Here's my thread taking you through the Flynn "bombshell" that isn't. Read it, but in short, this isn't entrapment (wtf?) nor is it a "perjury trap." If FBI thinks you've committed a crime, *of course they're going to target you in an interview.*https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1255644651622739968 …
-
Show this thread
-
BTW, which Twitter lawyer even introduced the term "perjury trap" to this conversation? Because Flynn didn't plead guilty to perjury. What are you even doing?
3 replies 8 retweets 59 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @gabrielmalor
Respectfully, Gabe, the incomparable
@AndrewCMcCarthy used the phrase "perjury trap" in the figurative sense to describe the wrongfulness of the less-apt Flynn interrogation—e.g.: "This kind of interrogation . . . [is] called a perjury trap."pic.twitter.com/lAXaSGdIpJ
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It's no different than (loosely) cross-applying terms of art and legalisms that have a narrow denotation in specific field to another. We lawyers make such cross-applications without fear of corrective snootiness because the intent for a loose construction's plain. But slay, king
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yeah, this is not a perjury trap in the caselaw sense (and the caselaw sets a very high bar, given what it's like being a witness under oath), but it is clearly an analogous argument if you think agents questioned someone with a deliberate plan to elicit prosecutable lies.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
What makes this not a perjury trap is that the writer of the notes actually thought Flynn had committed a crime. He's unequivocal about that. This wasn't a case where they couldn't find the crime, so hoped to trick him into incriminating himself, as McCarthy inaccurately writes.
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
Which is a different argument than "this isn't a perjury trap because he wasn't charged with perjury."
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.