TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

rotor wrote: Perhaps you can tell me why her testimony given to the FBI was not under oath. The fix was in.

Hardly. FBI interviews are rarely under oath, and it is not necessary as lying to an FBI agent is a crime anyway. The interview is voluntary, not under compulsion, no subpoena, etc.

It is under oath for many who are not investigation for a crime, those who had to go for an interview under oath know that fact.

Who administers the oath? No judge or court officer, or Notary is ordinarily available. All the interviews I participated in were at my office, none at FBI offices.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

JALLEN wrote:....the agent told me the FBI gathers information, not provide it.

My answer:

Am I being charged with something then at this time? No? Then please direct all future contacts to my attorney, as this conversation is over. Good day.

Maybe short sighted and impractical from a legal standpoint, but I don't react well to that kind of crap from people who forget who pays their salaries. And by the way, I have cooperated with an FBI investigation before and spoken with an investigator looking into a crime involving interstate commerce. I was a young shipping clerk at the time for a clothing manufacturer in Los Angeles, and there was a discrepancy between the number of cartons received at the customer's end, and the number of cartons I shipped. My number was correct, and I had the paper trail to prove it. I'm not against helping police in an investigation when I'm treated with respect; but when the arrogance of officialdom goes untempered, it rubs me the wrong way and I lose the willingness to talk to anyone. They can bloody well get their information somewhere else.

I think you may be misinterpreting this. All he was saying is that they are unable to give out or share information they have gathered, not surprising since they don't even confirm investigations are underway. Information flows one way. Obviously, I knew the investigation was underway and had an interest in several aspects of it.

I participated in maybe a dozen or so interactions with FBI agents and found them to be professional, knowledgeable and courteous in every instance. Like Mormon missionaries, they work in pairs, wear shirts and ties, but don't ride bikes.

The oddest occasion involved inspecting a house owned by one of my clients up on the hill in La Jolla overlooking the ocean. A worker had spotted some antennas in the attic and reported it. The agents wanted to have a look. No problem!

I was pretty sure these would be benign, probably TV yagis pointed towards Los Angeles left from pre cable days. Two bright young men met me at the house, the client showed us where the access to the attic was, above the refrigerator, so these two young men in their suits and ties climbed up over the refrigerator to have a look. I declined, in deference to my age and girth.

Sure enough, the antennas were VHF and UHF yagis, pointed towards LA. I was overcome with curiosity why this would merit the attention of the FBI. They told me about the worker reporting it and that it caused concern because that house had been owned by a very high ranking military officer who was a US Ambassador. Maybe he had been secretly communicating with enemies, maybe the Ruskies, or even worse, the New York Times or something!

They brushed off their suits, straightened their ties, we had a good laugh, compared carry pistols (I had a P226, they had Glock .40's, IIRC) and returned to our drab normal routines.

mojo84 wrote:Jallen, is an fbi interview the same as a police interrogation? Are the rules or laws similar?

Also, is it normal for the FBI to make the determination whether to prosecute or not?

There is a federal statute discussed in this Wikipedia article:

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, even by mere denial[clarification needed].[1] A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[2] Rod Blagojevich,[3] Scooter Libby,[4] Bernard Madoff,[5] and Jeffrey Skilling.[6

I'm not privy to what is "normal" for the FBI and DOJ, but I would think the FBI gathers the evidence and presents it to the local US Attorney with a recommendation which the US Attorney is able to accept or reject, in accordance with DOJ policies, something like that. In practice it is probably not so formal or rigid. The two agencies work together as the needs arise. FBI works for DOJ, though, not vice versa.

The interview is usually informal. Two agents sit with the witness, and counsel if desired, and ask questions, take notes. I remember in one interview I participated, I wanted to get some answers, questions answered, some details, and the agent told me the FBI gathers information, not provide it.

rotor wrote: Perhaps you can tell me why her testimony given to the FBI was not under oath. The fix was in.

Hardly. FBI interviews are rarely under oath, and it is not necessary as lying to an FBI agent is a crime anyway. The interview is voluntary, not under compulsion, no subpoena, etc.

Abraham wrote:What happened to: Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

Can you imagine any average person offering up a defense of: Yes, I broke the law, but I didn't mean to?

I don't think that is what it depends on.

What Comey seemed to have turned on is that the statute criminalizing gross negligence has never been used in the absence of one of the several circumstances he listed, and it has long been doubted whether the statute is even Constitutional. This may not have been the decision you or I expected, as few of us would have opportunity to be aware of those factors.

What if Comey was sincere, objective, his integrity unsullied by any of the wild accusations leveled at him this week?

Had indictments been recommended, a grand jury would have been impanelled to issue those indictments if it chose to do so. If you think the OJ Simpson case was something, the trial of this case would be an even more enormous spectacle. Imagine the "Dream Team" that would have been assembled! Every word, every e-mail, every computer file and byte would be gone over with the finest tooth comb imaginable.

I cannot imagine how or when, or where it would be possible to select a trial jury which would hear the case with the requisite level of due process to which we are all entitled. She might still beat the rap(s) even so.

When Richard Nixon resigned, some people were after his scalp, not, it developed, without considerable justification. When his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him, many were horrified.

From Wikipedia:

"After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which stated that a pardon indicated a presumption of guilt, and that acceptance of a pardon was tantamount to a confession of that guilt.[8] In 2001, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award to Ford for his pardon of Nixon.[9] In presenting the award to Ford, Senator Ted Kennedy said that he had initially been opposed to the pardon of Nixon, but later stated that history had proved Ford to have made the correct decision.[10]"

It may be that the jury box is not the best way to handle these acts and omissions. The ballot box may be.

Sheriff's Office


Statement on "Guccifer" Rumors

Marcel Lehel Lazar, a federal inmate also known as Guccifer, is at the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Va. He is alive and has never been missing from this facility.

Sheriff Dana Lawhorne
July 6, 2016

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sheriff/in ... x?id=92694

Some are comparing what is going on to ancient Rome, bread and circuses, etc.

Rome grew mighty, became fat and lazy, started in on some rough patches, introduced non-Romans to do the work Romans wouldn't do, corruption began to be accepted, things got further and further out of hand, and they ended up a bunch of Italians.

Remember that!

Skiprr wrote:

B23Msports wrote:In return for his help in this, does Barrack Obama become a Supreme Court judge appointed by Hillary?

Be afraid. Be very afraid...

This is ridiculous.

Hillary isn't appointing Obama to the Supreme Court.

Even if she wanted to, the Senate would never confirm him, barring a major shake up in the composition of the Senate.

Even if it were to do so, there is no reason to think Obama might be willing to spend the rest of his productive life in the relatively cloistered role of a Supreme Court justice making a few hundred thou per year when he could be out running around fleecing donors for millions, working or not as he saw fit.

C'mon, men!