Why do the bigwigs talk to the FBI?

[griffin1977]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

IMHO it’s not as simple as some posters are making it out to be. Even if you’re genuinely innocent, it will frequently be the case that there will be circumstantial evidence which points to your guilt, such that the FBI could make a case against you if they came to believe that you were guilty. So if you come across as guilty to the FBI, then you would be increasing the likelihood that you’ll be prosecuted.

And the crucial point is this: while many people are (justifiably) suspicious of what the FBI can do to an innocent person who gives them some rope to hang him with, that would not be the mindset of people who are themselves FBI agents. Such people would be likely to take a much more benign view of the FBI (most notably themselves), and would be much more likely to interpret refusal to talk to them as evidence of guilt rather than justifiable caution.

Would any defense lawyer support this? IANAL but this seems like the kind of advice that gets people sent to jail.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

IMHO it’s not as simple as some posters are making it out to be. Even if you’re genuinely innocent, it will frequently be the case that there will be circumstantial evidence which points to your guilt, such that the FBI could make a case against you if they came to believe that you were guilty. So if you come across as guilty to the FBI, then you would be increasing the likelihood that you’ll be prosecuted.

And the crucial point is this: while many people are (justifiably) suspicious of what the FBI can do to an innocent person who gives them some rope to hang him with, that would not be the mindset of people who are themselves FBI agents. Such people would be likely to take a much more benign view of the FBI (most notably themselves), and would be much more likely to interpret refusal to talk to them as evidence of guilt rather than justifiable caution.

Dunno how reliable this is but this attorney says you should never talk to the FBI alone.

He claims that the FBI will never allow a Q&A to be recorded and only allow hand written notes they take (and later write-up) to become the official record of what you said. This can lead to shenanigans on their part and you have no recourse once it is done.

He says if the FBI wants to talk to you get the meeting at your attorney’s office and have the attorney put out a tape recorder. Supposedly the FBI will walk away from that interview but at least you were willing to participate. Just not on their terms.

[msmith537]

@griffin1977

But in cases where is no subpeona there is no legal requirement to speak to the FBI, but making false statements is still a felony. Why would any lawyer let you speak to the FBI. There is no downside to not speaking, and there always the risk of making a false statement.

You are correct. You should have a lawyer with you if you intend to speak to the FBI.

As I mentioned, a bigger concern than making false statements is that you might make statements that you don’t realize incriminate you for something because you don’t know what is or is not legal under Federal law.

@griffin1977

That is a pretty subjective different. Assuming that there is not in fact enough evidence to prosecute you for robbing someone. The difference between " telling the cops you left your house at “5-ish” because you didn’t know it was closer to 4:00," and " Telling them you left at 5:00 because you were out robbing someone at 4:15" has more to do with the opinion of the officers involved than what you say to them.

A bad example perhaps.

The point is it’s a felony to deliberately deceive the FBI for the purpose of obstructing the investigation. Not that they will “gotcha” for immaterial aspects of your statement that might reasonibly not line up with another witnesses recollection of events.

[griffin1977]

@msmith537

The point is it’s a felony to deliberately deceive the FBI for the purpose of obstructing the investigation. Not that they will “gotcha” for immaterial aspects of your statement that might reasonibly not line up with another witnesses recollection of events.

The law says nothing about obstruction (lying to the point of obstructing justice would be crime whether or not the agents are federal). The definition of “material” is pretty lax “natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed.” Which covers pretty much anything.

I seriously don’t see why any lawyer would agree to have their client interviewed by the FBI. It is always going to mean going from a zero-percent chance of being charged with lying to the FBI, to a non-zero chance.

[Bic_D]

This is just my personal opinion about law enforcement in general and not necessarily about what one may or may not be compelled to testify to as a result of a Grand Jury and whether or not you may be a principal target…

Never talk to law enforcement about anything, especially if you’re innocent. Certainly there are some extenuating circumstances but as a general rule, if law enforcement is talking to you, there is a reason, a specific reason they have picked you to talk to and in the end, you are only hurting yourself by talking. NEVER let them search your car, house etc…without a warrant. It is their job to investigate and determine the specifics of a crime, it is not your job to help them.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bic_D

Never talk to law enforcement about anything, especially if you’re innocent. Certainly there are some extenuating circumstances but as a general rule, if law enforcement is talking to you, there is a reason, a specific reason they have picked you to talk to and in the end, you are only hurting yourself by talking. NEVER let them search your car, house etc…without a warrant. It is their job to investigate and determine the specifics of a crime, it is not your job to help them.

