originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Sillyolme
You couod be right.
And hey, if there were real crimes involving collusion, I hope they are found.
What I am baffled by is muellers tactics.
You must be more inteligent than me, because you seem to be suggesting that mueller went after flynn, found a crime he committed, and then rewarded
him with a light punishment for cooperating.
But I learned from the fbi in the hillary investigation that the way to really get criminals is to grant everyone immunity up front, smash all of
their devices for them so their is no evidence, and then look for crimes.
I wonder why the different tactics being used here?
Seriously? You don't understand the different tactics?
It's simple; the DOJ was simply following the law and DOJ policy, as spelled out in the US Attorneys Manual. Here's a pointer to it:
The relevant parts are:
"This chapter contains the Department's policy and procedures for seeking "use immunity" under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001-6005. Sections 6001 to 6005
provide a mechanism by which the government may apply to the court for an order granting a witness limited immunity in all judicial, administrative,
and congressional proceedings when the witness asserts his or her privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment."
Brian Pagliano, who was Clinton's IT person in charge of her private server, HAD invoked his Fifth Amendment privileges, so he was a candidate for
being given immunity to compel him to testify on what he knew about the operation of her email system.
When evaluating whether a potential witness should be granted immunity, the US Attorney in charge of the case is supposed to consider:
The importance of the investigation or prosecution to effective enforcement of the criminal laws;
The value of the person's testimony or information to the investigation or prosecution;
The likelihood of prompt and full compliance with a compulsion order, and the effectiveness of available sanctions if there is no such compliance;
The person's relative culpability in connection with the offense or offenses being investigated or prosecuted, and his or her criminal history;
The possibility of successfully prosecuting the person prior to compelling his or her testimony;
The likelihood of adverse collateral consequences to the person if he or she testifies under a compulsion order.
In Pagliano's case, his testimony was obviously important, he complied fully and promptly, and he apparently had no culpability in any crime that
Hilary might have committed. For that reason, there was probably no possibility of prosecuting him for anything, and there were no significant
adverse consequences for him testifying under compulsion.
In other words, he seemed to be a perfect candidate for granting immunity in exchange for compelling his testimony.
On the other hand, Flynn originally claimed Fifth Amendment privileges, but then withdrew them. At that point, he was no longer a candidate for
immunity, under DOJ rules. In addition, it was pretty clear that Flynn probably was culpable of several crimes (the details were presented yesterday
during his sentencing hearing) and for that reason would probably not have been a candidate even if he had asserted Fifth Amendment privileges.
Isn't it amazing what 5 minutes of research using Google and Wikipedia can turn up?