That actually makes a lot of sense, once you read a bit about OIG interviews.http://askthelawyer.federaltimes.com/2016/01/13/oig-interviews-they-can-lie-to-you/ …
-
-
-
Replying to @mtracey
You're welcome. It's worth reading the whole series. Refusing to interview shows unlikely criminal chargespic.twitter.com/TNz47Fm39K
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brightstrangely @mtracey
Not sure that's my take away... 2 kinds, voluntary & compelled... If compelled, then there's no criminal invest.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimoutlaw @mtracey
Of you, but since all her people had voluntary interviews, they must not have any ability to compel any testimony.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brightstrangely @mtracey
my understanding of passage is voluntary interview leaves open poss criminal charge, compelled does not. RT/wrong?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimoutlaw @mtracey
Right, so the fact that they didn't compel her aides to testify with immunity, implies they have no charges for Clinton
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brightstrangely @kimoutlaw
What mechanism does the IG have to "bring charges"? None, I thought.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey @kimoutlaw
Not sure. I'm just noting that refusing seems to be pretty common and not indicative of guilt http://askthelawyer.federaltimes.com/2015/12/04/know-your-rights-part-2/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brightstrangely @kimoutlaw
I haven't asserted that it's indicative of guilt. But it's indicative of not wanting to disclose information...
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
...which could later be used to establish fact patterns in a separate criminal investigation, i.e. the FBI probe
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.