Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: volunbeer

Ever think Comey reopened the investigation to grant further immunity since new threats to the Clinton crime syndicate have materialized?


85 posted on 10/29/2016 11:49:34 AM PDT by hardspunned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: hardspunned

Per FNC’s Judge Napolitano: What has been given is NOT immunity. Promises not to prosecute were what was offered. And nobody’s seen any of the paperwork involved.


88 posted on 10/29/2016 11:52:09 AM PDT by mewzilla (I'll vote for the first guy who promises to mail in his SOTU addresses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

To: hardspunned

Ever think Comey reopened the investigation to grant further immunity since new threats to the Clinton crime syndicate have materialized?


Here is how immunity works.... it is limited and defined by an immunity agreement that specifically spells out the terms. Immunity in this case was most likely that whatever they said could not be used against them to charge them with mishandling of classified information. Immunity NEVER authorizes a person to lie about a material fact.

If they asked her “do you have any further devices that contain emails” and she said no - have to assume that is the answer or they would have been obligated to go retrieve them (it’s classified info) and they found two or three devices at her house containing what has been described as thousands of emails she has violated the immunity agreement - it is now null and void and means nothing. If they asked her “were all the devices used by you or Sec. Clinton destroyed” and she said yes, the agreement is null and void.

If they asked Cheryl Mills “did you send classified information to any person from a private computer or device and she said “no” or “not to my knowledge” and they now have emails from Cheryl Mills her immunity agreement is null and void.

FR seems to be struggling to understand immunity agreements. Any other legal eagles feel free to chime in here, but the government NEVER grants blanket immunity. They can’t do that - it is specifically confined to the matter being investigated and it is ALWAYS contingent on a person being truthful.

Hillary - by her public statements alone as seen on the video montage by Hannity yesterday (it is worth watching) has either lied to the public, lied to the FBI, or lied to both (most likely). It’s right there in her own statements and the statements of Comey as we have all frustratingly screamed from the rooftops.

Do not forget - if she wins or loses there are (or will be) investigations into the pay for play scheme. There are two tracks to the potential crimes - felonious handling of classified documents and failure to comply with record keeping requirements and the pay to play. They are separate. There is going to be millions in billable hours on this case for lawyers.


99 posted on 10/29/2016 12:26:17 PM PDT by volunbeer (Clinton Cash = Proof of Corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson