What's new
By:

US Gives Immunity To Staffer Who Set Up Clinton Email Server

colton

colton

All Around Nice Guy
Contributor
This probably doesn't deserve its own thread but I couldn't locate the thread where it was discussed before. I'm especially interested in an opinion from @sirkickyass because you had said in a previous thread that it didn't seem like Hillary had anything to worry about at all. Does this make it seem more serious or not? To me it does, but I'm sure I don't understand the full legal ramifications.

It's apparently from a recent Washington Post report, but I couldn't locate the Post article so here's an article describing the Post report.
https://nr.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=1&articleid=59254790

The U.S. Justice Department has given immunity from prosecution to a State Department employee who helped set up and manage the private email server Hillary Clinton used for her work as secretary of state, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

A senior U.S. law enforcement official said the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign before joining the State Department with her and setting up the server in her New York home in 2009, the newspaper reported.

The Post described the investigation as a criminal inquiry, a label Clinton and her staff have resisted as they seek to reassure voters that the frontrunner to become the Democratic Party's nominee in November's presidential election is not in legal jeopardy.

Clinton has said she did nothing wrong and that she believes the U.S. government will vindicate her. She has also apologized for what she said was poor judgment.

In 2014, Clinton returned about 30,000 emails to the State Department, but said she "chose not to keep" thousands of others her staff deemed not to be work-related. Her staff have acknowledged that other work emails were not handed over, without explaining why.

More than 2,000 of Clinton's work emails contain classified information that could harm national security if exposed, according the State Department, including 22 classified as 'top secret', the highest level. The government forbids sending or storing classified emails through unsecured, non-government channels, and has prosecuted people for breaches.

The Justice Department declined to comment on whether Pagliano had been granted immunity, and his lawyer, the FBI as well as spokesmen and a lawyer for Clinton did not respond to questions on Wednesday night.

Last month, a federal judge overseeing a civil lawsuit against the State Department ruled that department officials and aides to Clinton could be questioned under oath about whether her use of a private email system was an effort to skirt open records laws.

The ruling added to the uncertainty hovering over Clinton about the legal consequences of her unusual email arrangement.

The FBI is investigating the decision to use a private server and is likely to ask Clinton and her aides in coming months how it was set up and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, the Post reported.

Pagliano has declined to testify to lawmakers, citing a constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Click to expand...


I think that last sentence should read "Pagliano had declined to testify to lawmakers, citing a constitutional right against self-incrimination." The whole point of the immunity, as far as I know, is that now he can be compelled to testify because he can no longer plead the Fifth.
 
dalamon said:
go bernie
Click to expand...
Bernie.jpg
 
colton said:
This probably doesn't deserve its own thread but I couldn't locate the thread where it was discussed before. I'm especially interested in an opinion from @sirkickyass because you had said in a previous thread that it didn't seem like Hillary had anything to worry about at all. Does this make it seem more serious or not? To me it does, but I'm sure I don't understand the full legal ramifications.

It's apparently from a recent Washington Post report, but I couldn't locate the Post article so here's an article describing the Post report.
https://nr.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=1&articleid=59254790




I think that last sentence should read "Pagliano had declined to testify to lawmakers, citing a constitutional right against self-incrimination." The whole point of the immunity, as far as I know, is that now he can be compelled to testify because he can no longer plead the Fifth.
Click to expand...

Here's the Washington Post report: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...21e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

A few items here that aren't in your original article:

1. There's no indication that anyone has convened a grand jury at all. To do that they'd have to cooperate with a local US Attorney's office, and we'd likely know about it.
2. Apparently the Clinton campaign wanted Pagliano to testify before Congress, so they may believe that him opening up about whatever he knows will ultimately benefit them (for example, if he says that he set it up and that Hillary had no personal knowledge of the security requirements for servers with government info)
3. The article also notes that Loretta Lynch would have to sign off on charging Clinton, and that seems unlikely.

I honestly have no idea what the likelihood of this ultimately mattering will be. But it seems like the constant strains in the early GOP debates of predicting that Hillary would be ineligible to run because she'll be facing federal indictment seem like quasi-fantasy land.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Here's the Washington Post report: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...21e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

A few items here that aren't in your original article:

1. There's no indication that anyone has convened a grand jury at all. To do that they'd have to cooperate with a local US Attorney's office, and we'd likely know about it.
2. Apparently the Clinton campaign wanted Pagliano to testify before Congress, so they may believe that him opening up about whatever he knows will ultimately benefit them (for example, if he says that he set it up and that Hillary had no personal knowledge of the security requirements for servers with government info)
3. The article also notes that Loretta Lynch would have to sign off on charging Clinton, and that seems unlikely.

I honestly have no idea what the likelihood of this ultimately mattering will be. But it seems like the constant strains in the early GOP debates of predicting that Hillary would be ineligible to run because she'll be facing federal indictment seem like quasi-fantasy land.
Click to expand...

1. it may simply not be time or never be time depending on what is found.

2. This seems a positive for Clinton in that she is sure she will be vindicated

3. To me this is damaging and further confirmation of corruption (worded this way)

I see your three points as a mixed bag.
 
Do people think Clinton intentionally set up an email server at her house to undermine national security? If not than IDGAF.
 
Spend one day on the hill and count how many reps have two cell phones. Pretty much the same thing and no one here seems to care. This is stupid.
 
Gameface said:
Do people think Clinton intentionally set up an email server at her house to undermine national security? If not than IDGAF.
Click to expand...
She did not set it up because she wanted to undermine national security. She set it up for her convenience and that resulted in undermining national security. Other countries have intelligence agencies who would love to know what our government is up to, so it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they would try to hack into the email accounts of our officials, and based on what we know about this server it's pretty likely that they successfully got into it. So I guess if you think her convenience is more important than our national security your take makes perfect sense. I assume you believe we should only punish low level officials who break these sorts of rules, right?
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Spend one day on the hill and count how many reps have two cell phones. Pretty much the same thing and no one here seems to care. This is stupid.
Click to expand...
Unbelievable. Do you really believe that having two cell phones means that they are doing top secret government business on their non-secure line? Do you really think it's okay if they do? She was the Secretary of State. What if the US was sending SEALS on an undercover mission to Iraq, and she discussed details on a server that had been hacked by Russia? What if our SEALS were killed because their undercover mission had been compromised? I'm not saying that happened. I'm just illustrating that there's a legitimate reason that this communication should have been done, as required by law, on a secure server. It's staggering to me that supporters of Hillary are unable to comprehend why this matters.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
She did not set it up because she wanted to undermine national security. She set it up for her convenience and that resulted in undermining national security. Other countries have intelligence agencies who would love to know what our government is up to, so it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they would try to hack into the email accounts of our officials, and based on what we know about this server it's pretty likely that they successfully got into it. So I guess if you think her convenience is more important than our national security your take makes perfect sense. I assume you believe we should only punish low level officials who break these sorts of rules, right?
Click to expand...
No. I just don't think it is as big a deal as you seen to think it is. She's not the information security expert. Obviously details matter, but as long as she didn't set up the server by lying about what she was doing or with the intent of giving away national secrets I don't really pin it on her.

I don't know the details because it all sounds like a dumb "gotcha bitch" pony show by the people who already hated her and I ain't got time for that noise.
 
Gameface said:
Do people think Clinton intentionally set up an email server at her house to undermine national security? If not than IDGAF.
Click to expand...

I think she intentionally set up an e-mail server at her house in a preemptive attempt to side step the freedom of information act so that she could control the "truth". She deleted 30,000 emails claiming they were personal but when the FBI recovered the files they found that many of them were classified. Remember this is the Obama administration DOJ/FBI that is investigating an incident that occurred in his own cabinet. This isn't a Republican witch hunt. David Paetreus plead guilty to letting out classified information and I don't think he was intentionally trying to undermine national security. Why should Clinton not be investigated and possibly charged for a similar incident? Whether or not she did something criminal is almost beside the point. As a voter and a citizen I think it is another example of the kind of dishonest conniving person that she is.

Good Job Dems you could have had a Sanders/Warren ticket but you settled. Now the whole country is going to be left with the choice of voting for a narcissistic serial liar with a grating personality riding a powerful family name to the nomination or Donald Trump.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Unbelievable. Do you really believe that having two cell phones means that they are doing top secret government business on their non-secure line? Do you really think it's okay if they do? She was the Secretary of State. What if the US was sending SEALS on an undercover mission to Iraq, and she discussed details on a server that had been hacked by Russia? What if our SEALS were killed because their undercover mission had been compromised? I'm not saying that happened. I'm just illustrating that there's a legitimate reason that this communication should have been done, as required by law, on a secure server. It's staggering to me that supporters of Hillary are unable to comprehend why this matters.
Click to expand...

Oh i get it, but non of that has been proven to have happened, and most likely will not. R's are grasping at straws to make up for the dumpster fire that is their own party.

Have 2 phones allows reps and politicians to do business and avoid GRAMA, aka Freedom of Information Act, requests and inquiries. You have an ethics problem happening right under your nose, everyday. But I don't see anyone holding their local reps accountable for that.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Oh i get it, but non of that has been proven to have happened, and most likely will not. R's are grasping at straws to make up for the dumpster fire that is their own party.

Have 2 phones allows reps and politicians to do business and avoid GRAMA, aka Freedom of Information Act, requests and inquiries. You have an ethics problem happening right under your nose, everyday. But I don't see anyone holding their local reps accountable for that.
Click to expand...
I guess you have no choice but to come up with logic like this if you have decided you're going to vote for Clinton.

I'll be facing a similar paradox if the time eventually comes that my only choice is to support Trump.

It's so pathetic that America is faced with such terrible choices when we have such amazing citizens. I watched the debate tonight and the only candidate who I can get at all enthusiastic about was frumpy Governor Kasich. IMO he's far and away the best choice from either party... and he's in last place. :(
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Oh i get it, but non of that has been proven to have happened, and most likely will not. R's are grasping at straws to make up for the dumpster fire that is their own party.

Have 2 phones allows reps and politicians to do business and avoid GRAMA, aka Freedom of Information Act, requests and inquiries. You have an ethics problem happening right under your nose, everyday. But I don't see anyone holding their local reps accountable for that.
Click to expand...

Dude it is the feds under OBAMA that are investigating Clinton. It isn't the Republicans.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I guess you have no choice but to come up with logic like this if you have decided you're going to vote for Clinton.

I'll be facing a similar paradox if the time eventually comes that my only choice is to support Trump.

It's so pathetic that America is faced with such terrible choices when we have such amazing citizens. I watched the debate tonight and the only candidate who I can get at all enthusiastic about was frumpy Governor Kasich. IMO he's far and away the best choice from either party... and he's in last place. :(
Click to expand...

I'm voting for Bernie, so whatever. But if it comes down to Clinton and Trump it's still a no brainier. I'm not a racist piece of ****, so my choice is easy.

Are you really trying to make the argument that when all is said and done Trump>Clinton? Really?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
♪alt13 said:
Dude it is the feds under OBAMA that are investigating Clinton. It isn't the Republicans.
Click to expand...

If there's a possible security breach it should be investigated. People (Republican people) are talking like she's going to do prison time. I don't think that's where it's going. I don't think she did it to sidestep the freedom of information act or to subvert our national security. Maybe I'm just gullible. I honestly couldn't tell you any details about the situation because anytime I've heard anything about it it has been from people who are frothing at the mouth and blabbering about how Clinton is going to prison and I tune out and move on.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
I'm referring to the voting public.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Better than trump is among the worst endorsements of all time. and...

The voting public should have higher standards than our justice system. The justice system has to prove your guilt but to the voting public you should have to prove your character. Can you honestly provide an affirmative pitch for Hillary Clinton? Srsly try and tell me why I should vote for her. Can you can up with a single affirmative reason?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top