• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gop lawmaker: Fbi gave immunity to top clinton aide

apdst

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There sure were a bunch of immunity deals cut, for there not to be any law breaking going on.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hillary Clinton's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and two other staff members were granted immunity deals in exchange for their cooperation in the now-closed FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state, says a Republican congressman.

News from The Associated Press
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
There sure were a bunch of immunity deals cut, for there not to be any law breaking going on.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you here.

If the FBI had to grant immunity to so many people surrounding Hillary Clinton, then I have two questions - 1) What did those people's lawyers see that their client did or knew that Hillary had done that made them demand an immunity deal from the FBI for their client before they would talk to the FBI, and 2) The FBI offered immunity for what actions and/or from what foreseeable criminal charges, exactly? Plus, of course, the question you asked as well.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I have to agree with you here.

If the FBI had to grant immunity to so many people surrounding Hillary Clinton, then I have two questions - 1) What did those people's lawyers see that their client did or knew that Hillary had done that made them demand an immunity deal from the FBI for their client before they would talk to the FBI, and 2) The FBI offered immunity for what actions and/or from what foreseeable criminal charges, exactly? Plus, of course, the question you asked as well.
Click to expand...

What I want to know, is how can someone receive immunity and then refuse to testify about what they know?
 
apdst said:
There sure were a bunch of immunity deals cut, for there not to be any law breaking going on.
Click to expand...

Standing this on it's head- how partisan of you.

Immunity was granted to ensure aides had no sword hanging over their heads. Apparently even with that immunity they couldn't dig up enough dirt to claim there was 'any law breaking going on'... :doh

If ZERO immunity was given to the aides you'd claim the aides withheld information to avoid criminal prosecution... :roll:

Now back to our regularly programmed right wing rants, whines and rending of garments... :peace
 
apdst said:
What I want to know, is how can someone receive immunity and then refuse to testify about what they know?
Click to expand...

Jason Chaffetz has asked that question and is working hard to get it answered, and I look forward to hearing the answer. He won't let this just go away like Clinton and Obama wish it would... and he shouldn't.
 
Last edited:
notquiteright said:
Standing this on it's head- how partisan of you.

Immunity was granted to ensure aides had no sword hanging over their heads. Apparently even with that immunity they couldn't dig up enough dirt to claim there was 'any law breaking going on'... :doh

If ZERO immunity was given to the aides you'd claim the aides withheld information to avoid criminal prosecution... :roll:

Now back to our regularly programmed right wing rants, whines and rending of garments... :peace
Click to expand...

If there wasn't enough dirt for any convictions, then there's no reason to give them immunity and there's no reason to plead the 5th, or refuse to testify.
 
notquiteright said:
Standing this on it's head- how partisan of you.

Immunity was granted to ensure aides had no sword hanging over their heads. Apparently even with that immunity they couldn't dig up enough dirt to claim there was 'any law breaking going on'... :doh

If ZERO immunity was given to the aides you'd claim the aides withheld information to avoid criminal prosecution... :roll:

Now back to our regularly programmed right wing rants, whines and rending of garments... :peace
Click to expand...

Link (other than VOX or MSNBC or so on)? Evidence stating that was the reason, and that immunity originated as an offer from the FBI/DOJ for exactly what you stated, instead of via the attorneys of those being interviewed which is the normal legal procedure.
 
apdst said:
If there wasn't enough dirt for any convictions, then there's no reason to give them immunity and there's no reason to plead the 5th, or refuse to testify.
Click to expand...

Taking the 5th is a Constitutional right, and I never look down on anyone for doing so, because the government can take whatever you say and twist it if you don't. However, as for an immunity deal, that's a totally different situation which is not a Constitutional right like the 5th Amendment protections, and it says you won't be prosecuted even if you DID break the law. They only offer that if they're sure your testimony and evidence you provide will lead to the conviction of a higher level criminal - Hillary in this case.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Link (other than VOX or MSNBC or so on)? Evidence stating that was the reason, and that immunity originated as an offer from the FBI/DOJ for exactly what you stated, instead of via the attorneys of those being interviewed which is the normal legal procedure.
Click to expand...

I think immunity would just clear up how they testify. Not that they had to hide anything. Since there were claims of classified documents and whatnot, had they testified and that been the case their testimonies might risk themselves by talking about classified stuff. I dunno... just a guess.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Taking the 5th is a Constitutional right, and I never look down on anyone for doing so, because the government can take whatever you say and twist it if you don't. However, as for an immunity deal, that's a totally different situation which is not a Constitutional right like the 5th Amendment protections, and it says you won't be prosecuted even if you DID break the law. They only offer that if they're sure your testimony and evidence you provide will lead to the conviction of a higher level criminal - Hillary in this case.
Click to expand...

The 5th Amendment only protects someone from incriminating one's self. Withholding non-self incriminating information is obstruction of justice.
 
poweRob said:
I think immunity would just clear up how they testify. Not that they had to hide anything. Since there were claims of classified documents and whatnot, had they testified and that been the case their testimonies might risk themselves by talking about classified stuff. I dunno... just a guess.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but from my experience, anyone investigating someone regarding classified info has to be read-in before they can even see the material to investigate, so the FBI interviewers should have been cleared - that would mean that there's no need for immunity to be interviewed.

But, I don't know either, which is why I have those two questions from post 3 above - 1) What did those people's lawyers see that their client did or knew that Hillary had done that made them demand an immunity deal from the FBI for their client before they would talk to the FBI, and 2) The FBI offered immunity for what actions and/or from what foreseeable criminal charges, exactly? Plus, of course, the question you asked as well. Especially number 1.
 
apdst said:
The 5th Amendment only protects someone from incriminating one's self. Withholding non-self incriminating information is obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

That's true, unless any testimony given regarding another person's actions would also self incriminate.
 
Beaudreaux said:
That's true, unless any testimony given regarding another person's actions would also self incriminate.
Click to expand...

There's no fear of self incrimination if the person has been given immunity.
 
this time in 2024 we can expect to see hillary pardon herself
 
apdst said:
There sure were a bunch of immunity deals cut, for there not to be any law breaking going on.
Click to expand...

It seems odd that they can do that, when their boss wants Clinton elected.
 
apdst said:
If there wasn't enough dirt for any convictions, then there's no reason to give them immunity and there's no reason to plead the 5th, or refuse to testify.
Click to expand...

How would a prosecution team know if they don't offer immunity to key people? It is done all the time, you can't be that ignorant of how major investigations are conducted... :peace
 
All people with the knowledge needed to get an indictment were given immunity, Venezuela style, in order to prevent a criminal case against Hillary.

There is no justice at the Justice Department.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Link (other than VOX or MSNBC or so on)? Evidence stating that was the reason, and that immunity originated as an offer from the FBI/DOJ for exactly what you stated, instead of via the attorneys of those being interviewed which is the normal legal procedure.
Click to expand...

LMAO... the 'evidence' is already out there- a FEW aides were given immunity to testify and they did- with an attorney present. For all the wailing and ignoring other high profile cases... the 'Scooter' Libby trail comes to mind... fact is immunity is given quite often and sometimes the prosecution team hits a dry hole.

Since the right wing wailers have brought this in, I'd say they should PROVE corruption, rather than rote rants...

I didn't drag this dead horse in here- why should I clean it up???? :confused:
 
notquiteright said:
How would a prosecution team know if they don't offer immunity to key people? It is done all the time, you can't be that ignorant of how major investigations are conducted... :peace
Click to expand...

The key people tell what they have to offer in exchange for immunity.
 
notquiteright said:
How would a prosecution team know if they don't offer immunity to key people? It is done all the time, you can't be that ignorant of how major investigations are conducted... :peace
Click to expand...

Calling people ignorant is not how you encourage respectable debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom