I’m in logistics…used to have a ton into Indianapolis and Evansville. The last few years, it just became what seems like a barren wasteland, as far as logistics. The agents there used to be top notch, just some of the best and most reliable in the country. Over the last few years, you can’t give them anything. It’s an egocentric observation, I know. I’ll admit that. Something happened though…seems like commerce dried up outside of basic servicing the community like restaurants. Reminded me of Oklahoma. Oklahoma is essentially a dead state.
All that being said, my wife has made it abundantly clear that we’re moving out of Texas at the first opportunity and to the Northwest or to Prague. Prague kind of went out the door once Putin decided to start invading places, though
I meant to come back to this erroneous charge you pinned me with.
I never said lying to the FBI is minor or that it’s only used to “trap” people.
My point with Flynn was ALWAYS that the information they said he lied about was IMMATERIAL. Lying to an officer only matters if the lie is material.
So when we look at Sussman- he said he didn’t work for the Hillary campaign. He literally went to the FBI with manufactured data (that he knew was maufactured) and then lied about the intent of his sharing that data.
That is a material lie that would have changed the future actions of the Bureau
Flynn in comparison was ambushed one day and didn’t remember the call with the Ambassador. The FBI agents actually admitted this in their 302:
Why is the 302 such a big deal? Simply put, because it now appears the two FBI agents who conducted the interview with Flynn on which the subsequent false‐statements charge was predicated at first reported to their superiors that they did not think Flynn had been deceitful during the interview and that any inaccurate responses to their questions were the result of a memory lapse, not a deliberate attempt to deceive.
The FBI then doctored the 302. Additionally, Flynn’s counsel was corrupt and worked with the FBI to get an indictment.
So keep comparing but it’s not even close.
I would agree with the logic that a material lie is worse.
Why is Flynn lying about speaking to the ambassador immaterial?
For a couple of reasons.
-
The FBI officers that visited Flynn did so unexpectedly and under false pretense about why they wanted to speak with him.
-
They didn’t offer him an attorney or tell him he was under oath.
-
Flynn apparently admitted that his memory was failing him. The Agents never offered him a timeline or the use his calendar or any aids to help jog his memory.
-
The FBI agents, in their own 302, claimed they didn’t feel Flynn was being deceitful. They believed that his memory just wasn’t “working” (my term) and we’re not initially going to pursue charges.
-
The FBI then altered the 302.
Is that enough of a fact pattern? This is all public record.
The only reason why Flynn plead guilty was because the agency threatened to charge his son if he didn’t. Originally Flynn pled non guilty.
He was also represented by operative counsel that set him up. Pressured him to cop a plea and guilt.
GSC, perhaps I am unfamiliar with the legal term, but none of your 5 reasons speak to whether or not the lie was material or immaterial.
It sounds like you are arguing multiple things at once. Does materiality come into it at all? If so, how?
Let me explain.
If a cop asks me a question and I honestly don’t remember and affirmatively answer, my statement is not material. It wasn’t meant to deceive.
Now if you add the layers I did on top, it is even worse. Of Flynn knew he was under investigation, he may have invoked the 5th. May have requested a lawyer. He wasn’t afforded those opportunities because he was ambushed.
He was the National Security Director of the United States for Christ sake. He works with the FBI. He thought the conversation was consensual and for fact gathering purposes for some other matter.
Intent is at the heart of materiality.
That’s not at all what my understanding of materiality is.
A material statement is a statement that is germane to the investigation.
A material statement would be “X killed Y.” An immaterial statement would be “I like snowcones.” One of them has to do with the investigation, the other one doesn’t.
I mean there are many different scenarios that can play out. It’s not that cut and dry.
What do you do with a witness or suspect that believes he’s telling the truth but offers information that is completely wrong? What if that info leads you in a direction that hurts the investigation?
Well- if he actually had a basis to believe what he was saying is true it’s not chargeable. There needs to be an intent to deceive.
Most of these statutes (perjury, false statements) there’s an element of “knowingly” or “willfully” making statements with an intention to deceive or obstruct.
Misspeaking, misremembering, having a firm belief based off of bad information or a bad memory isn’t technically a material lie or misstatement.
And Flynn fell into this category. The agents who initially took his statement said so in their 302.
Just because they initially didn’t believe he was lying doesn’t mean he wasn’t lying. That’s usually how lying works, right? It tricks the listeners into believing they heard the truth.
They didn’t just change their mind.
Their leadership altered their 302. They committed a crime.
The born again speaks!!!
Lying is ok, folks.
Someone didn’t read my entire statement.
That’s all well and good, GSC, if your opinion is that the 302 was handled erroneously.
My advice, if you’re arguing for Flynn in the future, is to leave out the whole spiel about which lies are material or immaterial, since your entire argument has nothing to do with that.