In listening to Jerome Corsi tell his story about the FBI and Robert Mueller I find myself easily being in his shoes. He says the FBI and independent counsels office questioned him and he gave answers to the best of his ability about emails he received over a year ago. He then willingly gave those emails to them. They found a couple of emails that didn't jive with his answers and now they are charging him with lying.
I get anywhere from 60 to 125 work emails a day. So that's average out 25,000 emails each year. There is no way I can remember all of them accurately. What if I were questioned?
With today's FBI, it may be wise to plead the 5th on what you ate for breakfast. But, yeah, for me, there would be a bunch of "I don't recall"s just to keep from inadvertently misrepresenting myself.
Be interesting to see what juries decide. If regular folks see their testimony as innoncent lapses in memory, hopefully these types of charges will be shutdown.
The American Gestapo will throw the book at you and ruin your life because of political reasons and yet people who's very presence in America on a daily basis are based on disregard for our laws not only get a free pass, but they can go to certain cities and states where they are shielded from federal law. Tyranny in full force. How much more will we tolerate???
But to answer the question, I wouldn't say a single word to the FBI without an attorney at my side. And even then they'll probably find some minor glitch they can nail you on.
And yet Hillary hasn't even been questioned under oath. Wonder why?
Not intentionally. In the example of correctly answering email detail from years ago... or 6 months. Dont think i could do it and I'd just have to tell them straight up that I suspected my recall of that time frame would stink, and I'd do my best. May not be good enough, but its all I could do.
Goes to court, Stone's doctors testify the normal degradation of memory that occurs with aging and that he may have entered the first stages of early on-set dementia, he wins.
Having been interviewed by the FBI, and having had clients interviewed, nobody is forced to speak to them. And if they are thinking of using you as a witness for the prosecution, or reaching a plea deal, they'll put you on the polygraph.
That being said, I've never had anyone charged with lying to the FBI. Now, I did have one client who was believing his own BS on the polygraph exam, but they expected that. that client took a plea.
I have been subpoenaed by the FBI and the Grand Jury and on one particular investigation, questioned many times. My best advice is to wear your attorney as cuff link when you are questioned in their office. The Grand Jury is a different ballgame. Your on your own sitting in that box with no help from your attorney who is not in the room. You can ask for relief and see your lawyer waiting in the hallway outside the room if you are confused about a question or want to run it by your attorney on how to answer. The FBI guys are slick and you best be on top of your game. My advice from my experience: answer ONLY the question posed and in as little words as possible...no...I don't know...I don't remember.....I'm drawing a blank....and of course "yes" and ONLY "yes" if you have placed yourself in that position previously. Otherwise you are a deaf mute.
Well, no...I suspect that the issues that result in a charge of lying to the FBI are material to the case, and the kind of stuff that would be hard to forget. At least that has been my experience with some federal investigations. Now, I have only dealt with a $34mm bank fraud case, and a few large drug cases....but my experience in Colorado and Nebraska was with some very professional people. In the DC area, it's probably more of a viper's den.
Yes Andrew Weisman is the orchestrator of sometimes made up laws to fit his agenda. Hence his record of being over turned by the higher courts. However, that all comes after he ruins the intended target(s) life.
Was just gonna say..... "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" would seem to be the answer de jour...... even from the FBI top brass...... and that wasn't just "questioning" that was under oath.....
I’m with GG on this one. It’s interesting to hear bad karma’s take on this since he obviously has the most and relevant experience. I have none and would like to keep it that way. If it goes the other way I’m calling bad karma before I say anything.
I'm assuming ALL of them would have said I don't recall plenty of times and apparently forced to talk to the FBI or independent council. Otherwise why else would they talk to them?
I'm pretty sure that only a few people who post here are qualified to give any legal advice. I seldom advise people to speak to any investigator. But there are times where that is the best option.
As to what Hedgehunter wrote, even Google translate didn't help.
For the most part. people are pleading because they are financially ruined long before it gets to a jury so they plead something just to stop the bleeding. These prosecutors are counting on exactly that.
"In the DC area, it's probably more of a viper's den."
In Philly the "vipers den" is putting it mildly. When they came to my door they were as gracious as a Maitre D' at a free buffet. I asked for I.D. and allowed them entry. I asked them whats up?.... and the response was "we would like to ask you a few questions" and they were smiling. "About what"?....."Is your uncle..."..."Hold it right there", I need to call my attorney." Their mood changed immediately and their voice was "matter of fact"....."we'll be getting back to you." See ya fellas. There were not kidding because they did get back to me and put me through the ringer, but, with my attorney present who kept me safe, or as safe as he could. If EVER approached by the FBI don't say the sky is blue without your attorney present. Better yet just say I have to make a call. Whatever DON'T say a word singalo. You have been warned even if you THINK you have no involvement what so ever. If they are there, they are there for a reason.
my take on law enforcement has drastically changed over the last 30 years.
There was a time when I was in the camp that said if you don't have anything to hide you don't have any reason to not let them search your vehicle or answer their questions.
At this point in time I would never let a police officer search my vehicle without a warrant And I sure as heck am not talking to them if there's any slight chance that they're investigating me for any reason even if I am innocent. If I if I was the witness to a crime or something like that I would certainly help them out any time and I'm not going to impede any investigation or disrespect them in any way but I am not going to just dish myself out on a silver platter
I agree^^^. I watched plenty of real life shows where Detectives and prosecutors did whatever it took to convict someone even if their was evidence that they were innocent. Scary crap out there.
So it’s ok to go after a whistleblower and we aren’t allowed to know why. Why isn’t Chris Wray stopping this?
Via Daily Caller:
A federal court refused to unseal government documents that permitted the FBI to raid the home of a reportedly recognized whistleblower who, according to his lawyer, delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a presidentially appointed watchdog.
The U.S. District Court of Maryland’s Chief Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner, a Clinton appointee, also sealed her justification for keeping the documents secret in a single-page Dec. 20 order.
On Nov. 15, federal Magistrate Judge Stephanie Gallagher authorized the raid on Dennis Cain’s Union Bridge, Maryland, home. She sealed the government documents justifying it.
The Daily Caller News Foundation asked Gallagher on Nov. 29 to unseal the documents, noting that Cain’s attorney has said his client, a former employee of an FBI contractor, is a recognized whistleblower. The documents should be released in light of “an urgent public interest” surrounding the case, TheDCNF wrote.
Hillary Clinton? No. Nikolas Cruz? No. Clinton Foundation? No. Fusion GPS? No. Boston Bombers? No. San Bernardino terrorists? No. John Podesta? No. Susan Rice? No. Paul Zeidan? No.
Roger Stone? Yes. Michael Cohen? Yes. Paul Manafort? Yes.
When being questioned by any LEO for anything seriously, where there is one hair's chance that you could be mistakenly accused or, a 100% chance you can't immediately disprove their suspicions, don't say anything but, "I want to talk to an attorney". Nothing but that. No matter what they say or, threaten you with. No matter how innocent it may seem, No matter how bad you want to set the record straight, leave all that to the Lawyer. Most are very good at what they do.
"A Republican darling lies and all the Republicans party hacks fall all over themselves defending it."
Ask Nixon if this is true.
In general, if a Republican messes up (or is even accused of doing so) they are immediately abandoned by other republicans. OTOH democrats see it as a resume enhancement and (along with the press) continue to support dems no matter what they are proven to have done (even drown a woman).
Trump is the first big exception to this rule and dems, leftists of all stripes, and the press are apoplectic about it.
It depends on just who you are and your politics when it comes to lying to the FBI. If part of the Obama-Clinton Cabal, one gets a pass. If not...release the hounds!
The part in the Miranda Rights about what you say tells me the correct answer is "I don't know" or "can't recall", and even "I have no recollection"...
Hillary Clinton committed high crimes. End of story and I believe you know that. This was not speculation nor devoid of evidence to the contrary. The evidence was overwhelming to prosecute. If ever there was a time to raid "offices" with a regiment of FBI agents including her residence and all her cohorts without warning at the same exact time this was it. There is no comparison to the danger she placed this nation and its people in great danger. Two wrongs don't make a right? Where is the proof and evidence in the history of this nation that compares? You may be content with politicians and their children be protected from presecution and my children being thrown to the slaughter, but I am not. Everything about this government smells to the high heavens and the more crimes that are revealed in crumbs to the media, the more the vast majority of them are concealed.
Don't play the puppet Matt. You and I are getting bent over everyday. "Well just let it go now" is not good enough for me, until it also concerns me, which will never occur. Only the golden tower has that power.
What we are seeing is that Lady Justice is no longer blind...she has become an operative of the TDS deep state. There is being demonstrated a two level system of justice where there is a demonstrated "protected class" and a "target class".
Let me see if I have this straight. The evidence to convict Hillary is widely known, especially by the right who loathes her. Yet, out of thousands of brilliant right-leaning criminal attorneys in our country, not a single one has been able to piece together a case to convict Hillary, because of some global conspiracy to protect her. Is that the narrative?
If Hellary thought it would get her elected, she'd pair up AOC (or anyone/anything else) in a nano-second. Her "whore factor" makes Monica look like Mother Teresa's.
Federal prosecutions are brought by the US attorney for the area, and investigated by federal agencies such as the FBI or DEA. Private attorneys have nothing to do with it. And as I've written at least twice before, prosecuting intelligence leak cases is tough because then the intelligence is all given to the defense, and shown to the public at a trial, Public trials, with a hell of a lot of TV coverage in this case. '
Given how cavalierly Hillary disregarded the security of the information, using her own insecure private server, she should be prosecuted. Any normal stiff would be. But she likely won't. Trump was right in removing her security clearance. She should never be given another one.
