[LS]

I’m going by what the legal guys on Twit tell me. Robert Barnes, for example, says if Brennanskie was a target, they would have Miranda-ized him.

I think if you look at how loose the FBI was with Flynn, it would be institutional suicide to use that third point with “flexibility.” In other words, after Flynn, if they are caught not doing EVERYTHING by the book, there won’t be a DOJ.

[Lazamataz]

What they said, struck me as wrong, so I did my homework. From my interpretation of the actual law, and the concurring opinions of several prominent law firms, Mirandizing is not necessary. Only the presumption that the false statement is intended to influence the agent.... which is a pretty broad legal basis on which to arrest and prosecute upon.

[Lazamataz]

Oh, I and see how the below statement could be interpreted to mean 'Miranda not required':

Robert Barnes, for example, says if Brennanskie was a target, they would have Miranda-ized him.

Probably correct, in fact almost certainly correct. However, he still would be in serious legal jeopardy if he knowingly lied, Miranda or not, sworn oath or not.

[Lazamataz]

It’s a fine nuance but the law is riddled with fine nuances just like this.