Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:25 PM Mar 2016

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server (Original Post) Calista241 Mar 2016 OP
K & R AzDar Mar 2016 #1
Justice for all Fairgo Mar 2016 #2
ruh-roh. This is very bad for her. It means they have stuff and they're going forward. roguevalley Mar 2016 #84
LOL - what horseshit leftynyc Mar 2016 #143
tell that to the FBI and the others. Your horse laughing will be for nothing when it happens. roguevalley Mar 2016 #161
This is the guy who pled the fifth in September Arazi Mar 2016 #3
Uh-oh. Immunity means they're after bigger fish. nichomachus Mar 2016 #4
And, it doesn't provide justice for the person who actually did it! scscholar Mar 2016 #17
Maybe the IT person was doing what he was told? 7962 Mar 2016 #22
So he is to blame for how the system was used? blackspade Mar 2016 #29
Come again? Gore1FL Mar 2016 #32
Seriously? TM99 Mar 2016 #35
the big fish always fry, not the big ones. apparently, the notion some have put forward roguevalley Mar 2016 #85
yes that's what I've read lovuian Mar 2016 #166
Ah, you have it backwards. He did not generate the information on the server that is a problem. Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #45
I don't think that's the point. zentrum Mar 2016 #83
As an IT person angrychair Mar 2016 #104
Oh wow. malokvale77 Mar 2016 #132
Is that the new talking point? TBF Mar 2016 #138
oh dear ! Angel Martin Mar 2016 #5
I do not rule out the possibility that our choices come Nov as being Biden vs. Romney. eom Purveyor Mar 2016 #10
in a year like this, anything is possible Angel Martin Mar 2016 #27
And how would that happen? Biden? n/t revbones Mar 2016 #28
I don't know what the Democratic rules are Angel Martin Mar 2016 #41
So you're just assuming Bernie wouldn't be around? revbones Mar 2016 #42
i hope not Angel Martin Mar 2016 #46
Convicts have run their criminal enterprises from jail before... TipTok Mar 2016 #147
Situation is almost like the GOP with Trump. Party bosses doing Purveyor Mar 2016 #52
This doesn't look good for Hillary. 99th_Monkey Mar 2016 #6
It does. I would 840high Mar 2016 #13
He's fine now! She must be a tad nervous. nt thereismore Mar 2016 #39
He's fine as long as he doesn't fly on small planes... Raster Mar 2016 #53
lol - true 840high Mar 2016 #56
He's safe from prosecution. Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #115
She asked that he be granted immunity. Justice Mar 2016 #168
Yes. And he requested fifth protection when Congress wanted to talk to him, too. morningfog Mar 2016 #30
It certainly circumvented Yupster Mar 2016 #122
Yes. You don't get immunity for nothing. winter is coming Mar 2016 #43
That is what DUers are not understanding. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #57
Well, the FBI confiscated his server about in mid-December. winter is coming Mar 2016 #65
+1 for "kitten juggler." eom MrChuck Mar 2016 #109
The horror... PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #125
That's possible. But he doesn't get to invoke the 5th for no good reason. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #128
Why not? KPN Mar 2016 #111
The 5th Amendment protects against self-incrimination. Qutzupalotl Mar 2016 #194
On the brighter side, it implies that investigation taking place is genuine. Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #50
This is getting serious................. Old Vet Mar 2016 #103
I think his lawyer would offer a proffer Yupster Mar 2016 #121
Right. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #129
Thanks for helping connect the dots a bit here. 99th_Monkey Mar 2016 #130
The main reason..... cynzke Mar 2016 #146
Bryan Pagliano: forest444 Mar 2016 #7
Turn down the lights and lower the shades Katy, this party is just getting started... eom Purveyor Mar 2016 #8
Bernie, there may be an opening soon.... TheCowsCameHome Mar 2016 #9
Ruh-Roh TalkingDog Mar 2016 #11
OMG LOL tomm2thumbs Mar 2016 #82
I am investing heavily in ruh-roh stock... demand is incredible yourpaljoey Mar 2016 #151
Oh, oh montanacowboy Mar 2016 #12
move along these aren't the droids you're looking for BigBearJohn Mar 2016 #14
Exactly. Where this will lead I dont know. But I DO know where it WONT lead! 7962 Mar 2016 #26
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Mar 2016 #15
This can't be good for Hillary Clinton nt CdnExtraNational Mar 2016 #16
This does not sound good Jack Rabbit Mar 2016 #18
yeah, I'm honestly not thrilled about this development either renate Mar 2016 #64
What General Petraeus did was far worse and he got $100,000 fine and probation Hawaii Hiker Mar 2016 #19
Negotiations are obviously reserved for the elite political and money classes blackspade Mar 2016 #21
According to one of the articles I read a few weeks ago Big_Mike Mar 2016 #193
And he retired kcjohn1 Mar 2016 #23
Presidential candidates have admitted to violating the law and were elected anyway. Would an PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #37
