5 ms·

They also have the seemingly unique and blatantly unconstitutional power to imprison you for ""lying"" to them. The actual wording/charge is "providing false s

They also have the seemingly unique and blatantly unconstitutional power to imprison you for ""lying"" to them. The actual wording/charge is "providing false statements", which means anything that they can later suggest is untrue. This is why you should never, ever speak with anyone associated with the FBI even if they are being "friendly". Say they knock at the door and have questions for you about your shady neighbor down the street. You're not the one under investigation, so what's the harm in talking to them right? Well officer friendly asks the innocuous question of if it was raining last Thursday. You tell them that it was. As it turns out, it was not raining last Thursday and your honest-but-wrong answer means you are now able to be charged with "lying to the FBI". In practice, they knew it wasn't raining last Thursday and the question was a trap. By answering incorrectly officer friendly can then threaten to charge you at a later date, except there's an out! _You can become an informant!_. By agreeing to spy on your neighbor for the mafia they'll spare you federal inditement. You're now an "asset" that they can work for as long as they please and you have no legal recourse. EDIT: To expand upon this, lets say it wasn't last thursday but was in fact 60+ days ago. They have a text message from you to your wife saying how beautiful/sunny the day was, because despite being "end to end encrypted" your iMessage private key is stored on Apple servers because you clicked the default CTAs during iCloud setup to enable iCloud backup. They _know_ it was not raining and have "proof" you knew it was not raining, because you texted your wife how nice and sunny it was. You honestly don't remember at the time you were questioned, maybe you think you're 100% telling the truth. Maybe you're confused, and are thinking of the thursday prior where it _was_ raining. None of that matters, they have you on a federal felony and you're their asset now.

AustinDev 4y ago
The 'best' part about this power is they don't record their interrogations. All of the 'truth' from the interview is recorded on paper by the FBI agents.
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  Give it a few years and the audio recordings won't be any more trustable, if they are even right now. The piece of paper is just as good.
- Natsu 4y ago
  Yes, via an FD-302
- landemva 4y ago
  Except when FBI does a sham interview to protect an insider. Then no oath to tell truth and no notes. Makes for an easy white-wash of serious crimes. https://thehill.com/homenews/286849-fbi-didnt-record-clinton-interview-did-not-administer-sworn-oath https://thehill.com/homenews/286849-fbi-didnt-record-clinton...
jstarfish 4y ago
Do you have any credible examples of any of this actually happening? The only times I've ever seen this card played is as punishment for deliberately misleading agents and wasting their time, not getting inconsequential facts wrong. ...like the high-profile Gabby Petito murder case, where Brian Laundrie's parents lied to investigators to conceal their son's whereabouts after the murder. Or that other recent one where a woman faked her own kidnapping and started a national manhunt for herself and her nonexistent kidnappers.
- Natsu 4y ago
  Read some of Ken White's older writings, he's been complaining that there's no materiality requirement to 18 USC 1001 for years and that it's been used to manufacture new charges via questioning. There's also the matter that FBI policy is NOT to record interviews, so there's only an FD-302 saying you lied and nobody can see what you actually said, only what the FBI heard.
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    Thanks. Found this: https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-shut-up/ https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea... One of the comments points out that Martha Stewart was convicted for a basket of charges completely unrelated to the securities fraud that she was indicted for in the first place. Among them: two counts of lying to federal agents. The FD-302 thing is nothing new; anybody adjacent to CPS or domestic violence will have seen the equivalent take place in therapists' offices. Client and/or therapist can rehearse abuse stories with no accountability whatsoever.
- kodyo 4y ago
  Gen. Flynn was prosecuted for something the FBI claimed he said in an FBI investigation that he didn't say, and the FBI slow-walked producing the exculpatory evidence.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    Then again, Gen. Flynn is a threat to civilization. Is there any way they can both lose?
bambataa 4y ago
Is any judge going to convict someone of lying to the FBI for getting the weather wrong? I find it ridiculous that the FBI are going around developing assets by tripping up people with inane questions like this.
- notch656a 4y ago
  You can beat the charge, but sorry your life got ruined, you lost your job due to federal charges, lost your security clearance, your wife left you because it's impractical to raise children with dad in jail and siphoning all the family money to lawyers, you have an arrest record, and now you're on the top list for officers to fuck with at every oppotunity they get. Remember, they only have to 'win' once, you have to 'win' every time.
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  "Send us an email about your neighbor once a week or we drag you through the court system as slowly as we can" will work on 90% of people id bet even if everyone involved knows Noone is actually going to prison
- incahoots 4y ago
  How much does it cost to convince the judge that you simply misremembered the weather that day?
techwizrd 4y ago
I don't believe this is the case, but I am also not a lawyer. The _actual_ wording of 18 USC § 1001 is "[...] knowingly and willfully" "(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; [...]" [0], not simply "providing false statements." The DOJ must show that the statement was false, the fact is material to the case, that you knew it was false when you made it, and that it does not fall under the exceptions carved out by DOJ policy [1]. That is very different from what you're claiming. In your example, the rain on Thursday must actually be important to the case and you must knowingly be attempting to deceive the federal investigators. Your honest-but-wrong answer does not mean you are now able to be charged with providing false statements to a federal criminal investigator under 18 USC § 1001. 0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 1: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-42000-fraud-against-the-government#9-42.160 https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-42000-fraud-against-the-gove...
- lp0_on_fire 4y ago
  That's all well and good for the DOJ, which has virtually unlimited time and funding with an army of lawyers. No so much for regular Joe who is caught in the position OP discussed. The threat of legal action alone is enough to scare _most_ people in this country because they simply can't afford it.
  - sodality2 4y ago
    By that logic, if the law doesn’t actually matter, a regular police officer could also simply threaten the same thing, and there’s nothing differentiating them with the FBI. In both cases it would scare most people because they can’t afford it.
    - Supermancho 4y ago
      That is the current state of the US law enforcement (2022). What's interesting about extortion by law enforcement, is that they are not held accountable for describing things that are not true. It's not extortion, if a hypothetical situation is presented as an investigatory method and goes no further.
scarface74 4y ago
Everything you said is true for local law enforcement also
- RetpolineDrama 4y ago
  Is it? On what charge, "obstruction of justice" perhaps?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Perjury or giving false statements
    - RetpolineDrama 4y ago
      Not a lawyer but I thought perjury was false statements under-oath, like in a trial. That's a very different matter than being wrong in a casual interview with the cops/feds. Do you have any examples of laws about "giving false statements" to local police? Seems like a rather blatant 1st amendment violation.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/false-statement-to-police https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/false-statement-to-pol...
mmsimanga 4y ago
I understand your point. I am undecided about the overall impact. I have spent my life in two countries. One is a dictatorship where the culture is basically to tell the cops the truth to avoid trouble. Not great but the net effect is the country has less crime. Less murders, less armed robbery and it is a pretty safe. Just don't say anything about politicians. The other country has a culture of not cooperating with the cops. Basically someone can be shot in a street full of people and not a single witness will come forward. The net result this country is far more dangerous and you need to be careful when out and about. None of them are perfect because humans are not perfect.
tarboreus 4y ago
Let's be real. If they want to mess with you, they don't need to play weird games with you. They're not genies, and they're mostly unaccountable to anyone not their bosses or highly connected individuals. They can not pass go, collect $200 anyway, and mess with you directly.
- RetpolineDrama 4y ago
  For sure they could. My only real defense is that I'm just not that interesting I think. It sure would be nice to live in a country where we could have reasonable certainty that agents of the people's collective will (government) would act in good faith, and were bound by reasonable laws ensuring so.
threatofrain 4y ago
In general you shouldn't talk to law enforcement because they're allowed to lie and lying to them is a crime, whether we're talking about police or FBI.

AustinDev 4y ago

The 'best' part about this power is they don't record their interrogations. All of the 'truth' from the interview is recorded on paper by the FBI agents.

thatguy0900 4y ago
Give it a few years and the audio recordings won't be any more trustable, if they are even right now. The piece of paper is just as good.
Natsu 4y ago
Yes, via an FD-302
landemva 4y ago
Except when FBI does a sham interview to protect an insider. Then no oath to tell truth and no notes. Makes for an easy white-wash of serious crimes. https://thehill.com/homenews/286849-fbi-didnt-record-clinton-interview-did-not-administer-sworn-oath https://thehill.com/homenews/286849-fbi-didnt-record-clinton...

jstarfish 4y ago

Do you have any credible examples of any of this actually happening? The only times I've ever seen this card played is as punishment for deliberately misleading agents and wasting their time, not getting inconsequential facts wrong. ...like the high-profile Gabby Petito murder case, where Brian Laundrie's parents lied to investigators to conceal their son's whereabouts after the murder. Or that other recent one where a woman faked her own kidnapping and started a national manhunt for herself and her nonexistent kidnappers.

