Latest Breaking News

pnwmom

(110,345 posts)

225. Mills invoked privilege, not Hillary. And when she did that Mills was doing the job

Wed May 11, 2016, 07:19 AM

May 2016

she was sworn to do. If she hadn't invoked attorney-client privilege, that could have been malpractice.

From the American Bar Association:

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/blt/2013/10/01_unger.html

The attorney-client privilege is the backbone of the legal profession. It encourages the client to be open and honest with his or her attorney without fear that others will be able to pry into those conversations. Further, being fully informed by the client enables the attorney to provide the best legal advice.

The privilege is in play on a daily basis, whether litigated in court or serving as a background consideration in how best to advise the client while maintaining confidences. Even in business transactions, it is critical to maintain the privilege as unseen conflicts may result in litigation down the road where attorney-client communications become of interest to an opponent.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

336 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Clinton aide reported to have walked out of FBI interview [View all] w4rma May 2016 OP

there is no attorney client privilege with Mills and Clinton. grasswire May 2016 #1

Yeah this explanation makes no sense. Cheryl Mills is an advisor and confidant, not counsel. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #16

yep nt grasswire May 2016 #46

The original WA Post story said Mills was counsel to Clinton, and the FBI pnwmom May 2016 #62

Uh, no. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #72

Funny the part of the sentence that you not-so-cleverly left out. pnwmom May 2016 #74

The part I left out is irrelevant to the question of whether; it is why I left it out. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #92

I give up. You win. pnwmom May 2016 #99

there IS NO attorney client privilege between Mills and Clinton. nt grasswire May 2016 #107

So you keep saying, on the basis of zero evidence -- and as contradicted by the WA Post. pnwmom May 2016 #112

There is until a judge rules there isn't. nt msanthrope May 2016 #140

After watching all this hyper-ventilating, pnwmom May 2016 #209

Good analysis and fact-finding! nt msanthrope May 2016 #252

Thank you! pnwmom May 2016 #253

Mills has been the Clintons's family attorney since the 1990's. pnwmom May 2016 #163

Wrong. The FBI wanted to talk about the private server, and THAT was set up in 2008 pnwmom May 2016 #198

She was not Hill's counsel, she worked for her as an employee of the State Dept. cui bono May 2016 #179

She was both her personal attorney and worked for the State Dept. as a manager. pnwmom May 2016 #180

Well isn't that convenient. I guess they saw this coming and knew they were doing something wrong. cui bono May 2016 #181

The WA Post article says that after Cheryl cited attorney-client privilege, those questions pnwmom May 2016 #183

Well she walked out. Hard to question someone when they're not in the room. cui bono May 2016 #184

That's perfectly normal behavior in a legal interview. She and her attorney stepped out of the room pnwmom May 2016 #186

It is exactly the "behavior" that any attorney would recommend onenote May 2016 #232

I guess conflict of interest got thrown out by Hillary when she worked in the State Dept. cui bono May 2016 #288

The private server was set-up in 2008 so any advice about the set-up would be covered. pnwmom May 2016 #294

Well that is a good thing. But that doesn't cover the usage of it when it was up and running. cui bono May 2016 #318

She didn't take on Mills "again." Mills was involved in the events under discussion, pnwmom May 2016 #319

"Again" meaning as her attorney. Or are you stating that she was Hillary's attorney while a govt cui bono May 2016 #321

She was her private attorney during the period when the private server was set up, when the decision pnwmom May 2016 #323

It appears you've managed to miss the dozen or so posts explaining why there is no conflict onenote May 2016 #298

Yes, and she is answering questions about the time when she was a govt employee cui bono May 2016 #310

Your comment makes zero sense onenote May 2016 #313

So you believe that she should not speak about anything that happened during her time as a govt cui bono May 2016 #317

The articles say that the Justice Department and the attorney pnwmom May 2016 #320

No. I said exactly the opposite. onenote May 2016 #324

What's significant isn't whether her conversation w/HRC was privileged, it's that the FBI asked her leveymg May 2016 #221

No, that's not significant. Mills was doing her job as an attorney, the job she was sworn to do, pnwmom May 2016 #223

This incident points out one thing: HRC doesn't want the FBI to go there. The FBI does. She lost, leveymg May 2016 #282

No conclusion can be drawn from the fact that the attorney asserted attorney-client pnwmom May 2016 #291

It is so sad to see how folks are throwing important protections afforded to those being questioned onenote May 2016 #303

They think that legal rights should only apply to their fav people. pnwmom May 2016 #304

Uh, yes. Kinda weird that you did not reference the WaPo story, but went with selectively synergie May 2016 #101

the WaPo is not the determiner of any attorney client privilege!! grasswire May 2016 #109

Oh, but YOU are! pnwmom May 2016 #113

show me some proof grasswire May 2016 #115

I showed you evidence. You just keep making completely unsupported claims. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #117

evidence????? grasswire May 2016 #124

You've now had two licensed attorneys on this thread tell you you're wrong on privilege. msanthrope May 2016 #201

Privilege isn't the issue. It's what HRC knew and when did she know it. leveymg May 2016 #222

Mills invoked privilege, not Hillary. And when she did that Mills was doing the job pnwmom May 2016 #225

Exactly. She talked to her client and her client didn't want her to go there. Who is her client? leveymg May 2016 #228

I have shown that Mills had a legal obligation to protect attorney-client privilege. pnwmom May 2016 #243

Think again. She would have an obligation to discuss her testimony with her client before being leveymg May 2016 #251

The attorney had the legal obligation to inform her client about attorney client privilege, pnwmom May 2016 #295

The "proof" is in the WaPo article, you are not correct. You made an assertion synergie May 2016 #157

laughing heartily at your silly authoritarian nonsense. grasswire May 2016 #158

Cheryl will have her day in court. And I doubt it will be pretty. floriduck May 2016 #136

yes grasswire May 2016 #138

Believe, or desperately hope? Justice May 2016 #145

Do I want anyone indicted? grasswire May 2016 #149

Obama obviously doesn't think she was insubordinate or arrogant, pnwmom May 2016 #193

Why? Hillary set up the private server in 2008, before she came to State. So Mills pnwmom May 2016 #199

It's not when the server was purchased, it's when Hillary started using it for official DOS business leveymg May 2016 #224

That would be when Hillary arrived at State. And any advice Cheryl gave her in the first pnwmom May 2016 #227

You're missing the point. Mills discussed with HRC the NSA warnings about the Blackberry. HRC leveymg May 2016 #244

Mills's employment with State didn't begin till May 2009. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #296

She advised Hillary on the NSA warning about using her Blackberry in February leveymg May 2016 #300

Thank you for showing that this would have been covered by attorney-client privilege pnwmom May 2016 #301

Thank you for making my basic point: the FBI is investigating HRC and her attorneys for setting up leveymg May 2016 #311

Did anyone other than you suggest they were. The sources asserted that there were synergie May 2016 #156

Here's the kicker Perogie May 2016 #128

I was reading a Politico article from this past September and realized I was wrong JonLeibowitz May 2016 #133

Yep. It seems that they knew they were doing something very wrong and put things in place to try to cui bono May 2016 #187

I tend to agree; Isn't this what the Mafia does -- they hire a lawyer as a confidant/advisor JonLeibowitz May 2016 #189

And didn't Hillary have a campaign ad that mimicked the Sopranos? cui bono May 2016 #190

They're all lawyers. This tactic is as old as Washington, and it is routinely pierced leveymg May 2016 #226

What you missed was that the private server was set up at the Clinton's home pnwmom May 2016 #200

The scope of the privilege covers when she was Clinton's attorney. onenote May 2016 #236

She's still Clinton's attorney. pnwmom May 2016 #250

She was her attorney. Then she wasn't (when she was Chief of Staff) and now she is again onenote May 2016 #267

Yes. And it's discouraging to see so-called progressives acting like Ken Starr pnwmom May 2016 #269

looks like payola to me grasswire May 2016 #139

Mills was Clinton's chief of staff at State Yo_Mama May 2016 #159

She has been the Clinton's personal attorney since the 1990's. And still is. pnwmom May 2016 #165

That has nothing to do with the administrative handling of the FOIA request. Yo_Mama May 2016 #168

Of course it does. When these requests were made neither of them was working at the pnwmom May 2016 #172

Precisely why Hillary instructed her not to talk to the FBI about this subject. Silence is damning. leveymg May 2016 #230

She didn't. Cheryl Mills, Hillary's attorney, had an obligation to the legal profession pnwmom May 2016 #238

Wrong again. If she were a good att'y and there was no reason to withhold info, she would have her leveymg May 2016 #246

There is nothing about being a "good attorney" that would suggest she "should have her client pnwmom May 2016 #248

Mills had a dual role as Chief of Staff. Part of that is political and part is legal. Where there leveymg May 2016 #258

Her role now is as a legal advisor. She has no obligation to do anything but represent her client pnwmom May 2016 #261

Exactly. Thank you for making my point. leveymg May 2016 #264

No. No conclusion of guilt can be drawn from the fact of invoking attorney-client privilege pnwmom May 2016 #271

This was a subject that Hillary, Mills, and her attorney tried to make off-limits leveymg May 2016 #278

They had a pre-agreement, and it was the attorney's job to make them stick to it. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #292

It was a bad move by Mills because it focused the public's attention on the role of HRC's lawyers in leveymg May 2016 #312

Not a bad move, despite all your speculation and fond hopes. And none of the emails contained pnwmom May 2016 #322

You think that drawing attention to Clinton's lawyers involvement was a good move by Mills? leveymg May 2016 #325

"foreign government information" doesn't mean it should have been classified at the time. pnwmom May 2016 #326

Whoever wrote Executive Order 13526 disagrees with your take on that> leveymg May 2016 #331

A strict definition of "foreign government information" would mean that the State Department -- pnwmom May 2016 #332

That is precisely why the State Dept went through each and every email on a case-by-case basis leveymg May 2016 #333

Clinton did not write 104 classified emails. pnwmom May 2016 #334

"Retroactive classification" is a campaign talking point, not a legal defense. leveymg May 2016 #335

She had the authority to decide whether any state department document was classified or not. pnwmom May 2016 #336

See Reply 176. Also, a WAPO writer is not the be all and end all of legal issues. merrily May 2016 #177

Mills is an attorney herself and offered legal advice. Clinton could have more than one attorney. pnwmom May 2016 #22

sorry grasswire May 2016 #39

This is what the original article in the WAPost says. They left it out in the Hill's pnwmom May 2016 #59

"the people"?? grasswire May 2016 #79

I know it's hard but you could try reading. The answer to your question's in the WA Post article. pnwmom May 2016 #83

bogus. grasswire May 2016 #85

I want to know that every time I see a story on this. moriah May 2016 #88

worthless, isn't it? nt grasswire May 2016 #102

The entirety of all these stories? Absolutely. Nt moriah May 2016 #108

One more nothingburger. nt pnwmom May 2016 #114

What is going on with this drip, drip, drip? CoffeeCat May 2016 #119

Well, I don't know. It could be simply that... moriah May 2016 #132

As it turns out, the private server was set up in 2008, for Hillary's campaign -- when Cheryl Mills pnwmom May 2016 #194

Amazing, isn't it..... Mustellus May 2016 #153

They need to hide something or there would be no claim of privilege as to the emails. merrily May 2016 #176

And there you have it: those being questioned by law enforcement should have no rights onenote May 2016 #239

Not at all what I said. Imputing hate to me says more about you than it does me. nt merrily May 2016 #273

Actually, it is exactly what you said. onenote May 2016 #274

This is what you claimed* I said: "those being questioned by law enforcement should have no rights" merrily May 2016 #275

Yes Run away. It's what one does when they have nothing else. onenote May 2016 #276

It is kinda odd is it not considering HRC's statement Bob41213 May 2016 #330

There's Hillary's mission right there. She didn't want her lawyer to talk about this very topic. leveymg May 2016 #233

Cheryl and her lawyer invoked the privilege, not Hillary, as it is the lawyer's JOB TO DO, pnwmom May 2016 #235

But, by invoking privilege she's carrying out her client's instructions not to talk about this. leveymg May 2016 #240

There is no such legal conclusion to be drawn. Mills has an obligation to protect attorney-client pnwmom May 2016 #242

If what she knew was exculpatory, she is free to discuss it. But, HRC doesn't want Mills to talk leveymg May 2016 #247

Your lack of legal training is showing. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #249

When you don't have the law or the facts on your side, go ad hominem. You've got nothing else left leveymg May 2016 #254

I have conceded nothing about Hillary. You have only proven that you think pnwmom May 2016 #255

This case is all about politics as well as the law. The facts show that Mills leveymg May 2016 #257

No. It merely showed that she wanted to end the interview as expeditiously as possible. pnwmom May 2016 #260

Gee, why would that be? leveymg May 2016 #262

it was early in the interview grasswire May 2016 #285

So? That meant they could move on to the next topic. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #286

Okay. Please explain where pwnmom went astray ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #64

It turns out most of this fuss is because people didn't bother to check the most basic facts. pnwmom May 2016 #211

And even if it was about when they were in office ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #266

That's mighty crude. moriah May 2016 #110

well, no.. grasswire May 2016 #125

Surely you aren't suggesting confidentiality of attorney work product... moriah May 2016 #135

there is little comparison between corporate counsel matters (as you reference above) grasswire May 2016 #137

Um, wrong. If you pm me for legal advice knowing I am an attorney....privilege attaches. msanthrope May 2016 #142

Or at the very least, you'd want to CYA by having your own lawyer's advice... moriah May 2016 #152

I put a lot of ifs in my statement... moriah May 2016 #143

Yes -- the fact that she consulted her lawyer during an important FBI interview pnwmom May 2016 #166

A job description does not determine that jberryhill May 2016 #154

Mills was not acting as Hillary Clinton's lawyer when she was Chief of Staff Yo_Mama May 2016 #160

If it's so bogus why did the FBI honor it? And why does Politico pnwmom May 2016 #162

Because the fix is in. Attorney client privilege would apply only to Yo_Mama May 2016 #167

Hillary had the private server set up during her 2008 campaign, so Cheryl Mills was only pnwmom May 2016 #188

She was her attorney when HRC operated the server to conduct official State Dept business. In her leveymg May 2016 #237

We don't know what they discussed, but any legal advice to Hillary before May 2009, when State pnwmom May 2016 #241

Yes, we do. Mills had an obligation to discuss with her client what she could and couldn't discuss leveymg May 2016 #256

She had NO legal obligation to advise Hillary to release her from attorney-client privilege, pnwmom May 2016 #263

That's right. HRC and Mills calculated the legal damage would exceed the political. What does leveymg May 2016 #265

It tells no one anything. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #270

^This^ n/t DebbieCDC May 2016 #42

No - there is no attorney client privilege with Mills and Clinton! awake May 2016 #51

She was counsel and chief advisor to Clinton radical noodle May 2016 #57

She was working for the American people She could not have been Hillary's lawer awake May 2016 #63

No, Mills wasn't working for the US when the private server was set up -- in 2008, pnwmom May 2016 #203

I did not know that the question asked by the FBI were about her action in 2008 awake May 2016 #208

There have been MANY reports that a major focus of the investigation pnwmom May 2016 #210

Oh we have been told that the FBI was just doing a "routine security review" awake May 2016 #212

The fact remains that any questions directed to Cheryl about matters she worked on for Hillary pnwmom May 2016 #213

If Cheryl had been given classified emails belonging to the Goverment awake May 2016 #217

Of course it applied. She had been Hillary's personal attorney for decades. Legal advice pnwmom May 2016 #220

But this was 2014 when they gave the SD the emails karynnj May 2016 #77

No, I think these questions were referencing, in particular, the CREW FOIA request in 2012 Yo_Mama May 2016 #161

Before Brock took over CREW for HRC dreamnightwind May 2016 #174

Thanks. Nt karynnj May 2016 #259

She did have counsel at that point -- including Cheryl. Cheryl has been her personal attorney pnwmom May 2016 #297

she was chief of staff. nt grasswire May 2016 #80

And the private server was set up in 2008 during Hillary's campaign, pnwmom May 2016 #204

The WA Post story says there was, and the FBI agreed to keep certain areas off limits pnwmom May 2016 #60

keep trying nt grasswire May 2016 #84

But that issue doesn't matter scscholar May 2016 #61

wrong azureblue May 2016 #73

duh. we know she is an attorney. grasswire May 2016 #76

Of course she does. Any legal advice she gave to Hillary in the years BEFORE pnwmom May 2016 #214

As I understand it, people of SoS Clinton's 'pay grade' are supposed to KNOW what is classifiable. Peace Patriot May 2016 #116

thank you for your post, peace patriot - hopemountain May 2016 #173

No, there is no classified info that is so sensitive it is "born classified." pnwmom May 2016 #299

I guess this puts to rest the lie that Hillary is Not under investigation by the FBI. NT fasttense May 2016 #245

good that the leaks have begun grasswire May 2016 #2

Oh, yes. yallerdawg May 2016 #3

Especially those Trey Gowdy leaks to the NYT. They were awesome Gomez163 May 2016 #5

Benghazi,,,, Drink!,,,,,, Cryptoad May 2016 #20

Hillary's problems all caused by Rightwingers! Brock meme! senz May 2016 #52

You support Republicans leaking info about Democrats Democat May 2016 #279

I support the truth being in the hands of the people. grasswire May 2016 #284

So we know that her Chief of staff got interviewed and that she did not like the line of questioning thereismore May 2016 #4

That's quite the fantasy life leftynyc May 2016 #8

Some are certainly forcing the narrative to fit their worldview Blue_Adept May 2016 #10

Yeah RoccoR5955 May 2016 #15

I think the "especially" part is definitely on both sides. Blue_Adept May 2016 #36

Oh yeah, getting up and walking out on the FBI -- so normal. senz May 2016 #53

Doesn't sound like a significant... ReRe May 2016 #6

30 years in the making! yallerdawg May 2016 #9

Because there was never more we don't know and what we know is there was never anything. Fla Dem May 2016 #21

I think you need to reread my comment. yallerdawg May 2016 #48

I apologize. Fla Dem May 2016 #65

And would Hillary Clinton ever had come this close to the Presidency RiverNoord May 2016 #50

Awesome post... rury May 2016 #123

the Clintons have used the VRWC as a shield. grasswire May 2016 #141

So true. SammyWinstonJack May 2016 #148

That was positively Rumsfeldian. frylock May 2016 #82

The... deathrind May 2016 #111

Agree.. ReRe May 2016 #32

Right out of freeperville. leftofcool May 2016 #26

You wish... ReRe May 2016 #38

Don't you wish.... 840high May 2016 #93

It isn't. Mills was Hillary's personal attorney in 2008, when the private server was set up. pnwmom May 2016 #205

"investigators had previously agreed not to broach the subject" misterhighwasted May 2016 #7

I'm glad I'm not the only person who read that line. Seems like much ado about nothing. LonePirate May 2016 #28

That was the only line that mattered. misterhighwasted May 2016 #30

Indeed she was. I'm still amazed by all the revolutionaries giving a wide berth to law & order types LonePirate May 2016 #34

LOL.. Rules only apply to others misterhighwasted May 2016 #45

Isn't that odd in itself, though? AgerolanAmerican May 2016 #47

They're not the Gestapo. This wasn't Guantanamo. misterhighwasted May 2016 #49

How dare the FBI ask questions? They have no right to information. senz May 2016 #71

That was the first and only thought I had about this post. Stryder May 2016 #58

It is an FBI interview! yallerdawg May 2016 #70

Since the time of ancient Rome, when the concept of attorney-client privilege pnwmom May 2016 #305

if there's no there, why protect and deflect?? nt grasswire May 2016 #40

But they still want to hide something? WHY !!!!????? Pauldg47 May 2016 #56

That is the right question. mmonk May 2016 #272

Truth should trump all when aspiring to the highest office in the land. PoliticalMalcontent May 2016 #11

NIce working "Trump" into the content Cryptoad May 2016 #17

No pun intended. I'm a user of english and that was the most apt word. PoliticalMalcontent May 2016 #33

Well said. nt senz May 2016 #69

So much for continuing Obama's legacy Lazy Daisy May 2016 #120

Hear Hear. I'm a fan of Obama. I'd like to truly continue his legacy. PoliticalMalcontent May 2016 #121

It's a criminal investigation, not a friendly chit chat tularetom May 2016 #12

I thought that was weird that "investigators would agree to limit the scope of the questioning." antigop May 2016 #14

they probably didn't agree to limit the scope Merryland May 2016 #100

investigators had previously agreed not to broach the subject" misterhighwasted May 2016 #35

I agree! 40RatRod May 2016 #144

independent progressive socialist democratic socialist and back to independent misterhighwasted May 2016 #146

Also, the "walk out" characterization is somewhat distorted, since they returned to the still_one May 2016 #178

technically, as far as we know she is not the "named" target. Yet. grasswire May 2016 #41

I know that, I just like the way it sounds tularetom May 2016 #89

I can dig it. grasswire May 2016 #91

Thanks for Cryptoad May 2016 #13

Yeah, the truth is always a RWNJ attack RoccoR5955 May 2016 #19

Trouble with the,, Cryptoad May 2016 #23

Just because you do not see it RoccoR5955 May 2016 #122

That's true, but there's a reason. MisterFred May 2016 #283

Drama queen much? leftofcool May 2016 #27

Thank Hillary for this mess. 840high May 2016 #95

So what? She wanted to ask her lawyer a question privately, which is her right. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #18

Mills is not her lawyer. grasswire May 2016 #43

Mills left the room to speak privately with HER lawyer, to which is her right. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #55

Of course that's her right, BUT . . . markpkessinger May 2016 #147

And that is easily explained. pnwmom May 2016 #216

Mills was a chief of staff . ,. . markpkessinger May 2016 #287

She wasn't hired on as Chief of Staff till May 2009, so any advice she gave before then pnwmom May 2016 #289

A very Nixonian argument n/t markpkessinger May 2016 #307

No, the argument of someone who believe in civil rights and donates to the ACLU. pnwmom May 2016 #309

Good for her. Don't let the Obama Administration push you around! jalan48 May 2016 #24

Ha! frylock May 2016 #87

Oh, the drama. closeupready May 2016 #25

with the FBI not all answers need to be verbal FreakinDJ May 2016 #29

Ouch. Drip, drip, drip. nt silvershadow May 2016 #31

So much for this being "no big deal, nothing to see here, move along" awake May 2016 #37

she has taken other breaks to confer with her atty aside from this one. grasswire May 2016 #44

No, it's just being careful. Anytime you are being interviewed by the FBI pnwmom May 2016 #75

That is a very simplistic interpretation. grasswire May 2016 #78

BRIEFLY walked out of an interview. Then, I assume, she walked back in. nolabear May 2016 #54

They came right back in. leftyladyfrommo May 2016 #66

Very strange paulthompson May 2016 #67

yep, very strange. Very strange indeed. nt antigop May 2016 #81

Thanks for identifying that, Paul. What vexed her was the issue of why emails were deleted leveymg May 2016 #90

Yes paulthompson May 2016 #131

They're all lawyers so they try to claim privilege. Oldest game in the book. leveymg May 2016 #155

those nasty old games lawyers play to defend people onenote May 2016 #308

I wonder too, Paul. grasswire May 2016 #105

Clinton lied under oath. Sound familiar? nt thereismore May 2016 #277

great example of "cooperating" with the FBI magical thyme May 2016 #68

She talked to her lawyer? Kingofalldems May 2016 #86

and the grandbaby as well dlwickham May 2016 #129

Yeah, that kid is suspicious. Kingofalldems May 2016 #130

witchhunt Mutant456 May 2016 #94

boo - Hillary did 840high May 2016 #96

Remember how many threads we saw when Bernie allegedly walked out of an interview with a local merrily May 2016 #97

There is a portion of that link that you "forgot" to include, I've supplied it for you. synergie May 2016 #98

little is the same as scant grasswire May 2016 #103

"According to reports" reports from whom? this is just more spin awake May 2016 #268

So if you deathrind May 2016 #104

no grasswire May 2016 #106

The FBI thought it was a solid enough point of law. BobTheSubgenius May 2016 #118

solid enough to ask about it, yes. grasswire May 2016 #126

Just found something that may pertain to this particular e-mail issue. passiveporcupine May 2016 #127

Sourcing paulthompson May 2016 #134

+1000 grasswire May 2016 #151

With the way things are going I don't think Hillary or Bernie are gonna beat Trump. WhoWoodaKnew May 2016 #150

Naw, the "communist" thing is dead in the water. Peace Patriot May 2016 #175

The "commie" is still the biggest boogie-man for most US voters. pnwmom May 2016 #192

Upon closer inspection paulthompson May 2016 #164

in that case, the leaks from the FBI begin grasswire May 2016 #170

Also paulthompson May 2016 #171

what I saw somewhere else on the Internet... grasswire May 2016 #182

grasswire, can you... dorkzilla May 2016 #219

You missed the key point. We know that the FBI has questions about the set-up pnwmom May 2016 #206

or...................... grasswire May 2016 #327

it's akin to a doctor poking your stomach to see where it hurts. grasswire May 2016 #328

Cover up much? Vote2016 May 2016 #169

Clinton has NOT been "cleared" of any crimes. Peace Patriot May 2016 #185

Hillary set up the private server in her home during her 2008 campaign. So any legal advice pnwmom May 2016 #191

This is not about that paulthompson May 2016 #229

You missed the part where I said this: pnwmom May 2016 #231

why didn't she just say 'cut it out' tomm2thumbs May 2016 #195

+1 whereisjustice May 2016 #197

I want to get my company email on a private server whereisjustice May 2016 #196

At least 2 attorneys on this thread have schooled you on privilege. Are you going to admit your msanthrope May 2016 #202

I wouldn't hold you breath. onenote May 2016 #234

Pro-Trump trolls are never wrong Democat May 2016 #280

Maybe the aide had... Mike Nelson May 2016 #207

Well, at least she did not fly out.... riversedge May 2016 #215

Yes. It's always suspicious when someone posts an article from the Hill INSTEAD of the pnwmom May 2016 #218

How would that violate attorney-client privilege? blackspade May 2016 #281

Mills was Clinton's personal attorney dating back to the 90's. pnwmom May 2016 #302

What is corrupt is using the 'privilege' as a way to avoid transparency. blackspade May 2016 #306

How is that "corrupt?" Adrahil May 2016 #314

I already explained how I think it is corrupt. blackspade May 2016 #315

Yes, I am speaking of the Fifth Amendment rights of Sec. Clinton. Adrahil May 2016 #316

that's fine and all, but.... blackspade May 2016 #329

Since the FBI itcfish May 2016 #290

The FBI has not cleared Hillary. There was a Comey press conference IdaBriggs May 2016 #293