Cheryl Mills leaves FBI interview briefly after being asked about emails

a reply to: introvert

Because it is their job to build the strongest case possible, and perjury is like a 3 pointer in basketball with 2 minutes left in the 4th quarter when you're up by 7 points.

a reply to: filched

Thank you for that

Probably too late for those linked to Hillary at the hip,
lawyers and all. She is ruthless, Bill was disbarred for a
long while.

The FBI is not stuck in 1990, digital footprints
and all of that....Hillary could not erase.

I'd say very likely the FBI took note of that strategy.

originally posted by: filched
a reply to: introvert

Because it is their job to build the strongest case possible, and perjury is like a 3 pointer in basketball with 2 minutes left in the 4th quarter when you're up by 7 points.

Strange analogy.

Basketball requires points in order to win a game. The court of law does not.

If the FBI has the proof to slam-dunk Clinton, why are they taking the chance of missing on a 3-pointer with 2 minutes to go and risking the possibility of a "comeback" drive?

a reply to: introvert

Because anything less than a 10 point win over Clint "doesn't count."

Her laws are the not the same as your laws, remember?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: introvert

Because anything less than a 10 point win over Clint "doesn't count."

Her laws are the not the same as your laws, remember?

No. I don't remember. You're just making # up.

Horrible analogy.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: IAMTAT

The FBI is hunting for perjury.

I bet they find some (if they haven't already)

If the evidence against Hillary and her aides is so compelling from the emails and server details, why would they need to "hunt" for perjury?

Overton Window

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: introvert

Because anything less than a 10 point win over Clint "doesn't count."

Her laws are the not the same as your laws, remember?

That's why bookies have over/under odds.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: xuenchen
yep, the FBI already has answers they are just looking for witnesses to testify by offering deals not to prosecute them if they turn states witness.I think the FBI already knows exactly who did what and they will use that to turn people.

Indeed, this article lays it out and posits that Mills might have been granted limited immunity:

Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off-limits, according to several people familiar with the matter.

Mills and her lawyer left the room — though both returned a short time later — and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said.

...

The report states that “investigators consider Mills . . . to be a cooperative witness.” Again, the Post can know that only if its Justice Department sources are telling it so. But more to the point, as I’ve previously laid out in some detail, there are all kinds of “cooperative witnesses.” Some, for example, are mere innocent observers who have nothing to do with potentially criminal activity and unconditionally cooperate with law enforcement because they are not suspects. Others may be accomplices in the potentially criminal activity; they generally cooperate only if promised immunity, or at least a reduction of criminal charges.

What is Mills’s status? Were there conditions placed on her interview? Would she really voluntarily cooperate, no strings attached, with government officials who have prosecutorial authority? After all, Mills has a record of being uncooperative even under circumstances where government investigators were not in a position to file criminal charges against her.

Clinton Emails: Is the fix in?

I'm still left wondering that the Justice Department would side with Mills' attorney in delcaring this are as off limits to FBI questioning.