crime, an ongoing conspiracy which started way before the conversation took place.

They reason that if he lies, then they need him to tell them why he lies. And since he's now perjured himself, they can use that to leverage him to answer that crucial question.

The answer to that question goes right to the heart of their investigation. This is why their tactics were both legal and proper. This was good, professional law enforcement work.

 

[fskimospy]

Not to mention the point that Dershowitz is attempting to make has been repeatedly considered by the courts and rejected. He is quite simply wrong and worse, there’s no way he doesn’t know better.

Here is an article on this by a former assistant US attorney which covers it pretty well.

https://www.popehat.com/2018/12/18/alan-dershowitz-is-lying-to-you/

 

[woolfe9998]

Not to mention the point that Dershowitz is attempting to make has been repeatedly considered by the courts and rejected. He is quite simply wrong and worse, there’s no way he doesn’t know better.

Here is an article on this by a former assistant US attorney which covers it pretty well.

https://www.popehat.com/2018/12/18/alan-dershowitz-is-lying-to-you/

I mostly agree with what is in that link. Certainly Dersh is arguing what he thinks the law should be and presenting it as if this view is the actual state of the law. Certainly it is not the actual state of the law. All precedent is opposite.

I disagree he's doing it for "partisan" reasons because once upon a time, Dersh argued against impeaching Clinton, for an expansive view of executive privilege, and for immateriality of Clinton's deposition statement. Dersh is defense minded and also has a dangerously generous view of executive power.

I also disagree that Dersh's view is the way the law should be, at least not all the time. While I don't want law enforcement to manufacture perjury charges by baiting people to do it just so they can prosecute them for it, here, the FBI was trying to determine if he would lie to cover up a prior criminal conspiracy involving the trading of political favors for relief from sanctions. Since Flynn offered to ease sanctions once Trump took office, his lying to cover this up would strongly suggest that this is exactly what had happened long prior to Flynn's conversation with the ambassador. The FBI needed to know if he would lie here. The perjury trap was not the point in and of itself, but was rather just a convenient mechanism to make him explain why he lied in the first place.

Also, remember that Flynn knew full well that it was a crime to lie to the FBI. He was not a hapless, unsophisticated dupe. All he had to do was tell the truth. His conversation with the ambassador was not a crime in and of itself and Flynn knew this. Had he just told the truth none of this would have happened to him.

So once again, why DID he lie after all? Well, technically we do not know. Only Mueller knows. But yet we do know, don't we? Because they made an illegal deal to ease sanction back in July, 2016 and Flynn's conversation with the ambassador was a continuing part of that ongoing criminal conspiracy. It only looks non-criminal when viewed in isolation. That's why he lied.