It is not just your opinion.

Most (probably all) defense attorneys will tell you to never speak to the police without your attorney present. It can never help you and only hurt you. It says so right in the Miranda Warning: “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

Here is a good speech given by a defense attorney and police officer spelling out why you should not talk to the police…innocent or not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

It is long but well worth a listen.

[Bic_D]

@Whack-a-Mole

It is not just your opinion.

Most (probably all) defense attorneys will tell you to never speak to the police without your attorney present. It can never help you and only hurt you. It says so right in the Miranda Warning: “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

Here is a good speech given by a defense attorney and police officer spelling out why you should not talk to the police…innocent or not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

It is long but well worth a listen.

That is a great video as I have listened to it before. I couldn’t agree more with everything in it.

We had a “Almost horror story” one time where a 100% completely innocent person was in the process of being arrested on an attempted child abduction charge based solely on the fact that he was trying to help law enforcement out with the case. He unknowingly provided a mountain of evidence against himself without even knowing what he was doing. He thought he was just doing his part to help out the community. There is a little more to the story, but you get what I am saying.

Regarding Miranda… it is a wonderful thing, but unlike television, it does not need to be
read as often or even at all in some cases, as the public has been programmed to believe.

[carrps]

Just heard last night or the night before someone* saying that in the most recent deposition Trump was in he lied 30 times.

Sounds about right.

• I was in another room, and it was on TV.

[griffin1977]

@carrps

Just heard last night or the night before someone* saying that in the most recent deposition Trump was in he lied 30 times.

Sounds about right.

• I was in another room, and it was on TV.

Thiswas what was probably being referred to. And apparently one of the reasons he wants to speak to Mueller is that"his belief that he has experience with lawsuits and testifying under oath from his time in the real estate business."

I think it is safe to say that regardless of what lawyers generally think about it Trumps lawyers in particular DO NOT want their client to talk to the FBI, and get cold sweats when they hear him say things like that.

[proudfootz]

@astorian

If course Mueller is going to SAY he has something. Ken Starr kept fishing long after it was clear there was nothing to Whitewater.

There is no evidence of collusion with Putin, which is what this investigation was supposed to be about. Now Mueller is down to hoping someone can be caught in a lie and charge perjury or obstruction. Which is a major letdown for yourcside.

Sometimes I think charging ‘obstruction of justice’ resembles charging someone for ‘resisting arrest’ when whatever the person was being arrested for turns out to have been bogus.

[Jim_Peebles]

Let’s now talk about the recent news item that Alex van der Zwaan was charged with making false statements. He appears to be a bigwig lawyer. Maybe they asked him boring questions for hours on end, and then when they wore him out asked him very specific questions and he misremembered things: perjury trap. How did he, a bigwig lawyer, fall for it? Is he a dilletante rube who benifited from nepotism his whole life and no one cared to watch out for him here? (He is the son in law of a billionaire, hence I suspect nepotism.) But some how this imagined scenario doesn’t seem like it is the likely real explanation. What is going on here?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I don’t think it’s at all clear that that guy made the wrong call at the time.

Let’s suppose the guy is covering up for some shady activity at the time. He can confess and take a risk of being prosecuted for that, or he can lie about it and take the risk of being prosecuted for that. Hard to say.

What I think is sometimes misleading is that when you see guys like that not being prosecuted for anything other than lying in the interview and you think to yourself hey this guy should have just said the truth and he’d be in the clear. But that’s not necessarily the case at all. What you see is the result of the plea agreement, in which the guy agrees to plead guilty to the (more easily provable) lying, and they agree to drop the other (more severe but harder to prove) charges. Had he not lied about anything it’s likely they’d go after him for the other stuff.

[Shodan]

I heard he also pled to deleting some emails - maybe they showed something worse and he decided to risk lying and covering up, in order to get away with whatever it was.

Gee, lying, covering up, and deleting emails - where have I heard this before?

Regards,
Shodan

[Wesley_Clark]

When Hillary Clinton is being investigated for treason then your equivalencies won’t be false.

Also the FBI investigated Clinton and declined to press charges.