• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is an FBI Interview a G-Man's License to Lie?

chuckiechan

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://www.realclearinvestigations..._interview_a_g-mans_license_to_lie_later.html

TDS warning: This is about the Manafort trial, but forget about that. My intention here is to make a civil rights argument.

One of the leaders of that effort has been civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate, author of the book “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.” He argues that 302s present a pervasive and unnecessary temptation for agents to bend the truth. A “fundamental flaw in the FBI’s truth-gathering apparatus,” Silverglate wrote in 2011, is “the long-defended Bureau-wide policy of not recording interrogations and interviews, a practice that allows the FBI to manipulate witnesses, manufacture convictions, and destroy justice as we once knew it.”

That may sound like strong stuff, unfair even. But the FBI’s own intransigence in the face of the electronic recording movement lends credence to Silverglate’s critique. An FBI response to this proposed reform has become notorious in civil libertarian circles. In 2006, the bureau produced a written rebuttal to the “on-going debate in the criminal justice community whether to make electronic recording of custodial interrogations mandatory.”

The policy memo offered several reasons why the FBI resisted recording, including the telling admission that, when people get a look at FBI interrogations in action, they don’t like what they see: As “all experienced investigators and prosecutors know, perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants,” the memo states. “Initial resistance may be interpreted as involuntariness, and misleading a defendant as to the quality of the evidence against him may appear to be unfair deceit.”

The bottom line is that FBI agents feel empowered lie to witnesses or suspects, but when those targets lie to the FBI they are charged with crimes. And being allowed to produce 302s, instead of taped interviews, allows this practice to continue. It’s worth noting that when that memo was produced, the FBI director was Robert Mueller.
Click to expand...

This is posted here mainly for people who GAS about how justice is served by the FBI.

In short, the subject is interviewed by a note taker and a questioner, then when they get around to it they create their own version of the interview on the 302. The "fact" becomes the note takers "Impressions" and there is no recording, or transcript of the actual interview. Thus we have a "he said, he said", except the FBI is not required to provide proof of the suspect lying.

I assumed all along that the FBI tape recorded or transcribed conversations that lead to "lying to the FBI". From this article it seems that now it is open to "Because we said you did".

I call Bullbleep on this process because it is ripe for exploitation.
 
chuckiechan said:
https://www.realclearinvestigations..._interview_a_g-mans_license_to_lie_later.html

TDS warning: This is about the Manafort trial, but forget about that. My intention here is to make a civil rights argument.



This is posted here mainly for people who GAS about how justice is served by the FBI.

In short, the subject is interviewed by a note taker and a questioner, then when they get around to it they create their own version of the interview on the 302. The "fact" becomes the note takers "Impressions" and there is no recording, or transcript of the actual interview. Thus we have a "he said, he said", except the FBI is not required to provide proof of the suspect lying.

I assumed all along that the FBI tape recorded or transcribed conversations that lead to "lying to the FBI". From this article it seems that now it is open to "Because we said you did".

I call Bullbleep on this process because it is ripe for exploitation.
Click to expand...

Its not ripe for exploitation. It IS being exploited.
 
chuckiechan said:
https://www.realclearinvestigations..._interview_a_g-mans_license_to_lie_later.html

TDS warning: This is about the Manafort trial, but forget about that. My intention here is to make a civil rights argument.



This is posted here mainly for people who GAS about how justice is served by the FBI.

In short, the subject is interviewed by a note taker and a questioner, then when they get around to it they create their own version of the interview on the 302. The "fact" becomes the note takers "Impressions" and there is no recording, or transcript of the actual interview. Thus we have a "he said, he said", except the FBI is not required to provide proof of the suspect lying.

I assumed all along that the FBI tape recorded or transcribed conversations that lead to "lying to the FBI". From this article it seems that now it is open to "Because we said you did".

I call Bullbleep on this process because it is ripe for exploitation.
Click to expand...


I agree...it appears a tad bit problematic. Just curious though...did you care before it impacted someone you support?
 
chuckiechan said:
https://www.realclearinvestigations..._interview_a_g-mans_license_to_lie_later.html

TDS warning: This is about the Manafort trial, but forget about that. My intention here is to make a civil rights argument.



This is posted here mainly for people who GAS about how justice is served by the FBI.

In short, the subject is interviewed by a note taker and a questioner, then when they get around to it they create their own version of the interview on the 302. The "fact" becomes the note takers "Impressions" and there is no recording, or transcript of the actual interview. Thus we have a "he said, he said", except the FBI is not required to provide proof of the suspect lying.

I assumed all along that the FBI tape recorded or transcribed conversations that lead to "lying to the FBI". From this article it seems that now it is open to "Because we said you did".

I call Bullbleep on this process because it is ripe for exploitation.
Click to expand...

This is an issue that should raise concerns in any criminal investigation, not just politically motivated witch hunts.
 
OlNate said:
I agree...it appears a tad bit problematic. Just curious though...did you care before it impacted someone you support?
Click to expand...

Like the OP, I assumed all along that the FBI made recordings. Seems this current witch hunt has opened a lot of eyes.
 
chuckiechan said:
https://www.realclearinvestigations..._interview_a_g-mans_license_to_lie_later.html

TDS warning: This is about the Manafort trial, but forget about that. My intention here is to make a civil rights argument.



This is posted here mainly for people who GAS about how justice is served by the FBI.

In short, the subject is interviewed by a note taker and a questioner, then when they get around to it they create their own version of the interview on the 302. The "fact" becomes the note takers "Impressions" and there is no recording, or transcript of the actual interview. Thus we have a "he said, he said", except the FBI is not required to provide proof of the suspect lying.

I assumed all along that the FBI tape recorded or transcribed conversations that lead to "lying to the FBI". From this article it seems that now it is open to "Because we said you did".

I call Bullbleep on this process because it is ripe for exploitation.
Click to expand...

I've posted about this before. By not recording and instead claiming they are using "notes written contemporaneous to the interview" the FBI can tell any lie they want to - and prosecute you for any lie you didn't tell.
 
OlNate said:
I agree...it appears a tad bit problematic. Just curious though...did you care before it impacted someone you support?
Click to expand...

I assumed that the FBI was much tighter and protective of rights and much more nailed down than some no name rat hole that time forgot.

Can you imagine every FBI case having to be retried because juries were denied access to the defendants true testimony? That is probably why is hasn't been challenged yet.

The truth be told "My bubble has been popped... again."
 
chuckiechan said:
https://www.realclearinvestigations..._interview_a_g-mans_license_to_lie_later.html

TDS warning: This is about the Manafort trial, but forget about that. My intention here is to make a civil rights argument.



This is posted here mainly for people who GAS about how justice is served by the FBI.

In short, the subject is interviewed by a note taker and a questioner, then when they get around to it they create their own version of the interview on the 302. The "fact" becomes the note takers "Impressions" and there is no recording, or transcript of the actual interview. Thus we have a "he said, he said", except the FBI is not required to provide proof of the suspect lying.

I assumed all along that the FBI tape recorded or transcribed conversations that lead to "lying to the FBI". From this article it seems that now it is open to "Because we said you did".

I call Bullbleep on this process because it is ripe for exploitation.
Click to expand...

On the surface I totally agree. Our whole system seems to use a lot of "the LE's word/opinion/version is fact".
 
Regardless of how guilty he is, the treatement of Manafort was true KGB police state tactics.

1. Although a non-violent crime and having no criminal record nor having attempted any fleeing, he was denied the constitutional right to bail.

2. Although he had never been convicted of anything nor had threatened anyone, he was locked in solitary confinement - which is considered torture by many (and if any of you doubt that clear out a walk-in closet and try staying in there 23 out of 24 hours a day for a month. See if you can't stand it before the end of the first day.)

3. Although a Defendant certainly should have the same right to prepare as the prosecution - including talking to potential witnesses - Manafort was ordered he may not talk to any witnesses to prepare his defense and was locked in solitary confinement to prevent his preparing a defense - while the prosecutors could talk to any witnesses and even threaten witnesses.

^ All that when Manafort had never been convicted of anything, there was no accusation he was currently involved in any criminal activity, had never attempted to flee, and no accusation was for any violent crime, no accusation he was a flight risk, and no accusation of him threatening anyone. Yet most Democrats cleared that police state abuse.

Beware of liberals. Most vehemently oppose civil and human rights if you watch what they do and don't actually support. Most oppose due process, rule of law, presumption of innocence, free speech, equality, and individual rights.
 
