HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Justice Dept. grants immu...

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:25 PM

Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server

Source: Washington Post

The Justice Department has granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents will likely want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.

The inquiry comes against a sensitive political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

Read more: 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

194 replies, 11705 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 194 replies Author Time Post
Reply Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server (Original post)
Calista241 Mar 2016 OP
AzDar Mar 2016 #1
Fairgo Mar 2016 #2
roguevalley Mar 2016 #84
leftynyc Mar 2016 #143
roguevalley Mar 2016 #161
Arazi Mar 2016 #3
nichomachus Mar 2016 #4
scscholar Mar 2016 #17
7962 Mar 2016 #22
blackspade Mar 2016 #29
Gore1FL Mar 2016 #32
TM99 Mar 2016 #35
roguevalley Mar 2016 #85
lovuian Mar 2016 #166
Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #45
zentrum Mar 2016 #83
angrychair Mar 2016 #104
malokvale77 Mar 2016 #132
TBF Mar 2016 #138
Angel Martin Mar 2016 #5
Purveyor Mar 2016 #10
Angel Martin Mar 2016 #27
revbones Mar 2016 #28
Angel Martin Mar 2016 #41
revbones Mar 2016 #42
Angel Martin Mar 2016 #46
TipTok Mar 2016 #147
Purveyor Mar 2016 #52
99th_Monkey Mar 2016 #6
840high Mar 2016 #13
thereismore Mar 2016 #39
Raster Mar 2016 #53
840high Mar 2016 #56
Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #115
Justice Mar 2016 #168
morningfog Mar 2016 #30
Yupster Mar 2016 #122
winter is coming Mar 2016 #43
JDPriestly Mar 2016 #57
winter is coming Mar 2016 #65
MrChuck Mar 2016 #109
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #125
JDPriestly Mar 2016 #128
KPN Mar 2016 #111
Qutzupalotl Mar 2016 #194
Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #50
Old Vet Mar 2016 #103
Yupster Mar 2016 #121
JDPriestly Mar 2016 #129
99th_Monkey Mar 2016 #130
cynzke Mar 2016 #146
forest444 Mar 2016 #7
Purveyor Mar 2016 #8
TheCowsCameHome Mar 2016 #9
TalkingDog Mar 2016 #11
tomm2thumbs Mar 2016 #82
yourpaljoey Mar 2016 #151
montanacowboy Mar 2016 #12
BigBearJohn Mar 2016 #14
7962 Mar 2016 #26
Uncle Joe Mar 2016 #15
CdnExtraNational Mar 2016 #16
Jack Rabbit Mar 2016 #18
renate Mar 2016 #64
Hawaii Hiker Mar 2016 #19
blackspade Mar 2016 #21
Big_Mike Mar 2016 #193
kcjohn1 Mar 2016 #23
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #37
Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #55
Justice Mar 2016 #170
TipTok Mar 2016 #148
revbones Mar 2016 #31
thereismore Mar 2016 #48
Calista241 Mar 2016 #49
revbones Mar 2016 #54
agracie Mar 2016 #69
Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #136
blackspade Mar 2016 #20
jalan48 Mar 2016 #24
Merryland Mar 2016 #25
cstanleytech Mar 2016 #90
ConsiderThis_2016 Mar 2016 #33
pugetres Mar 2016 #105
Qutzupalotl Mar 2016 #145
thereismore Mar 2016 #34
HDSam Mar 2016 #36
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #38
eggplant Mar 2016 #47
HDSam Mar 2016 #51
Arazi Mar 2016 #59
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #114
merrily Mar 2016 #112
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #116
merrily Mar 2016 #117
Calista241 Mar 2016 #63
Merryland Mar 2016 #81
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #113
Calista241 Mar 2016 #123
silvershadow Mar 2016 #40
840high Mar 2016 #98
ConsiderThis_2016 Mar 2016 #44
Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #60
Arazi Mar 2016 #67
Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #75
Arazi Mar 2016 #77
Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #89
Arazi Mar 2016 #92
Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #93
Arazi Mar 2016 #94
Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #96
haikugal Mar 2016 #110
Paper Roses Mar 2016 #144
Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #149
Calista241 Mar 2016 #150
yallerdawg Mar 2016 #58
Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #118
Jarqui Mar 2016 #61
winter is coming Mar 2016 #68
Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #86
SciDude Mar 2016 #62
BigBearJohn Mar 2016 #70
humbled_opinion Mar 2016 #66
agracie Mar 2016 #71
Babel_17 Mar 2016 #72
Scalded Nun Mar 2016 #73
humbled_opinion Mar 2016 #74
840high Mar 2016 #100
Ferd Berfel Mar 2016 #76
lovuian Mar 2016 #78
Beaverhausen Mar 2016 #106
lovuian Mar 2016 #120
Calista241 Mar 2016 #126
lovuian Mar 2016 #131
jeff47 Mar 2016 #154
Beaverhausen Mar 2016 #167
jeff47 Mar 2016 #169
Beaverhausen Mar 2016 #171
jeff47 Mar 2016 #172
SunSeeker Mar 2016 #79
disillusioned73 Mar 2016 #163
Bob_Roony Mar 2016 #80
winter is coming Mar 2016 #87
agracie Mar 2016 #95
Justice Mar 2016 #107
RufusTFirefly Mar 2016 #88
yourpaljoey Mar 2016 #153
FailureToCommunicate Mar 2016 #91
agracie Mar 2016 #97
Calista241 Mar 2016 #99
JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #108
AllyCat Mar 2016 #101
Name removed Mar 2016 #102
DesMoinesDem Mar 2016 #119
pugetres Mar 2016 #124
magical thyme Mar 2016 #139
Hoyt Mar 2016 #127
spin Mar 2016 #133
Vinca Mar 2016 #137
jeff47 Mar 2016 #155
leftyladyfrommo Mar 2016 #158
Hoyt Mar 2016 #160
leftyladyfrommo Mar 2016 #162
Hoyt Mar 2016 #165
GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #134
magical thyme Mar 2016 #141
GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #174
magical thyme Mar 2016 #180
GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #184
TBF Mar 2016 #142
GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #175
TBF Mar 2016 #182
GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #186
TBF Mar 2016 #192
TipTok Mar 2016 #152
GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #176
TipTok Mar 2016 #179
GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #185
TipTok Mar 2016 #187
GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #189
TipTok Mar 2016 #190
jeff47 Mar 2016 #156
GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #177
Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #135
TBF Mar 2016 #140
harun Mar 2016 #157
Myrina Mar 2016 #159
Paladin Mar 2016 #164
salinsky Mar 2016 #173
Jester Messiah Mar 2016 #178
countryjake Mar 2016 #181
TBF Mar 2016 #183
Babel_17 Mar 2016 #188
Herself Mar 2016 #191

Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:30 PM

1. K & R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:30 PM

2. Justice for all

I certainly hope they get to the bottom of this breach in security. I am sure HRC will demand that the responsible party be punished to the full extent of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:45 PM

84. ruh-roh. This is very bad for her. It means they have stuff and they're going forward.

This is Obama and the AG's to mess up. I don't think they will. They want a state's witness because they found very, very bad things, otherwise no deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #84)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 08:11 AM

143. LOL - what horseshit

 

They've got nothing. Are you another that's been waiting for the Clinton's to be indicted for nothing for decades? What crime do you think has been committed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #143)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:25 PM

161. tell that to the FBI and the others. Your horse laughing will be for nothing when it happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:31 PM

4. Uh-oh. Immunity means they're after bigger fish.

This isn't good for Mrs. Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:46 PM

17. And, it doesn't provide justice for the person who actually did it!

 

IT people are almost never held responsible for their actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:50 PM

22. Maybe the IT person was doing what he was told?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:53 PM

29. So he is to blame for how the system was used?

He is to blame for following the directions of his employer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:56 PM

32. Come again?

The way you phrased that implies you don't know what you are talking about. I am hoping you could clarify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:58 PM

35. Seriously?

 

Yes, they are.

And in most instances they would be prosecuted and fired.

This IT guy worked for the Clintons on a private IT matter. The boss, the Clintons, are the one's responsible for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #35)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:46 PM

85. the big fish always fry, not the big ones. apparently, the notion some have put forward

that Iran, China and Russia likely hacked her system may ring true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #85)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 02:06 PM

166. yes that's what I've read

the possibility she was hacked and I hope it's not true....it wasn't by those three ...but someone else

and I think that's a question which needs to found out

Who? ....it's a wake up call to everyone in intelligence that computers have been designed with a back door
which our enemies are using against us

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:04 PM

45. Ah, you have it backwards. He did not generate the information on the server that is a problem.

There is nothing whatsoever illegal about setting up an email server. Or a copier, or an archiving system, or a fax machine, etc.

The persons who use such systems to send classified material are the ones who have the legal responsibility. Those are the persons who misused the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:45 PM

83. I don't think that's the point.

They want to know what he was asked to do. Not indict him. The fact that he took the fifth previously, indicates that he does know something.

Even if the link to her direct orders can be obscured—the issue is that as the SOS she is supposed to know what the hell is going on in her communications.

"Experience" clearly does not mean "competency", "responsibility" and "being in charge".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:37 PM

104. As an IT person

Trust me, we are the lowest man on that totem pole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:35 AM

132. Oh wow.

I can't believe you want to go there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:59 AM

138. Is that the new talking point?

It's not going to work you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:34 PM

5. oh dear !

paging Vice President Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:39 PM

10. I do not rule out the possibility that our choices come Nov as being Biden vs. Romney. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:53 PM

27. in a year like this, anything is possible

I saw Jesse Ventura say he would run if Bernie is not the nominee

then we have Biden, or whoever the nominee is

if Trump gets schlonged out of the nomination, he would run if he can find a vehicle for ballot access (maybe the Constitution Party)

whatever slug the Repub establishment comes up with (latest rumor is Paul Ryan)

Bloomberg may see an opening in all this chaos, and decide to jump in, but he has to move fast for ballot access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:53 PM

28. And how would that happen? Biden? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #28)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:02 PM

41. I don't know what the Democratic rules are

Repub rules are that delegates are not bound after the first ballot.

Or maybe the Democrats could get this guy back to count the votes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #41)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:03 PM

42. So you're just assuming Bernie wouldn't be around?

 

Weird.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #42)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:05 PM

46. i hope not

but right now it looks like Clinton is on her way to winning the nomination.

maybe she can campaign from jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:18 AM

147. Convicts have run their criminal enterprises from jail before...

 

... so there is precedent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #42)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:09 PM

52. Situation is almost like the GOP with Trump. Party bosses doing

 

whatever they can to put their establishment candidate on the ballot.

We have already seen DWS's magical works...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:34 PM

6. This doesn't look good for Hillary.

 

Doesn't this men the FBI knows that this guy knows something incriminating,
something he's now obliged to spill the beans about?

Kinda looks that way, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:43 PM

13. It does. I would

 

not like to be in his shoes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:01 PM

39. He's fine now! She must be a tad nervous. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:11 PM

53. He's fine as long as he doesn't fly on small planes...

...or get caught with Bill Clinton brandishing a cigar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #53)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:13 PM

56. lol - true

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #13)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:19 AM

115. He's safe from prosecution.

 

I wouldn't want to be the person's shoes he's about to rat out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #13)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 03:39 PM

168. She asked that he be granted immunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:53 PM

30. Yes. And he requested fifth protection when Congress wanted to talk to him, too.

 

They are closing in on something or someone.

I don't think it's sending classified info through the private server, though. I think it has to do with destruction of either public records or worse. The guy who set up the server clearly is exposed to criminal liablilty. Twice now he's invoked the 5th.

