IT Staffer who set-up Hillary's private email server is pleading the 5th

[askew]

For those who say this is a big nothingburger or that this email scandal is going away, think again.

From Washington Post:

A former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail server this week tried to fend off a subpoena to testify before Congress, saying he would assert his constitutional right not to answer questions to avoid incriminating himself.

The move by Bryan Pagliano, who had worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009, came in a Monday letter from his lawyer to the House panel investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The letter cited the ongoing FBI inquiry into the security of Clinton’s e-mail system, and it quoted a Supreme Court ruling in which justices described the Fifth Amendment as protecting “innocent men . . . who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’ ”

The FBI is investigating whether Clinton’s system — in which she exclusively used private e-mail for her work as secretary of state — may have jeopardized sensitive national security information.

Thousands of e-mails that have been released by the State Department as part of a public records lawsuit show Clinton herself writing at least six e-mails containing information that has since been deemed classified. Large portions of those e-mails were redacted before their release, on the argument that their publication could harm national security.

“While we understand that Mr. Pagliano’s response to this subpoena may be controversial in the current political environment, we hope that the members of the Select Committee will respect our client’s right to invoke the protections of the Constitution,” his attorney, Mark MacDougall, wrote.

Two other Senate committees also have contacted Pagliano in the past week, according to a copy of the letter, which was obtained by The Washington Post. The requests came from the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, according to people familiar with the requests.

The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed Wednesday that it sought to ask Pagliano about his work for Clinton.

Pagliano, who worked in the State Department’s information-technology department from May 2009 until February 2013, left the agency when Clinton departed as secretary. He now works for a technology contractor that provides some services to the State Department.

This is horrible news for Hillary's campaign.

This on topic of the latest news from Reuters that additional FGI (Foreign Government Information) was found in her latest batch of emails. FGI is considered classified at birth with no exceptions. Bad news all-around for Hillary.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/02/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0R22C120150902

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Sneering dismissals appearing soon.

[MoveIt]

2. DU needs a sneering smiley

"superdelegates dahling" (sneering-smiley)

[DavidDvorkin]

6. That's a great idea.

[teach me everything]

53. how's this one?

[merrily]

72. And precinct captains.

Last edited Thu Sep 3, 2015, 06:46 AM - Edit history (1)

[riversedge]

8. UNCLEAR HOW CLOSELY REGULATIONS FOLLOWED

from the op.



UNCLEAR HOW CLOSELY REGULATIONS FOLLOWED

It is not clear if Clinton approached classified information differently than other secretaries of state before or after.

Several career diplomats, who joined the department before Clinton's tenure, also sent foreign government information through their unclassified .gov email accounts, the marked redactions on Clinton's emails show, suggesting that the regulations may be commonly ignored in favor of speedier communications.

Asked whether John Kerry, the current secretary of state, has sent such information via unsecured channels, a State Department spokesman declined to say either way.

The department declined to say whether Clinton adhered to the relevant regulations and laws while she was in charge, or whether the secretary of state is even bound by the department's regulations.

The department has said the information in some of Clinton's emails is being newly classified now, but it has also said it cannot know for sure whether the information should have been handled as classified all along.

[merrily]

73. How does the "she may not have been the only one" defense work for most people?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. Hell of a way to demean and dismiss the opinions of those that disagree with you...

Hell of a way to demean and dismiss the opinions of those that disagree with you but you knew that before you hit the first keystroke.

[DavidDvorkin]

114. Some opinions aren't worthy of anything more.

[morningfog]

3. Interesting development.

[moobu2]

4. He's exercising his constitutional rights and pleading the fifth

Last edited Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)

so he wont have to testify in front of a political witch hunt investigation. It's nothing

[delrem]

11. optics. He doesn't want to incriminate himself. Get it?

[morningfog]

16. Oh it's something. It will keep this going with another chapter.

Thanks Hillary! Another month of the "leading candidate" being dogged by this. Another month of her poor judgment overshadowing the issues that matter.

And, in criminal prosecutions, a witness cannot simply say "I invoke my 5th" because they don't want to testify. It must be grounded in a true exposure to criminal liability. That may or may not be the case in a congressional subpoena, I don't know the law on that.

[askew]

31. This isn't going to get any better for Hillary.

Cheryl Mills is testifying this week. There are new lawsuits about FOIA coming out. The Benghazi stuff is bullshit, but this email story has legs.

[Babel_17]

60. If they restrict questions to what he did as an employee?

I wonder if State Department employees have to sign away any rights in order to get clearance. Can he refuse a lie detector test? Are there sanctions for standing mute? Is it laughably easy to get a warrant for all his electronic devices that were connected to work?

Lol, sorry about all the questions but I'm guessing you know a bit more about the law than I do.

[moobu2]

69. He can not be made to testify against himself.

They cant make him take a lie detector test or levy sanctions if he does not testify. They could get a search warrant for evidence of a crime if there was probable cause. They can not just go snooping around his personal effects just because they want to.
Anyway, there's no crime that we know of.

[merrily]

75. They can give him immunity, but that doesn't always work well.

One of the lawyers in the Bushco civil service vs. political appointee* mess got immunity and she still said just about nothing in her testimony. You could tell she was hiding stuff. And, of course, nothing was done about what did testify to.


*IIRC, she was in charge of hiring and interviewed everyone to make sure they were on board with Jesus and things like homophobia, even if they were not filling political appointee appointee slots. She was one of the few attorneys Bushco hired--maybe the only one-- who had graduated from the unaccredited religious law school, yet managed to pass the bar exam, so that made her a VIP!

[busterbrown]

68. You know it’s all bullshit!!

Stop pretending that it’s important!! If she did not do due diligence because she was trying to make her life a little easier.. Who gives a shit.. Perhaps she’s embarrassed by it all.. What we don’t need are dems. tring to pin her down.

[Travis_0004]

44. I don't blame the guy

Its impossible to know what laws he broke or didn't break.

I'm an accountant, and its somewhat similar.

Even when I am following the law, I guarantee you with enough digging, you could find things that may not have been legal. The federal government has lost count of how many laws there are. Everybody breaks them without knowing.

Nobody cares about this guy. He will have full immunity in 24 hours, then he will be forced to testify. I don't blame him one bit for holding out.

[merrily]

76. Isn't that what his lawyer is supposed to tell him?

[merrily]

74. You can't possibly be serious.

[tymorial]

151. This is wishful thinking and speculation

You want there to be nothing but clearly this is not the case. She had no business using a private email server as secretary of state. The fact that there was classified material within is more than questionable.

[AgingAmerican]

5. "in which she exclusively used private e-mail for her work as secretary of state"

This is bullshit. She used it for private correspondence, not 'exclusively' for her official correspondence as SOS.

[jeff47]

12. You better go correct her lawyers then.

Remember, her claim was she used the server so that she'd only have to carry one blackberry.

Also, if she used it for private correspondence, State wouldn't be releasing anything due to FOIA.

[arcane1]

15. I read it the opposite: official work was done exclusively via private email n/t

[AgingAmerican]

19. In which case almost every email on the server would have been classified

nt

[arcane1]

21. Likely, assuming more business emails were sent/received than personal ones.

I have no idea what that ratio is, I haven't been following this very closely.

[BooScout]

7. From your link...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/staffer-who-worked-on-clintons-private-e-mail-server-faces-subpoena/2015/09/02/8b1e6438-51c2-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html?postshare=9271441241742808

The committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), complained yesterday that Gowdy unilaterally issued the subpoena. He said the subpoena of a low-level aide is one of several signs that Gowdy is using the committee for the political purpose of trying to smear a Democratic presidential candidate.

“Although multiple legal experts agree there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is certainly understandable that this witness’s attorneys advised him to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, especially given the onslaught of wild and unsubstantiated accusations by Republican presidential candidates, members of Congress and others based on false leaks about the investigation,” Cummings said. “Their insatiable desire to derail Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign at all costs has real consequences for any serious congressional effort.”

------------

My thoughts...

[img][/img]

[DURHAM D]

10. Our allies and enemies are watching this shit and

realize this is a country with too many fools in powerful positions. Why would anyone trust us?


They are probably also wondering why Gowdy doesn't go to a decent barber.

[George II]

89. Gowdy is using the committee for the political purpose of trying to smear...

....a Democratic presidential candidate"

And he's getting plenty of assistance on this site.

[DURHAM D]

9. LOL - so many idiots so little time

"U.S. government regulations examined by Reuters say this sort of information, whether written or spoken, must be classified from the start, and handled through secure, government-controlled channels"

.

How do you have a spoken conversation through secure government controlled channels? Dixie cups on a string?


silly

[jeff47]

13. It's called a STE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Terminal_Equipment

Or if you're talking face-to-face, it has to be in a classified environment.

[DURHAM D]

28. So if you are across the desk from each other

you talk on the phone?

[jeff47]

30. Now try to read the second sentence of that post.

I know, it's so hard to get all the way past the title and one link, but I'm confident you can do it if you really try.

[DURHAM D]

37. Well Jeff - you didn't explain what a secure whatever is.

You just gave me a link to a phone system.

But, how do you "classify" a conversation. You didn't explain that. Does just walking into a room signify "CLASSIFIED"? How is it recorded for all time in case a little shit head with bad hair wants to listen to it or someone files a FOIA request?

Go back and read the sentence in the article.

The truth is you don't know.

[jeff47]

41. No, the truth is I'm not desperately flailing about for dumb reasons to ignore the story

The requirements for a classified workspace are in a variety of government publications, based on who you work for (intelligence, military or state) and what level of classification. So I didn't bother to link all of them, assuming that people would understand the utterly basic concept.

I apologize for that apparently faulty assumption.

But, how do you "classify" a conversation.

A conversation isn't classified. Information is classified. If your conversation is discussing classified information, then it is a classified discussion.

You classify the information by being the president. Congress punted on the creation of a classification system over to the executive branch in 1947. So there's a series of executive orders describing that system. In that system, classification guides are written which describe what information is classified, and at what level.

When you are granted access to classified information, you receive a copy of the relevant classification guide and are given an in-briefing describing what is in the guide, and giving you a chance to ask questions.

How is it recorded for all time in case a little shit head with bad hair wants to listen to it or someone files a FOIA request?

Conversations are not subject to FOIA requests.

The truth is you don't know.

No, I actually do know. The truth is you're flailing about seeking a reason to discredit because "your team" winning is more important than anything else.

[PatrickforO]

51. LOL - great on the 'I'm not desperately flailing...' comment. That's pithy.

But this whole thing bespeaks a rather alarming lack of judgment on the part of Clinton. Not good for her campaign at all. In fact, this email thing is like a cancer that's eating at it.

Like her or not, this is getting more serious by the day.

But, if you've ever been to DC you realize how VERY easy it is to misjudge how serious things are to the American people. What is a tempest in a teapot, and what is a real scandal? Tough for some of these people to judge.

[Buns_of_Fire]

58. Nah, that would be silly. You use the Cone of Silence, of course!

[louis-t]

128. No, the cone of silence....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

14. You don't seem to know anything about data security with respect to the federal government.

I do. I work for a private company under heavy (and necessary) government regulation. If Federal regulators showed up at my workplace (and they will, next Monday), and if they found I was running company mail through a server at home, both me and my company would be in serious trouble. I'd be fired, and there's a decent chance that the company would have its doors locked.

If State's computers and networks were substandard, maybe someone at the top should have addressed that instead of using it as an excuse to run a rogue and unsafe server.

[DURHAM D]

26. And you don't seem to read well.

My post had nothing to do with computers/networks/etc.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

153. Well that stings a little. But you're right and I was wrong.

Your post, as you say, has nothing to do with computers or networks, and I replied to something you never actually said. I'll read your posts more carefully in the future.

[PoliticAverse]

23. You use...

[FourScore]

45. LOL. n/t

[MADem]

38. You use a Secure Telephone Unit (STU). It's a big phone with a key, you turn the key and you

are speaking in an encrypted mode.

I'm sure they've updated them in the last fifteen years, but that's how they work.

That said, "U. S. Government regulations" are not applied uniformly across departments. That's where Reuters gets this wrong. What is a "rule" at the WH is not always a "rule" at State or Defense. Even within Defense, different service branches can apply differing rules.

This is not as plain as the WAAAH WAAAH POINT POINT crowd want to insist.


Here's where the silly shit comes in--I promise you, no one but Republicans and Hillary Haters give a shit about this issue, and here's why:

Several career diplomats, who joined the department before Clinton's tenure, also sent foreign government information through their unclassified .gov email accounts, the marked redactions on Clinton's emails show, suggesting that the regulations may be commonly ignored in favor of speedier communications.

Asked whether John Kerry, the current secretary of state, has sent such information via unsecured channels, a State Department spokesman declined to say either way.

[DURHAM D]

43. The truth is that so much of the state department's work,

and the DOD, and the intelligence agency work is just gossip. They just pass gossip up and down the line. At some point it may come together and help some decision maker but mostly it is just speculation and little tid-bits of info.

I have a family member in the business and when we have family get togethers we tease and try to get them to play "Gossip Gossip who has the Gossip?" It never works.

[MADem]

46. A shitload of it comes right off the front pages of foreign newspapers and magazines.

As I have said here before, I have seen stuff that the USG tried to pass off as "classified" written in plain language in overseas papers. I've SHOWN it to upper echelon leaders to let them know that a lot of what they're shopping around as hush-hush is being discussed around foreign dinner tables.

You find these nitwits who are careerists, or self-important blowhards, who put (C) and (S) and (TS) and NOFORN all over their little reports, to make themselves seem important. No plain brown folder for them--they want the BIG RED COVER SHEET!!!!! Booooyaaaah!

Then try to get that shit declassed....it's a total pain in the ass.

I hate people who over-classify crap. Clinton's administration got a handle on that nonsense, and idiot Bush ramped it right back up again. What an ass.

[randys1]

142. Look how far in the weeds we are and much of it because of alleged liberals bashing Hillary

Too bad we cant bash back, but we cant, they out number us on juries.

This jury thing is wow, crazy bad idea especially right now.

[MADem]

154. Yep, and alleged is an operative term.

I've never had so many personal insults tossed at me in the last few months, ever. There's just no comparison. And curiously enough, with the exception of one poster who follows me around trying to goad and bait me, the bulk of my insult-lobbing pals are people I don't know. They're either new to the board, within the last couple of months, or they're well under 1000 posts, have been here for a long time, and have the bulk of their posts in the last ninety days. Hmmm, I say. Hmmm.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. i'll take Cummings' statement above for the truth, Alexis! n/t

[cheapdate]

22. I'm aware of it. Don't give a shit. I say this as a Sanders supporter.

If she wins the nomination, Hillary's emails aren't going to keep me away from the polls or change my vote to the GOP.

[elleng]

24. Discussed on Lawrence show.

[askew]

29. What did Lawrence say?

I have given up on MSNBC. Too much Trump coverage and excuse making for Hillary's mess of a campaign. Curious what he thinks about this story though.

[elleng]

32. Wondered what 'self-incrimination' at issue.

[askew]

34. Yeah, I am curious about that.

I am guessing he knows that Hillary didn't have the signoff from State/WH for the server and he would also know who else had private email accounts on that server.

In any case, it is going to get worse before it gets better for Hillary.

[randys1]

140. you said "What Did Lawrence Say?" I can tell you

He said if Hillary is the candidate and we stay home because we are mad Bernie isnt, that we risk turning the country over to rightwing fanatics who will destroy the country and maybe the planet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. That is what is called a big drop

[MADem]

27. Do you understand what "pleading the fifth" means? If you think this is "bad news for Hillary" then

you plainly do NOT understand what it means.

[6chars]

54. It means no evidence

[MADem]

57. It means the guy does not want to incriminate HIMSELF.

One can't "plead the fifth" to protect a boss or an associate.

[Babel_17]

61. His job description might have entailed reporting on lapses in security

So if anything ever gets hung on anybody he was around, he could be assigned liability. But that's theoretical as I'm not seeing any details about his job. He might not have interacted with anyone, to any significant degree.

[MADem]

63. Who knows? He's not talking because he's worried about himself, though-not anyone else. nt

[aikoaiko]

91. "One can't "plead the fifth" to protect a boss or an associate." Oh yes they can if they did...

Last edited Thu Sep 3, 2015, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)

...did something potentially illegal to protect a boss or associate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. Oh boy ...

Where did you get your JD from?

[aikoaiko]

109. Show me case law where someone did something illegal and was forced to testify

even though they invoked the 5th under the rationale that the illegal action was motivated by protecting a boss.

I welcome that information from you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

110. That's not what you said ...

but you understand there is no examination of a person's motivation for invoking the 5th, right?

[MADem]

117. That's not protecting the boss, though. That's protecting themselves.

In order to bring Clinton into any "crime," one has to assume that she possessed technical knowledge to participate in it.

You can't have it both ways--either Clinton is a nefarious, tech-whiz genius evildoer who, in her spare time as SECSTATE, got a doctoral degree in information systems technology from MIT and is on the cutting edge of the computer world, and she conspired with some unknown, unnamed superhero to time travel into the future and find out what might get classified long after she departed, and then, for shits and giggles, decided to talk about that stuff in her emails....or she doesn't know jack about how computers and servers work, and she hired some guy to do that bit for her because either Condi or Colin put it in their passdown file that the State Department email system is shit and the Congress won't authorize any funding to bring it up to speed, so she's better off using her own system.

This is getting pretty amusing. I've never seen Democrats behave this way.

[aikoaiko]

121. I am truly agnostic on the whole email thing. It wouldn't surprise me if they was or wasn't

any wrong doing.

I may have misunderstood what you were saying and/or not communicated well myself.

Yes, we agree that invoking the fifth is about protecting oneself from incriminating oneself.

Apparently we disagree as to whether or not one might do so to protect another from the ramifications of one's own self-incrimination.

[MADem]

123. Oh sure, it could happen, I absolutely acknowledge that.

I just think it is unlikely in the extreme that HRC knows the nuts/bolts of computer technology and could have participated in any meaningful way in any nefarious scheming. She's outside that wheelhouse in terms of her age (she didn't come up with computers), her course of study (law) or her career choices.

Now, if she majored in computer language at Wellesley and went to work for Bill Gates after graduation, I'd have a different POV...!

Maybe this guy did something wrong, and didn't let his boss know that he skipped a step, or something.

[still_one]

56. and obviously doesn't know what happened during the McCarthey hearings

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. +1. n/t

[morningfog]

80. It means he believes he is exposed to criminal liability. That is not good

for Hillary. No way to spin this out as not harmful for Hillary and her image.

[MADem]

82. How is it "not good for Hillary" if a low level worker takes the fifth about HIS -- not her--

activities?

I think we deserve an in-depth explanation of your legal rationale for that absurd comment.

[morningfog]

83. It what world is this a good thing for Hillary?

How could any rational thinker spin this a positive for the campaign.

Did I say This suggests Hillary is exposed to criminal liability? No. Go back and read a little more carefully.

This is not good for Hillary. Tell me your rational as to how this could possibly be good for Hillary, oh wise one.

[randys1]

127. Or he is smartly aware there is a witch hunt by the GOP and others, people who claim to be Democrats

but arent, to destroy Hillary's campaign for the WH and understands that justice rarely happens and even if he did nothing wrong he could still lose everything.

[morningfog]

130. That is not a ground to invoke the 5th amendment.

So, even if that is what he feels, it would not support invoking the 5th.

[Halliburton]

33. This guy has such limited technical background

How did he get in charge of the private email server of the Secretary of State? What a disaster this is for Hillary and her sinking campaign.

[jeff47]

35. Well, it would explain why the server had the default encryption keys installed... (nt)

[askew]

39. Yeah, I am sure he is regretting ever installing that server now.

I still can't believe Hillary didn't get Legal and IT at State to sign-off ahead of time as well as the WH.

[artislife]

71. It is just dumb

It is like slipping on the hello kitty bath mat and hitting your head at just the wrong angle...dumb death.

[Metric System]

42. "He now works for a technology contractor that provides some services to the State Department." It

sounds like his technical background isn't that limited if he's still working in the technology field.

[OilemFirchen]

67. I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

To wit: Edward Snowden.

[bigdarryl]

36. I don't blame him.pleading the fith with this Congress

Lead by the republicansAll you people who are gleeful on this mainly Sanders supporter don't forget how we got the Congress we got.Most dems didn't get there asses out and vote in 2010 and 2014

[GitRDun]

49. +1

[Metric System]

40. Rep. Elijah Cummings has it right in the article. Leave it to Sanders supporters to side with Gowdy

and the Republicans.

[MADem]

47. OUCH. Truth sure hurts! But that IS the truth....and I'm guessing the candidate doesn't

think his "supporters" are helping him much with that kind of approach.

[DURHAM D]

50. Indeed. nt

[stevenleser]

62. Yep, and thus far every supposed damning revelation has fizzled out to nothing.

The writing is on the wall for this as well.

[AtomicKitten]

65. If your candidate wasn't so reckless at State,

... she wouldn't be in trouble now. You and she have nobody to blame but her. She's a huge liability in the upcoming election and I marvel at you thinking we should just disregard that.

[George II]

86. "Your candidate"?

She was NOT a candidate when she was Secretary of State, she was a member of President Obama's cabinet, and she was not "reckless".

What happened to supporting Democrats against a republican attack here on DU. Why are so many "DEMOCRATIC" Underground members so happy that Clinton is being investigated yet again.

A sad state of affairs we've reached here in "DEMOCRATIC" Undergound.

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. Yes ... sad, sad state ...

Not only because supporting Democrats against republican BS attacks, is so ... post (romanticized version of) FDR; but, because DU, now, has it that NOT supporting/cheering republican attacks a Democrat means you have to be a supporter of a particular candidate for the Democratic nomination.

Sad ... So, sad.

[randys1]

141. We are LONG past the charade that some folks here support a liberal for president.

And the only reason I am angry about that is we will be silenced if we say that.

On a liberal message board.

Named Democratic Underground

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. I guess it's ...

Any port in a storm ... sand, or otherwise.

[randys1]

134. I am glad you limited that to Sanders supporters and not Bernie himself. I agree that MANY

Sanders supporters, especially on DU, have a full time job of attacking Hillary even though Bernie has all but told them not to.

[Metric System]

48. Subpoenaed by Howdy Gowdy? Oh noes! It's over for Hillary!

[still_one]

55. Amazing that on a progressive board some assume guilt if the 5th is taken. That is what a Kangaroo

Congressional hearing wants you to think. Perfect tactic of Joe McCarthy, he would be proud of those with that mindset

[randys1]

135. Well, it is a progressive board, sort of. Designed to be but has MANY non liberals on it.

[still_one]

52. You do realize there are many people who plead the fifth when testifying before Congress, and not

because they are guilty. Congress is notorious for twisting things. It is a very rare case where you will find a Congressperson be forced to take an oath before testifying before Congress.

[Babel_17]

59. Given the cost of lawyers ...

He might just be cutting to the chase, "here's the little/nothing really I can offer, you want to hear it under oath, immunize me". Without immunity you can burn through a lot of money in lawyers, just answering questions intermittently over months as an investigator goes fishing.

On the other hand, a lot of crap does go on, and he might have crossed a line, or know of someone who did, or just be privy to embarrassing info. That doubles the need for immunity.

The environment in Washington is unacceptable, it needs to be cleaned up. It should be a place where honest people can work without getting dragged into nonsense.

#reserving judgement #expecting to hear of incompetent, and guilty looking, behavior

[TwilightGardener]

64. Curious as to why she used a campaign staffer to be her personal IT guy, and THEN

installed him at State as an employee. And then he left State when she left. What was special about him that she couldn't rely on whoever handled IT at the State Dept.? What did he do for her there? IT is not really a politically-dependent position, is it? Why do you need your own personal geek squad when the government is totally awash in IT and communications personnel?

[HereSince1628]

79. The answer to that may go all the way back to 'travelgate'

Which was our introduction to federal level Clinton scandals/un-scandals. That first dust-up mostly happened because some white house staff working in previously considered non-patronage jobs were dismissed and patronage employees were installed.

Understanding it requires comprehending the Clintons' orientation to and apparent need of the commerce in favors and loyalty that is patronage.

I don't claim to 'get it' beyond noticing that several scandals of the past seem to have been blunted by the actions of loyal and stalwart friends of Clinton.

[Metric System]

126. I thought you were joking bringing up "Travelgate." I should have known better.

Last edited Thu Sep 3, 2015, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

[HereSince1628]

150. Travelgate really was the non-Arkansas public's first introduction to Clinton's and patronage

Understanding the questions asked in the post I replied really does understanding Clintons use of patronage.

That isn't to say that patronage is good or bad. It can be either. That isn't to say that other politicians don't engage in the use of patronage.

Commerce in favors and loyalty is an old old part of politics as well as a part of contemporary political life.

[OilemFirchen]

66. As would I.

And, per the counsel of even a barely competent lawyer, so would everyone posting here.

[merrily]

77. False, but I guess posting it gave you comfort anyway.

[msanthrope]

104. You wouldn't take the fifth in front of Trey Gowdy? nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. Of course she wouldn't ...

the keyboard is a great bunker from which principle springs.

[msanthrope]

129. The 101st Chairborne are special ops keyboard warriors. nt

[randys1]

137. I was just told that being afraid you are being railroaded is not a reason you can claim

the 5th.

So you can ONLY ask to apply the 5th if you are CERTAIN there is NO WAY evidence could be manufactured against you or outright lies are used, etc.

But I think that is bullshit and the person who told me that is ...

nevermind

i cant respond directly to them anymore, will lose my posting privileges

[msanthrope]

147. people like that always made fantastic goddamn clients.

Of course I'd always gotten them after they spilled their guts to the cops and were surprised at the amount and level of charges in the indictment.

[OilemFirchen]

111. There is a word that often describes individuals who fail to follow an attorney's advice:

Prisoner.

[1StrongBlackMan]

99. That is PATENTLY false ...

every single poster here would PROUDLY submit to what we all know is a partisan circus!

{Is this: even necessary?}

[merrily]

113. I meant everyone posting here does not need to avoid incriminating themselves.

The vast majority of us have come nowhere near committing a crime. Hence, the vast majority of us would not get that advice from a lawyer.

The view expressed along this thread that even totally innocent people need to leap to take the fifth for no reason whatsoever whenever a Republican is in the room simply because Hillary is such a persecuted victim for no reason is bullshit, in my humble opinion.

I think this guy was advised to take the fifth because his telling the truth about what he did would, well, tend to show he committed or was involved with a crime and the 5th relieves him of the obligation to give testimony that implicates him in a crime.

Does that also mean Hillary did something wrong? No.

[OilemFirchen]

115. Any competent attorney would offer this advice under the circumstances.

From the article:

The letter cited the ongoing FBI inquiry into the security of Clinton’s e-mail system, and it quoted a Supreme Court ruling in which justices described the Fifth Amendment as protecting “innocent men . . . who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’ ”

My bold.

[merrily]

118. Do you really want to plead the fifth for no earthly reason, then try to get certain kinds of jobs?

Really?

Sorry, but I do not believe for one second that every competent attorney would advise totally innocent people to take the fifth for no reason. I don't care what you imagine or what you bold.

This thread is entertaining, but not convincing. However, I am not going to engage in any more pointless discussion about it.

[OilemFirchen]

120. Bye. (n/t)

[DonViejo]

136. Before a Republican witch hunt/kangaroo court? You're damned right I would

exercise my 5th Amendment rights but, it's real clear why you wouldn't and wouldn't encourage anyone affiliated with the Clinton campaign to do so.

[randys1]

138. No no no, right here on this thread i have been ASSURED you cant exercise that right

just because you dont trust the court.

Yep, I was told that here.

I have to tell you before I am banned, as i have 4 hides now and if I talk back even slightly to certain people i will be gone


and, i cant fucking believe that is happening here

[eridani]

70. Guess what? It is a nothingburger

Compared to standing for endless war, that is.

[merrily]

78. Heartening to see respect for the rule of law.

I heard this story last night but didn't bother to post it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. What are you talking about? ... Respect for Rule of Law?

[OilemFirchen]

119. Yeah, that one's weird.

Elsewhere this poster is making insinuations about intent, whereas the use of the Fifth Amendment is the Rule of Law.

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. DemocratSinceBirth, had the perfect response to this crap ...

The Republicans and their useful idiots have turned justice on its head. In our system of jurisprudence we investigate crimes and not people. We don't investigate people in search of crimes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=568214

A response that should be clear to DUers, and certainly those DUers running around thumping their "progressive" chests.

[OilemFirchen]

125. He deserves an Attaboy for that one.

More's the pity that he's been temporarily excused from the proceedings.

[randys1]

143. Do they hate Women this much? What is the reason the HATE and BASHING of Hillary

takes place in all places?

Similar to what has been going on with Obama, and the same people doing it.



Wait, I just figured something out

[1StrongBlackMan]

148. LOL ... n/t

[Romulox]

81. Drip, drip, drip! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. So Mr. Pagliano was subpoenaed by Trey Gowdy's Benghazi Committee with no input...

So Mr. Pagliano was subpoenaed by Trey Gowdy's Benghazi Committee with no input from Democratic Committee members,ergo:

A Democratic committee source says there was "no debate or vote by the select committee" about the decision to issue Pagliano subpoena.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/clinton-aide-fifth-amendment-emails/

This is a war, this is a battle, this is a street fight. I have chosen the side I am on and those on the other side are my eternal enemies no matter whom they are, whom they claim to be, and whom they claim to support.

[George II]

85. And its sad that people here, who presumably are DEMOCRATS, are jumping on the Republican....

....anti-Clinton bandwagon and almost gloating about it!

Truly sad.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. Cheryl Mills is testifying today.

Cheryl Mills is testifying today before the Benghazi Committee (R). She wanted her testimony to be public or in the alternative to have a full transcript of her testimony released. The Committee refused, presumably so they can offer leaks from her testimony and to characterize them in a way that will be damaging to Ms. Clinton.

Those that stand with the Gowdy Committee (R) stand against me.

[George II]

90. As a 40+ year Democrat, me too! And as of this morning her request has been denied.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. Hillary's 10/22 testimony is going to be a circus...

I expect there to be lots of disorder, lots of violations of the Robert's Rule Of Order, lots of fights among strict party lines, and a carnival atmosphere.

[George II]

93. It's going to give each republican member of the committee a soapbox on which...

....to attack Clinton for all sorts of things.

All they've done in the past is give their opening statements (speeches) and then ask a series of loaded questions.

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. And later on 10/22, into 10/23 ...

DU will be an even bigger circus!

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. Against you? ...

They stand against the democratic process (which is ironic because the committee is committing malfeasance, while, purportedly, looking for malfeasance) ...

They stand against a progressive future (regardless of whom one supports) because this whole circus act isn't aimed, solely, at HRC; but, the entire Democratic brand ...

They stand against all things liberal, as they are standing with those that place ideology over facts.

[1StrongBlackMan]

94. "Presumably are DEMOCRATS"??? ...

"Almost gloating"??? ...

I think a reading of DU would prove both assertion incorrect ... You will find those that flat out SAY they are not Democrats (or self-identify as such, as a 3rd or 4th political descriptor) AND these same folks are QUITE gloatful.

[randys1]

144. Gloating and if you confront them you are silenced as they seem to outnumber the

Democrats here.

[tymorial]

152. Sigh.

I would love just one day where people are actually able to have their own opinions without being thrown off the Democrat island for failing to conform to the borg collective.

[Adrahil]

88. Gowdy and the GOP are on a witch hunt....

I don't blame this guy one bit for refusing to play into their hands.

Used to be Democrats opposed this kind of malicious use of "oversight."

Now some seem to celebrate it.

This was and is a ridiculous attempt to destroy Hillary Clinton, because Republicans hate and fear her.

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. Actually ... I would say this is a republican attempt to destroy the entire Democratic brand ...

raise your hand if you think Benghazi WON'T find its way into the GE ... for every republican candidate for every office from POTUS to School Board member ... regardless of who the Democratic nominee is?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. Correct

The email story has already damaged her, there’s no doubt of that. She has one big chance to turn the story around this fall—when she testifies before the House “Benghazi” committee in October. That committee, now empanelled longer than Frank Church’s intelligence reform committee in the 1970s—an actually important committee that found out actually important things—isn’t even pretending to be about the Benghazi attacks anymore. It’s a taxpayer-funded get-Clinton operation, and it’s now all about finding a smoking gun in these emails.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/02/hey-hillary-time-for-a-reboot.html

The Republicans and their useful idiots have turned justice on its head. In our system of jurisprudence we investigate crimes and not people. We don't investigate people in search of crimes.

This witch hunt shocks the conscience.

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. Oh, Damn ...

The republicans and their useful idiots have turned justice on its head. In our system of jurisprudence we investigate crimes and not people. We don't investigate people in source of crimes.

{BTW ... I'm going to book-mark that. I, suspect, I will have plenty of places to drop that in on this place, now, ironically, named DEMOCRATICunderground.}

[randys1]

145. Remember, Gowdy would have HATED the Ambassador who was killed.

The GOP and teaparty hated him before he died or they would have.

I mean he was a career gubmint employee and I think he was not a rightwinger...

Nah, they do not give ONE SHIT about his death

[kenfrequed]

112. Don't care.

Post more about economic policy and less about this thing. I am actually tired of hearing about Hillary and want to hear more pro-Bernie posts.

I get to hear enough about Hillary from the mainstream media.

[askew]

132. I am not a Bernie supporter. I'm an O'Malley supporter.

If you want to read more about Bernie, I'd suggest posting more about him. Personally, I think this email mess is news and it needs to be discussed.

[kenfrequed]

133. I have.

I just get frustrated with this kind of "reporting." I think Hillary is a terrible candidate for her stands on the issues and I still think reporting on this is foolish and reposting it here is pointless.

There are things not worth getting excited about and this falls neatly into that category. I am not one of those people that looks for any kind of negative story about an opposing candidate as good news for my candidate.

Those kinds of people turn people off to the candidates tehy support.

[ram2008]

116. Reporting this on CNN now

What a mess.

[Metric System]

124. Your concern is noted. But I agree that Gowdy and company have made a mess of the Benghazi hearings

and they have devolved into a partisan witch-hunt.

[Motown_Johnny]

131. The last paragraph is very telling

“Although multiple legal experts agree there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is certainly understandable that this witness’s attorneys advised him to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, especially given the onslaught of wild and unsubstantiated accusations by Republican presidential candidates, members of Congress and others based on false leaks about the investigation,” Cummings said. “Their insatiable desire to derail Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign at all costs has real consequences for any serious congressional effort.”






We really can't read to much into this yet. It is reasonable to assume he will be given immunity and then forced to testify, or be held in contempt.

It is one more thing that appears improper, and the appearance of impropriety is a problem for any Presidential candidate, but we still don't know if there really is any there there.

[morningfog]

139. Maybe he's the guy that wiped the server clean.

He set it up, maybe he scrubbed it clean. That could be some possible exposure to criminal liability.

[Hiraeth]

146. shit gets real

[Agony]

149. not sure what planet someone is on if, as SOS, they think it is acceptable to transact official

communications on a personal email system. not particularly adept leadership material for sure.