Not tape recording interviews to allow conviction by FBI lying is just one of many tricks they use.

Another they have used for decades is for filming covert activities of someone they are trying to convict they often will use black and white cameras with very low resolution so it looks seedy and grainy as a psychological persuasion technique.

They have a collection of ways to try to be more persuasive to juries such as calling themselves "special agents" when there is no such thing as an FBI "SPECIAL agent." They are all just FBI "agents." Calling themselves "special" agents makes the case seem like a "special" case in importance as a false impression.
 
There are many false slogans about our criminal justice system. For example, nearly everyone is arrested is presumed guilty, not presumed innocent. They are locked up and incarcerated prior to any conviction as if guilty. In jail they are treated essentially as slaves despite not being convicted of anything.

Since 90% of people can not afford felony bond and 80% can not afford misdemeanor bond, their ONLY way out of jail other than waiting months for a trial is to plead guilty. Even if found not-guilty, most will have spent more time in jail waiting for trial than if they plead out to a long probation, fines, fees, free labor for the government (community service) and - of course - lose of many rights including permanently. However, if they do not plead guilty to get out they lose everything - and so does their family. The entire system is based upon putting people in jail and holding them there to force them to plead guilty.
 
By using notes the FBI can have ANYONE arrested for "lying to the FBI." All they have to do is get or force anyone to say you are lied. They then go to a grand jury (you as the accused not even allowed to tell you side) and present the statement of the other person. If the other person says you lied about your name - even if you didn't - you WILL be indicted. Now you get to sit in jail for months - your reputation ruined - waiting to prove you are who you say you are. If you are, after having you in jail for months the FBI could just drop the case - laughing at you all the way - and then turn around and have you indicted for another lie you didn't tell.
 
As a comment, I would never take just the word of any law enforcement person without supporting real evidence and I would never believe anything anyone said if they had been given a deal for non-prosecution or a lower sentence in exchange for their testimony. I would give NO weight to anything based upon law enforcement memos and notes as they are purely "self serving documents."
 
joko104 said:
Regardless of how guilty he is, the treatement of Manafort was true KGB police state tactics.

1. Although a non-violent crime and having no criminal record nor having attempted any fleeing, he was denied the constitutional right to bail.

2. Although he had never been convicted of anything nor had threatened anyone, he was locked in solitary confinement - which is considered torture by many (and if any of you doubt that clear out a walk-in closet and try staying in there 23 out of 24 hours a day for a month. See if you can't stand it before the end of the first day.)

3. Although a Defendant certainly should have the same right to prepare as the prosecution - including talking to potential witnesses - Manafort was ordered he may not talk to any witnesses to prepare his defense and was locked in solitary confinement to prevent his preparing a defense - while the prosecutors could talk to any witnesses and even threaten witnesses.

^ All that when Manafort had never been convicted of anything, there was no accusation he was currently involved in any criminal activity, had never attempted to flee, and no accusation was for any violent crime, no accusation he was a flight risk, and no accusation of him threatening anyone. Yet most Democrats cleared that police state abuse.

Beware of liberals. Most vehemently oppose civil and human rights if you watch what they do and don't actually support. Most oppose due process, rule of law, presumption of innocence, free speech, equality, and individual rights.
Click to expand...

There are some errors in what you wrote about Manafort. Here is one:
Judge schedules hearing on revoking Paul Manafort'''s bail in Mueller probe

He was not denied bail. His bail was revoked for cause - witness tampering.

Federal prosecutors asked Judge Berman to revoke bail in a motion filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. Monday night. According to an FBI affidavit included with the motion, Manafort used encrypted messaging applications in February to try to reach two unnamed business partners who could be witnesses to his alleged fraud and money laundering. The judge has ordered the FBI agent who filed the declaration regarding the messaging to be in court and available to testify if necessary.

In a statement, Manafort spokesperson Jason Maloni said, "Mr. Manafort is innocent and nothing about this latest allegation changes our defense. We will do our talking in court."

Judge Berman has asked Manafort's lawyers to respond to the prosecutors' filing by June 8.

One of the potential witnesses said he believed Manafort's outreach was an attempt to "suborn perjury" or to instruct him to lie after a superseding indictment was filed in February against Manafort. The superseding indictment was filed after his co-defendant, Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and lying to Mueller's investigators.
Click to expand...
 
joko104 said:
Regardless of how guilty he is, the treatement of Manafort was true KGB police state tactics.

1. Although a non-violent crime and having no criminal record nor having attempted any fleeing, he was denied the constitutional right to bail.
Click to expand...

Your entire post is a bunch of conspiracy theory BS. You read too much info wars. He was not denied bail. His bail was set at $10 million. He tried to use his properties as collateral and the judge rejected this because they were the subject of ongoing bank and tax fraud investigations and he was not current on his mortgages. Courts cannot accept toxic assets as bail.

joko104 said:
2. Although he had never been convicted of anything nor had threatened anyone, he was locked in solitary confinement - which is considered torture by many (and if any of you doubt that clear out a walk-in closet and try staying in there 23 out of 24 hours a day for a month. See if you can't stand it before the end of the first day.)
Click to expand...

BS. His "solitary confinement" included a laptop, phone, shower, and workroom. And this is standard practice for celebrities and is done for their own safety.

joko104 said:
3. Although a Defendant certainly should have the same right to prepare as the prosecution - including talking to potential witnesses - Manafort was ordered he may not talk to any witnesses to prepare his defense and was locked in solitary confinement to prevent his preparing a defense - while the prosecutors could talk to any witnesses and even threaten witnesses.
Click to expand...

Also BS. Defendants are almost never allowed to talk to witnesses. Their lawyers do that. And prosecutors do not threaten witnesses in part for that very reason. Manafort speaking to witnesses himself was unusual and looked like witness tampering. The judge was right to tell him not to speak to witnesses and leave it to his lawyers.

joko104 said:
^ All that when Manafort had never been convicted of anything, there was no accusation he was currently involved in any criminal activity, had never attempted to flee, and no accusation was for any violent crime, no accusation he was a flight risk, and no accusation of him threatening anyone. Yet most Democrats cleared that police state abuse.
Click to expand...

No abuse. Standard procedure. Manafort should be treated exactly the same as anyone else who is indicted for white collar crimes and he was.
 
joko104 said:
Not tape recording interviews to allow conviction by FBI lying is just one of many tricks they use.

Another they have used for decades is for filming covert activities of someone they are trying to convict they often will use black and white cameras with very low resolution so it looks seedy and grainy as a psychological persuasion technique.

They have a collection of ways to try to be more persuasive to juries such as calling themselves "special agents" when there is no such thing as an FBI "SPECIAL agent." They are all just FBI "agents." Calling themselves "special" agents makes the case seem like a "special" case in importance as a false impression.
Click to expand...

This is also CT nonsense. They use black and white security cameras because the FBI is ridiculously underfunded like all law enforcement, and infrared cameras are always black (or some other color) and white. It's not for "psychological persuasion." And yes there are special agents who have more investigatory powers than standard agents.

The FBI is not perfect, but corruption is not standard operating procedure, and Robert Mueller's record shows that he is highly unlikely to tolerate any corruption in his ranks.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
By using notes the FBI can have ANYONE arrested for "lying to the FBI." All they have to do is get or force anyone to say you are lied. They then go to a grand jury (you as the accused not even allowed to tell you side) and present the statement of the other person. If the other person says you lied about your name - even if you didn't - you WILL be indicted. Now you get to sit in jail for months - your reputation ruined - waiting to prove you are who you say you are. If you are, after having you in jail for months the FBI could just drop the case - laughing at you all the way - and then turn around and have you indicted for another lie you didn't tell.
Click to expand...

This is false.
 
chuckiechan said:
https://www.realclearinvestigations..._interview_a_g-mans_license_to_lie_later.html

TDS warning: This is about the Manafort trial...
Click to expand...
Here we go


My intention here is to make a civil rights argument.
Click to expand...
Uh huh


This is posted here mainly for people who GAS about how justice is served by the FBI.
Click to expand...
The FBI has done the "notes by hand" thing for like decades. Eric Holder even tried to encourage that interviews with subjects who are in custody should be recorded. They should do it, but at the same time these concerns certainly does not prove that FBI agents constantly lie on 302's -- and they definitely don't exculpate your favorite people (see below).

I would ask "why is this an issue now?" but you already answered that.


In short, the subject is interviewed by a note taker and a questioner, then when they get around to it they create their own version of the interview on the 302. The "fact" becomes the note takers "Impressions" and there is no recording, or transcript of the actual interview. Thus we have a "he said, he said", except the FBI is not required to provide proof of the suspect lying.

