Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
i’m not reading 400 pages, i'm too busy trying to own libs on the internet.
I suppose Alan Dershowitz is part of the vast right wing conspiracy now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Fixed the first part for you, you could try the executive summaries. I put a link and the page numbers in an earlier thread.
As far as Dershowitz goes he's certainly a Trumplican.
If you can find a lawyer other than Rudy who agrees with his theory on Flynn not lying because the FBI already knew the answer and therefore it was not material under section 1001, he probably went to a worse law school than Michael Cohen. Dershowitz doesn't have that excuse.
Here is a little case law for you to explain it, feel free to look up the cases if you need further enlightenment, they are all in casetext.com
United States v. Mercedes, 401 F. App’x 619, 620 (2d Cir. 2010)
(rejecting argument that false statement about citizenship could not have been material because interviewing agent had already “ruled out the possibility of relying on the statement”)
United States v. Moore, 708 F.3d 639, 649 (5th Cir. 2013)
(“A statement can be material even if the agency already knew the answers given by the defendant and even if the receiving agent knows they are false.”)
United States v. LeMaster, 54 F.3d 1224, 1230–31 (6th Cir. 1995)
“It is irrelevant what the agent who heard the statement knew at the time the statement was made. A false statement can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.” (“The fact that the FBI already knew that LeMaster received $6,000 in cash from Spurrier did not affect the materiality of his false statement to the FBI. A false statement 1231 can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.”)
United States v. Whitaker, 848 F.2d 914, 916 (8th Cir. 1988)
(“A false statement 1231 can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.”)
United States v. Goldfine, 538 F.2d 815, 820 (9th Cir. 1976)
(“Darrell Goldfine contends, however, that since the Compliance Investigators knew the answer and were not misled by the falsity, the statement was not materially false. . . . [T]he statement here was clearly material.”)
United States v. Henderson, 893 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 2018)
(“Indeed, a false statement can be material even if the decision maker actually knew or should have known that the statement was false.”)
Hybrid Mode
