Mueller Suspected of Giving Podesta Brothers Immunity and Hiding it from the Public

originally posted by: Boadicea
I'm confused. Who would make such a judgment except the witness themselves?

The person in question can speak to a lawyer to get legal advice on whether or not they committed a crime. If a meeting between a prosecutor and witness occurs defense lawyers usually play the what if game and qualify it with my client is not admitting to any crimes etc and they go from there. They usually are required to disclose their crime to a prosecutor to only validate the information in question as being pertinent to their prosecution.

Immunity deals come with certain requirements. A person is required to divulge all information. They are required to be completely honest in the information they provide. They are restricted from committing any other crimes during the time frame their immunity deal is in effect.

If a person lies, omits information, is not completely forthcoming or commits a crime then the immunity deal can be revoked and the info they provided can be used against them.

originally posted by: Boadicea
How about arrested??? Presuming that the prosecutor knows the crimes the witness is wanting to hide of course. But if the crimes aren't known, I would think an investigation would be in order at the very least.

Immunity can only be granted to a witness if the witness is going to provide information that implicates themselves in a crime. A witness who has no committed a crime is required to comply with a subpoena and to testify. No 5th amendment application exists when no crime has been committed by a witness.

originally posted by: Boadicea
The prosecutor still has a responsibility and duty to pursue justice for any crimes the potential witness committed.

Unless they are given transactional immunity in which case they cant be prosecuted for the crimes. If they are given limited use immunity and the prosecutor develops information on the crime from a person other than the witness in question then they can prosecute the person.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Yes, just lovely... just as lovely as a judge deciding if someone has a "valid" claim to plead the 5th. Pretty much defeats the whole purpose of the 5th.

I'm thinking if I were ever in such a position, I would just bide my time and take my chances and not say nothin' to no one until I was on the stand under oath and actually asked a question I didn't want to answer. Then I'd plead my 5th and see what happens.... or just "forget" stuff.

Thats why a person can speak to a lawyer and seek advice on whether or not they committed a crime. Even if the person does not retain the lawyer that lawyer cannot be called to testify as to what they discussed. It is protected information.

The defense counsel will notify the prosecutor their client is gong to invoke their 5th amendment and the 2 sides can work something out. If they cant agree or there is a major difference of opinion then the trial judge assigned to the case in question can be consulted in chambers for a ruling.

As for a material witness warrant and arrest the mindset is every single person is entitled to due process. If a person has information that can clearly show guilt or clearly show a persons innocence then justice demands they provide testimony to that effect.

This is why the prosecution is required to disclose their case to the defense during the discovery phase. That includes a list of people the prosecution intends to call as a witness in addition to the names of people who were interviewed who arent called as a witness.

The accused right to due process and a fair trial override the wishes of a material witness who doesnt want to testify solely because they dont want to get involved.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thats why a person can speak to a lawyer and seek advice on whether or not they committed a crime. Even if the person does not retain the lawyer that lawyer cannot be called to testify as to what they discussed. It is protected information.

Okay. So the witness can get some legal counsel prior to testifying and get some legal advice... that's real good to know! Understanding the two types of immunity now and it actually makes much more sense to me -- thank you for explaining.

Would the jury be informed of an immunity deal before hearing the testimony? Or would that be considered prejudicial?

I'm thinking now -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that immunity isn't the go to choice for getting an accomplice to testify against their partner? That there would be some kind of plea deal like a lesser charge or sentencing, as opposed to immunity?

I'm still trying to understand why someone would not want to testify if they are not guilty of anything, but I guess there are situations where that would be true -- for good reasons and bad reasons. Are there any other acceptable reasons (other than the 5th, and spouses) for someone one to refuse to testify?

And now I'm wondering about "hostile" witnesses... I'm thinking hostile witnesses would be those material witnesses -- who have some material facts/evidence in the case -- but do not want to testify? Perhaps because the defendant is their friend or whatever, but not because they would incriminate themselves. Are any specific instructions given to juries regarding hostile witnesses and their testimony?

a reply to: Boadicea

Generally when a witness is called to the stand who is testifying under a plea deal its disclosed by either the prosecutor and if not by him the defense counsel asks if they are receiving anything from the prosecution for their testimony.

Immunity deals are generally used to get "the bigger fish". If they can get convictions without needing testimony from an accomplice then they dont do the immunity offers. Plea deals do include reduced charges or sentencing recommendations favorable to the defendant by the prosecution. Plea deals can include immunity from prosecution but it can also mean, as you stated, reduced charges.

People come up with all sorts of reason for not wanting to testify. The big one is concerns about retribution for testifying, especially if it deals with crime syndicates / mafia / scientology / etc etc/... Others just have no desire to get involved with a criminal justice matter. Especially if it means having to take days off work to appear in court etc.

As an example I was involved in an incident several years ago as a municipal officer. Long story short I ended up in a vehicle pursuit with an FBI agent trying to take a fleeing felon into custody. Because it was a federal case and because the suspect committed the same crime in several states his cases were consolidated to one federal action. The issue was the federal court that oversaw the case was located in a city several states away from where I lived. While my airfare and hotel was covered by the federal government since they subpoenaed me, days lost from missing work were not. Luckily the guys appeal was denied so I didnt have to return to testify again.

So the short, and in general, answer would be no there is not a good reason to refuse to testify. I view it as a civic duty to offer testimony in legal proceedings.

