Powered by Topple

Chris Wallace’s support of FBI ‘playing hardball’ with Flynn met with reality check: ‘Suck it up, you chump’

Powered by Topple

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:

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:

Given how fussy Wallace tends to be, he would likely NOT respond well to this.

Vivek Saxena

Comments

Latest Articles