Anyone with half a brain pleads the fifth. It's not an admission of guilt. Originally Posted by greanWhat was the point of negotiating a immunity deal with people who would plead the fifth? Immunity deals are typically made to get testimony, not watch them plead the fifth and refuse to answer any basic questions. So why did they get a immunity deal in exchange for pleading the fifth?
- goodolboy
- 05-15-2017, 12:10 PM
- grean
- 05-15-2017, 12:49 PM
Best answer I cam find
"[I]mmunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. While a grant of immunity must afford protection commensurate with that afforded by the privilege, it need not be broader. Transactional immunity, which accords full immunity from prosecution for the offense to which the compelled testimony relates, affords the witness considerably broader protection than does the Fifth Amendment privilege." Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 453, 92 S. Ct. 1653, 32 L. Ed. 2d 212 (1972).
"[I]mmunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. While a grant of immunity must afford protection commensurate with that afforded by the privilege, it need not be broader. Transactional immunity, which accords full immunity from prosecution for the offense to which the compelled testimony relates, affords the witness considerably broader protection than does the Fifth Amendment privilege." Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 453, 92 S. Ct. 1653, 32 L. Ed. 2d 212 (1972).
- grean
- 05-15-2017, 12:53 PM
Basically you can use the 5th if it puts you at risk of self incriminating yourself in some thing not covered in your immunity deal.
They can make you if it doesn't or void your deal if you still refuse.
They can make you if it doesn't or void your deal if you still refuse.
- goodolboy
- 05-15-2017, 02:21 PM
("List those laws broken, please.
If she did, she would have been charged. She wasn't. Careless and stupid isn't synonymous with illegal. ")
18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.
18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records If the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and accused has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) can be “pled down” to a misdemeanor under 18 U.S. Code § 641. The prohibited conduct is the conversion of official records (whether classified or not) to the accused’s exclusive use and the mens rea is simply the intent to do so. Conviction on the lesser misdemeanor charge would likely result in a period of probation and the imposition of a fine.
18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
If it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, the accused can be convicted of obstruction under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information. The mens rea is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years.
18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
If it can be proven that an accused knowingly concealed the existence of official records being sought by the Department of State Inspector General (DOS/IG) or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), such accused can be convicted of obstruction. The prohibited conduct is the concealment and withholding of documents that impede or obstruct an investigation. The mens rea is the intent to conceal or withhold. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1519 is a felony with a maximum prison term of twenty years.
18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States
If it can be proven that an accused arranged for the Department of State to hire an Information Technology (IT) specialist to primarily administer and maintain a private server system owned by the accused, then the accused can be convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and probably wire fraud. The prohibited conduct is having the United States pay an employee salary and/or official travel funds for performing private services on behalf of accused. The mens rea is simply the knowledge of the employee’s status as a public servant and that the government was not fully reimbursed for the costs to the government of such services. The wire fraud conviction can be sought if it can be proven that accused used electronic means of communication in undertaking such scheme or artifice to defraud.
If she did, she would have been charged. She wasn't. Careless and stupid isn't synonymous with illegal. ")
18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.
18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records If the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and accused has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) can be “pled down” to a misdemeanor under 18 U.S. Code § 641. The prohibited conduct is the conversion of official records (whether classified or not) to the accused’s exclusive use and the mens rea is simply the intent to do so. Conviction on the lesser misdemeanor charge would likely result in a period of probation and the imposition of a fine.
18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
If it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, the accused can be convicted of obstruction under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information. The mens rea is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years.
18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
If it can be proven that an accused knowingly concealed the existence of official records being sought by the Department of State Inspector General (DOS/IG) or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), such accused can be convicted of obstruction. The prohibited conduct is the concealment and withholding of documents that impede or obstruct an investigation. The mens rea is the intent to conceal or withhold. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1519 is a felony with a maximum prison term of twenty years.
18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States
If it can be proven that an accused arranged for the Department of State to hire an Information Technology (IT) specialist to primarily administer and maintain a private server system owned by the accused, then the accused can be convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and probably wire fraud. The prohibited conduct is having the United States pay an employee salary and/or official travel funds for performing private services on behalf of accused. The mens rea is simply the knowledge of the employee’s status as a public servant and that the government was not fully reimbursed for the costs to the government of such services. The wire fraud conviction can be sought if it can be proven that accused used electronic means of communication in undertaking such scheme or artifice to defraud.
- grean
- 05-15-2017, 02:51 PM
("List those laws broken, please.So why haven't they charged her? Why didn't Comey charge her under Sessions if Lynch would not allow it?
If she did, she would have been charged. She wasn't. Careless and stupid isn't synonymous with illegal. ")
18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control. Originally Posted by goodolboy
The congress is red across the board. Sessions is attorney general. Why hasn't she been charged? Who is stopping it now?
Could it be that she actually did not do any of the things you listed at least to the degree it would constitute being illegal? You don't think Comey would hesitate one second if charges could have been brought?
Perhaps you just read/listened to too much conservative "news" and bought everything they said.
She doesn't kill babies and contrary to popular belief Hilary is not Satan masquerading as a politician.
She does want to take all your guns. I'll give you that.
- goodolboy
- 05-15-2017, 03:30 PM
("So why haven't they charged her? Why didn't Comey charge her under Sessions if Lynch would not allow it?")
Some might suggest that a Democrat Administration with A Democrat AG who just had a private meeting on the runway at a airport with the accused's husband, who is a ex President himself, did NOT want to see the Democrat party's candidate for President charged with felony's a few days before the election.
Others might think that someone like Hillery Clinton could have dirt on others and use it to barter with in order to avoid charges. We may never know, unless a new FBI Director and new AG were to reopen the case. Personally I think she is simply to big to jail, and would take down many others with her if she were pressed.
But perhaps not, other Democrats have been elected from their jail cells before in the past.
In regards to Comey reversing his position on recommending charging Hillery, after twice saying he did not recommend charges under Lynch. I think it would look really bad to change his position 360 degrees after being so public about not recommending charges under the old Democrat Obama administration. How would Comey explain this complete change of position only a few weeks after closing the investigation?
Some might suggest that a Democrat Administration with A Democrat AG who just had a private meeting on the runway at a airport with the accused's husband, who is a ex President himself, did NOT want to see the Democrat party's candidate for President charged with felony's a few days before the election.
Others might think that someone like Hillery Clinton could have dirt on others and use it to barter with in order to avoid charges. We may never know, unless a new FBI Director and new AG were to reopen the case. Personally I think she is simply to big to jail, and would take down many others with her if she were pressed.
But perhaps not, other Democrats have been elected from their jail cells before in the past.
In regards to Comey reversing his position on recommending charging Hillery, after twice saying he did not recommend charges under Lynch. I think it would look really bad to change his position 360 degrees after being so public about not recommending charges under the old Democrat Obama administration. How would Comey explain this complete change of position only a few weeks after closing the investigation?
- Copierguy0
- 05-15-2017, 06:46 PM
Trump revealed intelligence secrets to Russians in Oval Office
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN18B2MX
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.cfae80f0f3f8
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/15/trump...ials-wapo.html
"I AM NOT A BIT SURPRISED"
Trump sharing highly classified information with Russia shows his extreme hubris. This is information that current and former U.S. officials say could jeopardize a valuable source of intelligence in the fight against ISIS and give an adversarial Russia a strategic advantage in Syria, where its goals are different from ours.
CG
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN18B2MX
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.cfae80f0f3f8
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/15/trump...ials-wapo.html
"I AM NOT A BIT SURPRISED"
Trump sharing highly classified information with Russia shows his extreme hubris. This is information that current and former U.S. officials say could jeopardize a valuable source of intelligence in the fight against ISIS and give an adversarial Russia a strategic advantage in Syria, where its goals are different from ours.
CG
- themystic
- 05-15-2017, 07:05 PM
Trump revealed intelligence secrets to Russians in Oval OfficeThats all Fake News!
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN18B2MX
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.cfae80f0f3f8
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/15/trump...ials-wapo.html
"I AM NOT A BIT SURPRISED"
Trump sharing highly classified information with Russia shows his extreme hubris. This is information that current and former U.S. officials say could jeopardize a valuable source of intelligence in the fight against ISIS and give an adversarial Russia a strategic advantage in Syria, where its goals are different from ours.
CG Originally Posted by Copierguy0
Watch Hannity tonight for the "Alternative" facts
- PeterBota
- 05-15-2017, 08:22 PM
Yeah because that was the only way to give info to the Russians. By bringing in a KGB guy in the Oval Office. You ppl are really crazy.
- themystic
- 05-15-2017, 08:55 PM
Im so tired of this Stupid Mother Fucker DJT and his " Reality" TV Show. I get it. DJT and his cronies get richer. American public gets fucked. Donald, Im tired of winning already
Does anyone know what channel The Kardashians is on.?
Does anyone know what channel The Kardashians is on.?
- TexTushHog
- 05-15-2017, 09:23 PM
Note goidolboy doesn't post the actual statutes. Only bullshit generalities that purport to dumsrize the statutes. That's not how criminal prosecutions, or criminal defense works. I've done both.
- Copierguy0
- 05-16-2017, 03:17 AM
Im so tired of this Stupid Mother Fucker DJT and his " Reality" TV Show. I get it. DJT and his cronies get richer. American public gets fucked. Donald, Im tired of winning already Originally Posted by themysticFox News host Sean Hannity urged the White House on Monday night to “restructure” its daily briefings to limit the media’s ability to ask questions.
On the same day The Washington Post reported that Trump leaked “highly classified information” to Russian officials in the Oval Office, Hannity said If leaks like this continue to happen, the american people will find out how much of their tax money went into our private accounts.
Hannity, a vocal Trump supporter, said last week that the White House could do away with media briefings and the president could just “tweet out his accomplishments instead.” We have to put a lid on this somehow or there will be a riot at the white house.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0809be15796f9
There is an opening for assistant to the national security adviser
and one of trumps offspring from a secret love affair, wants in.
CG
- grean
- 05-16-2017, 07:19 AM
In regards to Comey reversing his position on recommending charging Hillery, after twice saying he did not recommend charges under Lynch. I think it would look really bad to change his position 360 degrees after being so public about not recommending charges under the old Democrat Obama administration. How would Comey explain this complete change of position only a few weeks after closing the investigation? Originally Posted by goodolboy
Really? He could say he was ordered by the then AG to make a statement and now with a "Just" AG he is free to now move forward.
The lemmings would have eaten that up.
But Alas, Trump finally did it! He let his smart mouth take him out of the fire and right into the frying pan.
Don't get caught up with the syntactics. He did give classified Intel to the Russians. Plain and simple.
So yeah, it's not illegal because he is president. But Pot meet the fucking kettle.
- grean
- 05-16-2017, 07:29 AM
Fox news can't even spin this away. DJT is either an incompetent fucking idiot or he is the best spy Russia has developed ever
The Post's story, if it weren't true, would be forced to write a retraction. Don't see that yet. That means regardless of the white house claims that state the story, "as reported" ,is false, it in fact is TRUE!
The Post's story, if it weren't true, would be forced to write a retraction. Don't see that yet. That means regardless of the white house claims that state the story, "as reported" ,is false, it in fact is TRUE!
- grean
- 05-16-2017, 08:05 AM
Note goidolboy doesn't post the actual statutes. Only bullshit generalities that purport to dumsrize the statutes. That's not how criminal prosecutions, or criminal defense works. I've done both. Originally Posted by TexTushHogHold On!
You mean you just don't take the parts out that don't support your argument and then only post the parts that do?
That's just crazy....