Hillary staffer given immunity for deposition

[texas_ex2000]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-justice-department/index.html

Washington (CNN)Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer who help set up her private email server, has accepted an immunity offer from the FBI and the Justice Department to provide an interview to investigators, a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN Wednesday.

The FBI has been asking for Pagliano's cooperation for months as dozens of investigators pored over thousands of Clinton emails in a secure room on the fourth floor of FBI headquarters

 

[HornHuskerDad]

Where there's smoke, there's fire...

 

[Joe Fan]

Ruh roh

Seems like an opportune time for the candidates to discuss this with a debate tonight
But will they discuss this more or will they discuss Mitt Romney's comments more?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[chango]

Anyone want to give credit to Obama's Justice Department for approving this?
You know - in the same way you would slam him to no end if immunity was not offered?

 

[texas_ex2000]

Anyone want to give credit to Obama's Justice Department for approving this?
You know - in the same way you would slam him to no end if immunity was not offered?

I've always believed she will be indicted. Corey's reputation and professionalism, much like Admiral McRaven's, is unimpeachable. The public information is too damming. If there was no indictment, it would be Obama's Watergate.

 

[Joe Fan]

Anyone want to give credit to Obama's Justice Department for approving this?

The way DOJ works is that the AG, her assistants and most of the Department heads are political hires. Just below them are literally 100s of career attorneys and agents who remain through administration changes.

This case is being put together by the latter. So, if any credit is actually due, it goes to them.

 

[texas_ex2000]

The way DOJ works is that the AG, her assistants and most of the Department heads are political hires. Just below them are literally 100s of career attorneys and agents who remain through administration changes.

This case is being put together by the latter. So, if any credit is actually due, it goes to them.

Exactly...does it surprise anyone with all these leaks on the investigation coming out? Those 100s of attorneys and agents want to head-off the whitewashing of the case in the public before the pass.

 

[Spur 90]

According to Hillary, it's Ok to use your personal email and computer for work reasons. Even if you work for a mortgage company - you can use your personal email and computer even if it might expose someones social security number and financial info. Or if you work in health care - it doesn't matter is hackers gain your personal health and insurance info. Or law enforcement - who cares if you unfairly expose someone's arrest record or evidence?

And if your own personal server goes out due to a power outage or hurricane, what does that matter that the business of your company (or country) is out for a few days? There isn't any urgency for decisions or answers in your (or her) job.

These people that care about the law are actually just afraid of strong women.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Anyone want to give credit to Obama's Justice Department for approving this?
You know - in the same way you would slam him to no end if immunity was not offered?

Joe is right that the decisions on this were probably made by career DOJ people. However, I will give the Adminstration credit for not stopping it. In fact I think Loretta Lynch has certainly been less political than her predecessor.

Nevertheless, it wouldn't surprise me if a last minute pardon happens, but that would have to come from Obama himself, not from DOJ. If he doesn't pardon her, it'll show that Obama really does have as much contempt for Hillary Clinton as rumored.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Anyone want to give credit to Obama's Justice Department for approving this?

I'll be more than happy to admit I was wrong if an indictment is issued. Would you be willing to admit you were wrong about GOP obstructionism if they allowed a confirmation hearing on a supreme court nominee, with no caveat about how the actual voting was going to go? Why are you in such a hurry in this case when you'd clearly want to see how it played out in the other?

 

[Joe Fan]

.... In fact I think Loretta Lynch has certainly been less political than her predecessor,,,,,,.

Less political than Holder is a pretty low bar.

NY people like Lynch, but NY people tend to always overrate their own.
I say, let us see how she handles the Clinton matter before we draw a conclusion.
If we know anything about the Clinton's, it is that they have always been able to skate just out of reach of the long arm of the law. Will that happen again?
I will say this, if Lynch recused herself I would be quick to give her credit. But she wont. And it's probably too late anyway.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Less political than Holder is a pretty low bar.

NY people like Lynch, but NY people tend to always overrate their own.
I say, let us see how she handles the Clinton matter before we draw a conclusion.
If we know anything about the Clinton's, it is that they have always been able to skate just out of reach of the long arm of the law. Will that happen again?
I will say this, if Lynch recused herself I would be quick to give her credit. But she wont. And it's probably too late anyway.

It's not necessarily too late. If the FBI recommends that she be prosecuted, Lynch could appoint a special prosecutor. I think that would be the smart thing to do anyway.

 

[Joe Fan]

"There is wordsmithing of a classic Clintonian kind going on here which requires a bit of unpacking."

http://observer.com/2016/03/ny-time...ailgate-with-classic-clintonian-wordsmithing/

 

[Joe Fan]

It's not necessarily too late. If the FBI recommends that she be prosecuted, Lynch could appoint a special prosecutor. I think that would be the smart thing to do anyway.

Disagree.
If she is going to recuse herself, she must do it before she gleans the facts.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Disagree.
If she is going to recuse herself, she must do it before she gleans the facts.

The "fact-gleaning" is being done by the FBI. There's no reason why she couldn't get their recommendation and then appoint a special prosecutor.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If HRC is indicted I wish it would happen soon for all of our sakes. The American voters deserve better than to have a candidate under the cloud of an indictment.

I've heard HRC's claims that "these email were classified after I sent/received them" but that doesn't hold water for me. All major corporations I've worked at make employees take an annual data privacy course (usually with a test) that would dictate that HRC should KNOW those email were "secret" whether they had been formally classified yet or not.

With that in mind, why hasn't this moved faster? It seems to be an open and shut case of a severe data privacy violation. There have been talk of her predecessors using private email accounts too, albeit I'm sure that's being floated by the HRC camp.

What happens if we find out that this was common practice from political appointees? Not necessarily setting up your own email server as that would seem to be a huge expense that only the Clinton's could afford but rather a cavalier attitude of using personal email accounts to evade the public disclosure of the political side of the office. We've all heard the stories that Bush Jr. didn't send a single email in 8 years or that Obama's blackberry was locked away when he took office.

 

[UTChE96]

I have not been too interested in this story because it is not very interesting. Mainly because it is so straight-forward. Hillary is obviously guilty of mishandling classified information. No rational person doubts it. The only question is whether political elites of the current executive's party are above the law or not.

 

[mb227]

Sad thing is that, even if indicted, Obummer would probably be johnny on the spot to pardon her before the ink was even dry...it would basically be Nixon/Ford in reverse, with the outgoing officeholder pardoning the potential incoming officeholder instead of vice-versa.

 

[Spur 90]

If the Clintons could go ahead and tell us which laws they don't think pertain to them (perjury, handling classified info, electioneering at a polling place, insider trading, sexual harassment, etc.) it would be much easier for everyone.

 

[Clean]

The Washington Post, the paper that brought down Nixon, is saying she sent classified emails from her home server. She can't deny knowing they were classified since she wrote them.

Who knows, maybe something will come of this after all.

The Washington Post, of all places, found that not only did Hillary Clinton send and receive classified material on her unsecured email server as Secretary of State, she wrote dozens of classified emails herself.

http://www.investors.com/politics/e...l-hillary-clintons-last-defense-just-blew-up/

 

[UTChE96]

A Hillary indictment is actually the worst thing that could happen for the Republicans. Bernie is creaming all of them in the general election polls. Surprisingly, Bernie is the stronger general election candidate than Hillary. Probably the reason why Republicans have been hands-off for the most part regarding this scandal.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If HRC is indicted I wish it would happen soon for all of our sakes. The American voters deserve better than to have a candidate under the cloud of an indictment.

I just don't think a Democratic Administration is going to indict a Democratic presidential nominee in an election year. It would dramatically increase the likelihood of a Republican victory, and that would destroy Obama's legacy.

With that in mind, why hasn't this moved faster? It seems to be an open and shut case of a severe data privacy violation.

Perhaps the party affiliation of the relevant decision-makers has something to do with it.

There have been talk of her predecessors using private email accounts too, albeit I'm sure that's being floated by the HRC camp.

Hillary's people are jumping up and down about this. To ignorant people, it might hold water. It doesn't for me for a few reasons. First, her predecessors used private email accounts, not private servers. I can see a big difference there. Second, from what I can tell, her predecessors used their private accounts on an incidental basis - a handful of times in several years. Hillary's private server was the primary means by which she sent and received email. She did it thousands of times.

Finally, even if it otherwise held water, I'm not a big fan of the "everybody does it" defense. If we accept that defense then how do you prosecute anybody who commits a commonly occurring crime? Everybody speeds. Everybody has run a red light before. Most of us have probably driven after drinking more than we should have. However, if the cops catch a speeder, a red light runner, or a drunk driver, shouldn't we prosecute them as a general rule? If we don't on the basis that everybody does it, then how do we deter others from committing those crimes?