Why is Clinton Stonewalling the FBI now? Some thoughts [UPDATE]
UPDATE: I should have made clear that to get a subpoena to force her to come in and be questioned a federal grand jury needs to be empaneled. That requires a decision by the Justice Department to empanel a Grand Jury, a decision I can only assume would, in a case of this magnitude, one that is so politically charged, be bumped up to at least the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, who may very well pass the buck to the President. The FBI may still be able to recommend an indictment and the DOJ might still indict Clinton using a grand jury, absent an interview with her, but I doubt they would take that step. They would want to question her first, just to cover all their bases in such a high profile case. Thus, this refusal to grant an interview is a power play move by Clinton. You want to talk to me, she is saying, then get a subpoena. You want a subpoena, empanel a Federal Grand Jury. It's leads to the proverbial question: What are you, Justice Department, prepared to do to get Clinton? How far are you willing to take this?
This is the same reason Clinton - through the State Department - is seeking to squash any deposition of her in the Judicial Watch lawsuit, as that would, again, be under oath, and whatever she says could be used as grounds to indict her.
# # #
It may appears incomprehensible to some why Hillary Clinton would have her lawyer send a message to the FBI yesterday that the agency will have to effectively obtain a subpoena to question her with respect to the ongoing investigations regarding her private email server, etc. But when you dig a little deeper, one starts to discover a pattern as to why now, after months of pledging full cooperation, she has decided to play hardball with James Comey, the FBI Director and the Justice Department. Let's begin with this report by David Shuster on Al Jazeera America on March 30th (video and transcript posted at Mediaite), two months before his tweet last night:
The FBI, led by Director James Comey, has now finished examining Clinton’s private emails and home server. And the sources add that Comey’s FBI team has been joined by the Justice Department prosecutors. Together, they are now examining the evidence, analyzing relevant laws, and attempting to arrange interviews with key figures in the investigation.
Those interviews, according to attorneys, will include former State Department aides Philippe Reines, Former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Clinton herself.
Soon after those interviews — in the next few days and weeks — officials expect Director Comey to make his recommendation to Attorney General Loretta Lynch about potential criminal charges.
So, months ago, before Shuster tweeted that Hillary's lawyer, David Kendall, made it clear Clinton would not cooperate with the FBI, his sources were telling him that the FBI's investigation was nearing completion and that Justice Department prosecutors were working with Director Comey and his agents. All they needed to do interview two of Hillary's aides, and Hillary herself. If Clinton truly was unconcerned about the result of this investigation and wanted to end the cloud hanging over her that it had created, she should have been more than willing to speak to the FBI as soon as possible. Instead, she chose the path of resistance. That doesn't square with her many public proclamations that she would cooperate and that the concerns regarding the use of a private server in her own home to manage her email use while Secretary of State was all a big to do about nothing.
However, there were quite a few indications prior to last night that the Clinton camp was taking this matter far more seriously than they portrayed publicly. For example, we now know that Cheryl Mills, Clinton's former Chief of Staff, raised the attorney client privilege to avoid answering numerous questions during her deposition in the Judicial Watch civil lawsuit held last Friday. As has been reported, Mills raised that privilege to refuse to answer a number of questions by the attorneys for Judicial Watch and otherwise gave vague and incomplete responses (i.e., "I cannot remember" or "I have no recollection," etc.) to those questions she did answer in what has been described as a "contentious deposition." Excerpts from her deposition transcript can be found at The New York Times.
Now recall that Mills was designated by Hillary Clinton to decide which of her emails to turn over to the State Department months after Clinton left office, and which of them Clinton could retain as not having any connection to her official duties (the 30,00m plus "private" emails Clinton deleted shortly thereafter). This is the time frame when Mills claims she began acting as Hillary Clinton's legal counsel:
“I began representing the Secretary, when she departed from the department, on a number of matters,” Ms. Mills said about her legal work for the former secretary of state. Ms. Mills represented Mrs. Clinton on the matter of what emails got ultimately turned over to the government after Mrs. Clinton left office—a key issue in the Judicial Watch lawsuit. [...]
In her testimony, Ms. Mills declined to elaborate on how and why the server was set up, saying that was information she learned while representing Mrs. Clinton as her attorney. Legal ethics rules forbid attorneys from disclosing certain information about their clients, a privilege often protected in state and federal law.
“The knowledge that I have has come through my representation of her as counsel,” Ms. Mills said.
Now recall that Mills walked out of her interview with the FBI earlier in May when she asserted the very same attorney client privilege to refuse to answer certain questions, as reported in The Washington Post on May 10th. The Post's story paints her actions in as positive light as they can, referring to Mills as a cooperative witness. That report further blames the FBI agent for Mills abrupt exit from the interview room, going so far as to state that, according to unnamed law enforcement officials, "[Justice Department] prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated." Nonetheless, Mill's actions are consistent with a clear pattern by Clinton aides to hide knowledge regarding Clinton's emails, and whenever possible refuse to answer questions in the various investigations and lawsuits that have focused on the Clinton's private, unauthorized email server and Clinton's use of it to conduct official State Department business.
Also recall that several of Hillary's top aides, "Cheryl Mills, Deputy Chief Jake Sullivan, Mills’ deputy Heather Samuelson, and Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines," hired the same attorney to represent them, an unusual development. As Jonathan Turley, renowned law professor, scholar and lawyer, noted, using a single attorney to represent all four of Hillary's aides was an odd choice by them as potential targets of a criminal investigation, unless they were doing so to present a united front to protect their boss, the former Secretary of State.
The joint representation is an extremely important development, which is likely to reassure Clinton’s personal counsel. It is however a curious choice for the individual clients in an investigation that covers a large number of emails and actions over a long period of time. They could have serious potential conflicts of interest in the mishandling of classified evidence or the circumvention of security protocols and rules. There is little reason why all four would prefer the same counsel unless they wanted to present a uniform account. Generally, it is clearly to a person’s advantage to have a single lawyer who is solely and exclusively pursuing your own interest. Moreover, there is little question that the Clinton campaign would prefer key witnesses to be represented jointly. [empahsis added]
And then of course, we know that none of Hillary's top aides, nor Secretary Clinton herself, spoke to, or cooperated in any way with, the Office of the Inspector General for the State Department in its independent review, as detailed in the OIG report (scroll down to bottom of page to see the text of the complete report) issued last week. Suffice it to say that everything that could be done by Secretary Clinton and her top advisers and staff to stall these multiple investigations - those being conducted by the FBI, the Judicial Watch FOIA civil lawsuit, and the Inspector General's investigation - has been done.
Thus, for months all the signs have indicated that, despite Hillary's repeated claims she would fully cooperate with the FBI, and further, her many statements that she violated no laws, civil or criminal, was pure political theater meant to deceive a gullible media and the public at large. No doubt, these delaying actions were taken in the hope that Obama's Justice Department would call off its "FBI dogs" and end or suspend the agency's multiple investigations. Certainly, Bernie Sanders' refusal to make an issue over her "damn emails" and the media obsession with whatever preposterous thing Donald Trump said or did on a daily basis worked to her advantage. However, because the the FBI investigation was not suspended, and the time to avoid "cooperating fully" with the FBI investigation is running out (i.e., Secretary Clinton and her remaining top aides agreeing to interviews by Federal agents), we are seeing that her goal all along was to stonewall this scandal.
And the spinning still continues. Here is what Turley had to say about his appearance on the Diane Rehm Show on NPR only hours before Shuster's tweet that revealed the Hillary's lawyer basically indicated the FBI will have to get a subpoena in order to interview Secretary Clinton to complete its investigation:
I was on NPR yesterday on the Diane Rehm Show to discuss the Clinton email scandal. Appearing on the show was Brian Fallon, spokesperson for Hillary Clinton, who offered a new and rather implausible spin on the worsening scandal. Fallon said that Clinton was relying on her knowledge that Colin Powell used a personal email account as the reason that she thought her server was approved. [...]
As I noted at the time, this is a new explanation. After the report said uncategorically that Clinton never asked for approval and would never have received approval for her unsecure personal server, she has switched from claiming that her server was “allowed” to she “believed it was allowed.”
First, this does not square with repeated concerns raised by security staff that were dismissed by Clinton aides. Second, it does not square with policies signed by Clinton herself telling people not to use personal email for State Department business. Finally, it does not square with the fact that Clinton resisted turning over her phone to go into secure areas and was repeatedly seen using the device in secure area (a major breach of security).
However, the biggest problem is that the new spin suggested that Clinton knew that Powell had used personal email years before her tenure. That seems highly dubious. Indeed, Clinton only started discussing the Powell emails after a disclosure from the State department that it found two classified emails had been sent by Powell (emails retroactively identified as classified). Now the campaign is claiming that Clinton knew the details of Powell’s email system (in the early days of email use) and was relying on that knowledge.
Before Shuster learned that David Kendall, Hillary's lawyer, essentially told the FBI to shove their request for a Clinton interview where the sun don't shine, this is what he said on air about where the FBI investigation into Clinton stood:
[T]here is now every sign the Clinton email investigation is quickly headed towards a conclusion, whether it’s her exoneration or indictment. In terms of timing, sources expect the conclusion to come in weeks, not months. And they add that Hillary Clinton’s interview with the FBI, which could come in days, could be crucial.”
Well, it now appears that Hillary is not operating on the same timetable as the FBI. Instead of acting to help the FBI conclude this matter as expeditiously as possible, she has chosen to delay the investigation as long as possible. Remember all those stories that stated an indictment of Hilary was considered highly unlikely, and that "investigators have found scant evidence tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing?"
I guess the Clinton campaign, and her own legal team is not as sanguine in their assessment of potential criminal charges being brought against her as they have publicly led us to believe. Otherwise, why put off an interview that would bring this matter to a conclusion prior to the Democratic Convention? Why force the FBI's hand to seek a subpoena? Does Clinton expect that President Obama and/or Attorney General Lynch will refuse to authorize the FBI from obtaining a subpoena to force an interview, despite the President's public "guarantee that [he exerts] no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI," because nobody "gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department, because nobody is above the law," or is this a brazen attempt by Hillary to force the administration to back off because she has, after all, already won the nomination?
One can only speculate, but it seems clear that Hillary Clinton is is much deeper legal and political trouble than she has claimed repeatedly on the campaign trail. To go from saying you will fully cooperate with a criminal investigation in which you are the primary target, to taking measures to delay the completion of that investigation, if not actively pressure the President and/or the Attorney General to shut it down, goes far beyond anything we have ever seen before in the modern history of U.S. presidential elections.
Comments
As a general rule: Don't talk to the FBI.
Lying to the FBI and other federal LE agencies is a crime - ask Martha Stewart(sp?). Martha went to jail for nothing she did but for what she said to FBI agents that a court accepted as false.
This is not to excuse Clinton, if she needs excusing, but it's something prudent: If you can afford it, have a lawyer present and have the interview structured to your advantage insofar as it's possible.
And, if you think you need to put off the interview, a lawyer experienced in this sort of thing is the one who might be able to do it.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Perhaps if you are running for President
and after saying (repeatedly) that you would talk to the FBI anytime about their investigation targeting you, and you then backtrack, it may be time to get out of the race.
Unless you're a Clinton and it's your turn.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Maybe she feels taking a PR hit is preferable
to free lodging in the Iron Bar Hotel.
I don't know. My post generally is aimed to people other than HRC because I think it's a good personal policy to adopt.
The FBI helped derail the career of Buffy Sainte-Marie and others like Pete Seeger and generally behave like they are the enforcement arm of the capitalist status quo, in my view. The FBI spent a lot of time and money investigating "Louie Louie" as detailed in Dave Marsh's fine book.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Oh they are no angels
But they rarely go after anyone with the kind of clout Hillary has. In fact, I'd say it's unheard of. That this investigation has continued so long is a testament to the fact that they have some serious issues with what they have turned up.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
I have no reason to doubt you. I have no inside info.
But, my feeling - and that's not worth much - is that nothing significant is going to happen.
I hope that I am wrong.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Either there's nothing to it or there's something to it
if there was nothing to it, we wouldn't be at this point.
As far as a "significant" thing happening, that's a really broad spectrum. I can say, even with no inside information, my feeling is that she's not going to actually go to jail. But something significant is coming.
#DropOutHillary
Now. Not after the California primary. NOW. The Buying Time motif is not going to carry her through another week of this shit.
I should have phrased it this way:
The Justice Dept, using the FBI to investigate, has reasonable grounds for suspicion and is trying to develop probable cause for a plea bargain or indictment.
What cannot be known is what kind of political pressure can, and will or will not, be brought to bear to derail the recommendation of the FBI. That leaves it up to Obama and we don't know how far he'll go to protect Clinton and - by extension - his handling of foreign policy and what Clinton knows that Obama wants to keep bottled up.
I think it will be a high level decision to go forward or pull back. If the decision is to stop short of indictment, I think that there will be leaks but the compliant for-profit press will treat it as a 48 hour event.
I have no particular insight but when you've been around as long as Clinton has, including holding a very high level job, you know where the "bodies are buried."
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
She either has enough bodies covered
to keep her in until the convention or not.
I don't think she does, but that's just my 2 cents. If there's this much conflict already that we actually know about, then just imagine the possibility of how much unknown there is.
My money's on a five-alarm battle raging in the upper echelons of our government right now, with the Executive Branch desperately trying to cover her ass and the Judicial Branch pulling the cover away just as quickly.
Whoever runs out of cover loses. My money is still on Clinton, but the timeline is what matters. This has to happen before the California primary. Has. To. Happen. She must be OUT.
Clinton Catch-22
Tell the FBI the truth in an interview and go to jail for the crime, tell them a lie and go to jail for the lie.
#DropOutHillary
I am so goddamn sick of Her. She needs to GET OUT OF THE RACE, NOW. She is damaged goods.
This has to happen before the convention. Has to. Otherwise, Bernie will get screwed out of the nomination and that's bullshit which should not come to pass.
Well, she's "earned her stripes."
She had better be careful about using the word "stripes."
http://m.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/ap/late-voting-new-jersey-has-clou...
As somebody who actually earned his stripes...
All 2 of em...
No. No she didn't. She pulled the equivalent of the jerkass Lieutenant who sits in the FOB and puts himself in for a Bronze Star and an Army Achievement because he heard Mortar fire ONCE.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
New Dictionary definition of Transparency in Politics
To obscure, deflect and deny.
but with such blatant arrogance
and obvious contempt for the public's attention span and ability to find ones previous statements.
Transparently above that law: 'My dog ate it, it's my turn, I'm the presumptive nominee, you can't prosecute me!'
Great summary
I think it now quite likely that HRC will be indicted, or Comey will resign, with great flourish, in abject disgust.
In the Mills dep, she purposely avoided saying she had any knowledge of the Datto backups being changed to 30 days. If she is the one that did the deletions, as you say, and the deletions show obstruction, then she lied and will be indicted. So it is a matter of showing that Hillary agreed to the deletions, and was part of a coverup re the missing 32,000 "personal" emails.
It is the lying and the coverup!!
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." de Saint-Exupery
Duplicate post
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
I don't know if Mills did the deletions
But she did choose which emails to provide to the State Department in December 2014, long past the time those emails should have been archived there. I believe Clinton's lawyer informed Gowdy's committee on Benghazi that she had her "private" emails" deleted and her server wiped thereafter.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Sorry
this was meant as a reply to writerinres. Mea culpa.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Clinton Stonewall
Maybe Hill wants to win Cali by a squeaker and shut out Bernie from getting "uppity" at the convention. The optics aren't good for being interviewed by the FBI inconveniently right before next Tuesday's MSM declaration that she's the nominee. Or, maybe she's just repeating her seemingly lifelong pattern of saying one thing publically but reneging in private, hoping that the issue will be forgotten by her media supporters and the attention deficit disordered public. Regarding the media, the (former) newspaper of record, the Washington Post had a screaming headline about Hillary campaigning against Trump on the grounds that she's a better pick for national security issues. National Security Issues ! Ha, ha, ha.
I don't know . . .
With all these articles and editorials, it sure doesn't seem that the media is forgetting about it. And they're not flattering her either.
I can't even get rid of her . . .
playing solitaire. In a computer crash, I lost my windows 7 card games and now I'm stuck with some juiced up solitaire from Microsoft complete with advertising.
And there she was and is and is . . .
A picture of Hillary in better times, the caption "I'm with her" and a button to "Add Your Name Now"
Unbelievable.
Everyone always says "The Clintons" are brilliant
NOT SO MUCH.
We can hope...
this will come to a head before the convention.
Alex O posted a link to the entire Mill's testimony from this week (162 pp)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-mills-depositio...
This is finally getting into the MSM. Did you see the Wall St. Journal piece? Here's a few bits from behind their wall...
Wall Street Journal Opinion/Commentary
So we can hope. And isn't it ironic that the superdelegates might save us? Even rats jump off a sinking ship!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Is the WSJ saying that Hillary is a loser?
It looks to me like the publication is warning its subscribers to look around for another horse to back.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
I think the Murdoch-owned WSJ has been
convinced that they can work with Trump.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Seems like the rethugs...
in general have rallied around the Hairball. Murdoch and T-rump are of the same ilk. I bet they could deal with Hellery just fine too.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Yes, so do I
my money says that Trumpsky has a new little shadow puppetmaster named Dick, just waiting in the wings...
