Posted on 02/09/2018 5:57:16 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
When the feds interview a subject or target, their goal is not mere information-gathering or fact-finding or "clearing a few things up." Their goal is the hunt.
One purpose, arguably the primary purpose, is to provoke the foolish interviewee into lying, thus committing a new, fresh federal crime that is easily prosecuted, rendering the original investigation irrelevant.
When special counsels or FBI agents ask questions ..., they are not fact-finding. They've already done their homework. They've already gathered facts—almost certainly many more facts than the interviewee knows. They are asking questions the answers to which they can already prove, hoping that the interviewee will tell a provable lie, and thus commit a crime, or at least lock themselves into a feckless story that ties their hands later.
even an honest, circumspect person faces grave peril in such an interview. FBI agents and prosecutors are adept at putting interviewees ill at ease. The pressure is immense. Human memory is fallible, and the interrogators are not disposed to view misremembered statements as accidents. You don't know the significance of everything they are asking you, and most people simply cannot sustain the sort of focus necessary to respond to complicated questions precisely and accurately for a sustained period of time. "Just tell the truth," applied to a complicated interview, assumes that the witness is extraordinarily disciplined and that questioners have an open mind and will act fairly and in good faith. Those assumptions are not warranted.
I submit this is not a close call. If the president were my client, I would advise him not to submit voluntarily to an interview, under oath or not, with Special Counsel Mueller. It offers him nothing but risk
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
I don’t believe Trump will ever talk to them. You simply cannot take what he says literally. He was simply letting the public know that he is guilty of nothing.
To be frank, I didn’t know they were allowed to lie. That is immoral and criminal on its face.
Scooter Libby. Bush showed his loyalty to the deep state when he wouldn’t pardon him.
*
And Trump must not listen to anyone saying that he has to talk to Mueller for political reasons. If he’s gutsy and chooses his talking points well, he can convincingly explain his way out of it. Just give the public a long list of reasons why Mueller is biased.
Oh yeah. The police and FBI can lie to you at will. They do it all the time.
But make an honest mistake and they “gotcha”!
So the Black Lives Matter people have a gripe along with everyone else?
Luckily, I’ve had very few occasions to talk to police.
This is simply the best Lawyer advice for any citizen. You have no power to prevent the government form creating lies. The less you say to the government the more options you have in defense if they decide to come after you.
The fact there is any law compelling anyone to tell the truth except under oath, with a right to council and a right not to testify, shows that the government is fishing for defendants, not seeking the truth.
Better yet, tell them that if they have questions, to submit them in writing to your attorney and that HE will get back to them. NO direct communication to the FBI, only letters from your attorney, mostly saying "my client tells me that, to the best of his recollection, X happened" or "my client does not recall". You can face perjury for lying to the FBI, but I'm not sure (I'm not a lawyer) whether a statement from your lawyer that he heard you say X, is similarly actionable.
Which is his Constitutional right as a U.S. citizen but will make for terrible TV.
...their goal is not mere information-gathering or fact-finding or “clearing a few things up.” Their goal is the hunt...
Forget the hunt. Their immediate goal is prosecution. Nothing less
...and the person(s) arrested or shot may not necessarily be the ones you think need it.
right, could be you - like that Australian woman in Minnesota.
This is absolutely correct, but isn’t it a shame. I’m 76 ... years ago, we trusted them. This latest scandal sort of puts the cherry on the top of the crap sundae they’ve been building since the 80’s. The left poisons everything it touches. When I saw the Patriot’s Act happen, I said, well we need this, unless the next President is a liberal, then it is a weapon. Boy, I got one right!
This is absolutely correct, but isn’t it a shame. I’m 76 ... years ago, we trusted them. This latest scandal sort of puts the cherry on the top of the crap sundae they’ve been building since the 80’s. The left poisons everything it touches. When I saw the Patriot’s Act happen, I said, well we need this, unless the next President is a liberal, then it is a weapon. Boy, I got one right!
YES. That would be hearsay.
Just like when the judge rules against your request to have another cop who was present and heard everything (i.e. the cop in questions partner), say anything that will defend you in any way.
see #9
some of the best advice I have ever received.
shared with my entire family.
had to watch it twice. one time with a critical eye and a second time to let it sink in and solidify.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.