Re Flynn: Yes, federal law enforcement routinely interviews people hoping they will confess (and get prosecuted) or lie (and get prosecuted). Yes, they plan that in advance of the interview. That's how it works. That's how it has worked for a very long time.
/1

/2 If people really cared about it, thought it was an unacceptable tactic, you could get Congress to change the materiality element of 18 USC 1001, the false statement to the feds statute. Here's how that works:

/3 To be a violation of 1001, a lie has to be material. That doesn't mean it DOES fool the feds or mislead them or waste their time. In the context of 1001, it only requires that it's the sort of lie that COULD, hypothetically, influence their decision-making.

/4 (Contrast that with the rule when the feds lie in, say, a search warrant application -- there the defendant has to show that the lie was material in the sense that it actually changed the outcome. The rules for law enforcement are different than the rules for you).

/5 So, anyway, that means that the FBI or whoever can have ironclad evidence of a fact, roll up and ask you if the fact is true, and hope that you will either admit the fact (helping their case) or lie (hindering them not a second but committing a crime).

/6 If people sincerely cared, they could get Congress to change that materiality element -- say, make it an affirmative defense that the feds already knew the fact they were asking about, or make the prosecution prove that the lie had a substantive impact on the investigation.

/7 But, in fact, people don't care. The outrage is performative, contrived, pure Fox.

/end