It cannot be inadvertent. It can't be a misdemeanor. Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #55
There is no evidence it was sent Justice Mar 2016 #170
What was inadvertent about it? TipTok Mar 2016 #148
Ok, so even if that were true revbones Mar 2016 #31
If she pleads a mini misdemeanor she can't win the general. She must fight. nt thereismore Mar 2016 #48
It was over a year between Petraeus's resignation and his plea deal. Calista241 Mar 2016 #49
Well, given the current stage it will likely not be over by then revbones Mar 2016 #54
More likely to Bernie. agracie Mar 2016 #69
June 6th. Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #136
Uh, oh blackspade Mar 2016 #20
I don't see much coming of it. It will only distract from the important issues Bernie is raising. jalan48 Mar 2016 #24
This sounds very serious Merryland Mar 2016 #25
Oh it could be serious but for who that is the question which is why they are investigating. cstanleytech Mar 2016 #90
"who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign" ConsiderThis_2016 Mar 2016 #33
The guy's name was Uretsky. pugetres Mar 2016 #105
Josh Uretsky Qutzupalotl Mar 2016 #145
This is a B F D! thereismore Mar 2016 #34
Isn't immunity HDSam Mar 2016 #36
Yes, "full cooperation" in exchange for immunity. PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #38
Immunity means you can't take the fifth. eggplant Mar 2016 #47
Time HDSam Mar 2016 #51
It gave me a laugh. Hope you don't get a hide. That would suck Arazi Mar 2016 #59
For Carla Danger's employment maybe. n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #114
The immunity granted to that lawyer who asked improper questions to civil service hires merrily Mar 2016 #112
Monica Goodling... PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #116
Yes. Thanks. Her testimony was very guarded, either beause she did not want to look bad and/or merrily Mar 2016 #117
The Justice department doesn't hand out immunity without knowing Calista241 Mar 2016 #63
right. Merryland Mar 2016 #81
They'd be getting answers to questions like "who told you to". "who authorized you to", PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #113
I'm positive they already knew the answers to all of those questions. Calista241 Mar 2016 #123
It must be getting closer to midnight. nt silvershadow Mar 2016 #40
tick-tock... 840high Mar 2016 #98
"Pearlman managed controversial Clinton’s email server administrator Bryan Pagliano"... ConsiderThis_2016 Mar 2016 #44
But Pagliano was paid separately and privately by Clinton or the Foundation to set up Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #60
I'm not in IT and don't understand this phrase Arazi Mar 2016 #67
Pagliano was paid by the State Department to do IT work for them. Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #75
So you're saying HRC (who hired him) has all the responsibility? Arazi Mar 2016 #77
Whoever paid and directed him to do the work has the responsibiity. Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #89
Thanks for the clarification. Clearly I'm also not a lawyer Arazi Mar 2016 #92
Well, here's the counterargument: Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #93
Thanks. I know it's vital to stay calm and not inflate the facts Arazi Mar 2016 #94
That is really the most important takeaway of Pagliano's immunity. A serious investigation Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #96
Isn't this what those who are ethically challenged do to subvert the public records law? haikugal Mar 2016 #110
I don't understand. Paid by the State Department and the Clinton Foundation? Paper Roses Mar 2016 #144
No, not in this case. But multiple State Dept staffers were on the payroll of both. Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #149
I gather it was like having a second job Calista241 Mar 2016 #150
Aside from the speculation and innuendo, there is one fact. yallerdawg Mar 2016 #58
Not for long. Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #118
I saw a thread today that was floating the notion that Clinton wasn't in danger Jarqui Mar 2016 #61
I saw that thread, too, and noted that the "experts" were unnamed. winter is coming Mar 2016 #68
Yes, someone is going to be charged, but we don't know who. Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #86
Tomorrow I'm going to setup my own work e-mail server... SciDude Mar 2016 #62
Boom! Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton Should Be Going to Prison For What She's Done BigBearJohn Mar 2016 #70
What does he need immunity for humbled_opinion Mar 2016 #66
Bernie, not sold in stores - or anywhere else. agracie Mar 2016 #71
The details of what the FBI thinks they're getting? Babel_17 Mar 2016 #72
I am sure she will come out of this smelling like a rose Scalded Nun Mar 2016 #73
Bottom line this is turning into humbled_opinion Mar 2016 #74
..+1 840high Mar 2016 #100
SHe will be in Congressional Hearings before November Ferd Berfel Mar 2016 #76
Is this about Benghazi? Clinton testified before Congress lovuian Mar 2016 #78
Emails about Benghazi? Please tell us more! Beaverhausen Mar 2016 #106
What I've read and it's on the web lovuian Mar 2016 #120
No, it's about her usage of a private email account for official state dept communications. Calista241 Mar 2016 #126
Yes it's about the presence of classified info in those communications lovuian Mar 2016 #131
No, it was discovered by Judicial Watch's FOIA request. jeff47 Mar 2016 #154
You might want to educate yourself about Judicial Watch Beaverhausen Mar 2016 #167
You might want to stop assuming everyone here is dumb. jeff47 Mar 2016 #169
Where to begin? Beaverhausen Mar 2016 #171
And now you convert to captain pedantic. jeff47 Mar 2016 #172
Hillary WANTS Pagliano to talk. SunSeeker Mar 2016 #79
Thats interesting.. disillusioned73 Mar 2016 #163
Is there a lawyer here Bob_Roony Mar 2016 #80
Lawrence O'Donell mentioning it now. winter is coming Mar 2016 #87
Nothing online at MSNBC OR Huff Post agracie Mar 2016 #95
Agree with Charlie Pierce Justice Mar 2016 #107
Beware of a witch hunt by the ultra rightwing Obama administration RufusTFirefly Mar 2016 #88
Very cool video. Surprising. yourpaljoey Mar 2016 #153
Should we read anything in to the timing of this announcement? The day AFTER Super FailureToCommunicate Mar 2016 #91
Of course we should. agracie Mar 2016 #97
I think the timing relates to the final release of emails Calista241 Mar 2016 #99
I think that's an entirely separate process being run by State. JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #108
Hey, if it works for Scott Walker, it should work for all conservadems too. AllyCat Mar 2016 #101
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2016 #102
Hillary's supporters DesMoinesDem Mar 2016 #119
K&R pugetres Mar 2016 #124
the emails released by state are the emails that Clinton's team determined were work-related and magical thyme Mar 2016 #139
Sanders' supporters last hope, and it's another trumped up investigation. Hoyt Mar 2016 #127
The FBI is not a right wing organization nor is the DOJ. ... spin Mar 2016 #133
Of course it is. That's why 100+ FBI agents are wasting their time working on it. Vinca Mar 2016 #137
So Obama is now part of the vast right-wing conspiracy? jeff47 Mar 2016 #155
How many of them have there been now? leftyladyfrommo Mar 2016 #158
Exactly, and detractors will make a big deal out of it until it's over. Then, they will move to the Hoyt Mar 2016 #160
Benghazi! leftyladyfrommo Mar 2016 #162
Benghazi. Now that is funny, but so true. Hoyt Mar 2016 #165
Amazing. A fellow Democrat is under political assault GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #134
this thread is about an FBI investigation, not the GOP investigation or magical thyme Mar 2016 #141
Ever hear of Kevin McCarthy? GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #174
again, this is about the FBI INVESTIGATION, not the right-wing crap. magical thyme Mar 2016 #180
This whole email controversy started as 'right wing crap' GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #184
At a time when we can't even agree TBF Mar 2016 #142
The Democraticunderground would react correctly to a Ted Cruz investigation GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #175
Do not confuse the word progressive with democrat - TBF Mar 2016 #182
Picking nits between progressive and Democrat GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #186
It's not about me winning TBF Mar 2016 #192
I celebrate when lawbreakers could potentially face justice... TipTok Mar 2016 #152
What laws has Hillary been convicted of breaking? GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #176
I am speaking of the information in the public domain... TipTok Mar 2016 #179
It is called "Convicting in the press" GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #185
What's hasty? TipTok Mar 2016 #187
How should I know what is correct or incorrect GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #189
There's a spectrum ranging from... TipTok Mar 2016 #190
Obama and Lynch are right-wing now? jeff47 Mar 2016 #156
Appeal to authority much? GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #177
Well, at least this latest news about her private server isn't labelled "top secret". Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #135
This is VERY interesting. nt TBF Mar 2016 #140
Prudent she drop out of the race now. harun Mar 2016 #157
... and this is what we would have to look forward to, nonstop, if she won POTUS. Myrina Mar 2016 #159
How about we move this thread to GD:P where the Bernie Gloaters will be more at home? (nt) Paladin Mar 2016 #164
Just a guess ... salinsky Mar 2016 #173
Good. The IT guy always knows where the bodies are buried. n/t Jester Messiah Mar 2016 #178
Several months ago Bernie Sanders said enough of the damn emails! countryjake Mar 2016 #181
That was based upon what everyone knew at the time - TBF Mar 2016 #183
He was mostly referring to the chit-chat within the emails. Babel_17 Mar 2016 #188
when this issue is concluded most of you won't be satisfied Herself Mar 2016 #191