What did he do or how did his role expose him to criminal liability? We know from the FOIA cases that at least one federal judge has found reasonable suspicion that the set up was intended to circumvent public records law.

Why? And what was destroyed or lost? The FBI says it recovered all of the deleted emails. This is such a liability for the Dems this fall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #30)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:49 AM

122. It certainly circumvented

the freedom of information act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:03 PM

43. Yes. You don't get immunity for nothing.

The only question is who he'll be implicating and how serious the charges will be. If he's implicating someone close to Hillary, she might squeak through. If it's Hillary herself, she's toast, whether or not the DOJ chooses to prosecute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #43)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:16 PM

57. That is what DUers are not understanding.

A witness cannot just willy-nilly claim the protection of the 5th Amendment in a court without some reason. The IT person cannot just refuse to testify because he does not want to testify.

This is the piece of legal procedure that a lot of DUers are either ignoring or don't understand.

But that does not mean that Hillary has a problem. Nothing can be assumed from this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #57)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:21 PM

65. Well, the FBI confiscated his server about in mid-December.

I'd say it's safe to assume that the immunity is related to his former job, and the server, as opposed to his shameful past as a kitten-juggler. Doesn't mean, though, that Hillary is directly implicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #65)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:02 AM

109. +1 for "kitten juggler." eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #65)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:53 AM

125. The horror...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #65)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:04 AM

128. That's possible. But he doesn't get to invoke the 5th for no good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #57)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:08 AM

111. Why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #111)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:05 AM

194. The 5th Amendment protects against self-incrimination.

Without some offense, you don't have grounds to use that as an excuse not to testify. But that can include perjury as a result of giving contradictory statements.

Reading between the lines, it appears they have Pagliano on something, perhaps only a technicality, but a violation of the letter of the law. Investigators can use the threat of prosecution to compel his testimony, presumably to fry a bigger fish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:07 PM

50. On the brighter side, it implies that investigation taking place is genuine.

Not doing this would tend to support the claims by political opponents that this matter was being investigated in only a pro forma sense, and that the real goal was to provide cover for the wrongdoing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:32 PM

103. This is getting serious.................

Can you imagine what trump would do to her if shes called in to testify about what she ordered her IT man to do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:48 AM

121. I think his lawyer would offer a proffer

explaining what he would testify to if given immunity. If there's not enough to interest them they don't give him immunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #121)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:06 AM

129. Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #121)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:06 AM

130. Thanks for helping connect the dots a bit here.

 

That sounds right. Appreciate your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #121)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:59 AM

146. The main reason.....

IT guy needs immunity is to protect himself from perjury charges. No doubt IT guy has been questioned by the FBI. They have questioned other people. They have searched his server. IT guy risks perjury charges if he waffles or contradicts anything he testified to the FBI in prior statements. IT guy has no idea what the FBI has turned up in their investigation. Anything he testifies to before Congress that conflicts with the evidence the FBI has gathered, IT guy risks being charged with perjury. That is why you plead the fifth. Not because you might testify to committing a crime. Because your testimony can be used against you if you are caught lying while under oath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:34 PM

7. Bryan Pagliano:

No small planes for you, buddy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:36 PM

8. Turn down the lights and lower the shades Katy, this party is just getting started... eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:37 PM

9. Bernie, there may be an opening soon....

Don't listen to the naysayers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:40 PM

11. Ruh-Roh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:43 PM

82. OMG LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:00 AM

151. I am investing heavily in ruh-roh stock... demand is incredible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:41 PM

12. Oh, oh

This guy will spill the beans......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:43 PM

14. move along these aren't the droids you're looking for

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigBearJohn (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:52 PM

26. Exactly. Where this will lead I dont know. But I DO know where it WONT lead!

 

No matter what the evidence shows, the trail will be forceably stopped at the doorstep of HRC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:43 PM

15. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Calista.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:44 PM

16. This can't be good for Hillary Clinton nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:47 PM

18. This does not sound good

Last edited Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Personally, I've avoided this matter up to now, as I would just prefer that nothing should come of it.

An FBI investigation and now a DoJ grant of immunity to a staffer sounds a lot more serious than anything clowns like Issa, Gowdy and Gohmert could ever dream of conjuring out of their asses.

This isn't good news for any Democrat, of whichever Democratic Party you are part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:18 PM

64. yeah, I'm honestly not thrilled about this development either

Obviously I'm very much pro-Bernie, but while it's not over yet it's more than likely that Hillary will be the nominee, and I will absolutely vote for her if she is. I definitely have no interest in seeing this drag on to the point when the general election would be affected.

I think Bernie could and should win on his own merits, so I don't like seeing this now, and I don't want scandal--real or fake--to be associated with Democrats again. (I've kind of taken for granted how nice it's been to have a presidency free from scandal.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:47 PM

19. What General Petraeus did was far worse and he got $100,000 fine and probation

per the article:

"The officials said they believe that Petraeus’ actions were more egregious than those of Clinton and her aides since he lied to the FBI, and classified information he shared with his biographer contained top secret code words, identities of covert officers, war strategy and intelligence capabilities. Prosecutors initially threatened to charge him with three felonies, including conspiracy, violating the Espionage Act and lying to the FBI. But after negotiations, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hawaii Hiker (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:49 PM

21. Negotiations are obviously reserved for the elite political and money classes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #21)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:38 AM

193. According to one of the articles I read a few weeks ago

The prosecutors were pretty certain they could get a conviction, but the feds plea deal if they aren't certain they will get a conviction.


Apparently, there was wiggle room, and he could have walked free. The suits could not stand that idea, so they pled him down to a misdemeanor with a $100K fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hawaii Hiker (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:50 PM

23. And he retired

I disagreed with how the Justice department was so lienent when they have put people behind bars for less.

