The FBI engaged in ethically questionable interrogation tactics to get Michael Flynn to incriminate himself, asserts Alan Dershowitz in The Hill. Agents ultimately charged him with lying, after having tested him by asking questions they already knew the answers to. This reflects other situations where the FBI caught individuals making false statements in order to make deals with them to testify in completely unrelated cases. This opens up the moral debate whether this habit benefits society or violates individual liberties by pushing people to commit crimes. Ideally, the FBI should not be resorting to such underhanded tactics.
The notion that Michael Flynn was somehow denied just treatment by the FBI is wrong, writes Heather Digby Parton of Salon. The theory, in certain right-wing circles, that him not knowing that lying to the FBI was a crime and then doing so somehow exonerates him is ridiculous. Flynn had much experience in this field and knew exactly what he was doing. He wasn’t coerced into anything, and his lies spanned several weeks. Hardly an innocent novice to politics, the former general held strong right-wing opinions and was active in Trump’s campaign. The legal case against Flynn is a solid one; the FBI acted in accordance with the law.