https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/421634-alan-dershowitz-did-michael-flynn-lie-or-did-the-fbi-act-improperly

The media is asking the wrong question about the Michael Flynn case. They are asking whether Flynn lied or the FBI acted improperly, as if the answers to those two questions are mutually exclusive. The possibility that both are true, in that Flynn did not tell the truth and that the FBI acted improperly, is not considered in our hyper partisan world where everyone, including the media, chooses a side and refuses to consider the chance that their side is not perfect and the other side not perfectly evil.

The first casualty of hyper partisanship is nuance. So when nuance is condemned as being insufficiently partisan, truth quickly becomes the next casualty. Flynn, during his brief time as national security adviser to President Trump, told FBI agents untruths that are contradicted by hard evidence. Why he did that remains a mystery because, with his vast experience in intelligence gathering, he must have known that the FBI had hard evidence of the conversations he denied having with a Russian diplomat. Be that as it may, this reality does not automatically exclude the possibility that the FBI acted improperly in eliciting untruths from him.

The FBI knew the truth. They had recordings of the conversations. Then why did they ask him whether he had those conversations? Obviously, not to learn whether he had them but, rather, to give him the opportunity to lie under oath so that they could squeeze him to provide incriminating information against President Trump. If you do not believe me, read what Judge T.S. Ellis III, who presided over the Paul Manafort trial, said to the prosecutors: “You do not really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

Ellis continued: “This vernacular to ‘sing’ is what prosecutors use. What you have got to be careful of is that they may not only sing, they may compose.” Every experienced criminal lawyer has seen this phenomenon at work. Most judges, many of whom were former prosecutors, have also seen it. But few have the courage to expose it publicly as Ellis did. Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia also has expressed concern regarding federal prosecutorial practices in the investigation.

Defenders of the tactics used by special counsel Robert Mueller argue that his potential witnesses are generally guilty of some crime, such as lying to FBI agents, and that may well be true. But they are targeted not because of what they may have done. They are targeted for what they may know about what the real target may have done. Then they, and their relatives who may also be complicit, are threatened with imprisonment and bankruptcy unless they plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors.

So the real question, which transcends the Flynn, the Manafort, and even the Trump investigations, is whether these tactics should be deemed acceptable. Is it the proper role of law enforcement to conduct criminal morality tests to determine whether citizens will tell the truth or lie when given the opportunity to do either by FBI agents? Is it proper to target individuals for such tests for the purpose of pressuring them into becoming witnesses against the real target?

These are important questions for all citizens who care about civil liberties and prosecutorial abuses. They should not be addressed in a partisan manner. Instead, they should be answered by reference to the “shoe on the other foot” test. How would liberal Democrats react if those or similar prosecutorial tactics were being used against a president Hillary Clinton? I know the answer because I have seen how liberal Democrats reacted when President Bill Clinton was being investigated and impeached. The shoe was, indeed, on the other foot. Some of the same liberal Democrats, who today are justifying everything Mueller is doing, expressed outrage when the special prosecutor in the Clinton case employed similar tactics. Nor did all conservative Republicans pass the “shoe on the other foot” test as many applauded these tactics when directed against Democrats.

So back to the question of whether citizens who care about neutral civil liberties should favor the tactics used by the FBI against Flynn. I believe the answer should be “no.” The proper function of law enforcement is to uncover past crimes, not to provide citizens the opportunity to commit new crimes by testing their veracity. There may be extraordinary situations, such as the prevention of mass casualty terrorism, that justifies the use of highly questionable law enforcement tactics but, absent such extraordinary circumstances, FBI agents and prosecutors should not deliberately provide citizens the opportunity to commit crimes in order to turn them into government witnesses.

When questioning a suspect, they should not ask questions whose answers they already know, for the sole purpose of seeing whether the suspect will lie. If they do ask such questions, untruthful answers should not be deemed “material” to the investigation, because the FBI already knew the truth. The FBI should not discourage the suspect from having his lawyer present during the questioning, if a false answer will subject him to criminal liability. Even noble ends do not justify ignoble means, and some of the means used by the Mueller team have, indeed, been ignoble.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/421634-alan-dershowitz-did-michael-flynn-lie-or-did-the-fbi-act-improperly

The media is asking the wrong question about the Michael Flynn case. They are asking whether Flynn lied or the FBI acted improperly, as if the answers to those two questions are mutually exclusive. The possibility that both are true, in that Flynn did not tell the truth and that the FBI acted improperly, is not considered in our hyper partisan world where everyone, including the media, chooses a side and refuses to consider the chance that their side is not perfect and the other side not perfectly evil.

The first casualty of hyper partisanship is nuance. So when nuance is condemned as being insufficiently partisan, truth quickly becomes the next casualty. Flynn, during his brief time as national security adviser to President Trump, told FBI agents untruths that are contradicted by hard evidence. Why he did that remains a mystery because, with his vast experience in intelligence gathering, he must have known that the FBI had hard evidence of the conversations he denied having with a Russian diplomat. Be that as it may, this reality does not automatically exclude the possibility that the FBI acted improperly in eliciting untruths from him.

The FBI knew the truth. They had recordings of the conversations. Then why did they ask him whether he had those conversations? Obviously, not to learn whether he had them but, rather, to give him the opportunity to lie under oath so that they could squeeze him to provide incriminating information against President Trump. If you do not believe me, read what Judge T.S. Ellis III, who presided over the Paul Manafort trial, said to the prosecutors: “You do not really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

Ellis continued: “This vernacular to ‘sing’ is what prosecutors use. What you have got to be careful of is that they may not only sing, they may compose.” Every experienced criminal lawyer has seen this phenomenon at work. Most judges, many of whom were former prosecutors, have also seen it. But few have the courage to expose it publicly as Ellis did. Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia also has expressed concern regarding federal prosecutorial practices in the investigation.

Defenders of the tactics used by special counsel Robert Mueller argue that his potential witnesses are generally guilty of some crime, such as lying to FBI agents, and that may well be true. But they are targeted not because of what they may have done. They are targeted for what they may know about what the real target may have done. Then they, and their relatives who may also be complicit, are threatened with imprisonment and bankruptcy unless they plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors.

So the real question, which transcends the Flynn, the Manafort, and even the Trump investigations, is whether these tactics should be deemed acceptable. Is it the proper role of law enforcement to conduct criminal morality tests to determine whether citizens will tell the truth or lie when given the opportunity to do either by FBI agents? Is it proper to target individuals for such tests for the purpose of pressuring them into becoming witnesses against the real target?

These are important questions for all citizens who care about civil liberties and prosecutorial abuses. They should not be addressed in a partisan manner. Instead, they should be answered by reference to the “shoe on the other foot” test. How would liberal Democrats react if those or similar prosecutorial tactics were being used against a president Hillary Clinton? I know the answer because I have seen how liberal Democrats reacted when President Bill Clinton was being investigated and impeached. The shoe was, indeed, on the other foot. Some of the same liberal Democrats, who today are justifying everything Mueller is doing, expressed outrage when the special prosecutor in the Clinton case employed similar tactics. Nor did all conservative Republicans pass the “shoe on the other foot” test as many applauded these tactics when directed against Democrats.

So back to the question of whether citizens who care about neutral civil liberties should favor the tactics used by the FBI against Flynn. I believe the answer should be “no.” The proper function of law enforcement is to uncover past crimes, not to provide citizens the opportunity to commit new crimes by testing their veracity. There may be extraordinary situations, such as the prevention of mass casualty terrorism, that justifies the use of highly questionable law enforcement tactics but, absent such extraordinary circumstances, FBI agents and prosecutors should not deliberately provide citizens the opportunity to commit crimes in order to turn them into government witnesses.

When questioning a suspect, they should not ask questions whose answers they already know, for the sole purpose of seeing whether the suspect will lie. If they do ask such questions, untruthful answers should not be deemed “material” to the investigation, because the FBI already knew the truth. The FBI should not discourage the suspect from having his lawyer present during the questioning, if a false answer will subject him to criminal liability. Even noble ends do not justify ignoble means, and some of the means used by the Mueller team have, indeed, been ignoble.

I'm not sure where you got your training on conducting an interrogation but you got it exactly wrong. You always ask questions that you know the answer to so you can determine if your subject is lying.
This technique is widely taught and has nothing to do with noble or ignoble. If you give someone the opportunity to commit a crime and they do, it's solely their own fault.
Flynn was a frigg'n General. if he didn't know that lying in a federal investigation was a felony, then he was the dumbest General ever born.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/421634-alan-dershowitz-did-michael-flynn-lie-or-did-the-fbi-act-improperly

The media is asking the wrong question about the Michael Flynn case. They are asking whether Flynn lied or the FBI acted improperly, as if the answers to those two questions are mutually exclusive. The possibility that both are true, in that Flynn did not tell the truth and that the FBI acted improperly, is not considered in our hyper partisan world where everyone, including the media, chooses a side and refuses to consider the chance that their side is not perfect and the other side not perfectly evil.

The first casualty of hyper partisanship is nuance. So when nuance is condemned as being insufficiently partisan, truth quickly becomes the next casualty. Flynn, during his brief time as national security adviser to President Trump, told FBI agents untruths that are contradicted by hard evidence. Why he did that remains a mystery because, with his vast experience in intelligence gathering, he must have known that the FBI had hard evidence of the conversations he denied having with a Russian diplomat. Be that as it may, this reality does not automatically exclude the possibility that the FBI acted improperly in eliciting untruths from him.

The FBI knew the truth. They had recordings of the conversations. Then why did they ask him whether he had those conversations? Obviously, not to learn whether he had them but, rather, to give him the opportunity to lie under oath so that they could squeeze him to provide incriminating information against President Trump. If you do not believe me, read what Judge T.S. Ellis III, who presided over the Paul Manafort trial, said to the prosecutors: “You do not really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

Ellis continued: “This vernacular to ‘sing’ is what prosecutors use. What you have got to be careful of is that they may not only sing, they may compose.” Every experienced criminal lawyer has seen this phenomenon at work. Most judges, many of whom were former prosecutors, have also seen it. But few have the courage to expose it publicly as Ellis did. Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia also has expressed concern regarding federal prosecutorial practices in the investigation.

Defenders of the tactics used by special counsel Robert Mueller argue that his potential witnesses are generally guilty of some crime, such as lying to FBI agents, and that may well be true. But they are targeted not because of what they may have done. They are targeted for what they may know about what the real target may have done. Then they, and their relatives who may also be complicit, are threatened with imprisonment and bankruptcy unless they plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors.

So the real question, which transcends the Flynn, the Manafort, and even the Trump investigations, is whether these tactics should be deemed acceptable. Is it the proper role of law enforcement to conduct criminal morality tests to determine whether citizens will tell the truth or lie when given the opportunity to do either by FBI agents? Is it proper to target individuals for such tests for the purpose of pressuring them into becoming witnesses against the real target?

These are important questions for all citizens who care about civil liberties and prosecutorial abuses. They should not be addressed in a partisan manner. Instead, they should be answered by reference to the “shoe on the other foot” test. How would liberal Democrats react if those or similar prosecutorial tactics were being used against a president Hillary Clinton? I know the answer because I have seen how liberal Democrats reacted when President Bill Clinton was being investigated and impeached. The shoe was, indeed, on the other foot. Some of the same liberal Democrats, who today are justifying everything Mueller is doing, expressed outrage when the special prosecutor in the Clinton case employed similar tactics. Nor did all conservative Republicans pass the “shoe on the other foot” test as many applauded these tactics when directed against Democrats.

So back to the question of whether citizens who care about neutral civil liberties should favor the tactics used by the FBI against Flynn. I believe the answer should be “no.” The proper function of law enforcement is to uncover past crimes, not to provide citizens the opportunity to commit new crimes by testing their veracity. There may be extraordinary situations, such as the prevention of mass casualty terrorism, that justifies the use of highly questionable law enforcement tactics but, absent such extraordinary circumstances, FBI agents and prosecutors should not deliberately provide citizens the opportunity to commit crimes in order to turn them into government witnesses.

When questioning a suspect, they should not ask questions whose answers they already know, for the sole purpose of seeing whether the suspect will lie. If they do ask such questions, untruthful answers should not be deemed “material” to the investigation, because the FBI already knew the truth. The FBI should not discourage the suspect from having his lawyer present during the questioning, if a false answer will subject him to criminal liability. Even noble ends do not justify ignoble means, and some of the means used by the Mueller team have, indeed, been ignoble.

The answers are no and yes. No, LTG Flynn did not lie. Yes, the corrupt FBI under Comey and McCabe acted improperly.

On Friday, documents were released included a 302 of the FBI interviewing superagent Peter Strzok 6 months after he interviewed LTG Flynn. This is not the original 302 of the Flynn interview. Also included was a memorandum from Andrew McCabe about the interview with LTG Flynn as he was setting him up for a trap. In this memo, McCabe specifically says that LTG Flynn knew about the wiretapping of his conversation with the Russians.

You can read it here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/395717844/Mueller-Reply-to-Judge-Sullivan-Request-for-FBI-302-Notes

Here is the uncensored version of that paragraph in Attachment B.

LTG Flynn agreed to the plea bargain because he ran out of money.

The agents came back from the interview saying LTG Flynn didn't lie and wrote up the 302 that way. Mueller destroyed the original 302 and attacked LTG Flynn to try to get at PDJT. He bled LTG Flynn dry and then extracted that plea. Occam's razor rules.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/421634-alan-dershowitz-did-michael-flynn-lie-or-did-the-fbi-act-improperly

The media is asking the wrong question about the Michael Flynn case. They are asking whether Flynn lied or the FBI acted improperly, as if the answers to those two questions are mutually exclusive. The possibility that both are true, in that Flynn did not tell the truth and that the FBI acted improperly, is not considered in our hyper partisan world where everyone, including the media, chooses a side and refuses to consider the chance that their side is not perfect and the other side not perfectly evil.

The first casualty of hyper partisanship is nuance. So when nuance is condemned as being insufficiently partisan, truth quickly becomes the next casualty. Flynn, during his brief time as national security adviser to President Trump, told FBI agents untruths that are contradicted by hard evidence. Why he did that remains a mystery because, with his vast experience in intelligence gathering, he must have known that the FBI had hard evidence of the conversations he denied having with a Russian diplomat. Be that as it may, this reality does not automatically exclude the possibility that the FBI acted improperly in eliciting untruths from him.

The FBI knew the truth. They had recordings of the conversations. Then why did they ask him whether he had those conversations? Obviously, not to learn whether he had them but, rather, to give him the opportunity to lie under oath so that they could squeeze him to provide incriminating information against President Trump. If you do not believe me, read what Judge T.S. Ellis III, who presided over the Paul Manafort trial, said to the prosecutors: “You do not really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

Ellis continued: “This vernacular to ‘sing’ is what prosecutors use. What you have got to be careful of is that they may not only sing, they may compose.” Every experienced criminal lawyer has seen this phenomenon at work. Most judges, many of whom were former prosecutors, have also seen it. But few have the courage to expose it publicly as Ellis did. Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia also has expressed concern regarding federal prosecutorial practices in the investigation.

Defenders of the tactics used by special counsel Robert Mueller argue that his potential witnesses are generally guilty of some crime, such as lying to FBI agents, and that may well be true. But they are targeted not because of what they may have done. They are targeted for what they may know about what the real target may have done. Then they, and their relatives who may also be complicit, are threatened with imprisonment and bankruptcy unless they plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors.

So the real question, which transcends the Flynn, the Manafort, and even the Trump investigations, is whether these tactics should be deemed acceptable. Is it the proper role of law enforcement to conduct criminal morality tests to determine whether citizens will tell the truth or lie when given the opportunity to do either by FBI agents? Is it proper to target individuals for such tests for the purpose of pressuring them into becoming witnesses against the real target?

These are important questions for all citizens who care about civil liberties and prosecutorial abuses. They should not be addressed in a partisan manner. Instead, they should be answered by reference to the “shoe on the other foot” test. How would liberal Democrats react if those or similar prosecutorial tactics were being used against a president Hillary Clinton? I know the answer because I have seen how liberal Democrats reacted when President Bill Clinton was being investigated and impeached. The shoe was, indeed, on the other foot. Some of the same liberal Democrats, who today are justifying everything Mueller is doing, expressed outrage when the special prosecutor in the Clinton case employed similar tactics. Nor did all conservative Republicans pass the “shoe on the other foot” test as many applauded these tactics when directed against Democrats.

So back to the question of whether citizens who care about neutral civil liberties should favor the tactics used by the FBI against Flynn. I believe the answer should be “no.” The proper function of law enforcement is to uncover past crimes, not to provide citizens the opportunity to commit new crimes by testing their veracity. There may be extraordinary situations, such as the prevention of mass casualty terrorism, that justifies the use of highly questionable law enforcement tactics but, absent such extraordinary circumstances, FBI agents and prosecutors should not deliberately provide citizens the opportunity to commit crimes in order to turn them into government witnesses.

When questioning a suspect, they should not ask questions whose answers they already know, for the sole purpose of seeing whether the suspect will lie. If they do ask such questions, untruthful answers should not be deemed “material” to the investigation, because the FBI already knew the truth. The FBI should not discourage the suspect from having his lawyer present during the questioning, if a false answer will subject him to criminal liability. Even noble ends do not justify ignoble means, and some of the means used by the Mueller team have, indeed, been ignoble.