Regardless, you can't have presidential candidate charged with even a misdemeanor and expect to win nor should they hold highest office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:00 PM

37. Presidential candidates have admitted to violating the law and were elected anyway. Would an

"inadvertent" misdemeanor really be different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #37)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:12 PM

55. It cannot be inadvertent. It can't be a misdemeanor.

She can be exculpated by the investigation. After the one email where she instructs the guy to remove the security header and send the redacted document, that may be unlikely.

The person(s) who first put the various classified messages on the system are the individuals who generally will be held legally responsible.

There are multiple documents containing very classified information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #55)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 03:41 PM

170. There is no evidence it was sent


The document regarding removing security header and sending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:24 AM

148. What was inadvertent about it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hawaii Hiker (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:55 PM

31. Ok, so even if that were true

 

And the investigation wrapped up before the general and Hillary got a $100k fine. How successful do you think her campaign would be, after all the ensuing drama leading to that fine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:05 PM

48. If she pleads a mini misdemeanor she can't win the general. She must fight. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:06 PM

49. It was over a year between Petraeus's resignation and his plea deal.

I don't think there's enough time for this to play out before we vote in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #49)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:11 PM

54. Well, given the current stage it will likely not be over by then

 

but rather just starting the more public part - just in time to hand the election to republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #54)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:25 PM

69. More likely to Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #54)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:24 AM

136. June 6th.

Also known as D-Day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:47 PM

20. Uh, oh

This doesn't appear to be a positive development for Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:50 PM

24. I don't see much coming of it. It will only distract from the important issues Bernie is raising.

If there was information about the Clinton Foundation and favors paid to countries or individuals who donated money that would be something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:51 PM

25. This sounds very serious

Behind the scenes there has been a lot of legal finagling we know nothing about that involves the VALUE of the information this guy has - it must be BIG or they wouldn't bother giving him immunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:00 PM

90. Oh it could be serious but for who that is the question which is why they are investigating.

Clinton so far isnt implicated in any criminal activity over this though and you would think that if she had done something truly criminal that the Republicans would have found something by now but they havent found shit so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:57 PM

33. "who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign"

Was this the guy (Bryan Pagliano) the one who recommended along with the DNC... the IT guy to the Sanders camp? The guy the Sanders camp ended up dumping after the data breech?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConsiderThis_2016 (Reply #33)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:44 PM

105. The guy's name was Uretsky.

 

But, both names turn up in discussions about the DNC data breach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConsiderThis_2016 (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:26 AM

145. Josh Uretsky

was the one recommended by the DNC to Sanders, who sandbagged the campaign two days before a big debate last fall.

My party has some shady characters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:57 PM

34. This is a B F D!

Same justice for all. Nothing more I ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 09:59 PM

36. Isn't immunity

usually negotiated? A "I'll give you x if you give me y" sort of quid pro quo?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HDSam (Reply #36)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:00 PM

38. Yes, "full cooperation" in exchange for immunity.

Immunity doesn't necessarily require the person getting it to actually have evidence someone
else committed a crime. Immunity is often just granted to lower level persons so they no longer
use their 5th amendment protections and have to cooperate with an investigation that might
reveal improper activity by someone who is the actual target of the investigation.

Note that sometimes the grant of immunity backfires, for an example see the
case of immunity granted to Oliver North.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #38)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:05 PM

47. Immunity means you can't take the fifth.

If you refuse to answer questions, you can be held in contempt. He needs to stay away from small planes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eggplant (Reply #47)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:09 PM

51. Time

to start a dead pool?

That'll probably get me a hide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HDSam (Reply #51)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:17 PM

59. It gave me a laugh. Hope you don't get a hide. That would suck

the jury system's been such a mess lately who knows

Welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HDSam (Reply #51)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:19 AM

114. For Carla Danger's employment maybe. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:11 AM

112. The immunity granted to that lawyer who asked improper questions to civil service hires

during the Bush administration didn't do much either. Her replies were just as carefully worded and dodgy as if she was open to prosecution. I can's remember her name right now. Something like Marcia Godwin? Godling? She was one of the few hires from Christian based law schools who managed to pass the bar exam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #116)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:24 AM

117. Yes. Thanks. Her testimony was very guarded, either beause she did not want to look bad and/or

because she didn't really want to give up anyone in the Bush Administration. And, AFAIK, the Committee never did anything with such info as it did get from her. It was all for the TV cameras and the people watching at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HDSam (Reply #36)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:17 PM

63. The Justice department doesn't hand out immunity without knowing

or at least having a very good idea of what they're getting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #63)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:42 PM

81. right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #63)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:16 AM

113. They'd be getting answers to questions like "who told you to". "who authorized you to",

"who gave/sent you" I would imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #113)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:51 AM

123. I'm positive they already knew the answers to all of those questions.

All this allows them to do is use his testimony as evidence if / when this goes before a grand jury and / or trial.

The Justice Department doesn't give out immunity deals on a "just in case" or "maybe he'll tell us something useful" basis. If they're really going to go after Hillary, they'll probably target a low level person first. They'll use that person to go after Huma Abedin or Cheryl Mills, and then they'll go after Hillary.

The article says the FBI may question Hillary, but Hillary's lawyers are probably begging and pleading to try and get her in front of the prosecutors. She would LOVE to be in there being questioned before they have a go at her aides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:02 PM

40. It must be getting closer to midnight. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #40)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:21 PM

98. tick-tock...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:04 PM

44. "Pearlman managed controversial Clinton’s email server administrator Bryan Pagliano"...

While working for Clinton, Pearlman managed controversial Clinton’s email server administrator Bryan Pagliano. In hearings about Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State Pagliano has refused to testify before the House Benghazi Committee, asserting his Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination. https://theoutsidernews.com/articles/2015/12/18/former-clinton-employee-owns-company-center-campaign-data-scandal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConsiderThis_2016 (Reply #44)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:17 PM

60. But Pagliano was paid separately and privately by Clinton or the Foundation to set up

and run this server, so this immunity wasn't granted to Pagliano in order to go after anyone else on the systems side.

At least, that's what was reported before from the Congressional hearings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #60)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:23 PM

67. I'm not in IT and don't understand this phrase

But Pagliano was paid separately and privately by Clinton or the Foundation to set up
and run this server, so this immunity wasn't granted to Pagliano in order to go after anyone else on the systems side.


Who is the "systems side"?

Can you clarify who you think is culpable here?

Thanks (I'm an IT idiot )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #67)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:35 PM

75. Pagliano was paid by the State Department to do IT work for them.

But he was paid SEPARATELY and directly as a private contractor to work on this email server, so responsibility for any of his government is absent. He did not do this as part of his government job.

Suppose you have a mechanic who works for the local Ford dealership. You need something done on your car, and you pay this mechanic to do it on weekends. This is a separate transaction not having to do with the mechanic's employment at the dealership.

Suppose that the new whatever fails after six months. You can't show up at the dealership and demand that they make it right - they bear no responsibility for the work in the first place. The only legal option you have is to privately take the mechanic who did it to small claims court - he is the only responsible party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #75)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:38 PM

77. So you're saying HRC (who hired him) has all the responsibility?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #77)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:59 PM

89. Whoever paid and directed him to do the work has the responsibiity.

But there's nothing illegal about having the private server, or setting up one.

What's illegal is that classified information ended up on that server.

The primary burden for the classified information being sent and stored on a non-secure system rests with two parties:
1) The person who originated the info,
2) Whoever knew that the info was classified but did not take steps to properly secure it.

In one of the published emails, it has been reported tht HRC personally tells someone to remove a classified header from a document and send it unsecured. That may have caused this grant of immunity.


Note that although it was said that was her personal email address, I don't know that it was. But whoever sent the email seems to have instructed Jake Sullivan to commit a federal crime.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/
"It raises a host of serious questions and underscores the importance of the various inquiries into the transmittal of classified information through her non-government email server," said Grassley, who went on to ask: "How long has the State Department been aware of this email? Why is it just now being released? Was her instruction actually carried out? If so, has the FBI opened a criminal inquiry into these circumstances?"

A State Department official declined to comment on Grassley's statement, but told CNN earlier in the day that the department has "no indication at this time that the document being discussed was emailed to her."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #89)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:03 PM

92. Thanks for the clarification. Clearly I'm also not a lawyer

but my initial reading indicated there's trouble here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #92)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:09 PM

93. Well, here's the counterargument:

1) "tps" are presumed to be talking points. Talking points kind of by definition are not classified or confidential.
2) We don't even know that was Hillary Clinton.
3) It's known that various aides are under investigation.

Pagliano's immunity might be necessary for an investigation into wrongdoing by someone else rather than Hillary Clinton. There were a ton of classified emals released. Some of them weren't released at all because they were so highly classified.

It doesn't mean that the emails in question were originated by or sent to Clinton.

The prohibition against removing security headers is real, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #93)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:15 PM

94. Thanks. I know it's vital to stay calm and not inflate the facts

i truly appreciate the "counter arguments"

A dem scandal hurts all Dems. I know I'm a Sanders supporter but foremost I truly don't want anything to tarnish Obama's legacy. This scandal has the possibility of doing just that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #94)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:19 PM

96. That is really the most important takeaway of Pagliano's immunity. A serious investigation

is being conducted.

That's important for a number of reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #89)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:02 AM

110. Isn't this what those who are ethically challenged do to subvert the public records law?

It's been done to death and there is only one reason to do it and it isn't transparency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #75)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 08:55 AM

144. I don't understand. Paid by the State Department and the Clinton Foundation?

Some kind of a conflict here? Too deep for me to understand but something sure sounds a little "off".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paper Roses (Reply #144)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:31 AM

149. No, not in this case. But multiple State Dept staffers were on the payroll of both.

That's another issue.

Huma Abedin was getting checks from four different entities at one point. That's pretty much how this whole thing started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paper Roses (Reply #144)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:46 AM

150. I gather it was like having a second job

He was basically a contractor hired by the Clinton Foundation to install the server.

His primary employment was still at the State Department, and he did this work for Clinton in his off time / weekends / vacation, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:16 PM

58. Aside from the speculation and innuendo, there is one fact.

"Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #58)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:38 AM

118. Not for long.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:17 PM

61. I saw a thread today that was floating the notion that Clinton wasn't in danger

of being indicted after they asked a bunch of folks their opinion.

Funny that the lawyer of her IT guy, a person very close to this situation, felt the need to secure his client from criminal prosecution with an immunity deal. That's kind of unusual in a situation where there is no chance of indictment ... unless this is not a situation where there's no chance of indictment and it's just BS to bolster Clinton in the media.

They have depositions from Intelligence Community agents that emails containing information that was classified at the time of transmission were found on Clinton's server. For some reason, some folks want us to look the other way when that is bluntly against the law - as was the set up of the server.

Nobody but the members of the FBI investigating this case and the justice department are in a position to know who will or will not be indicted.

Further, they're investigating the Clinton Foundation donations from parties the State Department helped while Clinton was Secretary of State. Nobody has provided any evidence one way or the other on that.

The argument that Clinton is not indictable is nonsense with no basis in fact because those making such a claim do not have the facts.

Maybe she is indictable and maybe she isn't. Time will tell. But her IT techy holding out for an immunity deal suggests someone may well be facing an indictment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #61)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:23 PM

68. I saw that thread, too, and noted that the "experts" were unnamed.

Just another "some people say" article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #61)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:47 PM

86. Yes, someone is going to be charged, but we don't know who.

His testimony might be necessary even to establish chain of custody, or something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:17 PM

62. Tomorrow I'm going to setup my own work e-mail server...

 

I'm sure my boss will be fine with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SciDude (Reply #62)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:26 PM

70. Boom! Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton Should Be Going to Prison For What She's Done

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:21 PM

66. What does he need immunity for

She said this was a big fat nothing burger.... Uh Oh.... maybe the Hillary camps need to rethink the status of their queen bee.... not too late to switch up to Bernie be the first on you block...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #66)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:30 PM

71. Bernie, not sold in stores - or anywhere else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:31 PM

72. The details of what the FBI thinks they're getting?

That's what I'm wondering about. Who were Pagliano's superior's, in the sense that they directed his actions, and signed off on what he did? Will they be getting offered any deals?

He's a functionary, I don't see it as likely he decided to set up this server. What he did was wrong. But directing him to do it might be significantly worse. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but when the violations of law are blatant, that really invites legal retribution.

If Pagliano was directed to set up the server in a sneaky fashion, then the person ordering that might really be considering how much jeopardy they're in. The FBI hates the sneaky crap. Lazy idiots who trample the regulations are one thing, sneaky little shits are another.

Imo, and just my 2 cents. And Pagliano can sing like a canary, but if it can't be verified ...

On the other hand, if the FBI gets the scent, they have the resources to break wide open any kind of half assed conspiracy to violate security regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:33 PM

73. I am sure she will come out of this smelling like a rose

And if not, get your nose fixed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:33 PM

74. Bottom line this is turning into

Another nasty Clinton Scandal brought on by her own reckless disregard for the political party that she supposedly represents... better she changed her affiliation to Republican because that is exactly how she acts.... get out of my party lady....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #74)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:25 PM

100. ..+1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:36 PM

76. SHe will be in Congressional Hearings before November

Supporting her is suicidal at this point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:38 PM

78. Is this about Benghazi? Clinton testified before Congress

on Benghazi under oath...what I've read is the possibility that Benghazi secret stuff has been found on her emails

which from what I read may have caused major major trouble.

I'm pretty shook up at what I've read

We are looking at perjury ....as a possibility
I hope it is not true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovuian (Reply #78)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:54 PM

106. Emails about Benghazi? Please tell us more!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovuian (Reply #78)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:47 AM

120. What I've read and it's on the web

is pretty bad. It's about Benghazi and Stevens death
Something the Republicans have been working on for quite sometime.

I hope it's not true but there is another reason Bernie is staying in the race.
Nobody else has heard about it???

My question is if the system was hacked into and would the IT guy know about it? If it was then why didn't they notify the proper intel aggencies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovuian (Reply #78)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:56 AM

126. No, it's about her usage of a private email account for official state dept communications.

and the presence of classified information in those communications.

I guess you could say that this was uncovered by the Benghazi panel, but the email communications themselves are the issue, and they are ultimately unrelated the Benghazi investigation itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #126)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:14 AM

131. Yes it's about the presence of classified info in those communications

I hope you are right on this. but I'm not so sure this isn't related to Benghazi

and Ambassador Stevens death

When you have people getting immunity and taking the fifth in front of Congress ....and Congress investigating and testifying under oath

It's a legal mess

Her staff testified too
Sheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/benghazi-attack-hillary-clinton-cheryl-mills.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton’s closest foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, testified for seven hours on Friday before the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, about the State Department’s response to the events and Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #126)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:23 AM

154. No, it was discovered by Judicial Watch's FOIA request.

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for State department emails from when Clinton was SoS. Those emails contained messages sent to/from addresses that contained @clintonemail.com

That showed Clinton had violated FOIA by not turning over the emails when she stepped down as SoS. Fortunately for Clinton, FOIA does not have a criminal enforcement provision.

So Clinton turned over emails to State that she should have turned over when she stepped down. State and the intelligence agencies did a normal review of the messages before releasing them to Judicial Watch...and found classified.

That triggered an FBI investigation, and resulted in Clinton's entire server being taken by the FBI. The FBI recovered not only the messages she turned over, but messages she deleted.

Judicial Watch has received the non-classified emails they requested under FOIA, minus one email that is not classified but is being withheld by the FBI as part of their investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #154)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 03:27 PM

167. You might want to educate yourself about Judicial Watch

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/larry-klayman

and why didn't the FBI care when Powell and Rice did the same thing?

Seriously- don't kid yourself. This is a right-wing witch hunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #167)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 03:39 PM

169. You might want to stop assuming everyone here is dumb.

I'm well aware of who those right-wing tools are. But FOIA is still the law of the land, even when invoked by right-wing tools.

and why didn't the FBI care when Powell and Rice did the same thing?

Because so far, no one has found they had classified in those email accounts. The FBI became involved with Clinton's server when the DNI IG referred it to the FBI. If the DNI IG finds classified in Powell or Rice's unclassified email, he should refer that to the FBI too.

Seriously- don't kid yourself. This is a right-wing witch hunt.

So large swaths of the Obama administration is right-wing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #169)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 03:49 PM

171. Where to begin?

Dumb= unable to speak

Where did I accuse 'everyone' of anything?

You brought up Judicial Watch, so I wanted to make sure you knew who you were referring to. Insane right-wing witch hunter.

Did anyone ever look into Powell's and Rice's emails to see what was there?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #171)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 03:50 PM

172. And now you convert to captain pedantic.



Sometimes, it's better to just stop before you dig the hole deeper.

Did anyone ever look into Powell's and Rice's emails to see what was there?

No idea. Feel free to file a FOIA request.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:40 PM

79. Hillary WANTS Pagliano to talk.

From the article, which the OP did not include:

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said: “As we have said since last summer, Secretary Clinton has been cooperating with the Department of Justice’s security inquiry, including offering in August to meet with them to assist their efforts if needed.”

He also said that the campaign is “pleased” that Pagliano, who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before Congress, is now cooperating with prosecutors. The campaign had encouraged Pagliano to testify before Congress.


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


I don't blame Pagliano for insisting on immunity before talking, with the GOP frothing at the mouth to take someone's scalp, if they can't have Hillary's, over their Benghazi/email faux scandal. Look what happened to Lois Lerner even though the target was clearly Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #79)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:32 PM

163. Thats interesting..

 

thanks for posting..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:41 PM

80. Is there a lawyer here

who can shed light on the significance of this? What could it mean? why would they give him immunity? under what circumstances would they give immunity? does it really mean he knows something that is incriminating to somebody else ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:47 PM

87. Lawrence O'Donell mentioning it now.

I wondered if anyone on MSNBC would.

LOL! Charlie Pierce saying he would have taken the 5th in front of that Congressional committee if they'd asked him his name and address.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #87)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:19 PM

95. Nothing online at MSNBC OR Huff Post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #87)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:56 PM

107. Agree with Charlie Pierce

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:53 PM

88. Beware of a witch hunt by the ultra rightwing Obama administration

https://m.

Hillary's moderate -- er, progressive -- revolution can't come soon enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #88)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:22 AM

153. Very cool video. Surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:00 PM

91. Should we read anything in to the timing of this announcement? The day AFTER Super

Tuesday ???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #91)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:20 PM

97. Of course we should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #91)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:23 PM

99. I think the timing relates to the final release of emails

By the state department that happened on March 1. Now that all the documents have been analyzed, the FBI and Justice can make decisions on how and if to move forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #99)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:00 AM

108. I think that's an entirely separate process being run by State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:30 PM

101. Hey, if it works for Scott Walker, it should work for all conservadems too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:45 AM

119. Hillary's supporters

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:51 AM

124. K&R

 

I'm still trying to figure out if the latest batch of released emails are from the original batch that Clinton's attorney turned over or from the recovered "deleted" emails that the feds themselves discovered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pugetres (Reply #124)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 08:00 AM

139. the emails released by state are the emails that Clinton's team determined were work-related and

 

turned over to state.

The recovered "deleted" emails are in the possession of the FBI, not State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:59 AM

127. Sanders' supporters last hope, and it's another trumped up investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #127)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:59 AM

133. The FBI is not a right wing organization nor is the DOJ. ...

Reports I have read state that some of the email on Hillary's dark server was classified at birth and was so critical that it can't be released in any form.

Material on Hillary Clinton's server so top secret it cannot be released
January 30, 2016
7:38 AM MST


The State Department has acknowledged that 22 of the emails found on Hillary Clinton’s server are so top secret that they cannot be released in any form, even redacted, according to the Washington Post. Speculation abounds that the top secret material involves the identification of human intelligence assets. Since the intelligence resided on Clinton’s unsecured server, it is virtually certain that foreign intelligence services, from Russia, China, and Iran, already have the information in their possession. If so, the worst intelligence disaster in American history may well have occurred because Ms. Clinton found using her private email server to be more convenient than using a secured, State Department system.
http://www.examiner.com/article/material-on-hillary-clinton-s-server-so-top-secret-it-cannot-be-released


Assuming there is any truth to this article, Hillary may be in BIG trouble. I personally would not want to be in her shoes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #127)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:28 AM

137. Of course it is. That's why 100+ FBI agents are wasting their time working on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #127)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:27 AM

155. So Obama is now part of the vast right-wing conspiracy?

It is his DoJ, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #127)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:44 AM

158. How many of them have there been now?

And how much money has been spent.

And all they have ever found out to be true was that Bill liked the ladies.

This will end up the way all the investigations do. They will go on and on and on and spend a whole bunch of money and find nothing of any consequence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyladyfrommo (Reply #158)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:04 PM

160. Exactly, and detractors will make a big deal out of it until it's over. Then, they will move to the

next pile of junk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #160)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:28 PM

162. Benghazi!

There are a lot of powerful people who would love to see the Clintons fall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyladyfrommo (Reply #162)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:46 PM

165. Benghazi. Now that is funny, but so true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:01 AM

134. Amazing. A fellow Democrat is under political assault

There is a prominent member of the Democratic Party who is under political assault from the Republicans, and people here on the Democratic Underground are celebrating. Some of the comments look like they were gleaned from right wing web sites and spewed out on a discussion board dedicated to promoting Democrats.

There are over 110 recs from people applauding what the right wing is doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreydeeThos (Reply #134)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 08:02 AM

141. this thread is about an FBI investigation, not the GOP investigation or

 

right wing lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #141)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:18 PM

174. Ever hear of Kevin McCarthy?

GOP Rep. Kevin McCarthy admits that the Benghazi witch hunt is all about doing political harm to Hillary Clinton

Now that the Benghazi probe has come to nothing, the Republicans are hard at work on the email fishing expedition.

The email controversy will also amount to nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreydeeThos (Reply #174)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:28 PM

180. again, this is about the FBI INVESTIGATION, not the right-wing crap.

 

If and when a Hillary aide or two is indicted for mishandling classified info or, possibly, obstruction of justice for instructing Pagliano to erase the server before handing it over, then maybe you will understand the difference.

This has nothing to do with McCarthy looking for commies under every bed. Clinton put personal convenience (and likely an attempt to hide from FOIA) ahead of national security. She and/or one or more of her aides may have broken some laws in the process.

Furthermore, as far as the right wing Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit goes, it was an Obama-appointed judge who ruled in favor of discovery and ordered the questioning of her aides. Can't blame the right wing for Obama's judge not shutting it down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #180)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:58 PM

184. This whole email controversy started as 'right wing crap'

Republicans did not give a care about email when Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell did it. Now that they see another opportunity smear Hillary, they are pressing it to the limit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreydeeThos (Reply #134)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 08:02 AM

142. At a time when we can't even agree

on what the word "democrat" should mean there are going to be disagreements.

But this goes beyond that. If Ted Cruz were being investigated by DOJ or the FBI how do you think DU would react?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #142)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:18 PM

175. The Democraticunderground would react correctly to a Ted Cruz investigation

Ted Cruz needs to be scrutinized because his policies put progressives to a disadvantage. Our Democratic candidates for President do not need to be hammered with rightwing talking points by people who profess to be Democrats on a discussion board whose purpose is to advance Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreydeeThos (Reply #175)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:32 PM

182. Do not confuse the word progressive with democrat -

the two most definitely are NOT the same.

As for democrats who favor right-wing talking points or policies - no you are not going to see progressives going along with that. If that means we all get purged than so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #182)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:03 PM

186. Picking nits between progressive and Democrat

I guess you win then.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreydeeThos (Reply #186)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:24 PM

192. It's not about me winning

it's about ordinary people getting the opportunities they deserve. Hopefully by fall we will get this all worked out. Take care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreydeeThos (Reply #134)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:02 AM

152. I celebrate when lawbreakers could potentially face justice...

 

Regardless of the letter after their name...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TipTok (Reply #152)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:18 PM

176. What laws has Hillary been convicted of breaking?

You seem to be advocating punishing first, and then weighing the evidence in a legal setting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreydeeThos (Reply #176)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:24 PM

179. I am speaking of the information in the public domain...

 

... which is certainly grounds for a thorough investigation and likely criminal punishment.

The punishment her campaign is taking in the public eye is entirely of her own making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TipTok (Reply #179)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:01 PM

185. It is called "Convicting in the press"

Get information from the biased media that has a stake in the outcome and make a hasty decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreydeeThos (Reply #185)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:20 PM

187. What's hasty?

 

This has been going on for years.

Much of that was due to the Clintons maintaining tight hold on the information and fighting all attempts at transparency until they were forced to give it up.

This is absolutely a mess of her own making.

Tell me which parts are factually incorrect. Don't tell me that we should ignore obvious evidence of a crime because it's inconvenient to your candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TipTok (Reply #187)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:44 PM

189. How should I know what is correct or incorrect

I get my information from the media.

How about you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreydeeThos (Reply #189)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 08:18 PM

190. There's a spectrum ranging from...

 

Totally improbable to near certainty.

Based on what has come out so far, it seems to be closer to the certainty part.

Clinton herself doesn't deny the actions. She just denies the illegality of them and counts on the ignorance of the public to see her through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreydeeThos (Reply #134)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:29 AM

156. Obama and Lynch are right-wing now?

Could you remind me who's in charge of the Department of Justice at the moment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #156)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:18 PM

177. Appeal to authority much?

If Loretta Lynch was avoiding participating in the email investigation, jeff47 would be claiming it was because Hillary was being protected by the Obama Administration.

Your brilliant reply is transparent and it is not so brilliant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:22 AM

135. Well, at least this latest news about her private server isn't labelled "top secret".

So, that should give her supporters something to cheer about.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 08:00 AM

140. This is VERY interesting. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:32 AM

157. Prudent she drop out of the race now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:49 AM

159. ... and this is what we would have to look forward to, nonstop, if she won POTUS.

hearings, scandals, crap, drama ... everything BUT doing the people's business.

No thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:33 PM

164. How about we move this thread to GD:P where the Bernie Gloaters will be more at home? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 04:37 PM

173. Just a guess ...

... but I'm thinking this has more to do with the FBI's and Justice Dept's desires to wrap this thing up and avoid even the appearance of an attempt to influence an election, and the immunity deal is an effort to expedite the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:22 PM

178. Good. The IT guy always knows where the bodies are buried. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:30 PM

181. Several months ago Bernie Sanders said enough of the damn emails!

I wholeheartedly agree with him.

"...the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!" ~ Senator Bernie Sanders


In light of the serious life-changing and often deadly injustices that occur daily within this nation, somebody needs to mount an investigation of the Justice Department, itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #181)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 06:34 PM

183. That was based upon what everyone knew at the time -

perhaps it will be reopened if DOJ thinks it's the right thing to do. As usual I agree w/Bernie. Unless there's new info I don't want to hear about it either. But it sounds like there may be new info. We shall see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #183)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:31 PM

188. He was mostly referring to the chit-chat within the emails.

And he was especially referring to the Republican committee that was obsessing over details.

He wasn't referring to the Inspector General looking at The Clinton Foundation. And afaik he wasn't referring to emails that had gone missing/been misplaced. Nor was he referring to any aspect of the FBI investigation of the hows and whys of the servers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 08:40 PM

191. when this issue is concluded most of you won't be satisfied

Those that have their fantasy conspiracy theories that don't come to reality will claim "the fix was in" or it was "bought and paid for" . Those folks will insist there is 'there, there" no matter what the facts and experts state.

Most people do not have any idea of the day to day handling of classified material, because those that actually HAVE done it, on a daily basis don't talk about it. There is no 100% perfect handling of 100% of classified material. A human involved, makes those odds impossible. A marine in communications, as part of the Wolfowitz party in NYC is more likely to expose confidential material because he takes a woman to his suite on Madison avenue for a bounce.. Said marine didn't take it well when he was dressed down when I informed him of his violation when I arrived to pick up a friend of mine. It's not the senior people most of the time, it's more likely the guys wanting to get laid that do stupid things and violate the security of the encryption code of the day.

it doesn't matter which "party" or military branch that it is.

Reclassification of data/information that is to be released to the public is most often over redacted out of abundance of precaution. Data does get reclassified as information is updated. To do so doesn't mean that anything was mishandled internally. Both parties, all branches of the military do it. Hell, physicians do it when releasing medical info for lawsuits..

YOU may not like it when Hillary Clinton's handing of her email server and classified data is compared to accepted practice within the State Dept by previous Sec of States, but that will happen. The regulations at the TIME apply.. and BTW. THE federal govt has been hacked numerous times. Hillary Clinton's server wasn't.

I worked in communications military side with upper classified clearance.
Take my words with grain of salt if you wish.

Happy Conspiracy theory hunting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread