Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Andrew McCabe Seeks Immunity Deal for Testimony
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Riley" data-source="post: 3122327" data-attributes="member: 29196"><p>This is a pretty good article that lays out the issues with granting immunity. Essentially any evidence that may emerge could be tied back to the congressional testimony therefore tainted. It's what got Ollie North off on appeal.</p><p></p><p>"It is true that, on the surface, the statute provides only “use immunity.” Technically, this does not shield the witness from prosecution; it only prevents the immunized testimony from being used against the witness — either directly (being presented against him at trial) or indirectly (as leads to locate evidence that can be used to prosecute him). In practical effect, however, use immunity can easily become transactional or even blanket immunity. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to prove that evidence purportedly unrelated to the immunized testimony was not traceable to it in some way. Consequently, if the Justice Department tries to prosecute him, the immunized witness will argue that the case is based on the immunized testimony. It is easier for a court to throw out such a case than try to sort out what is tainted and what is not."</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/andrew-mccabe-seeks-immunity-judiciary-committee/" target="_blank">https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/andrew-mccabe-seeks-immunity-judiciary-committee/</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Riley, post: 3122327, member: 29196"] This is a pretty good article that lays out the issues with granting immunity. Essentially any evidence that may emerge could be tied back to the congressional testimony therefore tainted. It's what got Ollie North off on appeal. "It is true that, on the surface, the statute provides only “use immunity.” Technically, this does not shield the witness from prosecution; it only prevents the immunized testimony from being used against the witness — either directly (being presented against him at trial) or indirectly (as leads to locate evidence that can be used to prosecute him). In practical effect, however, use immunity can easily become transactional or even blanket immunity. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to prove that evidence purportedly unrelated to the immunized testimony was not traceable to it in some way. Consequently, if the Justice Department tries to prosecute him, the immunized witness will argue that the case is based on the immunized testimony. It is easier for a court to throw out such a case than try to sort out what is tainted and what is not." [URL]https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/andrew-mccabe-seeks-immunity-judiciary-committee/[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Andrew McCabe Seeks Immunity Deal for Testimony
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom