How is Alan Dershowitz an attorney?

[ck4829]

"Lying to the FBI is not a crime", really?

Lying to the FBI is a crime, with real consequences, and it's not some George Soros conspiracy against Trump, a simple Google search can reveal that.

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=ofIXXLG5OoW-tQX_hoeYCw&q=site%3Ajustice.gov+%22lying+to+the+fbi%22

[Oneironaut]

1. Didn't Michael Flynn get in legal trouble for exactly that?

[ck4829]

3. Yes, and that is what the Dershowitz quote is in response to

Apparently, it's not a crime for Michael Flynn to lie to the FBI.

[RockRaven]

2. a low bar...

[ck4829]

4. LOL

[Cicada]

5. Lying is illegal only if it is "material"

His argument is that if the Feds knew the correct answer before they asked Flynn, for a certainty, then whatever Flynn said would have no impact on their investigation. The lie must be “material to the investigation”, make a difference to the investigation. That Dershowitz is smart enough to think of this, while it would not occur to me, is why he was a law professor and I am just a chump.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. That's some pretty twisted reasoning. While it is correct that the lie

must be material to the investigation, it's still a lie even if the FBI already knows the truth. There is nothing illegal about FBI agents asking a question to which they know the answer; investigators do that all the time. Whether or not the FBI already knew the answer is irrelevant; the lie was still material to the investigation. The fact that they already knew the answer doesn't make it less material.

Suppose I rob a bank, and the FBI has a security video showing me doing it so they already know I'm the perp. Agents come to my house and ask me if I robbed the bank. I lie and say no. Even though they already knew I did it, my response was material to the investigation and my lie was illegal.

[Cicada]

10. "Material" means makes a difference

Tell me how Flynn’s answer would “make a difference” to their investigation if they already knew the correct answer, 100% for sure, no matter what answer Flynn gave. If it would “make no difference” then it was not material. The definition of material is makes a difference.

[ck4829]

18. So it has to be determined later it's a lie in the course of the investigation?

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2018, 05:35 PM - Edit history (2)

That doesn't seem to be what happened in several of the DOJ cases I can see on the Google search...

Case of Shade Workman, a drug task force agent who is facing a charge of lying to the FBI in addition to other charges such as bribery and witness intimidation. To me, it seems like several of his victims of his quest for sexual favors told authorities he was doing this as well as destroying evidence of these sexual favors. The FBI asked him, he denied it, and he was charged with lying.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdva/pr/virginia-state-police-special-agent-arrested-federal-criminal-complaint
https://wset.com/news/local/us-attorney-vsp-special-agent-charged-for-falsely-denying-sexual-relationships
https://www.swvatoday.com/news/article_5c8c53e2-ae4d-5219-9be9-6fe7d59c6f76.html

Case of Jaclyn McCain, surveillance revealed her mother's car near the scene of a shooting. When the FBI interviewed her, she denied her letting anyone else use or operate the car. The charge she is facing has the same wording that Flynn plead guilty to.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-de/pr/wilmington-woman-indicted-obstructing-homicide-investigation-and-lying-fbi
https://www.justice.gov/usao-de/press-release/file/1053496/download

Case of Michael Frederiksen, he was convicted of lying to the FBI. The FBI had him on video and they knew what the correct answer was.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ks/pr/retired-highway-patrol-trooper-convicted-lying-fbi-about-gambling

Case of Gordon Chavez, a probation officer. He denied fondling probationers to the FBI, too bad for him, they already had a recording of him admitting to it. They knew the correct answer.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/new-mexico-probation-officer-indicted-sexual-assault-charges
https://www.koat.com/article/corrections-dept-speaks-after-ex-parole-officer-is-sentenced/5054980

And then this piece of work, Pierre Moosebroker, he was recorded telling a person he wanted a child as a sex slave and planned to obtain her using violence, the FBI asked him about it and so they knew the correct answer, he denied it. He was still charged with lying to the FBI along with other charges, and convicted.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdla/pr/baton-rouge-man-convicted-possessing-child-pornography-and-making-false-statements-fbi
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_974eaa3a-c033-5816-8ed9-f91f281f9ab9.html

[Cicada]

21. McCain, a million facts, fredrickson included relationship with operator

McCain has a huge number of facts, not all 100% known to investigators. In Fredrickson he lied about his relationship to the operator, not just being in the game. So the video did not provide 100% certainty about all the dishonest comments. More later.