Fairgo

(1,571 posts)
2. Justice for all
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:30 PM
Mar 2016

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.

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
84. ruh-roh. This is very bad for her. It means they have stuff and they're going forward.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:45 PM
Mar 2016

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.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
143. LOL - what horseshit
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:11 AM
Mar 2016

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?

 

scscholar

(2,902 posts)
17. And, it doesn't provide justice for the person who actually did it!
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:46 PM
Mar 2016

IT people are almost never held responsible for their actions.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
29. So he is to blame for how the system was used?
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:53 PM
Mar 2016

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

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
32. Come again?
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:56 PM
Mar 2016

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

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
35. Seriously?
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:58 PM
Mar 2016

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.

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
85. the big fish always fry, not the big ones. apparently, the notion some have put forward
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:46 PM
Mar 2016

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

lovuian

(19,362 posts)
166. yes that's what I've read
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 03:06 PM
Mar 2016

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

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
45. Ah, you have it backwards. He did not generate the information on the server that is a problem.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:04 PM
Mar 2016

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.

zentrum

(9,865 posts)
83. I don't think that's the point.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:45 PM
Mar 2016

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".

Angel Martin

(942 posts)
27. in a year like this, anything is possible
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:53 PM
Mar 2016

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.

Angel Martin

(942 posts)
41. I don't know what the Democratic rules are
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:02 PM
Mar 2016

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

Angel Martin

(942 posts)
46. i hope not
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:05 PM
Mar 2016

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

maybe she can campaign from jail.

