The general case here is: don't lie to federal agents. The easiest way to do that is to stay silent and demand a lawyer.
But understand: if you're on the periphery of an investigation, you're running a chance of raising a red flag. It's well within your rights, and ultimately you can't incriminate yourself by being silent. But you could substantially add delay, frustration, and lawyer costs to the whole experience.
Another way to not lie is to speak the truth. In the specific example from the blog post, there's no reason to lie--taking that call was not illegal, so there's no reason to lie.
My question is: how often to federal prosecutions go to trial based only on a false statement trap? I have no doubt that agents use it as a "cherry on top" of other charges, but I'm assuming most folks here are worried about surprise or "gotcha" prosecutions--not actually worried that their criminal ways will be exposed.
So how often do federal agents clear someone of any substantive wrongdoing, but still prosecute them based solely on a false statement trap? I would be surprised if it ever happens.
Edit: Downvotes but no answers are a bummer; I'm asking a question here.
No, absolutely not. Even if you tell the whole truth as you know it, it can still get you into trouble. Maybe they have another eyewitness that remembers things differently than you do. Maybe they have an eyewitness whose account agrees with yours, but the LEOs themselves misunderstood or misheard or forgot something. The police are going to think you lied. Maybe you just honestly misremembered something. Nope, that's a "lie".
There are so many ways that you telling the truth can hurt you, and basically no ways in which talking can help you, that it's not worth the risk. Law enforcement does provide a useful benefit to society in general, but there is zero reward for helping the cops, and a lot of risk that you could land yourself in hot water for something that seems completely innocuous.
In the specific example from the blog post, there's no reason to lie--taking that call was not illegal, so there's no reason to lie.
The psychology of the situation is not to your advantage. The LEOs are trying to get you to lie. They know how to do this. I'm not saying you're powerless to withstand them, but the example in the blog post is just an example. They can and will use much more sophisticated tactics to catch you in a lie if they think it will help them.
And even in this example, what if you do tell the truth, and say you did talk to them about it? Then they're going to ask what you talked about with your friend, and maybe you don't quite remember it exactly how they do. That's "lying" in their book. It also opens you up to further questioning in general, and just when you're feeling comfortable talking to you, they'll ask you something somewhat ambiguous that causes you to lie, even unintentionally.
It's just not worth it. When law enforcement comes knocking with questions, they are not there to help you. At absolute best, it's a neutral encounter, but it's very easy for it to go against your best interests.
They can use it as a stick to beat you with to get a plea deal on whatever it is they think you did. Do you think they only indict guilty people?
The other thing is that you could get section 1001'd for something you didn't actually say as FBI agents, for example, usually don't use recording devices and just take notes. If their notes said you said it and you don't have a witness, guess what happens?
Someone else commented that the LEO might use your false statement as leverage to get you to turn on your friends. Even if you are completely innocent you could be useful to them in investigating someone you're close to.
But understand: if you're on the periphery of an investigation, you're running a chance of raising a red flag. It's well within your rights, and ultimately you can't incriminate yourself by being silent. But you could substantially add delay, frustration, and lawyer costs to the whole experience.
Another way to not lie is to speak the truth. In the specific example from the blog post, there's no reason to lie--taking that call was not illegal, so there's no reason to lie.
My question is: how often to federal prosecutions go to trial based only on a false statement trap? I have no doubt that agents use it as a "cherry on top" of other charges, but I'm assuming most folks here are worried about surprise or "gotcha" prosecutions--not actually worried that their criminal ways will be exposed.
So how often do federal agents clear someone of any substantive wrongdoing, but still prosecute them based solely on a false statement trap? I would be surprised if it ever happens.
Edit: Downvotes but no answers are a bummer; I'm asking a question here.