I assumed all along that the FBI tape recorded or transcribed conversations that lead to "lying to the FBI". From this article it seems that now it is open to "Because we said you did".
Click to expand...
Or, it's because the subject lied to the FBI.

By the way, none of this applies to Manafort. He was talking to the FBI after he made a plea deal, and you can bet those sessions were recorded, and that Manafort's attorneys were present for the interviews. In fact, His attorneys admitted that Manafort lied; their excuse is that he did not "intentionally" lie. E.g. he met with Kilimnik multiple times, but only admitted to one meeting; thus, his attorneys claim "A fair reading of the record demonstrates that Mr. Manafort was attempting to recall the discussions as best he could and was not intentionally misleading the interrogators about the matter."

They also tried to trash Rick Gates, claiming he was unreliable... while also saying that Manafort should get a break because his recollections during interviews with the FBI were unreliable.

I.e. Manafort's issues have nothing to do with FBI case notes. He lied, he got caught, his attorneys provided a crappy excuse, the judge was not impressed.
 
Visbek said:
Here we go



Uh huh



The FBI has done the "notes by hand" thing for like decades. Eric Holder even tried to encourage that interviews with subjects who are in custody should be recorded. They should do it, but at the same time these concerns certainly does not prove that FBI agents constantly lie on 302's -- and they definitely don't exculpate your favorite people (see below).

I would ask "why is this an issue now?" but you already answered that.



Or, it's because the subject lied to the FBI.

By the way, none of this applies to Manafort. He was talking to the FBI after he made a plea deal, and you can bet those sessions were recorded, and that Manafort's attorneys were present for the interviews. In fact, His attorneys admitted that Manafort lied; their excuse is that he did not "intentionally" lie. E.g. he met with Kilimnik multiple times, but only admitted to one meeting; thus, his attorneys claim "A fair reading of the record demonstrates that Mr. Manafort was attempting to recall the discussions as best he could and was not intentionally misleading the interrogators about the matter."

They also tried to trash Rick Gates, claiming he was unreliable... while also saying that Manafort should get a break because his recollections during interviews with the FBI were unreliable.

I.e. Manafort's issues have nothing to do with FBI case notes. He lied, he got caught, his attorneys provided a crappy excuse, the judge was not impressed.
Click to expand...

And you have completely missed the entire part of the article, even though I tried to get you off of TDS just long enough to evaluate an FBI tactic and on the face of it should be illegal.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
There are some errors in what you wrote about Manafort. Here is one:
Judge schedules hearing on revoking Paul Manafort'''s bail in Mueller probe

He was not denied bail. His bail was revoked for cause - witness tampering.
Click to expand...

Prosecutors were talking to witnesses and even with the ability to threaten them, do practice and training testimony sessions, and offer deals in exchange for favorable testimony. That's a-ok. But the Defendant merely attempting to talk to witnesses is falsely declared "witness tampering," his constitutional right to bail declared abolished, and he was locked in solitary confinement so no one but his lawyer could be talk to him to make his defense as likely to fail as possible.

He was denied bail and instead locked in solitary confinement to prevent him having ANY right to participate in his own defense. This also goes a long way to starving out a defendant by maximizing attorney fees and distorting the defendant's mental state by soft torture, ie solitary confinement for day after week after month, while the press and media destroyed his reputation with his denied any right to defend himself.

So no matter how the trial turned out, he had already been massively harmed and would be punished for the rest of his life by his reputation deliberately destroyed entirely for partisan political purposes. Nearly all Democrats claim this is exactly how prosecutions and citizens accused of a crime should be treated. No defendant may talk to any potential witness to help prepare his own defense and even prohibited from speaking to his own friends who may be witnesses nor defend himself against political, personal and media attacks - or he will be denied bail and put in solitary for months until trial the defendant was prevented from being to make any preparation for his own defense.

If for no other reason, every person should vote against the Democratic Party because that is the exact definition of the most vicious of all possible police states.
 
Has it occurred to anybody else that conditioning the public to hate and distrust government law enforcement is a side-goal of the Trump admin?
After all, it opens the door to conditioning the American people to accept privatized law enforcement.

Ummmmm - - yeah, that could be a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom