Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Hillary and the email

Hillary and the email (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 12:38 PM
 
I don't like Hillary, just as much as I don't like Trump, but how can ANYBODY make excuses for this, based on "because somebody else did it, I can too." Why as a nation are we buying that?

A General lost his job because of this misdemeanor of mishandling classified data. We're going to let somebody run for president with that hanging over her head?

When did we stop seeking better candidates for the presidency than what both sides are feeding us?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 12:43 PM
 
You've got to hand it to her machine for the job they've done so far running interference on this.

Right past pretty much everyone who's been in the military or does IT security.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 01:03 PM
 
I work in Gov't IT, and it is REALLY frowned upon to use unapproved tools. It may be different in non-gov't firms and large companies but not where I work. MANY app's, plug-ins and software installers do unsecure crap in the background so ALL software in the environment gets checked by IT security first. We have systems that inventory what software and what versions are on everyones computers. it will ID a newest version of Firefox and replace it with the agency approved, but older version within about 15 minutes. If you can't get the users to show some discipline then they go away. The Dept. of State has a horrid IT contractor, and it shows. The DoS IT folks seem to also be idiots.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
I don't like Hillary, just as much as I don't like Trump, but how can ANYBODY make excuses for this, based on "because somebody else did it, I can too." Why as a nation are we buying that?
Well, it depends on what you want to criticize: selective enforcement for political gain is a problem in my opinion, and criticizing that doesn't imply tacit approval or even defending the wrong doing.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I work in Gov't IT, and it is REALLY frowned upon to use unapproved tools.
Indeed. But isn't this the same US government that in many agencies is still running Windows XP and IE 6 because Congress won't budget enough funds to upgrade their antiquated systems?

OAW
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 08:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I work in Gov't IT, and it is REALLY frowned upon to use unapproved tools. It may be different in non-gov't firms and large companies but not where I work. MANY app's, plug-ins and software installers do unsecure crap in the background so ALL software in the environment gets checked by IT security first. We have systems that inventory what software and what versions are on everyones computers. it will ID a newest version of Firefox and replace it with the agency approved, but older version within about 15 minutes. If you can't get the users to show some discipline then they go away. The Dept. of State has a horrid IT contractor, and it shows. The DoS IT folks seem to also be idiots.
If you did what Hillary did, what would happen?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
He was in construction. In New York. Isn't it obvious what type of people he was in contact with?
Actually, it's not obvious to me. Care to give facts about Trump's illegal or criminal acts ?

Cause to me, it sounds like you're making sh!t up.

-t
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Actually, it's not obvious to me. Care to give facts about Trump's illegal or criminal acts ?

Cause to me, it sounds like you're making sh!t up.
I am not making up anything. This is not a new allegation or the result of me wearing my tin foil hat the wrong way around, it's been well-dcumented, see eg. g. here, here or here. It's not just the liberal media either. In fact, someone literally wrote a book about it. In 1992.

So I'm not making up preposterous allegations about Trump, they have literally been around for 25 years. In any case, he hasn't been convicted of anything, and in the eyes of the law that makes him innocent. But that doesn't mean I can't make up my own mind on whether there isn't a kernel of truth to it and that it shouldn't influence how I think about him.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2016, 10:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I work in Gov't IT, and it is REALLY frowned upon to use unapproved tools. It may be different in non-gov't firms and large companies but not where I work. [...] The DoS IT folks seem to also be idiots.
ArsTechnica has an interesting take on the matter from your angle.
Originally Posted by Arstechnica
Paying a State Department employee on the side to set up and administer her personal mail server, Clinton claims she just was doing what her predecessors did—but you'd be hard-pressed to find any government executive who ignored rules, regulations, and federal law so audaciously just to get mobile e-mail access.

If you've worked in IT for any amount of time, you've run across the shadow IT syndrome—employees using outside services to fix a problem rather than using internally supported tools.

[...]

