View Full Version : Anyone else think it's time for the "Lying to a Federal agent" charge to go away?
They can lie to you, but God forbid you lie to them. Especially when it involves the FBI and these days that is about as hypocritical as you can get with those tarnished bastards and their stellar record of late. It is all too often the only charge they can nail someone on. Look at the "muh Russia" investigation. Martha Stewart. I'm sure there are more than a few one could list.
I don't think that in most locales (i.e. not federal cases) it is illegal, but the feds are special snowflakes who you dare not fib to.
Your case is either strong enough to stand on it's own merits or it's not. No need for a "gotcha" Plan-B charge to tack on. Do your damn job as a federal LEO and it isn't necessary.
If there is a law that compels them to be truthful to us, then sure I will give them the same consideration. Otherwise it's either obstruction or it's not obstruction.
Interesting article, not too full of "legalese" and easy to understand:
https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html
You can refuse to answer their questions, and the only way they can force you to is a grand jury subpoena. Even then you can invoke the 5th Amendment (gee, like politicians do all the time!).
Coal Dragger
11-30-18, 20:09
Just don’t talk to them.
Call an attorney and keep your mouth shut.
LMT Shooter
11-30-18, 21:26
I think it's time for 90+% of federal LE to go away. If it isn't treason or counterfeiting, local & state LE can handle it in almost every case.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-30-18, 21:32
It’s gotten out of hand. The issue is that yes, you can plead the fifth, but if it isn’t about your innocence, they can compell you to talk. The very talking can put you in legal jeopardy. I agree that just never talking to the police works for most of us, but for those in govt like we see in the current Russian witch hunt? You can tell the complete truth, some scum bag tells a slightly different version of a conversation from 18 months ago and BOOM. You life is over.
At the very least, the Special Prosecutor law should give defendants money for a defense. There aren’t a lot of these cases, and the real weapon is financial ruin as you literally face the resource of the federal govt with out any limit on resources .
The FBI really works that 'you cant lie to an FBI agent' thing to death.
Fact is that almost every state has an obstruction of justice statute that reads something like:
Interference with law enforcement is:
(1) Falsely reporting to a law enforcement officer or state investigative agency:
(B) any information, knowing that such information is false and intending to influence, impede or obstruct such officer's or agency's duty;
Edited to get the relevant part. Reporting to a law enforcement officer includes making a statement in response to a question.
Bottom line is - either tell the truth, tell them you don't want to answer questions, or get an attorney.
Diamondback
11-30-18, 23:27
I think it's time for 90+% of federal LE to go away. If it isn't treason or counterfeiting, local & state LE can handle it in almost every case.
I've long advocated that the Armed Fed Food Chain be collapsed to the various military agencies (AF OSI, Army CID, NCIS, CGIS), Border Patrol/ICE, USSS (merge State Dept. DSS and all other "VIP Protection" agencies with USSS) and the Marshals Service. Amalgamate Capitol and WH Police, or better yet make them specialized USMS detachments. Everybody else gets stripped of badges and arrest powers and becomes Technical Advisory agencies only, calling on USMS for muscle when an arrest is needed.
Dr. Bullseye
12-01-18, 00:55
Just don’t talk to them.
Call an attorney and keep your mouth shut.
Bingo!!
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-01-18, 03:26
In Colorado, if you have a warrant and you lie to me about your name to keep me from finding out about your warrant, it's a felony. I'm cool with that. Beyond that, lying to the police is an American past time and is just expected in every contact.
The ease with which the Feds can punish their political adversaries is actually really scary to me.
You shouldn't be a liar anyways, is how I figure.
Moose-Knuckle
12-01-18, 06:51
In Colorado, if you have a warrant and you lie to me about your name to keep me from finding out about your warrant, it's a felony. I'm cool with that. Beyond that, lying to the police is an American past time and is just expected in every contact.
The ease with which the Feds can punish their political adversaries is actually really scary to me.
Failure to ID as a Fugitive is a felony here and is really common among the career criminals.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-01-18, 07:11
With the failure to identify as a felon, you have already been convicted of a crime. I think a distinction has to be made between everyday interactions and the stuff that the SC does. How many street cops or even detectives are laying perjury traps for people? Perjury traps are pretty much the MO of the SC. Look at Scooter Libby.
If you want good governance, you need to change something. Because the legally correct thing to do is clam up and wait for the charge, but since these actions are often intertwinned with their gov day jobs, that really (outside of Louis Lerner) isn't an option. At the very minimum we need to take the financial burden of defending yourself from a SC away. Someone we have to get it so that govt employees can answer questions with out fear of ending up with only a perjury conviction.
The SC should investigate crimes, not create them.
In Colorado, if you have a warrant and you lie to me about your name to keep me from finding out about your warrant, it's a felony. I'm cool with that. Beyond that, lying to the police is an American past time and is just expected in every contact.
The ease with which the Feds can punish their political adversaries is actually really scary to me.
What if they refuse to answer?
Failure to ID as a Fugitive is a felony here and is really common among the career criminals.
Playing Devil's Advocate here, isn't that some kind of 5th Amendment self-incrimination violation?
With the failure to identify as a felon, you have already been convicted of a crime. I think a distinction has to be made between everyday interactions and the stuff that the SC does. How many street cops or even detectives are laying perjury traps for people? Perjury traps are pretty much the MO of the SC. Look at Scooter Libby.
If you want good governance, you need to change something. Because the legally correct thing to do is clam up and wait for the charge, but since these actions are often intertwinned with their gov day jobs, that really (outside of Louis Lerner) isn't an option. At the very minimum we need to take the financial burden of defending yourself from a SC away. Someone we have to get it so that govt employees can answer questions with out fear of ending up with only a perjury conviction.
The SC should investigate crimes, not create them.
Exactly!
From the article I linked on Page 1 of this thread:
In fact some AUSAs specifically send agents out to conduct interviews knowing that a witness will either tell the truth and help build a case against someone else or lie and subject himself to a Section 1001 charge.
The games the Feds play with this shit reeks of entrapment and shouldn't be allowed. Removing 18 USC Section 1001 would be a good start.
You shouldn't be a liar anyways, is how I figure.
That's all fine and well in Perfect World, but when it's used to play "Gotcha!" it's a load of crap.
For instance, I believe in Manafort's case he was asked if the meeting with the Russian chick mentioned sanctions being lifted against Russia. DJTJ had been asked about it by the chick and he said something to the effect of "We'll discuss that after the election". Manafort told the feds that it hadn't been talked about, and it hadn't beyond DJTJ telling her to wait until after the election. Yet the feds said "Gotcha! It WAS mentioned after all!" Manafort said "Only in the context of saying it wouldn't be discussed until after the election". Semantics, a play on words without context, didn't matter.....lying to a federal agent.
The other irony of this entire fiasco is that the entire investigation is based on false premises (i.e. the Steele dossier) so the entire thing should be shut down. Yet that Section 1001 charge seems to be thrown around quite a bit. It's bullshit.
You shouldn't be a liar anyways, is how I figure.
Would that also apply to LEOs that go undercover?
You shouldn't be a liar anyways, is how I figure.
if it were that simple :) ditto others even if you tell the truth or what you remember they can burn you down
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-01-18, 11:32
Would that also apply to LEOs that go undercover?
I'd be happy if it didn't apply when be questioned by a uniformed officer or by an identified officer. I understand undercover ops, but being able to lie to someone while acting as, and in a, govt agent is something that shouldn't be allowed. That is an asymmetry that is hard to defend.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-01-18, 11:42
I'd be happy if it didn't apply when be questioned by a uniformed officer or by an identified officer. I understand undercover ops, but being able to lie to someone while acting as, and in a, govt agent is something that shouldn't be allowed. That is an asymmetry that is hard to defend.
So, if I tell a suspect that I just watched the store security footage and it shows him stealing a watch, and he says "ok, you got me, I did steal the watch." but in reality I never watched any footage because the store didn't have cameras, should that be outlawed?
If I were to have told the suspect that there was no footage of him and simply asked if he to ok the item, would that have secured the same confession? Would the victim have been compensated and the suspect punished?
Sometimes, lying to bad people isn't always a bad thing in my opinion.
I fail to see why obstruction laws can't do what we need here. Other than require actually proving obstruction and the intent to... Given the Federal conviction rates, actual obstruction charges should not difficult for actual obstruction.
Not remembering an email you forwarded years ago, after having given them all your emails, seems rather slim to claim intentional obstruction.
But really it's our fault. We buy the myth of the immaculate G man, with our conviction rates closing in on China's.
I fail to see why obstruction laws can't do what we need here. Other than require actually proving obstruction and the intent to... Given the Federal conviction rates, actual obstruction charges should not difficult for actual obstruction.
Not remembering an email you forwarded years ago, after having given them all your emails, seems rather slim to claim intentional obstruction.
But really it's our fault. We buy the myth of the immaculate G man, with our conviction rates closing in on China's.
Not so much these days. That badge is tarnished big time.
So, if I tell a suspect that I just watched the store security footage and it shows him stealing a watch, and he says "ok, you got me, I did steal the watch." but in reality I never watched any footage because the store didn't have cameras, should that be outlawed?
If I were to have told the suspect that there was no footage of him and simply asked if he to ok the item, would that have secured the same confession? Would the victim have been compensated and the suspect punished?
Sometimes, lying to bad people isn't always a bad thing in my opinion.
Do you advocate a charge for that same person lying to YOU?
Would that also apply to LEOs that go undercover?
In a way, yeah. I am weird, and IIRC you know my heart on the matter but I think all police work should be done in uniform.
Someone will say something but I still think you can catch dope runners and human traffickers in full police uniform using the very basic fundamentals of law enforcement at the Olympic level.
More often than not, “career narco cops” end up the most dirty and compromised.
I think just wearing the uniform by itself is a constant reminder what side you are on, but someone will probably tell me how wrong I am
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-01-18, 15:04
No. It's my job to discover the truth.
No. It's my job to discover the truth.
Okay, I can't disagree with that.
I fail to see why obstruction laws can't do what we need here.
But really it's our fault. We buy the myth of the immaculate G man, with our conviction rates closing in on China's.
For obstruction, it really depends on how the obstruction law is written. In my state we have both obstruction, which really requires physical interference of an officer in performing his legal duties, and making false or misleading statements to a law enforcement officer. The latter basically covers directly or indirectly lying to me trying to "throw me off the trail" if you will. I have charged people with both charges and have convictions on both.
Our federal conviction rates are super high because they won't prosecute what they can't win. We see it at the local and state level too. Not an easy win? They don't want it.
Like Firefly mentions above, and I'm likely taking some liberty with it, I think narco and gang cops should be forcibly rotated back to patrol after a set period of time. You can only play in the dirt with the dirtbags for so long before it starts to make sense to you too.
I have absolutely lied to suspects and accomplices to get them to tell me the truth. It's never anything ridiculous, but I've done it in my pursuit of the truth.
Uncle got his felony and lost his FFL SOT business with the lying.
He truly didn't do it purposely and what happened was his ex wife sold a suppressor to a known felon without paperwork.
On the court....the judge found him guilty based on that should have been more responsible.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
So, if I tell a suspect that I just watched the store security footage and it shows him stealing a watch, and he says "ok, you got me, I did steal the watch." but in reality I never watched any footage because the store didn't have cameras, should that be outlawed?
If I were to have told the suspect that there was no footage of him and simply asked if he to ok the item, would that have secured the same confession? Would the victim have been compensated and the suspect punished?
Sometimes, lying to bad people isn't always a bad thing in my opinion.That's bs, if their isn't footage build a case another way, or let him go. Don't lie because you can't out think them.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
That's bs, if their isn't footage build a case another way, or let him go. Don't lie because you can't out think them.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Or the guy could just have invoked his 5/6A rights
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, if I tell a suspect that I just watched the store security footage and it shows him stealing a watch, and he says "ok, you got me, I did steal the watch." but in reality I never watched any footage because the store didn't have cameras, should that be outlawed?
