The reason the assistant U.S. attorney would have felt the need to say he made the state cops into federal law enforcement agents was he knew they wanted to record and video tape the discussion between Flaherty and the victim. He would know that in that discussion there would be nothing discussed about the “hate crime.” It would be only about the paying of money and the witness not testifying in the state case.
It is fair to say that in December and who knows for how long afterwards the investigation only related to Flaherty’s attempt to bring about the accord and satisfaction which the cops considered a bribe or intimidation of a witness. In truth, up to the present time there has never been a need to investigate the “hate crime” because it is a one on one discussion. Every investigative step involving the victim and Flaherty related to the intimidation matter.
Did you ever hear the oath one takes when being sworn in. The person is asked “do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Did you ever wonder what the term “the whole truth” means? It is a recognition that you can tell the truth but only as to part of the situation and leave out another part that may change the meaning of what you said.
In this case we have an affidavit which states that the “Department of Justice’s case management system indicates that the investigation of Feinberg and Flaherty was officially opened on December 24, 1914.” That may be true but what is important is not whether it was opened but the reason for it being opened. Was it because it was a witness bribery matter or a hate crime matter?
Is there any doubt that if it was opened it was because there was a belief the Flaherty was trying to intimidate a witness.
“Big deal!” You think. What difference does it make what the investigation is about?
And that my friend is the nub of the matter. It makes all the difference in the world what the investigation is about. That is what Flaherty’s lawyer Martin Weinberg spent time explaining to the magistrate why he needs to be able to go behind Wyshak’s affidavit and find out the whole truth.
Flaherty is charged with interfering with the investigation of a hate crime. If as appears almost certain that no federal hate crime investigation was ongoing in December then none of his actions taken at that time would have interfered with it. That is why it is of extreme importance that Flaherty’s lawyer be allowed to show the truth of the matter through records and testimony.
Keep in mind Flaherty could not have imagined in a million years that on December 23, 2014: 1/ that the federal prosecutors would say the state cops had magically become federal investigators and they were doing a federal investigation; and, 2/ that the investigation was about the hate crime about which the only information he had come from his client and was protected by the attorney client privilege.