TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 wrote:I just keep wondering why in these 50 United States there isn't one single "unreasonable" Federal Prosecutor who will stand up and say "I'll prosecute that case!"

That would be a career limiting comment.

mojo84 wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:I just keep wondering why in these 50 United States there isn't one single "unreasonable" Federal Prosecutor who will stand up and say "I'll prosecute that case!"

That would be a career limiting comment.

I think the US Attorney for the federal district in which the crime was alleged must determine whether to prosecute and can be overruled by AG. US Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure/displeasure of the President. Sometimes Presidents appoint career prosecutors, but they have the right to replace them as GW Bush did causing some controversy, even though it was well within his authority.

So I wouldn't be hoping too much for the any US Attorney to goo rogue...

FBI agents were subject to special gag order. It makes it obvious a deal was struck on the tarmac.

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepav ... e-n2192337

rotor wrote: Perhaps you can tell me why her testimony given to the FBI was not under oath. The fix was in.

Hardly. FBI interviews are rarely under oath, and it is not necessary as lying to an FBI agent is a crime anyway. The interview is voluntary, not under compulsion, no subpoena, etc.

Jallen, is an fbi interview the same as a police interrogation? Are the rules or laws similar?

Also, is it normal for the FBI to make the determination whether to prosecute or not?

mojo84 wrote:Jallen, is an fbi interview the same as a police interrogation? Are the rules or laws similar?

Also, is it normal for the FBI to make the determination whether to prosecute or not?

There is a federal statute discussed in this Wikipedia article:

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, even by mere denial[clarification needed].[1] A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[2] Rod Blagojevich,[3] Scooter Libby,[4] Bernard Madoff,[5] and Jeffrey Skilling.[6

I'm not privy to what is "normal" for the FBI and DOJ, but I would think the FBI gathers the evidence and presents it to the local US Attorney with a recommendation which the US Attorney is able to accept or reject, in accordance with DOJ policies, something like that. In practice it is probably not so formal or rigid. The two agencies work together as the needs arise. FBI works for DOJ, though, not vice versa.

The interview is usually informal. Two agents sit with the witness, and counsel if desired, and ask questions, take notes. I remember in one interview I participated, I wanted to get some answers, questions answered, some details, and the agent told me the FBI gathers information, not provide it.

JALLEN wrote:

rotor wrote: Perhaps you can tell me why her testimony given to the FBI was not under oath. The fix was in.

Hardly. FBI interviews are rarely under oath, and it is not necessary as lying to an FBI agent is a crime anyway. The interview is voluntary, not under compulsion, no subpoena, etc.

It is under oath for many who are not investigation for a crime, those who had to go for an interview under oath know that fact.

Thanks, JAllen. Pretty much what I thought.

JALLEN wrote:....the agent told me the FBI gathers information, not provide it.

My answer:

Am I being charged with something then at this time? No? Then please direct all future contacts to my attorney, as this conversation is over. Good day.

Maybe short sighted and impractical from a legal standpoint, but I don't react well to that kind of crap from people who forget who pays their salaries. And by the way, I have cooperated with an FBI investigation before and spoken with an investigator looking into a crime involving interstate commerce. I was a young shipping clerk at the time for a clothing manufacturer in Los Angeles, and there was a discrepancy between the number of cartons received at the customer's end, and the number of cartons I shipped. My number was correct, and I had the paper trail to prove it. I'm not against helping police in an investigation when I'm treated with respect; but when the arrogance of officialdom goes untempered, it rubs me the wrong way and I lose the willingness to talk to anyone. They can bloody well get their information somewhere else.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

JALLEN wrote:....the agent told me the FBI gathers information, not provide it.

My answer:

Am I being charged with something then at this time? No? Then please direct all future contacts to my attorney, as this conversation is over. Good day.

Maybe short sighted and impractical from a legal standpoint, but I don't react well to that kind of crap from people who forget who pays their salaries. And by the way, I have cooperated with an FBI investigation before and spoken with an investigator looking into a crime involving interstate commerce. I was a young shipping clerk at the time for a clothing manufacturer in Los Angeles, and there was a discrepancy between the number of cartons received at the customer's end, and the number of cartons I shipped. My number was correct, and I had the paper trail to prove it. I'm not against helping police in an investigation when I'm treated with respect; but when the arrogance of officialdom goes untempered, it rubs me the wrong way and I lose the willingness to talk to anyone. They can bloody well get their information somewhere else.

I think you may be misinterpreting this. All he was saying is that they are unable to give out or share information they have gathered, not surprising since they don't even confirm investigations are underway. Information flows one way. Obviously, I knew the investigation was underway and had an interest in several aspects of it.

I participated in maybe a dozen or so interactions with FBI agents and found them to be professional, knowledgeable and courteous in every instance. Like Mormon missionaries, they work in pairs, wear shirts and ties, but don't ride bikes.

The oddest occasion involved inspecting a house owned by one of my clients up on the hill in La Jolla overlooking the ocean. A worker had spotted some antennas in the attic and reported it. The agents wanted to have a look. No problem!

I was pretty sure these would be benign, probably TV yagis pointed towards Los Angeles left from pre cable days. Two bright young men met me at the house, the client showed us where the access to the attic was, above the refrigerator, so these two young men in their suits and ties climbed up over the refrigerator to have a look. I declined, in deference to my age and girth.

Sure enough, the antennas were VHF and UHF yagis, pointed towards LA. I was overcome with curiosity why this would merit the attention of the FBI. They told me about the worker reporting it and that it caused concern because that house had been owned by a very high ranking military officer who was a US Ambassador. Maybe he had been secretly communicating with enemies, maybe the Ruskies, or even worse, the New York Times or something!

They brushed off their suits, straightened their ties, we had a good laugh, compared carry pistols (I had a P226, they had Glock .40's, IIRC) and returned to our drab normal routines.

Beiruty wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

rotor wrote: Perhaps you can tell me why her testimony given to the FBI was not under oath. The fix was in.

Hardly. FBI interviews are rarely under oath, and it is not necessary as lying to an FBI agent is a crime anyway. The interview is voluntary, not under compulsion, no subpoena, etc.

It is under oath for many who are not investigation for a crime, those who had to go for an interview under oath know that fact.

Who administers the oath? No judge or court officer, or Notary is ordinarily available. All the interviews I participated in were at my office, none at FBI offices.

JALLEN wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

rotor wrote: Perhaps you can tell me why her testimony given to the FBI was not under oath. The fix was in.

Hardly. FBI interviews are rarely under oath, and it is not necessary as lying to an FBI agent is a crime anyway. The interview is voluntary, not under compulsion, no subpoena, etc.

It is under oath for many who are not investigation for a crime, those who had to go for an interview under oath know that fact.

Who administers the oath? No judge or court officer, or Notary is ordinarily available. All the interviews I participated in were at my office, none at FBI offices.

The FBI Agent.