|
In all seriousness, I'm not sure what your point is ubertuber.
It seems to me that at the point where Armitage came forward, the probability that an actual crime had been committed dropped to about zero. Now this doesn't mean that it was impossible for a crime to have happened, but it does seem unlikely. Dragging people in front of a grand jury to answer questions under oath seems like it should be done to investigate an actual crime, not to satisfy a overzealous prosecutor pursuing a case that originated from profound differences of opinion on U.S. foreign policy.
As neither a lawyer or a constitutional scholar I have no idea what the law says about this, but to me it looks like something that I would like to think would be considered an abuse of the grand jury process.
|