When it comes to politicians and various categories of cases, the FBI obtains convictions not for any crime other than the claim the person lied to the FBI. Rather than presenting a tape recording of what the person actually said, the FBI tends to instead claim a "memorandum" and "note" made after the meeting are their proof - which boils down to the proof is someone with the FBI wrote on a piece of paper essentially "the person is guilty" - and then presents that note as proof of that guilt. There is a lot of noise about memos Comey allegedly wrote, which neither Mueller or Comey will release, speculating what they might say. But what difference does it make? If a person will lie verbally, they would have no problem writing out something that repeats their lie - that they could write any time including after their verbal statement - writing out a "memo" repeating what they had verbally said, claiming the note is their proof. To me, that is worthless, nonsense, and a particularly cheesy police and prosecution trick. It also is known that Mueller, an open Hilary Clinton supporter and who put all Democrat lawyers on his staff, secretly met with Comey prior to Comey appearing before Congress - where Comey lied and was caught. He claimed he leaked to the press in response to a press article, which actually had not yet even been published. The poll question is if you were on a jury in a criminal case, and the police told you that they did NOT record a person being interviewed, BUT the officer conducting the interview wrote out a memo AFTER the interview stating the person made specific false statements and/or confessed, would you put any value on what that officer wrote as substantive fact evidence? I would not. If the police or FBI opt not to record someone, I would not accept either a verbal or written notes by the officer, agent or department trying to convict that person. They should have recorded the conversation. Equally, I do not believe there is any value in whatever Comey would claim are notes he took. Such notes are entirely self created, self serving writings and nothing else. Generally, would you accept notes written by someone in law enforcement as extra proof of what someone said beyond that person testifying verbally to what someone said?
Depends on the circumstances. If the circumstances were an interview on the street, I would accept the police testimony, but only to corroborate known facts (i.e. not as the single piece of evidence against a person). If the circumstances were a more formal interview, of course not, this is the 21st century, and I don't know of many adults under age 70 that don't have the means to record a conversation on their person at almost all times.
Well cops lie (obviously). They get away with rape and murder all the time. (In fact, most cops join the force just to go on a power trip (with their gun and badge) and be able to get away with rape and murder). Not sure about the FBI. But, I would trust Comey.
That is NOT evidence, it's nothing more than hearsay (or an unsupported/unverified eyewitness claim). As a juror, you have the absolute right to exercise jury nullification. That means you can determine guilty or not guilty on ANY BASIS you want, regardless of the judge's instructions, the evidence and/or the law. Judges instructing the jury is jury tampering, they have no business instructing the jury about anything other than procedure (especially excluding the manner in which one determines guilty or not guilty). The "beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt" doctrine is a wholesale fallacy peddled by judges to ignorant jurors. http://fija.org/ As an aside, any fool who says anything in a police interview deserves his/her fate. By answering any questions, the accused automatically waives his/her protected rights under the 5th Amendment and possibly other rights protected under the Constitution.
Any memo written after the fact by any who (including FBI) is potentially hearsay. It is not a primary document. A memo is not prima facie unless the person being prosecuted wrote it. You can't get it, but I'd love to hear Dr. Martin Luther King's commentary on the ludicrous FBI memos written about him.