And lest we forget, well before Clinton came to the State Department, members of the George W. Bush administration used a private e-mail server (at gwb43.com) run and paid for by the Republican National Committee—at least 88 accounts were set up for Bush administration officials in order to bypass the official White House e-mail system and avoid the regulations around presidential record retention, the Federal Records Act, and the Hatch Act (which bans the use of government e-mail accounts for political purposes, among other things). In the process of using that system, more than 5 million e-mail messages were "lost," which led to the resignation of a number of White House officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. None of the e-mails for 51 of the 88 accounts was preserved by the RNC.

[...]

As previous e-mails obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests have shown, Clinton pushed hard to get the State Department's information security officers to approve her use of a mobile device for e-mail and do it from inside the State Department's secure executive suite—largely on the grounds that she was uncomfortable using a PC. The National Security Agency suggested she use an approved secure device capable of doing Secret-level classified e-mail as well as official unclassified e-mail. But the State Department was unprepared for the cost of supporting such a device, and its IT department didn't have the resources (nor, likely, the skills) in-house to support it.

[...] And she provided the same shadow e-mail service to her core staff as well—taking all of their communications off the grid and out of federal oversight.

[...] Besides, Clinton's excuse basically boils down to this: other people broke the rules, so she should have been allowed to as well. It's the entitled executive syndrome writ large.
If you look at the device the NSA suggested (a hardened Windows CE PDA with edge) — in 2009, I don't blame her for wanting to use her smartphone of choice. But she should have known better.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; May 28, 2016 at 02:08 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2016, 07:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Indeed. But isn't this the same US government that in many agencies is still running Windows XP and IE 6 because Congress won't budget enough funds to upgrade their antiquated systems?

OAW
Its not about funding its HOW the agencies have botched their long term planning. They don't communicate. The massive rules and regulations also make transitions take much longer. I'm just getting to upgrade my folks to 10.10.5. Making sure the encryption stuff works within the environment along with disk encryption and software monitoring and packet inspections etc can take time to make sure one thing doesn't break another. I have a 10.7.5 machine off the network but in the environment but all it does is print CD's and DVDs. My agency has less than 15 NT machines in the environment, but they can't be connected to our inside secure network.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2016, 07:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
If you did what Hillary did, what would happen?
No clearance anymore...ever. Jail. Fines.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2016, 07:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
ArsTechnica has an interesting take on the matter from your angle.

If you look at the device the NSA suggested (a hardened Windows CE PDA with edge) — in 2009, I don't blame her for wanting to use her smartphone of choice. But she should have known better.
Thats the part that bothers me most. That SHE DIDN'T KNOW BETTER. She has a long track record of this behavior.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2016, 07:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Thats the part that bothers me most. That SHE DIDN'T KNOW BETTER. She has a long track record of this behavior.
She knew.
Hillary Clinton Said She Did Not Want Her Emails to "Accessible" - Breitbart

Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff told her that “we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.”

Hillary Clinton replied, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

Federal investigators may now have yet another smoking gun to indict Clinton for a violation of the Espionage Act of 1913. Breitbart News has led the media in coverage of the email scandal, first reporting that “Top Secret” classified information was exchanged on her private server.

Here are six other major points of interest that could lead investigators to make a judgment in the case that Clinton would not care for:
The points were provided by a former DOJ employee.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...o-high-heaven/
45/47
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2016, 07:51 AM
 
But she did it anyway.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2016, 01:54 PM
 
What's actually so bad about the phone the NSA wanted to give her? This is an honest question.

At least in terms of being an email machine, which I get the impression is how she used her Blackberry.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2016, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
No clearance anymore...ever. Jail. Fines.
In my case, with the sub service likely penalties were removal from the fleet, courts martial (plural), military prison, reduction in rate, dishonorable discharge.

Not identical, but this is how seriously they take mishandling classified data, if you're not monied, or a presidential candidate.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/us-s...j_MsHs.twitter
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2016, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's actually so bad about the phone the NSA wanted to give her? This is an honest question.
It was ancient, ancient technology. (Ok, so was a Blackberry at the time … touché )
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
Not identical, but this is how seriously they take mishandling classified data, if you're not monied, or a presidential candidate.
You could add a whole bunch of other cases, e. g. Snowden vs. Petraeus or Richard Clapper lying under oath to Congress. Or more suitably, the email scandal involving the George W. Bush administration where conveniently emails were lost. What is the common problem in all of these cases? Selective enforcement. And Hillary Clinton is now being targeted for the same reason — it is not about justice, but a political maneuver to drag her through the mud at a convenient time to prop up Trump. The motivation to push for an investigation now for political gain taints the whole investigation in my opinion, nothing good can come out of it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2016, 03:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
What is the common problem in all of these cases? Selective enforcement. And Hillary Clinton is now being targeted for the same reason — it is not about justice, but a political maneuver to drag her through the mud at a convenient time to prop up Trump. The motivation to push for an investigation now for political gain taints the whole investigation in my opinion, nothing good can come out of it.
I'm not sure what you're advocating.

Continue selective enforcement and let Hilary become president
How many more Benghazis do you want her to commit ?

Selective enforcement has always been wrong. Do you want to abolish the rule of law altogether ?

-t
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2016, 03:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I'm not sure what you're advocating.

Continue selective enforcement and let Hilary become president [...]

Selective enforcement has always been wrong. Do you want to abolish the rule of law altogether ?
As I wrote before: “The motivation to push for an investigation now for political gain taints the whole investigation in my opinion, nothing good can come out of it.” Law and justice should be left to people who are impartial and have nothing to gain or lose (let's say from an impending election).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2016, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
As I wrote before: “The motivation to push for an investigation now for political gain taints the whole investigation in my opinion, nothing good can come out of it.” Law and justice should be left to people who are impartial and have nothing to gain or lose (let's say from an impending election).

Exactly. We want change? Don't allow the media and partisan politics wind us up like wind up dolls.

Sure there is a lot to be concerned with this issue and Benghazi, but if this issue is overplayed it will just drive people towards their familiar partisan fallbacks, ultimately accomplishing nothing except renewing commitments to political parties.

In other words, if this issue is really a concern, partisan forces need to be kept at bay, and in addition to debating the question of whether Hillary should be deemed unelectable, there is also the question of how technology, security, and government intersect, which is actually a worthwhile debate regardless of the election cycle and players involved.

Of course, this is just going to become a partisan change show though. I would be utterly shocked if this didn't end up being so.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2016, 10:37 AM
 
Forget the distractions. Look what she ACTUALLY DID. She told her underlings to strip classifications off classified documents. She deleted who know how many emails.. Its lot like I'd believe Hillary to tell the correct number deleted. She new but ignred process. she's too untrustworthy. She's a LIAR too. She will do and say anything even in different regional accents.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2016, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Forget the distractions.
It's not a distraction, it's an essential issue.
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
She's a LIAR too. She will do and say anything even in different regional accents.
What does that have to do with anything? And how does that make her a LIAR (in all caps)? That's a kindergarten assessment rather than a nuanced discussion amongst adults.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2016, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
It was ancient, ancient technology. (Ok, so was a Blackberry at the time … touché )

You could add a whole bunch of other cases, e. g. Snowden vs. Petraeus or Richard Clapper lying under oath to Congress. Or more suitably, the email scandal involving the George W. Bush administration where conveniently emails were lost. What is the common problem in all of these cases? Selective enforcement. And Hillary Clinton is now being targeted for the same reason — it is not about justice, but a political maneuver to drag her through the mud at a convenient time to prop up Trump. The motivation to push for an investigation now for political gain taints the whole investigation in my opinion, nothing good can come out of it.
Leaking classified information like a sieve and an end-run around the FOIA results in your name getting dragged through the mud. Who would have thunk it?

But let's be clear... the draggers are the ones at fault here for being partisan hacks.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2016, 02:50 PM
 
Let me specify what's grinding my gears here... I mean, other than the totally illegal part.

Remember John Edwards? Banging reporters and having kids while his wife was dying of the cancer?

I don't actually care he did that shit. We're all human and are all quite capable of some truly epic ****ups.

What I cared about was him being such an entitled son of a bitch, he assumed he could escape any and all consequence. Not one moment of thought put into whether this time bomb exploding in the lap of the leader of the free world may, I dunno... hurt the country.

That's what's pissing me off about Hillary. It's exactly the same thought process.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2016, 02:53 PM
 
Too bad Hillary didn't anticapte someone actually doing their job and creating redundant backups. It could be she didn't want this to get out.
Confirmed: Weapons Were Moving Through Benghazi to Syria - Katie Pavlich
45/47
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2016, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What I cared about was him being such an entitled son of a bitch, he assumed he could escape any and all consequence. Not one moment of thought put into whether this time bomb exploding in the lap of the leader of the free world may, I dunno... hurt the country.

That's what's pissing me off about Hillary. It's exactly the same thought process.
(1) How is Hillary Clinton different from Donald Trump here? As far as I can tell, he has a much deeper sense of entitlement and a much thinner skin.
(2) Why is attitude so important to you? You don't pick your neurosurgeon according to his or her attitude either.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2016, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
As I wrote before: “The motivation to push for an investigation now for political gain taints the whole investigation in my opinion, nothing good can come out of it.” Law and justice should be left to people who are impartial and have nothing to gain or lose (let's say from an impending election).
Oh, do come on.

There were plenty of calls to investigate Hillary BEFORE Donald even became a viable candidate. The DOJ stonewalled this for the express purpose to not jeopardize the most viable democratic candidate.

It's petty to boil this down to last minute election politics.
It should have never been in limbo that long in the first place.

-t
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2016, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Oh, do come on.

There were plenty of calls to investigate Hillary BEFORE Donald even became a viable candidate. The DOJ stonewalled this for the express purpose to not jeopardize the most viable democratic candidate.

It's petty to boil this down to last minute election politics.
It should have never been in limbo that long in the first place.

-t
That's a fact. Long before.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2016, 10:53 PM
 
45/47
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2016, 05:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Oh, do come on.

There were plenty of calls to investigate Hillary BEFORE Donald even became a viable candidate. The DOJ stonewalled this for the express purpose to not jeopardize the most viable democratic candidate.
Hillary Clinton has already been investigated on these issues (how many hearings were there on Benghazi?). She has been under attack for years, also in part to create a clout of controversy around her.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2016, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Hillary Clinton has already been investigated on these issues (how many hearings were there on Benghazi?). She has been under attack for years, also in part to create a clout of controversy around her.
Yet, you claimed it was for political reasons just now during the election.

The truth is, based on facts and the law, Hilary should have been put in jail many times over.

-t
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2016, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Yet, you claimed it was for political reasons just now during the election.

The truth is, based on facts and the law, Hilary should have been put in jail many times over.
You're not making any argument here, sounds like you're just arguing from an emotional rather than a factual perspective.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2016, 12:38 AM
 
Oh, personal attack veiled in passive-aggressiveness ?

-t
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2016, 04:17 PM
 
Things are not looking good. Mills' lawyers and Obama administration lawyers object to question about her knowledge of the IT specialist who setup Clinton's server. Will Cheryl Mill or Huma Weiner be willing to go to jail like Susan McDougal did?

Lawyers for Clinton aide block questioning on IT specialist who set up server | Fox News

Lawyers for senior Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, during a nearly five-hour deposition last week in Washington, repeatedly objected to questions about IT specialist Bryan Pagliano’s role in setting up the former secretary of state’s private server.


According to a transcript of the deposition with watchdog group Judicial Watch released on Tuesday, Mills attorney Beth Wilkinson – as well as Obama administration lawyers – objected to the line of questioning about Pagliano.

“I'm going to instruct her not to answer. It's a legal question,” Wilkinson responded, when asked by Judicial Watch whether Pagliano was an “agent of the Clintons” when the server was set up.

Pagliano cut an immunity deal with the Justice Department as part of the FBI’s ongoing criminal probe of Clinton's email practices.

This was a pattern repeated throughout the deposition by the seven lawyers for Mills -- including four attorneys representing the State and Justice departments, as well as her personal representatives.

Asked direct questions about when Mills spoke with Pagliano, Mill's lawyer also objected.

In other exchanges relating to the server's set-up, Mills said she did not know how to answer either.

"I don't know how to answer your question because I don't know the time period,” Mills said, when asked when she spoke with Pagliano. Mills served as Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department and her counsel.

Mills had recently gone to court to make sure that recordings of this past Friday’s deposition were not released. The request was granted by the court, though Judicial Watch was still able to release the transcript.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Fox News on Tuesday that they have “more information than we did before the deposition despite difficult questioning.”

He added, “Mills’ attorneys directed her not to discuss conversations with Pagliano.”



45/47
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2016, 08:03 AM
 
So to take the fifth, don't you need to have committed a crime?

Clinton tech aide plans to take the Fifth at deposition - POLITICO
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2016, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So to take the fifth, don't you need to have committed a crime?

Clinton tech aide plans to take the Fifth at deposition - POLITICO
"Some type of immunity?"
Pagliano previously took the Fifth when he was called to appear at a closed session of the House Benghazi Committee. However, he reportedly spoke with FBI investigators looking into the Clinton email set-up after receiving some type of immunity from the government.

Read more: Clinton tech aide plans to take the Fifth at deposition - POLITICO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
45/47
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2016, 01:26 PM
 
This is actually gaining steam, maybe she'll be prosecuted after all.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2016, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So to take the fifth, don't you need to have committed a crime?

Clinton tech aide plans to take the Fifth at deposition - POLITICO
Not necessarily. As with most legal/constitutional issues it doesn't lend itself to the "bumper sticker" interpretations that are all too commonly believed because of movies and TV shows.






Fifth Amendment Flowchart | The Illustrated Guide to Law

The step above the pistol above is the key thing here ...

Could YOUR answer (or silence) be used to look like YOU committed a CRIME?
This is why judges instruct juries not to make any inferences about guilt or innocence because of someone "pleading the fifth". Because it's designed to protect citizens against self-incrimination ...

incriminate - make (someone) appear guilty of a crime or wrongdoing; strongly imply the guilt of (someone): he refused to answer questions in order not to incriminate himself | (as adj. incriminating) : incriminating evidence.
So one does NOT have to actually be guilty to assert one's 5th amendment protections. One only has to appear to be guilty.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2016, 02:45 PM
 
I can put it into bumper sticker form.

"You have the right to remain silent. This right does not exist to protect the guilty."
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 10:28 AM
 
Seems some diodes are in that flowchart! I decided to copy them to my desktop. Good info OAW!
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Seems some diodes are in that flowchart! I decided to copy them to my desktop. Good info OAW!
The main thing that I learned from it is that it's not enough to just keep your mouth shut if you are ever detained by the cops. You have to expressly state you are invoking the 5th otherwise they can use your silence against you!

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 08:36 PM
 
How does that work?

I know the chart says it, but what's an example of that happening?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2016, 09:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How does that work?

I know the chart says it, but what's an example of that happening?
I've never been arrested so I can't say for sure. But if I understand it correctly here's a scenario. A man's wife comes up missing. The police bring him in for questioning and ask him when was the last time he saw her. He refuses to answer but doesn't assert his 5th amendment rights. In court the prosecution could portray his silence as evidence that he was "hiding" something. Whereas if he had asserted that right they could not.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 12:02 AM
 
I watched a lot of L.A. Law growing up, so I'm of course totally qualified to speak with authority...

OBJECTION!
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2016, 02:11 AM
 
^^^

You and me both!

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2016, 05:31 PM
 
The judge in the Judicial Watch case has order the IT to produce the immunity agreement with the feds.

Politics: Judge to Hillary's IT lackey: Before you take the Fifth, let's see that immunity deal, bro | Best of Cain

Smacked down.

If you observe the way people from HillaryWorld operate, you could be forgiven for thinking anyone can invoke the Fifth Amendment any time they just don't feel like answering a question. That's certainly the way Bryan Pagliano seems to be playing it. Even though he's been given immunity from prosecution by the Justice Department, and can cite almost no serious risk of self-incrimination, the guy who set up Hillary's schlock, homebrew e-mail server still seems to think he can take the Fifth rather than answer questions in a deposition by Judicial Watch - the conservative legal group that's suing for the release of public records Hillary wants hidden.

Can he?

Not so fast, says the federal judge assigned to the case. You can't just take the Fifth whenever you feel like it. It doesn't work that way. You have to demonstrate to the judge that by testifying you would put yourself at specific risk of prosecution for a specific crime. That can be a pretty hard case to make when you've already got immunity. So the judge has ordered Pagliano and his lawyers to come clean over exactly what's in that immunity deal:

A federal judge has ordered a former State Department IT expert to hand over the immunity agreement he has reportedly reached with the Justice Department as part of the investigation connected to Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

The order late on Friday afternoon postpones Bryan Pagliano’s deposition with conservative watchdog organization Judicial Watch until further notice. The interview had been scheduled to take place on Monday.

Pagliano’s lawyers have said that he had been planning to assert his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

But on Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan declared that Pagliano’s lawyers need to file a legal memorandum outlining the legal authority for him to claim plead the Fifth, “including requisite details pertaining to the scope of Mr. Pagliano's reported immunity agreement with the government.”

This could be very important because, if Judge Sullivan rules Pagliano is at no risk of self-incrimination because the immunity deal protects him, then it raises the obvious question of why he doesn't want to testify. I'll take a guess: He knows that if he answers questions truthfully, he'll be incriminating Hillary - since every illegal action he took was at her direction, and despite the claims she's been making publicly, she's known from the very beginning that she was in violation of the law.

I think there might be another reason. Judicial Watch would love to know if the e-mails Hillary supposedly wiped from the server - the ones she claims were about Chelsea's wedding and yoga routines - could be recovered. I suspect Pagliano knows perfectly well that they can be, and that they contain a treasure trove of evidence Hillary was using her position as Secretary of State to rake in money for the Clinton Slush Fund, er, Foundation.

What I'm not sure of is his motivation to keep protecting her at this point. Maybe, in spite of everything that's already happened, Pagliano still thinks there would be a job for him in a Hillary administration. The hangers-on in ClintonWorld do tend to stay in the fold for the long term, and the Clintons are pretty shameless about rewarding their friends even when it's known that said friends aided in their criminality.

If Judge Sullivan rules after reviewing the immunity deal that Pagliano is at no risk of self-incrimination, and thus he has to testify, he will then have to choose between committing perjury and giving up the goods on Hillary. If anyone is loyal enough to her to risk going to prison to protect her, that person has lost his fricking mind.
45/47
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2016, 02:24 PM
 
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2016, 11:45 PM
 
I get that this email issue is important, but it makes me truly sad that this issue is going to dominate our national discussion. There are 5000 more important things to be discussing and debating if we want a healthier America.

And, I have to say this too: there are many bright people here, it is up to us to steer this national conversation in the direction it needs to go. That we all get so distracted by these sort of issues is disappointing.

I get that it is important who gets elected, but this whole ordeal is a never-ending pattern that has to stop:

1) we fuss over these sorts of issues
2) somebody is elected, somebody else isn't
3) we are all so exhausted by the end of the long election cycle that we go back to not caring about the day-to-day of politics
4) in part because we haven't really been debating the important issues we get the same old stuff happening in our politics
5) we continue to be programmed to hate the Ds or Rs in a complete knee-jerk fashion. BadKosh is a perfect example of the results of this.
6) loop back to #1
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 12:25 AM
 
I more or less agree with your main point, but find the email is an odd hill to plant your flag on.

How important this issue is will be dependent on the extent of her malfeasance, and whether action will be taken.

Neither of these are known quantities. How are you determining the relative importance of the issue?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I more or less agree with your main point, but find the email is an odd hill to plant your flag on.

How important this issue is will be dependent on the extent of her malfeasance, and whether action will be taken.

Neither of these are known quantities. How are you determining the relative importance of the issue?

I'm saying that regardless of the outcome of this issue, this does not impact the lives of the voting public, and is therefore a distraction to us regular folk.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:17 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,