A lot of crimes that businesses can be convicted of have an "intent" component. That is, before you can jail someone for, say, fraud, you have to be able to prove that the person or business who defrauded you intended for you to depend on their fraudulent representations, and that you then got suckered. If the person or business can show that their fraudulent representation was so bogus that nobody would be fooled by it (or that the person suckered should have figured out it was preposterous), then they can't be held criminally liable.
It's a sweet deal for moneyed interests, and explains why criminal prosecutions against businesses are pretty rare. Lying to the FBI isn't in that same field, too bad for Donald and his lying minions. Your lie doesn't have to be material, it doesn't have to be preposterous, you don't get the benefit of interpretation that because you didn't intend for the FBI to believe and act on your lie as if it was the truth, you're still on the hook for lying to the FBI.
I'd bet that Dershowitz knows this. But he's not arguing his stupid proposition in a court of law where a judge might bounce a gavel off his noggin. He's arguing for the benefit of his dumbass Fox audience, who will take up his banner without a second thought. Or even a first one.
= new reply since forum marked as read