Natsu 4y ago
Read some of Ken White's older writings, he's been complaining that there's no materiality requirement to 18 USC 1001 for years and that it's been used to manufacture new charges via questioning. There's also the matter that FBI policy is NOT to record interviews, so there's only an FD-302 saying you lied and nobody can see what you actually said, only what the FBI heard.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  Thanks. Found this: https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-shut-up/ https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea... One of the comments points out that Martha Stewart was convicted for a basket of charges completely unrelated to the securities fraud that she was indicted for in the first place. Among them: two counts of lying to federal agents. The FD-302 thing is nothing new; anybody adjacent to CPS or domestic violence will have seen the equivalent take place in therapists' offices. Client and/or therapist can rehearse abuse stories with no accountability whatsoever.
kodyo 4y ago
Gen. Flynn was prosecuted for something the FBI claimed he said in an FBI investigation that he didn't say, and the FBI slow-walked producing the exculpatory evidence.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Then again, Gen. Flynn is a threat to civilization. Is there any way they can both lose?

bambataa 4y ago

Is any judge going to convict someone of lying to the FBI for getting the weather wrong? I find it ridiculous that the FBI are going around developing assets by tripping up people with inane questions like this.

notch656a 4y ago
You can beat the charge, but sorry your life got ruined, you lost your job due to federal charges, lost your security clearance, your wife left you because it's impractical to raise children with dad in jail and siphoning all the family money to lawyers, you have an arrest record, and now you're on the top list for officers to fuck with at every oppotunity they get. Remember, they only have to 'win' once, you have to 'win' every time.
thatguy0900 4y ago
"Send us an email about your neighbor once a week or we drag you through the court system as slowly as we can" will work on 90% of people id bet even if everyone involved knows Noone is actually going to prison
incahoots 4y ago
How much does it cost to convince the judge that you simply misremembered the weather that day?

techwizrd 4y ago

I don't believe this is the case, but I am also not a lawyer. The _actual_ wording of 18 USC § 1001 is "[...] knowingly and willfully" "(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; [...]" [0], not simply "providing false statements." The DOJ must show that the statement was false, the fact is material to the case, that you knew it was false when you made it, and that it does not fall under the exceptions carved out by DOJ policy [1]. That is very different from what you're claiming. In your example, the rain on Thursday must actually be important to the case and you must knowingly be attempting to deceive the federal investigators. Your honest-but-wrong answer does not mean you are now able to be charged with providing false statements to a federal criminal investigator under 18 USC § 1001. 0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 1: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-42000-fraud-against-the-government#9-42.160 https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-42000-fraud-against-the-gove...

lp0_on_fire 4y ago
That's all well and good for the DOJ, which has virtually unlimited time and funding with an army of lawyers. No so much for regular Joe who is caught in the position OP discussed. The threat of legal action alone is enough to scare _most_ people in this country because they simply can't afford it.
- sodality2 4y ago
  By that logic, if the law doesn’t actually matter, a regular police officer could also simply threaten the same thing, and there’s nothing differentiating them with the FBI. In both cases it would scare most people because they can’t afford it.
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    That is the current state of the US law enforcement (2022). What's interesting about extortion by law enforcement, is that they are not held accountable for describing things that are not true. It's not extortion, if a hypothetical situation is presented as an investigatory method and goes no further.

scarface74 4y ago

Everything you said is true for local law enforcement also

RetpolineDrama 4y ago
Is it? On what charge, "obstruction of justice" perhaps?
- scarface74 4y ago
  Perjury or giving false statements
  - RetpolineDrama 4y ago
    Not a lawyer but I thought perjury was false statements under-oath, like in a trial. That's a very different matter than being wrong in a casual interview with the cops/feds. Do you have any examples of laws about "giving false statements" to local police? Seems like a rather blatant 1st amendment violation.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/false-statement-to-police https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/false-statement-to-pol...

mmsimanga 4y ago

I understand your point. I am undecided about the overall impact. I have spent my life in two countries. One is a dictatorship where the culture is basically to tell the cops the truth to avoid trouble. Not great but the net effect is the country has less crime. Less murders, less armed robbery and it is a pretty safe. Just don't say anything about politicians. The other country has a culture of not cooperating with the cops. Basically someone can be shot in a street full of people and not a single witness will come forward. The net result this country is far more dangerous and you need to be careful when out and about. None of them are perfect because humans are not perfect.

tarboreus 4y ago

Let's be real. If they want to mess with you, they don't need to play weird games with you. They're not genies, and they're mostly unaccountable to anyone not their bosses or highly connected individuals. They can not pass go, collect $200 anyway, and mess with you directly.

RetpolineDrama 4y ago
For sure they could. My only real defense is that I'm just not that interesting I think. It sure would be nice to live in a country where we could have reasonable certainty that agents of the people's collective will (government) would act in good faith, and were bound by reasonable laws ensuring so.

threatofrain 4y ago

In general you shouldn't talk to law enforcement because they're allowed to lie and lying to them is a crime, whether we're talking about police or FBI.