[Cicada]

22. Your other cases involve conflicting testimony, not smoking gun proof

In one of your other cases guilt was based on conflicting testimony, not certain proof. And in another example he lied about planning and authorities did not have absolute proof of planning. I don’t find your examples clear cut like Flynn. But assume they were clear cut. In those cases Dershowitz would argue the convictions were not legally sound. I am not arguing that Dershowitz is accurate about the law in his definition of materiality. If I had to bet on how Supremes would rule were Flynn appealed on those grounds I would bet expect he would win. But I would only bet five to win four. I wouldn’t bet six to win four. But I would bet three to win one that the decision would be split. I don’t think smart money bets against Dershowitz very often, and when it does I think it doesn’t give long odds.

[ck4829]

8. Well now it makes less sense because it seems completely "material" to the investigation

They asked if he spoke to Kislyak and asked if he spoke about sanctions, a very specific subject and he said "No", not "I don't recall", not "I don't remember", but "No". This speaking to Kislyak is part of the Special Counsel investigation. The Russian government is obsessed with getting the Magnitsky Act and other sanctions off their back, they are going to great lengths to circumvent it.

Maybe Dershowitz is a little rusty, maybe he needs to review some materials, but this is 100% a fumble on his part, sorry.

[Cicada]

11. The meaning of "material" is "makes a difference"

explain to me how Flynn’s answer would make a difference to the investigation if they knew 100% for sure what the correct answer was before he answered.

[Gothmog]

15. Lying about what was told to the Russian ambassador is material

Flynne was lying and exposing himself to being blackmailed by russia

[Cicada]

19. You are saying it was important, not that it was "material"

[Gothmog]

20. Read the definition of Material set forth below

[Cicada]

24. Dershowitz disagrees with the eleventh circuit. So?

Note that pope hat who claims Dershowitz is mistaken in his defense of Flynn claims only that the ruling in the eleventh circuit cites the decided law as contrary to Dershowitz. But pope hat goes on to say that Dershowitz has the better view on this matter, that the decided law cited by the eleventh circuit sucks. So if pope hat and Dershowitz agree on what the law should be, that Flynn should be innocent, who knows how the Supremes would decide this today. Reflecting on this I too agree with Dershowitz and pope hat have the better view. For five years I lived with a former clerk for the Supremes. I think my views on the few things I knew about were better than her views in some cases. Usually not, but sometimes. I think I persuaded her in some cases that the decisions of her appellate court and Supreme Court superior had been unwise. Liberal lions I admire. But wrong at times I think. So I am not certain the definition you provided is “thelaw.” But it probably is. Your example persuaded me. Thank you.

[Gothmog]

25. From the Hoarse Whisperer

Dershowitz' claims are so bad that they are easy to laugh at

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

27. Legal experts denounce Alan Dershowitz's warped and desperate defenses of Team Trump

This is established law https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/legal-experts-denounce-alan-dershowitzs-warped-desperate-defenses-team-trump/

But other legal experts quickly pointed out that Dershowitz was distorting the facts and misleading the public.

“Here’s [Dershowitz] making an argument about how the law SHOULD be, but concealing it as an argument about what the law IS,” said attorney Ken White, referring to the Fox News interview.

His point was that Dershowitz’s is arguing a point as if it weren’t already settled law. Dershowitz appears to believe that lying to the FBI about facts the FBI already knows should not be prosecutable. White even acknowledged that he agreed with this opinion, but pointed out that the courts have consistently ruled against this view. By presenting his opinion as if it were the law, White argued, Dershowitz was lying.

“Like many of Dershowitz’s recent statements, this appears to be a deliberate effort to mislead the public,” noted Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor. “Dershowitz often misleads the public through sleight of hand like this. His deceptive phrases are so carefully worded that I’m convinced he is deliberately deceiving people.”

[Gothmog]

26. flynne cooperated with the FBI and pled guilty for a reason

Link to tweet

[MaryMagdaline]

32. Except when someone lies, you have to go back and prove it through other means

-third parties who can authenticate your voice on tape, etc, it means more time and expense to the investigation.

[NewJeffCT]

6. he's a retired professor

stopped teaching at Harvard in 2013.

In reviewing his wiki page, I get the impression that he's more like a high profile expert legal consultant than an actual regularly practicing defense attorney. He started teaching at Harvard in the mid 60s, but has taken a number of high profile cases of the years.

[qazplm135]

9. so when I was at the Army Defense Appellate Division

about a decade ago...one of the Soldiers appealing their conviction got the former Attorney General of the US for President Carter to represent her.

Age definitely did not help him and the oral argument was a mite bit embarrassing to say the least.

Guiliani isn't quite as old as he was, but I get the feeling the decline is well underway with him.

[former9thward]

12. The OP is not about Guilliani.

That aside I think you are painting a broad brush about age and the ability of an attorney to comment about legal matters. Look at the age of the SC Justices. We would have to dismiss quite a few if that is the grounds.

[qazplm135]

13. I meant to say Dershowitz, had Guiliani on the brain...

And I don't think it's a broad brush at all.

MOST people begin to exhibit mental decline as they age and that decline in MOST people. The rate and level of decline certainly vary by individuals, and some folks either start off at such a high point that even normal decline is imperceptible or for various reasons don't experience the same level of decline as the average.

I know RBG certainly is an exceptional person and likely an exception to the rule (or is an example of someone at such a high level that even average decline doesn't impact on their ability to effectively do her job well).

Dershowitz is 80. That's well within the level of cognitive decline. We have plenty of evidence that Trump for example has entered that decline in the complexity of the sentences he uses and how he expresses himself and malpropisms and memory loss now compared to say 10-15 years ago.

I wouldn't want an attorney in their 80s on average. There might be an RBG there in the mix, but the odds aren't great.

[Cicada]

16. The argument about materiality was clever not demented

His argument may not be persuasive to judges but it was clever. I am annoyed that Dershowitz sucks up to Fox News, carefully avoiding critical comments about Trump. It is kind of disgusting. But I think he’s still brilliant. Perhaps brilliant in a bad way, but brilliant.

[qazplm135]

17. eh I don't see him as brilliant at all

Trump's clever sometimes too, but he's also clearly in mental decline.

Certainly Dershowitz is way more intelligent than Trump so not a direct comparison, but yeah we will have to agree to disagree on brilliant, not anymore.

I've seen him in debates with real lawyers on several networks and he does not come across as remotely brilliant.

[Gothmog]

14. Dershowitz has become a joke

Link to tweet

[Bucky]

23. He was one when he got OJ off

[Gothmog]

28. Flynn-related indictments blow up Trump supporters' latest conspiracy theory:

Link to tweet

[doc03]

29. He sold his soul to Faux Snooz nt

[SHRED]

30. It's obstruction of justice

Dersh is a douche.

[still_one]

31. Dershowitz is a grandstanding asshole who loves attention

[fescuerescue]

33. Lying to the FBI isn't a crime

But his statement is a lawyer precise statement meant to mislead.

You can walk up to the FBI building today, talk to the FBI employed receptionist and tell her whatever whopper of a lie you want. Perfectly legal.

You can have a beer with an FBI agent, and tell'm about the huge fish you caught last week and make up any story you want. Perfectly legal.

Where lies become illegal - is when you are being asked in the course of an investigation. Then it becomes obstruction of justice and a violation of a very specific law.

Of course he knows this, He's a better lawyer than 99.99% of all us anonymous-internet-armchair-lawyers. But his statement is accurate, but totally outside the context of the conversation.