To: eartick
If I remember correctly, he got an immunity deal if he spilled on her, than changed his mind and got away scott free.
So prosecuting him now might get him to reconsider the original immunity deal and spill on her like he was supposed to.
7 posted on
02/21/2017 2:51:43 AM PST by
wbarmy
(I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
To: wbarmy
I consider the immunity deals in this case to be part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice, and not to have lawful effect.
10 posted on
02/21/2017 3:23:04 AM PST by
thoughtomator
(Purple: the color of sedition)
To: wbarmy
If I remember correctly, he got an immunity deal if he spilled on her, than changed his mind and got away scott free. It wasn't a true immunity deal - the current folks said they would not prosecute - doesn't preclude others going after him.
14 posted on
02/21/2017 4:20:42 AM PST by
trebb
(Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
To: wbarmy
My vote is for no immunity for any of them. Prosecute
25 posted on
02/21/2017 5:05:55 AM PST by
onona
(Keeping the faith will be our new directive for the republic !)
To: wbarmy
The immunity was “limited” but I don’t know what the limits were.
32 posted on
02/21/2017 10:15:44 AM PST by
Brad from Tennessee
(A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson