|
Friday, 4 August 2017
quote [ After Mueller uses the grand jury to compel the production of documents and other evidence from targets and witnesses in the investigation, he will likely begin bringing witnesses in for testimony. Though it’s not a hard-and-fast rule, prosecutors often use F.B.I. interviews for witnesses they deem to be more friendly. They use a grand jury, before which testimony is under oath and transcribed, to lock in testimony from more adversarial witnesses. ]
Flagging knumbknutz here because it doesn't work in the, "your comments," field.
|
Comments
 |
zarathustra said @ 1:24am GMT on 5th Aug
[Score:1 Funsightful]
Trump is going to have the grandest jury. Other juries are okay, sure, but not like his. Everyone says so
|
|
knumbknutz said @ 1:39am GMT on 5th Aug
[Score:1 Interesting]
It's the "under oath" thing that makes the GJ very valuable indeed.
Back in 2005 (?) the DOJ was attempting to investigate the missing pallets of money in Iraq, the yellow-cake uranium debacle, and the rest of the complete lack of evidence that led up to the desert storm. Somehow through some Cheney super-voodoo-jedi-trick he got them to switch not only from a Grand Jury Investigation, but to a behind closed doors meeting where no one needed to be under oath. Needless to say, nothing happened after that to Bush Or Cheney, or anyone else for that matter. |
|
hellboy said @ 10:10am GMT on 5th Aug
Let's just say that Cheney is an avid collector of candid photographs.
|
|
mechavolt said @ 11:40pm GMT on 4th Aug
tl;dr
Pretty much nothing, as it was almost guaranteed to happen anyway. |
|
midden said @ 12:10am GMT on 5th Aug
In this case, I don't think, "means," means what you think it means. :P
|
|
spaceloaf said @ 12:51am GMT on 5th Aug
In that case, he has no idea what you are talking about.
|
|
kylemcbitch said[1] @ 2:57pm GMT on 5th Aug
|
|
Fish said @ 2:31pm GMT on 6th Aug
If/when these 'Russia' investigations turn on the Democrats, I'm sure you're all going to still be completely gung ho for them.
Because all you're concerned about is right and wrong.  |
Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment,
then click the reply link on that comment instead]You must be logged in to comment on posts.
It's a New Yorker article that goes into some depth on the subject, but is only a couple pages long.