Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mariner

Why not under oath?


43 posted on 07/02/2016 11:08:18 AM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Signalman

Are you thinking being under oath would have prevented her from lying?

Oh, perjury.

Are you thinking she would ever be charged with that?


55 posted on 07/02/2016 11:20:22 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: Signalman

Under oath is assumed anytime you talk to the FBI.


57 posted on 07/02/2016 11:21:33 AM PDT by Karl Spooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: Signalman

...Why not under oath?...

Ita voluntary interview. This was not a criminal trial. A lot of this is just routine, they already have enough evidence to recommend prosecution, or they would not have interviewed her. The FBI realizes she will be saying “I don’t know”, “I don’t recall”, “I’m not sure” to many of their questions, but they have evidence to to answer those questions already. Clinton does not know whether they have been able to recover the deleted emails or not. She does not know what Pagliano has already told the FBI. She is smart to not recall anything they ask her. Saying she does not remember is not lying to the FBI. Her attorney thoroughly briefed her on that aspect. 3 1/2 hours of “I don’t recall” represents a lot of questions that the FBI already knows the answers to. Like I said they already have enough evidence to prosecute her. Why do you think Bill tried to influence Lynch. He realizes they trouble she is in.


81 posted on 07/02/2016 12:18:21 PM PDT by WILLIALAL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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