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 -
Replying to @gabrielmalor @baseballcrank and
Anyway, the troubling part isn't the "is he gonna admit or lie" part. It's the idea this guy (reportedly Priestap) thought they were looking at a Logan Act violation. And that he thought it would be "game playing" if they didn't show Flynn the evidence during the interview.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
Using the Logan Act as justification to treat a White House official as a criminal target, in the 217th year of nobody ever being convicted under the Logan Act, is in my view terrible judgment. You wanna go after Flynn under FARA, go under FARA.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank @gabrielmalor and
IOW, inescapably political persecution rather than a national security investigation.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.