Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ex-FBI director James Comey is perhaps the king of this charge, which falls under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code. It was actually Comey, as US Atty., who indicted Martha Stewart for this. He failed to nail her on the underlying crime of insider stock trading. Stewart did 5 months in federal prison for lying.
Comey was also directly involved in one of the worst travesties, namely White House aide Lewis 'Scooter' Libby. This case involved the outing of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, whose name appeared in a Washington Post column by Bob Novak.
It turned out that Libby had had nothing to do with the outing, and it wouldn't have been illegal if he did. Nonetheless Libby was convicted for lying. President Trump later pardoned him. Incidentally Comey gives an account of this in his memoirs, and so does Bob Novak. The two accounts do not always square. Novak said that it was never even illegal to out Plame, because she was not working covertly, and so the relevant law did not apply. Comey claims that she was in fact covert. He's wrong (perhaps lying!).
Now we have Bob Mueller challenging Comey for his king's throne. Flynn, Cohen, Gates, Papadopoulos, and others have all been charged over this by Mueller. In Fear by Bob Woodward, there are heated arguments recounted between Trump and his lawyer John Dowd, and between Dowd and Mueller. Dowd tries to get Trump to see how easy it would be for Mueller to nail him on '1001.'
I understand it may be sometimes necessary, similar to how Al Capone was nailed not for underlying crimes, but for income tax evasion. But I think '1001' is being way over-used these days. What do you think?
...
Yes and no. Yes I am perfectly fine with it. A jury agreed that he[Libby] knowingly lied. BUT...I am not fine about the fact that others didn't go to jail. Libby was the fall guy-even members of his jury felt that way. But the facts of the matter still came down to that the jury didn't believe him when he claimed he didn't remember a fact he was told at least 9 times, and that his lying had a material impact. But perhaps they didn't get prosecuted as it wasnt a crime as you point out. I think President Bush was right to commute his sentence, but Trump was wrong to pardon him. As Bush said when he did it:
The guy was guilty. So yeah, commit a crime, get sentenced. I thought the sentence was overly harsh-something President Bush also felt. Bet the sentence was absolutely deserved.
So he was technically guilty, as provided by the law (section 1001). Jeanne D'Arc was technically guilty of being a 'relapsed heretic' when she was burned at the stake, as provided by the laws of the time. Are you "perfectly fine" with that too?
So intentionally lying to a federal investigator should be OK if the thing you're lying about never actually happened? I'm not sure I follow your logic there.
Never said that. I said that is the game, so don't play it. They had nothing on her UNTIL she flapped her yap and gave them something. The something was totally unrelated to the crime that never occurred, but allowed them to jail her under the law as written. Had she said "I plead the 5th" to every question ever asked her, she would have never been prosecuted for a single thing.
She was entrapped into her "crime" by a) investigators who had nothing else and b) her own stupidity.
Since under the law as written, anything you say will be used against you, only a complete fool says anything other than "I plead the 5th" or "I wish to speak with my attorney in private."
That is my point, inferred, directly made or otherwise. It is my sole and only point. Do not speak to official agents about anything, ever.
Lying to investigators is lying under oath when the investigation proceeds to a courtroom.
Lying to investigators to conceal a crime, or to conceal involvement in the commission of a crime is a crime itself.
So while it's technically true that lying to an investigator isn't a crime, it's only not a crime if the lie is never discovered. As soon as the lie is found out, it becomes a crime.
Cops will overlook minor lies all the time in persons of interest, but if they have a viable suspect, the suspect can indeed lie, but only under some high jeopardy.
Lying to an Investigator is actually a crime in itself in some crimes.
This is especially true in cases of espionage, collusion, treason, and other Federal offenses.
This is because in all those crimes, what is said during the plotting and the conversations is all pertinent to the commission of the crime. And the intent to commit any of them carries a criminal penalty, even if the actions are never carried out.
A person can also be charged when found to be lying to a Presidential Inquiry, Congressional Inquiry and a Court inquiry, as all are official investigative bodies.
Word play isn't a crime, but it also isn't very clever.
The poll isn't clever enough to disguise the facts of the matter. So, despite the word play you and the poll attempted, there is real crime involved in the poll.
Lying to investigators is lying under oath when the investigation proceeds to a courtroom.
Lying to investigators to conceal a crime, or to conceal involvement in the commission of a crime is a crime itself.
So while it's technically true that lying to an investigator isn't a crime, it's only not a crime if the lie is never discovered. As soon as the lie is found out, it becomes a crime.
Cops will overlook minor lies all the time in persons of interest, but if they have a viable suspect, the suspect can indeed lie, but only under some high jeopardy.
Lying to an Investigator is actually a crime in itself in some crimes.
This is especially true in cases of espionage, collusion, treason, and other Federal offenses.
This is because in all those crimes, what is said during the plotting and the conversations is all pertinent to the commission of the crime. And the intent to commit any of them carries a criminal penalty, even if the actions are never carried out.
A person can also be charged when found to be lying to a Presidential Inquiry, Congressional Inquiry and a Court inquiry, as all are official investigative bodies.
Word play isn't a crime, but it also isn't very clever.
The poll isn't clever enough to disguise the facts of the matter. So, despite the word play you and the poll attempted, there is real crime involved in the poll.
Presumably Starr could have gone after him for perjury, but declined to do so. Clinton lost his law license, but faced no charges. Do you think he should have? If not, why Libby and Stewart, but not Clinton?
Presumably Starr could have gone after him for perjury, but declined to do so. Clinton lost his law license, but faced no charges. Do you think he should have? If not, why Libby and Stewart, but not Clinton?
Simple, because its not JUST lying thats required for a charge. It has to be material as well. Clintons lie wasn't material to a investigation or case, as such could not be charged.
IE you can lie all day about who you are doing as long as its not material.
So he was technically guilty, as provided by the law (section 1001). Jeanne D'Arc was technically guilty of being a 'relapsed heretic' when she was burned at the stake, as provided by the laws of the time. Are you "perfectly fine" with that too?
Oh please. So when you feel you are losing a argument you go into lala land, and have to go to stuff that happened in the 1400's? Laws in the 1400's werent often very good laws. Laws against perjury remain good laws. you should feel shame for even trying this nonsense.
Oh please. So when you feel you are losing a argument you go into lala land, and have to go to stuff that happened in the 1400's? Laws in the 1400's werent often very good laws. Laws against perjury remain good laws. you should feel shame for even trying this nonsense.
In other words, laws back in the 1400s were bad laws because I say so, and laws against perjury are good today because I say so.
Well I say laws that put people into prison for lying are barbaric, and immoral.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
