2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWait Wait Wait... I thought Cheryl Mills was Hillary's Attorney regarding her Server!?!
Whoopsies. Guess that was just bullshit to get out of testifying about it.
Wish the FBI interview transcripts with Cheryl Mills were public... I bet that argument fell flat on it's face.
Let's be honest, we all know Cheryl Mills claiming attorney-client privilege is a cover-up. Which makes it an invalid argument to avoid testifying. I suspect Judge Sullivan will force her hand on this.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)firebrand80
(2,760 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Bob41213
(491 posts)Mills was one of the attorneys who Clinton "directed to delete all my personal emails." And I believe the FBI tried to ask her about how they decided what was turned over. That's what I believe triggered her walking out. I may be reading some more into this but Clinton originally said she had her lawyers decide what was personal and what was private. I thought that was odd personally because no lawyer I know would do shit like that for you because their is too much at stake legally. It might make more sense that trusted aid Mills would be willing to do that but if I were Mills, I'd be worry that I was going to be "Scooter Libbyy'ed."
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279400-clinton-aide-reported-to-have-walked-out-of-fbi-interview
"The off-limits questions reportedly concerned the way in which emails were given to the State Department to be distributed to the public."
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The FBI already has much testimony. If Mills is tied to the establishment of the server, or a coverup, the attorney-client priviledge is lost and she can be charged with crimes too.
Bob41213
(491 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Mills said CLINTON is under no obligation to give an interview. What the hell does attorney-client privilege have to do with it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)At the very least, poster is mixing up 2 different statements and issues. The first thread on this was enough, anyways. Poster is spamming the board with duplicate posts.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)this OP merely contrasts what we already know with this emphasis on a different attorney.
It is not "mixing up" anything.
Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)For starters, Mills lawyers objected to questions more often because they exceeded the very narrow permitted scope of questioning under Judge Sullivan's order. And in most of those instances, her lawyers allowed Mills to testify. A smaller number of objections were based on attorney-client privilege and related to questions about information that Mills obtained while acting as Clinton's attorney after the private server became public and Mills was assisting Clinton in producing emails back to State.
You seem to think there is a smoking gun in Mills testimony, but the message that is delivered most clearly is that Mills has no reason to believe the private server was set up to prevent federal records from being produced in response to a FOIA request. Since this entire lawsuit is narrowly aimed at the issue of whether State did an adequate job responding to a 2013 Judicial Watch FOIA request targeting information about Huma Abedin, Mills testimony in that regard is not at all helpful to JW.
By the way, for anyone who wonders -- why was JW seeking information about Huma Abedin in 2013? Well, it had nothing to do with emails or private servers. It was part of the RW attempt to find anything to discredit Abedin who, as a Muslim-American born in Kalamazoo MI, clearly was an ISIS plant in the government. Or so the RW claimed.