Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, the FBI does not (and can not) grant immunity. The DOJ does. So when DOJ granted Bryan Pagliano his 'Queen for a day" letter, it only applied to what he told the Bureau and the prosecutors - which is why he has taken the 5th in every other forum since. Don't read more into it than there is.
Second, all interviews with the Bureau (or any other agency) are voluntary. It's about the third sentence you crank out (after introductions and the offers of coffee). "Thank you for coming; your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary and you are free to leave at any time." I used to add, "You are not under arrest, and unless you jump up and declare you are a member of al-Qaeda, you are not going to be arrested today no matter what you say in this room."
Third, an interview featuring ten representatives from the government (agents and prosecutors), the witness and five of the witness's attorneys and aides is not an interrogation in which diligent agents try to pry a confession from a subject. It is an exercise in getting the subject's response down to each and every issue that the government wants her on the record about.
Fourth (and this is speculation based on my experience, not a statement of fact), that the interview took three and a half hours tells me there were a fair number of issues about which the government wanted her on the record. But that it only took three and a half hours tells me they whittled it down to the most important parts (mine often went in excess of eight hours - or even multiple days - but much of that was trying to get clarification on things we didn't understand). A 3.5 hour interview in a matter this complex and long-running tells me that the agents were not challenging her responses - only documenting them. For example, Clinton's assertion that State retroactively classified information in her e-mails borders on the inane - and everyone with a TS/SCI clearance (what she held) knows it. The government simply wanted her to state her position in an interview that was being recorded by agents or a stenographer.
For those who think she will be indicted, your attention is directed to President Obama's interview with Fox News Sunday about two months ago in which he said he found 'carelessness' in her handling of classified. And he said it twice. The intent element of the statute requires 'gross negligence.' In every court I am familiar with, simple carelessness does not rise to the level of 'gross negligence.' By definition, gross negligence requires much more than simple carelessness. In essence, President Obama handed Clinton a back-pocket pardon with those statements.
For those of you who think Clinton will not be indicted, understand that the elements of the offense have been met by the facts. What remains is who's conduct violated the statute. Pagliano's, because he set up and maintained the server where classified was illegally stored? Clinton's inner circle, because they funneled the classified to her on the server? Or Clinton herself, because she directed it all to happen in order to protect her privacy? Or some combination of all three?
Does it matter? Lynch will never indict Hillary without Obama's blessing and that's not happening regardless of the FBI. It's not about facts or meeting any kind of criteria. It's about Obama controlling the Justice Dept. It's pretty simple. And to think otherwise is naive.
If Clinton is not indicted based on the multitude of illegal things she has done, Obama will have been successful in turning us into a lawless society. Where whoever is in control decides right from wrong. Where legal is not based on our laws, but who is controlling the reins of power. Where laws are used to control us not protect us.
Then we will know that the last vestiges of any Law remaining have left the room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee If Clinton is not indicted based on the multitude of illegal things she has done, Obama will have been successful in turning us into a lawless society. Where whoever is in control decides right from wrong. Where legal is not based on our laws, but who is controlling the reins of power. Where laws are used
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucFan
So you and Trump have got her guilty without proving it. That's pretty much lawless right there. 1800s justice. Lets string her up! That's not how this country works.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago
It was just announced-by sources-that no charges will be brought against Crooked Hillary Clinton. Like I said, the system is totally rigged!
She is not going to be indicted. Obama and his regime are completely corrupt and there is no chance that they allow the presumptive Democrat nominee for president to be indicted less than a month before their national convention and four months before our national elections, regardless of how many counts the FBI tries to recommend or how many crimes against the national security of our nation she is guilty of.
Zero chance. None. No way. Forget about it. It is not happening.
She is not going to be indicted. Obama and his regime are completely corrupt and there is no chance that they allow the presumptive Democrat nominee for president to be indicted less than a month before their national convention and four months before our national elections, regardless of how many counts the FBI tries to recommend or how many crimes against the national security of our nation she is guilty of.
Zero chance. None. No way. Forget about it. It is not happening.
In the end it is the responsibility of the American People to keep her from the White House.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,634 posts, read 12,553,459 times
Reputation: 10487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rescue3
Some facts might be interesting here...
First, the FBI does not (and can not) grant immunity. The DOJ does. So when DOJ granted Bryan Pagliano his 'Queen for a day" letter, it only applied to what he told the Bureau and the prosecutors - which is why he has taken the 5th in every other forum since. Don't read more into it than there is.
Second, all interviews with the Bureau (or any other agency) are voluntary. It's about the third sentence you crank out (after introductions and the offers of coffee). "Thank you for coming; your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary and you are free to leave at any time." I used to add, "You are not under arrest, and unless you jump up and declare you are a member of al-Qaeda, you are not going to be arrested today no matter what you say in this room."
Third, an interview featuring ten representatives from the government (agents and prosecutors), the witness and five of the witness's attorneys and aides is not an interrogation in which diligent agents try to pry a confession from a subject. It is an exercise in getting the subject's response down to each and every issue that the government wants her on the record about.
Fourth (and this is speculation based on my experience, not a statement of fact), that the interview took three and a half hours tells me there were a fair number of issues about which the government wanted her on the record. But that it only took three and a half hours tells me they whittled it down to the most important parts (mine often went in excess of eight hours - or even multiple days - but much of that was trying to get clarification on things we didn't understand). A 3.5 hour interview in a matter this complex and long-running tells me that the agents were not challenging her responses - only documenting them. For example, Clinton's assertion that State retroactively classified information in her e-mails borders on the inane - and everyone with a TS/SCI clearance (what she held) knows it. The government simply wanted her to state her position in an interview that was being recorded by agents or a stenographer.
For those who think she will be indicted, your attention is directed to President Obama's interview with Fox News Sunday about two months ago in which he said he found 'carelessness' in her handling of classified. And he said it twice. The intent element of the statute requires 'gross negligence.' In every court I am familiar with, simple carelessness does not rise to the level of 'gross negligence.' By definition, gross negligence requires much more than simple carelessness. In essence, President Obama handed Clinton a back-pocket pardon with those statements.
For those of you who think Clinton will not be indicted, understand that the elements of the offense have been met by the facts. What remains is who's conduct violated the statute. Pagliano's, because he set up and maintained the server where classified was illegally stored? Clinton's inner circle, because they funneled the classified to her on the server? Or Clinton herself, because she directed it all to happen in order to protect her privacy? Or some combination of all three?
I dunno. I wasn't in the room.
Of course he's going to say that, since he sent several emails to her while knowing he was sending them to her private (non-government) server. For him to say anything else would probably put him under the spotlight also.
Could it be possible that this may just be the first one of a few meetings between her and the FBI?
She's still calling it a review
Quote:
She is pleased to have the opportunity to assist the Dept. of Justice in bringing this review to a conclusion
First, the FBI does not (and can not) grant immunity. The DOJ does. So when DOJ granted Bryan Pagliano his 'Queen for a day" letter, it only applied to what he told the Bureau and the prosecutors - which is why he has taken the 5th in every other forum since. Don't read more into it than there is.
Second, all interviews with the Bureau (or any other agency) are voluntary. It's about the third sentence you crank out (after introductions and the offers of coffee). "Thank you for coming; your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary and you are free to leave at any time." I used to add, "You are not under arrest, and unless you jump up and declare you are a member of al-Qaeda, you are not going to be arrested today no matter what you say in this room."
Third, an interview featuring ten representatives from the government (agents and prosecutors), the witness and five of the witness's attorneys and aides is not an interrogation in which diligent agents try to pry a confession from a subject. It is an exercise in getting the subject's response down to each and every issue that the government wants her on the record about.
Fourth (and this is speculation based on my experience, not a statement of fact), that the interview took three and a half hours tells me there were a fair number of issues about which the government wanted her on the record. But that it only took three and a half hours tells me they whittled it down to the most important parts (mine often went in excess of eight hours - or even multiple days - but much of that was trying to get clarification on things we didn't understand). A 3.5 hour interview in a matter this complex and long-running tells me that the agents were not challenging her responses - only documenting them. For example, Clinton's assertion that State retroactively classified information in her e-mails borders on the inane - and everyone with a TS/SCI clearance (what she held) knows it. The government simply wanted her to state her position in an interview that was being recorded by agents or a stenographer.
For those who think she will be indicted, your attention is directed to President Obama's interview with Fox News Sunday about two months ago in which he said he found 'carelessness' in her handling of classified. And he said it twice. The intent element of the statute requires 'gross negligence.' In every court I am familiar with, simple carelessness does not rise to the level of 'gross negligence.' By definition, gross negligence requires much more than simple carelessness. In essence, President Obama handed Clinton a back-pocket pardon with those statements.
For those of you who think Clinton will not be indicted, understand that the elements of the offense have been met by the facts. What remains is who's conduct violated the statute. Pagliano's, because he set up and maintained the server where classified was illegally stored? Clinton's inner circle, because they funneled the classified to her on the server? Or Clinton herself, because she directed it all to happen in order to protect her privacy? Or some combination of all three?
I dunno. I wasn't in the room.
Thanks for the reminder of the immunity given.
I see this mistaken claims of this all too often causing confusion.
Is not intentional using a set up private server exclusively for Classified info when you know it should be through Official channels "gross negligence" in itself and perhaps more than that?
I don't think anything will happen, Bill Clinton did have a talk with AG lynch. Very Corrupt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