 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
52. Situation is almost like the GOP with Trump. Party bosses doing
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:09 PM
Mar 2016

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

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

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
6. This doesn't look good for Hillary.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:34 PM
Mar 2016

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?

Raster

(20,996 posts)
53. He's fine as long as he doesn't fly on small planes...
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:11 PM
Mar 2016

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

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
30. Yes. And he requested fifth protection when Congress wanted to talk to him, too.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:53 PM
Mar 2016

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.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
43. Yes. You don't get immunity for nothing.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:03 PM
Mar 2016

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.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
57. That is what DUers are not understanding.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:16 PM
Mar 2016

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.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
65. Well, the FBI confiscated his server about in mid-December.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:21 PM
Mar 2016

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.

Qutzupalotl

(14,200 posts)
194. The 5th Amendment protects against self-incrimination.
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:05 AM
Mar 2016

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.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
50. On the brighter side, it implies that investigation taking place is genuine.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:07 PM
Mar 2016

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.

Old Vet

(2,001 posts)
103. This is getting serious.................
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:32 AM
Mar 2016

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

Yupster

(14,308 posts)
121. I think his lawyer would offer a proffer
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:48 AM
Mar 2016

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

cynzke

(1,254 posts)
146. The main reason.....
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:59 AM
Mar 2016

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.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
26. Exactly. Where this will lead I dont know. But I DO know where it WONT lead!
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:52 PM
Mar 2016

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

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
18. This does not sound good
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:47 PM
Mar 2016

Last edited Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:20 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.

renate

(13,776 posts)
64. yeah, I'm honestly not thrilled about this development either
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:18 PM
Mar 2016

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.)

Hawaii Hiker

(3,165 posts)
19. What General Petraeus did was far worse and he got $100,000 fine and probation
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:47 PM
Mar 2016

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".

Big_Mike

(509 posts)
193. According to one of the articles I read a few weeks ago
Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:38 AM
Mar 2016

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.

kcjohn1

(751 posts)
23. And he retired
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:50 PM
Mar 2016

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.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
37. Presidential candidates have admitted to violating the law and were elected anyway. Would an
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:00 PM
Mar 2016

"inadvertent" misdemeanor really be different?

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
55. It cannot be inadvertent. It can't be a misdemeanor.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:12 PM
Mar 2016

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.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
31. Ok, so even if that were true
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:55 PM
Mar 2016

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?

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
49. It was over a year between Petraeus's resignation and his plea deal.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:06 PM
Mar 2016

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

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
54. Well, given the current stage it will likely not be over by then
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:11 PM
Mar 2016

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

jalan48

(13,785 posts)
24. I don't see much coming of it. It will only distract from the important issues Bernie is raising.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:50 PM
Mar 2016

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

Merryland

(1,134 posts)
25. This sounds very serious
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:51 PM
Mar 2016

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.

cstanleytech

(26,027 posts)
90. Oh it could be serious but for who that is the question which is why they are investigating.
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:00 AM
Mar 2016

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.

ConsiderThis_2016

(274 posts)
33. "who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign"
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:57 PM
Mar 2016

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?

Qutzupalotl

(14,200 posts)
145. Josh Uretsky
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:26 AM
Mar 2016

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.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
38. Yes, "full cooperation" in exchange for immunity.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:00 PM
Mar 2016

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.

eggplant

(3,884 posts)
47. Immunity means you can't take the fifth.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:05 PM
Mar 2016

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

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
59. It gave me a laugh. Hope you don't get a hide. That would suck
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:17 PM
Mar 2016

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

Welcome to DU

merrily

(45,251 posts)
112. The immunity granted to that lawyer who asked improper questions to civil service hires
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:11 AM
Mar 2016

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.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
117. Yes. Thanks. Her testimony was very guarded, either beause she did not want to look bad and/or
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:24 AM
Mar 2016

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.

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
63. The Justice department doesn't hand out immunity without knowing
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:17 PM
Mar 2016

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

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
113. They'd be getting answers to questions like "who told you to". "who authorized you to",
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:16 AM
Mar 2016

"who gave/sent you" I would imagine.

