Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE.
The bombshell revelations in smeared Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s long-winded legal case that rocked the political world last week have been summarily dismissed as a nothing burger by Fox News’ most notorious liberal, host Chris Wallace.
Speaking Friday morning on FNC, Wallace opined that the fact that the FBI had unethically lured Flynn into a perjury trap is no big deal.
“Did the FBI play hardball? Yeah. Guess what? The FBI plays hardball. And guess what? If you are talking to the FBI — and a lot of lawyers would say don’t talk to them unless you have to — don’t lie,” he contemptuously said.
Listen via FNC’s “America’s Newsroom” (disable your adblocker if the video doesn’t appear):
He was right and wrong at the same time.
On one hand, it’s true that FBI interviewers regularly lure people into perjury traps, as noted by Reason magazine contributing editor Ken “Popehat” White, a former federal prosecutor who currently works as a defense attorney.
But on the other hand, this action is wrong, unethical and grossly unfair. Yet it’s allowed to persist because of 18 USC 1001, known as the “false statement to the feds statute.”
“To be a violation of 1001, a lie has to be material,” White explained in a tweet thread last week. “That doesn’t mean it DOES fool the feds or mislead them or waste their time. In the context of 1001, it only requires that it’s the sort of lie that COULD, hypothetically, influence their decision-making.”
Now, while Wallace might believe this sounds fair, one need only contrast this overly broad definition of a lie with the strict definition applied to the feds to see that it’s not.
“Contrast that with the rule [that says that] when the feds lie in, say, a search warrant application — there the defendant has to show that the lie was material in the sense that it actually changed the outcome,” White explained.
He added: “The rules for law enforcement are different than the rules for you.”
Exactly.
View his full thread below:
Re Flynn: Yes, federal law enforcement routinely interviews people hoping they will confess (and get prosecuted) or lie (and get prosecuted). Yes, they plan that in advance of the interview. That’s how it works. That’s how it has worked for a very long time.
/1— LikeADogHat (@Popehat) April 30, 2020
/2 If people really cared about it, thought it was an unacceptable tactic, you could get Congress to change the materiality element of 18 USC 1001, the false statement to the feds statute. Here’s how that works:
— LikeADogHat (@Popehat) April 30, 2020
/3 To be a violation of 1001, a lie has to be material. That doesn’t mean it DOES fool the feds or mislead them or waste their time. In the context of 1001, it only requires that it’s the sort of lie that COULD, hypothetically, influence their decision-making.
— LikeADogHat (@Popehat) April 30, 2020
/4 (Contrast that with the rule when the feds lie in, say, a search warrant application — there the defendant has to show that the lie was material in the sense that it actually changed the outcome. The rules for law enforcement are different than the rules for you).
— LikeADogHat (@Popehat) April 30, 2020
Unfortunately, this tactic remains legal, ergo why the FBI agents and officials who encouraged Flynn to speak with them without a lawyer present by convincing him their discussion was casual and off-the-record will never likely face any consequences.
It’s not clear if the same holds true of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team. They’ve been accused of threatening to pursue charges against Flynn’s son.
“Flynn is said to have been warned that, if he refused to plead guilty, prosecutors would charge his son with a felony for failing to register with the Justice Department as a foreign agent,” National Review reported last week.
“Such a so-called FARA violation (Foreign Agent Registration Act) is a crime that the DOJ almost never charged before the Mueller investigation, and it had dubious application to Flynn’s son (who worked for Flynn’s private-intelligence firm).”
Regardless of legalities, it’s clear what happened to Flynn was wrong in an ethical and moral sense — and should therefore happen to nobody, including even Wallace.
But just for the sake of hypotheticals, some social media users have thought to ask what if it did happen to Wallace — how would he respond?
Look:
Okay let’s listen in on a Chris Wallace phone call he makes while on vacation (while he makes dozens each day), get the transcript, call him up and ask to chat about that call, say he doesn’t need a lawyer, keep him “unguarded” and “relaxed”, and send an agent he’s met before https://t.co/WlQYGWAPzF
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 2, 2020
Then come away thinking he didn’t accurately describe the call but wasn’t giving *any* indications of lying in the opinion of the FBI agents & leave the case dormant (except for going to senior people working for Chris’s boss at Fox and telling them he’s a liar, so he’s fired)
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 2, 2020
Then open a case against Wallace again when it’s convenient for political reasons, and threaten to jail Wallace’s family unless he cops to “lying”
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 2, 2020
Then have Wallace’s lawyers strongly recommended he plead guilty to save his family from jail time, so he decides to plead guilty
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 2, 2020
By this time Wallace will be $6m in the hole in legal bills, with no job, career in tatters, and having to sell his house just to stay afloat
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 2, 2020
Then have an avalanche of suppressed exculpatory documents come out showing that the entire “investigation” of Chris Wallace was baseless in the first place, making any lies immaterial and not chargeable anyway
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 2, 2020
Then have Wallace say in a sworn declaration that “in gods name” that he was actually innocent all along and only plead guilty to help his family, and beg the court for forgiveness, and ask to have his plea back so he can try and clear his name
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 2, 2020
Oh, THEN we can have an anchor on Fox News say, in effect that “Gee sucks Chris, but the FBI are tough cookies, and it’s your own fault for lying. Suck it up you chump”.
Talk about an empathy malfunction, geez. Wake up
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 2, 2020
Given how fussy Wallace tends to be, he would likely NOT respond well to this.
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
[email protected]
V. Saxena is a staff writer for BizPac Review with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University.
- Nearly 10,000 pics from Hunter’s laptop hit the web: If Americans ‘want to know what their first family is like’ - June 1, 2023
- Harris Faulkner suggests Fox News is ‘going to have to change’ over New York DEI requirements - June 1, 2023
- 21 GOP-led states back Florida family’s lawsuit against school for covertly transitioning daughter - June 1, 2023
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
