Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rayiner 3156 days ago
The takeaway is great (and by "great" I mean "depressing but true"):

> Third, when I read the subpoena yesterday, I was suddenly gripped with exactly the sort of impulses that I urge clients to resist: the overpowering urge to do something and talk to someone to straighten it all out. I was tempted to email the AUSA and introduce myself, and to argue that it's ridiculous that he subpoenaed my identity, and ask what the hell he wants. That, of course, would be extremely stupid, even though I've done nothing wrong — perhaps especially because I've done nothing wrong. Fortunately, just as I plead with clients to resist this urge to reach out to the government, I resisted it myself. But I must admit it is powerful.
2 comments
howard941 3156 days ago
As was this comment:

> Mike says Wouldn't you also urge your clients to resist the impulse to blog about these things?

link
rayiner 3156 days ago
Blogging is less of a problem, because a statement not directed at the government can't be the basis of an 18 U.S.C. 1001 charge.
link
likpok 3156 days ago
Popehat on 18 U.S.C. 1001: https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea...

Although it's a pretty general overview on how it can be used to beef up a conviction.

link
mcguire 3156 days ago
I'm curious about that. I can see why it would be idiotic for me to do it, by I'm not Ken White. Why shouldn't he send them a few polite questions?
link
rayiner 3156 days ago
The article by Ken White referenced in the sibling comment by likpok does a good job explaining it: https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea....

> Here's how it works. The feds identify some fact that they can prove. It need not be inherently incriminating; it might be whether you were at a particular meeting, or whether you talked to someone about the existence of the investigation. They determine that they have irrefutable proof of this fact. Then, when they interview you, they ask you a question about the fact, hoping that you will lie. Often they employ professional questioning tactics to make it more likely you will lie — for instance, by phrasing the question or employing a tone of voice to make the fact sound sinister. You — having already been foolhardy enough to talk to them without a lawyer — obligingly lie about this fact. Then, even though there was never any question about the fact, even though your lie did not deter the federal government for a microsecond, they have you nailed for a false statement to a government agent in violation of 18 USC 1001.

If you don't talk to the government, there is no danger that you'll slip up and talk yourself into a felony conviction. Yes, the risk is less if you're a lawyer and know what to watch out for, but why risk it? There is literally no upside. After all, no federal agent worth her salt is going to change her investigation just because a potential suspect "cleared up some misunderstanding" with a quick phone call.

link
ryandrake 3156 days ago
Law Enforcement 101: "When you're low on crime, just make more people criminals."
link
KGIII 3156 days ago
From a logical viewpoint, assuming a pragmatic approach, that'd be pretty handy. From a political approach, it's almost required.

I know, you probably think I'm wrong. Hear me out.

Imagine if Trump just announced he was laying off 75% of the judicial branch ans executive branch tomorrow. Effective immediately.

We pretty much gotta keep them all busy. The people would revolt, otherwise.

link