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
123. I'm positive they already knew the answers to all of those questions.
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:51 AM
Mar 2016

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.

ConsiderThis_2016

(274 posts)
44. "Pearlman managed controversial Clinton’s email server administrator Bryan Pagliano"...
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:04 PM
Mar 2016

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

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
60. But Pagliano was paid separately and privately by Clinton or the Foundation to set up
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:17 PM
Mar 2016

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.

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
67. I'm not in IT and don't understand this phrase
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:23 PM
Mar 2016
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 )

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
75. Pagliano was paid by the State Department to do IT work for them.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:35 PM
Mar 2016

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.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
89. Whoever paid and directed him to do the work has the responsibiity.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:59 PM
Mar 2016

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."


Arazi

(6,829 posts)
92. Thanks for the clarification. Clearly I'm also not a lawyer
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:03 AM
Mar 2016

but my initial reading indicated there's trouble here

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
93. Well, here's the counterargument:
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:09 AM
Mar 2016

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.

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
94. Thanks. I know it's vital to stay calm and not inflate the facts
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:15 AM
Mar 2016

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

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
96. That is really the most important takeaway of Pagliano's immunity. A serious investigation
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:19 AM
Mar 2016

is being conducted.

That's important for a number of reasons.

haikugal

(6,476 posts)
110. Isn't this what those who are ethically challenged do to subvert the public records law?
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:02 AM
Mar 2016

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

Paper Roses

(7,468 posts)
144. I don't understand. Paid by the State Department and the Clinton Foundation?
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:55 AM
Mar 2016

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

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
149. No, not in this case. But multiple State Dept staffers were on the payroll of both.
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:31 AM
Mar 2016

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.

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
150. I gather it was like having a second job
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:46 AM
Mar 2016

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.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
58. Aside from the speculation and innuendo, there is one fact.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:16 PM
Mar 2016

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

Jarqui

(10,094 posts)
61. I saw a thread today that was floating the notion that Clinton wasn't in danger
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:17 PM
Mar 2016

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.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
68. I saw that thread, too, and noted that the "experts" were unnamed.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:23 PM
Mar 2016

Just another "some people say" article.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
86. Yes, someone is going to be charged, but we don't know who.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:47 PM
Mar 2016

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

humbled_opinion

(4,423 posts)
66. What does he need immunity for
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:21 PM
Mar 2016

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...

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
72. The details of what the FBI thinks they're getting?
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:31 PM
Mar 2016

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.

humbled_opinion

(4,423 posts)
74. Bottom line this is turning into
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:33 PM
Mar 2016

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....

lovuian

(19,362 posts)
78. Is this about Benghazi? Clinton testified before Congress
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:38 PM
Mar 2016

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

lovuian

(19,362 posts)
120. What I've read and it's on the web
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:47 AM
Mar 2016

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?

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
126. No, it's about her usage of a private email account for official state dept communications.
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:56 AM
Mar 2016

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.

lovuian

(19,362 posts)
131. Yes it's about the presence of classified info in those communications
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 02:14 AM
Mar 2016

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.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
154. No, it was discovered by Judicial Watch's FOIA request.
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:23 PM
Mar 2016

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.

Beaverhausen

(24,464 posts)
167. You might want to educate yourself about Judicial Watch
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 04:27 PM
Mar 2016
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.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
169. You might want to stop assuming everyone here is dumb.
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 04:39 PM
Mar 2016

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?

Beaverhausen

(24,464 posts)
171. Where to begin?
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 04:49 PM
Mar 2016

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?



jeff47

(26,549 posts)
172. And now you convert to captain pedantic.
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 04:50 PM
Mar 2016


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.

SunSeeker

(51,302 posts)
79. Hillary WANTS Pagliano to talk.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:40 PM
Mar 2016

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.

Bob_Roony

(73 posts)
80. Is there a lawyer here
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:41 PM
Mar 2016

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 ?

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
87. Lawrence O'Donell mentioning it now.
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:47 PM
Mar 2016

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.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
88. Beware of a witch hunt by the ultra rightwing Obama administration
Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:53 PM
Mar 2016
https://m.


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

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
99. I think the timing relates to the final release of emails
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:23 AM
Mar 2016

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.

Response to Calista241 (Original post)

 

pugetres

(507 posts)
124. K&R
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:51 AM
Mar 2016

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.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
139. the emails released by state are the emails that Clinton's team determined were work-related and
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:00 AM
Mar 2016

turned over to state.

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

spin

(17,493 posts)
133. The FBI is not a right wing organization nor is the DOJ. ...
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 02:59 AM
Mar 2016

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.

leftyladyfrommo

(18,806 posts)
158. How many of them have there been now?
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:44 PM
Mar 2016

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.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
160. Exactly, and detractors will make a big deal out of it until it's over. Then, they will move to the
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:04 PM
Mar 2016

next pile of junk.

GreydeeThos

(958 posts)
134. Amazing. A fellow Democrat is under political assault
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:01 AM
Mar 2016

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.

GreydeeThos

(958 posts)
174. Ever hear of Kevin McCarthy?
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:18 PM
Mar 2016
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.
 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
180. again, this is about the FBI INVESTIGATION, not the right-wing crap.
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:28 PM
Mar 2016

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.

GreydeeThos

(958 posts)
184. This whole email controversy started as 'right wing crap'
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:58 PM
Mar 2016

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.

TBF

(31,892 posts)
142. At a time when we can't even agree
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:02 AM
Mar 2016

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?

GreydeeThos

(958 posts)
175. The Democraticunderground would react correctly to a Ted Cruz investigation
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:18 PM
Mar 2016

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.

TBF

(31,892 posts)
182. Do not confuse the word progressive with democrat -
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:32 PM
Mar 2016

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.

TBF

(31,892 posts)
192. It's not about me winning
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:24 PM
Mar 2016

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

 

TipTok

(2,474 posts)
152. I celebrate when lawbreakers could potentially face justice...
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:02 PM
Mar 2016

Regardless of the letter after their name...

GreydeeThos

(958 posts)
176. What laws has Hillary been convicted of breaking?
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:18 PM
Mar 2016

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

 

TipTok

(2,474 posts)
179. I am speaking of the information in the public domain...
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:24 PM
Mar 2016

... 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.

GreydeeThos

(958 posts)
185. It is called "Convicting in the press"
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 08:01 PM
Mar 2016

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

 

TipTok

(2,474 posts)
187. What's hasty?
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 08:20 PM
Mar 2016

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.

 

TipTok

(2,474 posts)
190. There's a spectrum ranging from...
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:18 PM
Mar 2016

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.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
156. Obama and Lynch are right-wing now?
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:29 PM
Mar 2016

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

GreydeeThos

(958 posts)
177. Appeal to authority much?
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:18 PM
Mar 2016

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.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
135. Well, at least this latest news about her private server isn't labelled "top secret".
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:22 AM
Mar 2016

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



Myrina

(12,296 posts)
159. ... and this is what we would have to look forward to, nonstop, if she won POTUS.
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:49 PM
Mar 2016

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

No thanks.

salinsky

(1,065 posts)
173. Just a guess ...
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 05:37 PM
Mar 2016

... 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.

countryjake

(8,554 posts)
181. Several months ago Bernie Sanders said enough of the damn emails!
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:30 PM
Mar 2016

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.

TBF

(31,892 posts)
183. That was based upon what everyone knew at the time -
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:34 PM
Mar 2016

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.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
188. He was mostly referring to the chit-chat within the emails.
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 08:31 PM
Mar 2016

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

Herself

(185 posts)
191. when this issue is concluded most of you won't be satisfied
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 09:40 PM
Mar 2016

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!

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Justice Dept. grants immu...