| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on 03/03/2016 8:33:42 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason: |
Posted on 03/03/2016 7:37:20 AM PST by zek157
agree, I’m very optimistic today.
Well, he COULD lie under immunity, but it’s now terribly unlikely. The reason is, he was granted a “freebie” closed door session of deposition before he was granted the immunity! They evaluated the goodies that he gave up to them, under the auspices that the info never leave the room under any circumstances. The investigators determine whether the goodies will be helpful to the case against targeted parties. If agreed so, THEN he is granted immunity for that very testimony. He is not immune from purjory. That charge would be leveled if testimony changed and facts supported the same. Conversely, he can’t lie to the feds in his freebie closed door session. He’s only immune from facts that can incriminate; not lies. Anyway, this is all good news that things are moving swiftly now.
An attorney should NEVER grant immunity unless he knows pretty much exactly what to expect from the testimony.
He loses his immunity.
I agree, but I do not put it past this DOJ to deliberately screw up that codicil in the agreement.
But impeachment is still available.
He’s gong to need a new identity and witness protection as well.
I bet Anthony Weiner had no idea he was responsible for all email communications for Hillary & Co? That solves problems for the Clintons on sooooo many levels.
Scared and ticked off. A few months ago, Donna Brazille, on one of the morning shows, described the server scandal as a “self-inflicted injury” on HRC’s part. Her tone and words made it clear she resented that the Dems have to deal with this mess. (And Brazille, who was Al Gore's campaign manager, could hardly be considered a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy.)
Breaking News. Hillary granted immunity to testify.
What the Clintons have got away with over the past thirty years is mind-boggling, and I understand why many are pessimistic. However, I don't get the freepers who, no matter what the developments are in these two server investigations, respond with, “HRC will get way with it.” If you believe the fix is in to such a degree that it doesn't matter what happens, why do you even bother to follow the case?
Yep.
I will be surprised if he is still alive in six months from the time this was made public.
Not sure what you just asked. After the FBI heard what the witness proposed to testify to, Justice granted him immunity for any involvement on his part in the shenanigans to which he was going to testify. If the witness’s lawyer says, “If the witness were to say — we’re speaking hypothetically here, of course — ABC...”; and Justice likes the hypothetical and grants immunity; and the witness then testifies XYZ (instead of ABC); the immunity deal would be off. That would leave the witness at the mercy of prosecutors who could go after him for perjury, as well as for his involvement in the crimes to which he alluded in his hypothetical testimony. The hypothetical testimony wouldn’t be direct evidence against him, but you can bet the prosecutors already had evidence of the crimes alluded to in the hypothetical, which means now they would go after the witness...who no longer would have immunity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.