I thought lying to the FBI when they question you is a good way to find yourself in jail.
However, recently news reported that president Trump would talk to the FBI under oath regarding it’s Russia investigation. Then, not long after, they said Trump would talk to them but not under oath.
So, if lying to the FBI is illegal what need is there for taking an oath?
Aren’t there different crimes: lying to Police during Investigation = obstruction of justice
lying under oath (e.g. during Trial) = perjury, higher sentence?
Though with Trump, it’s difficult because he can easily get a pardon for all crimes.
That hasn’t been decided yet.
I don’t know if it started with Republicans or with Trump, but some people point out that Hillary wasn’t under oath when she talked to the FBI and therefore, I guess, it means she lied or something. Trump has repeated this numerous times. Only problem is, the FBI doesn’t put people under oath for questioning.
IANAL but aren’t oaths used more in court proceedings than police questioning?
To the original question, lying to the FBI is a felony.
That’s why it will never apply to politicans. They didn’t lie “willfully”, they simply “forgot” or “misremembered”. Given his latest doctor’s Report, he can just as easily find one to Attest him Alzheimer for as Long as the questioning takes, and another to certify him in the bestest health ever afterwards.
(One of the prominent right-wing-consie politicans, Zimmermann, did this when he was accused of lying during court (perjury) and got a doctor to Attest “low blood sugar and thyroid hyperfunction” so he just couldn’t remember, poor guy! (Spielbankenaffäre (Bayern) – Wikipedia)
Does the POTUS not have the total power of pardon (See: Arpaio)?
And hasn’t a deal been done before where the POTUS resigns, his VP steps in his place and the new POTUS then issues a pardon for all crimes of the old one?
FWIW here is a story on Trump answering questions under oath and a report that he is backtracking on it (although I could only find the one story for a reversal there are a lot on him being willing to testify under oath):
It is a debated question whether the president can pardon himself. It’s never happened so there is no clear answer.
For my money it would be ridiculous if you could pardon yourself. It gives you carte blanche to do whatever federally illegal thing you want with impunity. It completely undermines the notion that no one is above the law.
That said some say the pardon power is absolute including for himself so…
Certainly whoever replaces him could pardon him as Ford did with Nixon.
The FBI said that Hillary didn’t lie to them. She’s a lawyer, she knew how to avoid that. Trump is a liar, it’s not possible for him to talk to anyone without lying.
ETA: This is in no way an endorsement of Hillary Clinton.
Not state crimes.
The Constitution explicitly says that the pardon power cannot be used in cases of impeachment, and that’s the only limitation it puts on it (beyond the implicit limitation that it only applies to federal crimes). It seems pretty clear that if the President starts just violating federal law willy-nilly and pardoning himself, that impeachment is the intended remedy. If they’d meant that he couldn’t pardon himself at all, they would have said so. Yes, a self-pardon is unprecedented, but that doesn’t mean much, since there’s been almost no occasion for it to have been done, either.
Yes, that’s what happened with Nixon and Ford. Nixon almost certainly would have been impeached and removed from office for his involvement in the Watergate burglaries (which would have been the first and so far only time a President was removed), but he saw the writing on the wall and voluntarily resigned before the process got that far, at which point his VP, Ford, took office. Shortly thereafter, Ford pardoned Nixon for all crimes which he might or might not have committed. Of course, it’s important to note that Ford was in no way obligated to do so; he did it because, in his judgement, it would do long-term harm to the nation to drag Nixon through the mud more than he already had been. If something similar happens again, the VP at that time might have a different opinion.
Moderator Note
Let’s keep the political jabs out of GQ. (And before someone makes the argument, a statement can be factual and still be a jab.)
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
It absolutely blows my mind that the FBI refuses to record interviews and only relies on notes that they write-up without ever getting agreement from the person interviewed that it is accurate. And then that the courts are a-ok with this because we presume FBI agents are scrupulous and above reproach in their duties.
With recording devices in everyone’s pockets these days (your cell phone) it is trivial to record an interview and have a perfect record of what was said. To refuse using that can only be an admission that they want to be able to fudge the record as they see fit.
Which begs a question: If lying to the police is obstruction of justice, is it also obstruction of justice if the police lie to a citizen or a suspect?
Lying to police is not obstruction of justice, it’s lying to the police. Lying to federal investigators, including the FBI, is a crime under 18 USC 1001. In many (perhaps most?) states, there is no equivalent crime for lying to a police officer. Though they have other tools to deal with you.
The police are permitted to lie their asses off. It is not obstruction of justice.
Would that not be perversion of the course of justice. Or is that not a thing is the US?
It’s not that, either. The common-law offense of perverting the course of justice would be covered under evidence-tampering or witness intimidation statutes in most jurisdictions.