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

To: jimfree
Yep, she can testify against him. That should be enough to put some pressure on. She might be precluded from testifying to any marital communications. Different rule.

Yes, but only in court, and only during a proceeding that puts her husband in jeopardy, correct?

They want to nail him for espionage and any number of other items, but the real targets are above him.

The first to squeal gets the deal.

11 posted on 10/10/2017 2:08:33 PM PDT by Steely Tom ([Seth Rich] == [the Democrat's John Dean])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Steely Tom
Yes, but only in court, and only during a proceeding that puts her husband in jeopardy, correct?

It acts like the lawyer-client and cleric penitent privileges. It does not require that he be in jeopardy. It preserves the confidentiality of communications.

23 posted on 10/10/2017 5:26:33 PM PDT by jimfree (My17 y/o granddaughter continues to have more quality exec experience than an 8 year Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Steely Tom

You mean the way Sessions goes after high value politicians? Please, these people protect one another. They’ll have this guy give testimony under the guise of national security, we’ll never see it, then he gets the book thrown at him. We come out and blame rogue elements in Pakistani intelligence and anyone here politically connected gets a visit from the FBI telling them they can’t do whatever it is they did and that will be it. At the very worst it will be a Comey type statement about Hillary. So and so was careless and lax but not criminal.


24 posted on 10/10/2017 10:45:49 PM PDT by wiggen (#JeSuisCharlie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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