It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: filched
a reply to: introvert
Because it is their job to build the strongest case possible, and perjury is like a 3 pointer in basketball with 2 minutes left in the 4th quarter when you're up by 7 points.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: IAMTAT
The FBI is hunting for perjury.
I bet they find some (if they haven't already)
If the evidence against Hillary and her aides is so compelling from the emails and server details, why would they need to "hunt" for perjury?
originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: xuenchen
yep, the FBI already has answers they are just looking for witnesses to testify by offering deals not to prosecute them if they turn states witness.I think the FBI already knows exactly who did what and they will use that to turn people.
Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off-limits, according to several people familiar with the matter.
Mills and her lawyer left the room — though both returned a short time later — and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said.
The report states that “investigators consider Mills . . . to be a cooperative witness.” Again, the Post can know that only if its Justice Department sources are telling it so. But more to the point, as I’ve previously laid out in some detail, there are all kinds of “cooperative witnesses.” Some, for example, are mere innocent observers who have nothing to do with potentially criminal activity and unconditionally cooperate with law enforcement because they are not suspects. Others may be accomplices in the potentially criminal activity; they generally cooperate only if promised immunity, or at least a reduction of criminal charges.
What is Mills’s status? Were there conditions placed on her interview? Would she really voluntarily cooperate, no strings attached, with government officials who have prosecutorial authority? After all, Mills has a record of being uncooperative even under circumstances where government investigators were not in a position to file criminal charges against her.