Grand jury documents rife with inconsistencies

ap ^ | Nov. 26, 2014 6:12 PM EST | HOLBROOK MOHR, DAVID A. LIEB and PHILLIP LUCAS

[Ken H]

I was actually impressed with the article. It looked to me like an unbiased recounting of pertinent facts.

[RedMDer]

FReepers! Let's go!
Every donation counts!



We're going to need a big push to
wrap this up.
Let's git 'er done. ~ Jim 

[21twelve]

“based on me being where I’m from and that can be the only assumption that I have.”

This guy must be a college professor! Or a “journalist” at CNN.

[BenLurkin]

Prosecuted for false statements to the FEbi is one thing but when it came time to be risk perjury “Under oath, several “witnesses” admitted”

[AllAmericanGirl44]

Where did you happen to hear/read that ALL the jurors agreed?
Just curious, I hadn’t come across that.

[BenLurkin]

Excellent obervation

[justlurking]

Prosecuted for false statements to the FEbi is one thing but when it came time to be risk perjury “Under oath, several “witnesses” admitted”

Agreed, but if they first testify one way, then recant after being confronted with the evidence, is it still perjury?

I haven't read all the grand jury testimony, but if I were a prosecutor, I'd give the witness the opportunity to testify, THEN confront them with the contrary evidence.

[deport]

inconsistencies

****************

Yep multiple people see something happen and each may have a differing description
of how it occurred. Nothing new about that human action.