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 Clintons 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 Clintons 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
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Fairgo
(1,571 posts)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)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)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?
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)nichomachus
(12,754 posts)This isn't good for Mrs. Clinton.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)IT people are almost never held responsible for their actions.
7962
(11,841 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)He is to blame for following the directions of his employer?
Gore1FL
(20,993 posts)The way you phrased that implies you don't know what you are talking about. I am hoping you could clarify.
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)that Iran, China and Russia likely hacked her system may ring true.
lovuian
(19,362 posts)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)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)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 obscuredthe 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".
angrychair
(8,536 posts)Trust me, we are the lowest man on that totem pole.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I can't believe you want to go there.
TBF
(31,892 posts)It's not going to work you know.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)paging Vice President Biden
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Angel Martin
(942 posts)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.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Angel Martin
(942 posts)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
revbones
(3,660 posts)Weird.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)but right now it looks like Clinton is on her way to winning the nomination.
maybe she can campaign from jail.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... so there is precedent.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)whatever they can to put their establishment candidate on the ballot.
We have already seen DWS's magical works...
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)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?
840high
(17,196 posts)not like to be in his shoes.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Raster
(20,996 posts)...or get caught with Bill Clinton brandishing a cigar.
840high
(17,196 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I wouldn't want to be the person's shoes he's about to rat out.
Justice
(7,182 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)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.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)the freedom of information act.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)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)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)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.
MrChuck
(279 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,200 posts)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)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)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)explaining what he would testify to if given immunity. If there's not enough to interest them they don't give him immunity.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)That sounds right. Appreciate your post.
cynzke
(1,254 posts)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.
forest444
(5,902 posts)No small planes for you, buddy.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,159 posts)Don't listen to the naysayers.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)montanacowboy
(6,040 posts)This guy will spill the beans......
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)No matter what the evidence shows, the trail will be forceably stopped at the doorstep of HRC
Uncle Joe
(58,029 posts)Thanks for the thread, Calista.
CdnExtraNational
(105 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)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)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)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".
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Big_Mike
(509 posts)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)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)"inadvertent" misdemeanor really be different?
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)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.
Justice
(7,182 posts)The document regarding removing security header and sending.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)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?
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Calista241
(5,584 posts)I don't think there's enough time for this to play out before we vote in November.
revbones
(3,660 posts)but rather just starting the more public part - just in time to hand the election to republicans.
agracie
(950 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Also known as D-Day.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)This doesn't appear to be a positive development for Clinton.
jalan48
(13,785 posts)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)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)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)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?
pugetres
(507 posts)But, both names turn up in discussions about the DNC data breach.
Qutzupalotl
(14,200 posts)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.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Same justice for all. Nothing more I ask.
HDSam
(251 posts)usually negotiated? A "I'll give you x if you give me y" sort of quid pro quo?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)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)If you refuse to answer questions, you can be held in contempt. He needs to stay away from small planes.
to start a dead pool?
That'll probably get me a hide.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)the jury system's been such a mess lately who knows
Welcome to DU
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)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.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)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)or at least having a very good idea of what they're getting.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)"who gave/sent you" I would imagine.
Calista241
(5,584 posts)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.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)ConsiderThis_2016
(274 posts)While working for Clinton, Pearlman managed controversial Clintons 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)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)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)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.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)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/
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)but my initial reading indicated there's trouble here
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)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)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)is being conducted.
That's important for a number of reasons.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)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)Some kind of a conflict here? Too deep for me to understand but something sure sounds a little "off".
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)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)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)"Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency."
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Jarqui
(10,094 posts)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)Just another "some people say" article.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)His testimony might be necessary even to establish chain of custody, or something like that.
SciDude
(79 posts)I'm sure my boss will be fine with that.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)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...
agracie
(950 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)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.
Scalded Nun
(1,227 posts)And if not, get your nose fixed.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)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....
840high
(17,196 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Supporting her is suicidal at this point
lovuian
(19,362 posts)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
Beaverhausen
(24,464 posts)lovuian
(19,362 posts)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)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)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 Clintons 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 Departments response to the events and Mrs. Clintons personal email account.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)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)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)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.
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.
So large swaths of the Obama administration is right-wing?
Beaverhausen
(24,464 posts)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)Sometimes, it's better to just stop before you dig the hole deeper.
No idea. Feel free to file a FOIA request.
SunSeeker
(51,302 posts)From the article, which the OP did not include:
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.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)thanks for posting..
Bob_Roony
(73 posts)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)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.
agracie
(950 posts)Justice
(7,182 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(13,968 posts)Tuesday ???
agracie
(950 posts)Calista241
(5,584 posts)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.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)AllyCat
(15,988 posts)Response to Calista241 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)pugetres
(507 posts)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)turned over to state.
The recovered "deleted" emails are in the possession of the FBI, not State.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)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 Clintons 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 Clintons 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.
Vinca
(50,150 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)It is his DoJ, after all.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,806 posts)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)next pile of junk.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,806 posts)There are a lot of powerful people who would love to see the Clintons fall.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GreydeeThos
(958 posts)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.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)right wing lawsuit.
GreydeeThos
(958 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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.
GreydeeThos
(958 posts)I guess you win then.
Have a nice day.
TBF
(31,892 posts)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)Regardless of the letter after their name...
GreydeeThos
(958 posts)You seem to be advocating punishing first, and then weighing the evidence in a legal setting.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... 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)Get information from the biased media that has a stake in the outcome and make a hasty decision.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)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.
GreydeeThos
(958 posts)I get my information from the media.
How about you?
TipTok
(2,474 posts)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)Could you remind me who's in charge of the Department of Justice at the moment?
GreydeeThos
(958 posts)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)So, that should give her supporters something to cheer about.
TBF
(31,892 posts)harun
(11,347 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)hearings, scandals, crap, drama ... everything BUT doing the people's business.
No thanks.
Paladin
(28,173 posts)salinsky
(1,065 posts)... 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.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)countryjake
(8,554 posts)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)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)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)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!