Hostile witnesses are portrayed out of whack on tv shows. All designating a person as a hostile witnesses means is their appearance and testimony in court is in direct contradiction of the evidence and facts. The legal counsel (from what I have observed) requests the judge to allow them to treat a person as a hostile witness. If the judge allows it it gives the legal counsel the ability to directly question the person with the ability to use leading questions (generally leading questions are not allowed and legal counsel objects if their counterpart is going down that road during cross examinations.

I have only experienced an objection to a leading question once. When I was on the stand the prosecutor asked me a question and defense objected for asking a leading question. The prosecutor had to rephrase her question so its nothing major.


Before the jury gets instructions from the judge both counsels give closing statements and usually it is here where each side gives a run down of the case thus far, reminding them of issues in testimony or plea deals / immunity agreements etc. Counsel can, in general, give an overview of witnesses for the opposing side to demonstrate why they think their client is innocent (defense) or why he is guilty (prosecution) and how the witness testimony plays into each side.

The goal of the defense is a not guilty verdict OR changing the mind of one juror to vote the opposite direction as the other jurors to force a mistrial (hung jury).

Jury instructions are issued by the judge prior to them adjourning for deliberations. If the defendant invoked the 5th the jury is reminded that it cannot be held against the person and cant be a factor in their deliberations. '

The Podesta brothers are persons of interest. British detectives release efits of Madeleine McCann suspect(s).
a reply to: Boadicea

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes compel means force. They are refusing on the fifth amendment. If they are granted immunity they can speak without threat.

Holding them in contempt certainly would compel them but if you're looking for a witness to be cooperative you don't alienate and threaten you aid them.

a reply to: The GUT

Bottom line Russia hacked them. By order of Vladimir Putin.
That's what matters.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: The GUT

Bottom line Russia hacked them. By order of Vladimir Putin.
That's what matters.

Well no... Lisa Page gave testimony in her 2 days of hearings that China hacked Clintons blackberry devices. There is no forensic review of the DNC servers and since crowdstrike was hired by the DNC there conclusions are biased.

There is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC.

originally posted by: gimcrackery
The Podesta brothers are persons of interest. British detectives release efits of Madeleine McCann suspect(s).
a reply to: Boadicea

I've seen those pics. It really is creepy the strong resemblance... The Podestas themselves are really creepy! The first time I saw John Podesta back in the '90s he creeped me out. And it's only gotten worse.

a reply to: Xcathdra

They had the contents. They really didn't need anything more.
Which you've been told like a bizzillion times already. So let's make this the last time.
Any more references by you will be ignored.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Find that testimony .

a reply to: Xcathdra

Mueller was in the private sector when the hack and subsequent examination occurred so what does he have to do with anything other than it sounds conspiratorial?
Oh nothing. Perfect example of a straw man argument.
Weak.




💋

a reply to: Phage

Thank you. I have a feeling that won't be absorbed by many.
Sorry.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Who said so? Cuz there are no transcripts of her testimony. Just junk on gateway pundit. The gold standard for FAKE NEWS.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Mueller was in the private sector when the hack and subsequent examination occurred so what does he have to do with anything other than it sounds conspiratorial?
Oh nothing. Perfect example of a straw man argument.
Weak.




💋

I am so sick of this crap....

YOU do know you can post multiple replies in a single post instead of flooding threads with inane individual posts.

A 10 year old can figure it out.

a reply to: Sillyolme

It is.....


a reply to: Sillyolme

easy peasy......

a reply to: Sillyolme

as lemon squeezie.

This has been a public service announcement.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

They had the contents. They really didn't need anything more.
Which you've been told like a bizzillion times already. So let's make this the last time.
Any more references by you will be ignored.

Lisa Page said China hacked Clinton's blackberry's.
No forensic analysis was conducted by a law enforcement entity on the DNC servers.

Sticking your head in the sand and screaming its not true over and over doesn't change the reality of the facts but by all means keep your head buried..

It's interesting that so many people connected to the Clinton's have to be granted immunity to testify against someone connected to Trump. Here's the reality of it, anyone who needs to be granted immunity is guilty, period.

Update: The judge has granted immunity to the witnesses, but denied the motion to seal their names.

At a hearing in the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., on Monday morning, Judge Ellis granted Mueller’s request and ordered that the names of those five prospective witnesses be made public. Within hours of Ellis’ ruling, the names of those witnesses were unsealed: Dennis Raico, Cindy Laporta, Conor O’Brien, Donna Duggan, and James Brennan.

It was not immediately clear what relationship those five witnesses have or had with Manafort.

Judge delays Manafort trial, grants immunity to 5 Mueller witnesses
I believe I heard they all work for the SEC -- but I'm not sure about that.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Update: The judge has granted immunity to the witnesses, but denied the motion to seal their names.

At a hearing in the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., on Monday morning, Judge Ellis granted Mueller’s request and ordered that the names of those five prospective witnesses be made public. Within hours of Ellis’ ruling, the names of those witnesses were unsealed: Dennis Raico, Cindy Laporta, Conor O’Brien, Donna Duggan, and James Brennan.

It was not immediately clear what relationship those five witnesses have or had with Manafort.

Judge delays Manafort trial, grants immunity to 5 Mueller witnesses
I believe I heard they all work for the SEC -- but I'm not sure about that.

Wonder if James Brennan and John Brennan are related....that would make this really interesting!