The Feds don't usually grant immunity unless the person gave them something actionable.https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html …
-
@JoshCrawfordNE@ryangrim Feds want to know what discussions happened that lead to this decision. Was it calculated? If so, big problem.
@JGolinkin @JoshCrawfordNE what if it was calculated, but calculated for a non criminal purpose, like convenience?
-
-
@ryangrim@JoshCrawfordNE h/e if they determine that it was motivated by a desire to maintain ultimate control over emails, major problem -
@JGolinkin@ryangrim@JoshCrawfordNE Can't argue, but trouble believing such excuses would get anyone else out of trouble. -
@JGolinkin@ryangrim@JoshCrawfordNE IOW, not HRC saying "Yes I got around FOIA, but only because I thought it would be easier 4 me" damning -
@SeahawkBurrrton@ryangrim@JoshCrawfordNE well I think that's what has doj so suspicious. Jumped through a lot of hoops if just for ease. -
@JGolinkin@ryangrim@JoshCrawfordNE Right- not sure how that can hold up. IANAL, though.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@ryangrim@JoshCrawfordNE if they determine it was really that simple, no charges. Recklessness is not criminally culpable conduct.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.