If I were to have told the suspect that there was no footage of him and simply asked if he to ok the item, would that have secured the same confession? Would the victim have been compensated and the suspect punished?
Sometimes, lying to bad people isn't always a bad thing in my opinion.
If you have no proof of any crime and just lie to him in hopes that he confesses you are just as bad as that person. What is they were just scared and you intimidated them into saying that? If you can lie so can they. If they can't then neither can you.
If you lie about that then what else are you going to lie about? The entire case? Maybe lie that you DIDN'T plant that evidence on them? The list goes on.
Our federal conviction rates are super high because they won't prosecute what they can't win. We see it at the local and state level too. Not an easy win? They don't want it.
I don't buy that explanation for the whole high rate. Risk vs reward should have some aggressive prosecutors taking on good but not just the easiest cases. I think jurors lack of skepticism has to be part of reason.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-02-18, 01:19
No. It's my job to discover the truth.
by lying.....
Excuse me while I whore my way to saint hood. ;)
"We have you on tape, and if you just tell us that you did it, we can wrap this up tonight."
by lying.....
Excuse me while I whore my way to saint hood. ;)
"We have you on tape, and if you just tell us that you did it, we can wrap this up tonight."
[as handcuffs are applied and you head down to booking] "What, wait......you mean I can't go home?"
If you try the Leroy Gibbs trick-a-nickel spiel, it means you aren't smart enough to do it right.
ETA Not directed to any board members. Do what you gotta do to win/not catch an ass-beating. Just my general opinion on the matter
by lying.....
Excuse me while I whore my way to saint hood. ;)
"We have you on tape, and if you just tell us that you did it, we can wrap this up tonight."
I think what needs to be put into perspective is that by the time you get to the point of 'What would you say if I told you that there was a camera and you are on video robbing the safe?' that person is the focus of your investigation and by law has to have been advised of their rights: to remain silent, to not say anything that might incriminate them, and to have an attorney present before answering questions (Miranda).
So, trickery and deceit (with the SCOTUS calls it) isn't generally rolled out of folks who haven't been advised of their rights.
Smart thing when being questioned by police regarding your involvement in a crime - ask if you are free to leave - if the answer is yes, get yourself out of there. If the answer is no - get yourself an attorney before you say anything else.
Averageman
12-02-18, 13:00
I must live a boring life because the only time I've talked to a Federal Agent it was about a security clearance.
My Motto for interrogation is "I want my Attorney present now." I've never had to say that and I've never been Miranda'd.
RetroRevolver77
12-02-18, 13:12
deleted
Lawyer up.
Even if you have a lawyer I do not believe you HAVE to answer their questions. You can be totally non-compliant in that regard. If you get a grand jury subpoena, and it involves self-incrimination (i.e. not being questioned about someone else) then you can still invoke the 5th Amendment.
Reason I pose this question is not for petty street crime or murder, you know, REAL crimes. Instead it is more geared towards the current spate of Mueller's bullshit "lying to a federal agent" charges when they play "Gotcha" by twisting words when they have nothing else on you. Then the individual is under pressure to plead out in order to [hopefully] drop a dime on someone else. It's bullshit pure and simple and shouldn't be allowed. The overwhelming power of the Federal government can and is abused rather frequently.
I would also propose that the US attorney who is pushing the charges be held personally liable for the defendant's legal bills if the government loses. See how many would be willing to use the unlimited resources of the federal government (i.e. yours and mine tax dollars) to play those games if they were going to the poor house because of some dude's $1M legal bills.
Why anyone talks to LE, especially FBI, is beyond me.
Why anyone talks to LE, especially FBI, is beyond me.
When you haven't done anything wrong, most people simply try and explain things. Honest people usually have a "let's clear this up" mentality. Not saying it's the smartest thing to do, just understand how and why it happens.
Full disclosure I have had dealings in my past with the FBI, was never impressed.
But my view on the FBI, is when an organization was headed by a cross dressing homosexual for decades that stayed in power by blackmail. How can we ever think it will correct itself, and become virtuous?
I know it’s cool to hate on the FBI but I will say that their sharp people are very sharp.
That said, if you got nothing to say then say nothing. If you are innocent, usually, you will be ruled out. If you are guilty, and you shouldn’t be, then don’t give up any free cheese. Make em earn their pay
Too many people watch SVU, NCIS, and Training Day and think it is all about curbside Monty Hall. It isn’t. You either got enough to get a warrant or you don’t. If you do, present your facts and evidence and let the liars—er Lawyers, Judges, and DAs has hit out.
Not enough time in my already pointless life to play Columbo
Full disclosure I have had dealings in my past with the FBI, was never impressed.
But my view on the FBI, is when an organization was headed by a cross dressing homosexual for decades that stayed in power by blackmail. How can we ever think it will correct itself, and become virtuous?
I worked for a guy who thought JEH was a deity. He would make sure to address the current Director as 'Mr.' because, you know, there was only one director. He told me on numerous occasions that whenever they issued him speed loaders he would give them away, because that wasn't what Hoover had issued him. He about stroked the day I asked him if he had ever read No Left Turns.
During that time frame, because of his connections, myself and a couple of other guys were at the FBI Academy for one or two weeks each year. My take was that everyone I contacted was wanting to get the last vestiges of the Hooverites in their rear view mirrors.
JMO
Full disclosure I have had dealings in my past with the FBI, was never impressed.
But my view on the FBI, is when an organization was headed by a cross dressing homosexual for decades that stayed in power by blackmail. How can we ever think it will correct itself, and become virtuous?And that, wins the internet!
Three FBI honestly needs to be stripped of all law enforcement power and just run a system that locals can tap into for forensics, behavioral etc.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Diamondback
12-03-18, 01:18
Full disclosure I have had dealings in my past with the FBI, was never impressed.
But my view on the FBI, is when an organization was headed by a cross dressing homosexual for decades that stayed in power by blackmail. How can we ever think it will correct itself, and become virtuous?
THAT, sir, begs to be taken viral. May I use it as my Quote of the Day in this week's column? :)
It’s pretty simple. Let them shoot themselves in the foot by trashing people like shit.
Never ever speak with a federal agent. Period. Envoke your 5th. Even if the investigation has nothing at all to do with you. There are so many laws on the books how do you know you have broken one? How do you know you won’t break one speaking to them?
If more people actually told them to **** off, they’d have to change their tune.
And quite honestly don’t speak to local LE either. I know we have plenty of LE on here, some even seem good guys. But how do you know who you’re talking to is a ‘good guy’ you don’t. So don’t risk it.
Additionally LE always have a lawyer when questioned. I’d call that a clue.
It’s pretty simple. Let them shoot themselves in the foot by trashing people like shit.
Never ever speak with a federal agent. Period. Envoke your 5th. Even if the investigation has nothing at all to do with you. There are so many laws on the books how do you know you have broken one? How do you know you won’t break one speaking to them?
If more people actually told them to **** off, they’d have to change their tune.
And quite honestly don’t speak to local LE either. I know we have plenty of LE on here, some even seem good guys. But how do you know who you’re talking to is a ‘good guy’ you don’t. So don’t risk it.
Additionally LE always have a lawyer when questioned. I’d call that a clue.
YUP that is the funny thing they also try to act like they can make you talk or you go to jail :)
the thing about the FBI is it really seems to be political in more ways then local LEO are and much of the FBI I know are lefty leaning big time
YUP that is the funny thing they also try to act like they can make you talk or you go to jail :)
the thing about the FBI is it really seems to be political in more ways then local LEO are and much of the FBI I know are lefty leaning big time
That can be verified by the shenanigans they pulled before/during/after the 2016 election.
crusader377
12-03-18, 21:18
I voted to keep the lying to a federal agent charge if we had one caveat, that federal agents are held to equal or higher standards than the American public (exception for undercover type work). From an outsider looking in, there appears to severe discipline and lack of professionalism issues at many federal agencies including the FBI and that can't be allowed to stand.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.