Not just WSJ
I've seen little things on CNN, NBC, ABC - Fortunately this e-mail issue is like Trump in pulling in eyeballs and ears. The MSM needs to pay their bills, ya know.
The best thing is that we progressives on the internet already know all this. But now it is getting onto the MSM, and older folks who were politically aware when Nixon went down are seeing this (sometimes for the first time).
On The Hill they talked about a poll from 31.05. or 01.06. where 50% believe what she did was illegal, 20+% believe it was probably illegal, and less than 20% think it was not illegal. Those numbers are not going to improve with time. And their drop will be proportional to her drop in trustworthiness (already 1/2 of Trumps!) and inversely proportional to her unfavorability. Regardless if we win CA she will be the weakest (D) front runner I think ever. If we win CA, she's in the toilet.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Supers will still give her the nomination. The DNC would rather lose the election and keep their corruption than win the election and lose their corruption.
Ex-pat in central Europe trying to bring democratic socialism back to the homeland
2 months.
...March 30th (video and transcript posted at Mediaite), the day before his tweet last night:
Steven, two months, not one day.
Thanks for spotting my mistake
Much obliged. Two months makes this even worse. She's had plenty of time to schedule and interview, but obviously chose not to do so. Now that the OIG report is out, suddenly she has made it clear she won't speak to them willingly. What a surprise, eh?
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Oops
Will correct
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Orders aid to strip headers and send unsecured
From the Light House.
That's pretty damning
right there.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Hmm!
Clintonemail.com
Setting the tone for non secure communications.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Flagged! Flagged! Flagged!
Hillary is innocent!!!
Everyone knows that!!!! Only a sexist, misogynist hunter of witches who hates women would post such an inflamed inflammatory attack.
Damn. You got me
Forgot to call me a Bernie Bro, though. You lose ten points for that.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Innocent
Of course she is innocent. How could this
master of governmentsweet little old lady be guilty of anything? The emails are a nothingburger. There has been no wrong doing. She didn't mean to hide everything from FOIA. There has been nothing illegal. If there had been something other than astinkingillegalan honest mistake, thecriminal investigationsecurity review wouldn't have gone on so long. Hergood friend, mortal enemy, George Bush did it and its just human to hide all your daughter's baby shoes and pizza deliveries. You never know what Tea party activist Amy Goodman might distort baby shoes as? What ifBrockTed CruzDonald Trump caught ahold ofPrincessChelsea's all expense paid$225,000pizza bill? Criminal charges will not be pressed. If she hadn'tmade an enemy out of 7/8 of the human racewasn't a woman, these misogynist right wing conspiracy Bernie Bruh theories wouldn't rate a hyena cackle in hell. Its allTrump'sBernie Sander's fault. I'm With Her and SheApollo Global ManagementIs Fighting For Us.From the Light House.
She barely understood email
she just knew that Colin Powell did it at home, in private, and she should be allowed to. Only a racist misogynist would say otherwise.
Amazing
We are to believe that two of the smartest people in the world are all of a sudden morons that know nothing about email.
#I'mWithAlex
Hillary is the finest woman ever to escape from Arkansas.
That's only one of at least 2 or 3 reasons why she deserves to be Empress of the World.
Timing
I think there are two things in play - the nomination/election and a Presidential pardon.
Scenario A: she is innocent and confident that she would not be indicted, nor convicted if she were indicted. It would have been to her advantage to put this behind her as quickly as possible, preferably months ago.
Scenario B: she is indicted while there is still time for Bernie to win the majority of pledged delegates. I think this deadline is already passed, certainly it will be shortly. All it would take is maybe 10% of primary voters to switch to the safer option.
Scenario C: she is indicted after the voting is over but prior to the convention. Bernie can make a strong case to the super delegates that this is an extraordinary situation and they should support him as the only viable option. Clinton benefits by delaying the investigation to push past this deadline.
Scenario D: Clinton wins the nomination, but is indicted shortly thereafter. She would be under pressure to withdraw. I don't know what the procedure would be to bring in another candidate. Common sense, which is probably useless, would be for Bernie to (somehow) become the nominee, or somehow bring in Biden or Warren, which would be a disaster and I don't know how it could be done. Obama would be under pressure to pardon her and let her continue with the election, but I suspect that he would refuse. Bernie would have plenty of time to campaign and win the election. Clinton would be left without the Presidency and without a pardon. Clinton benefits by delaying the investigation to push past this time frame.
Scenario E: Clinton wins the nomination, clings to a hope of general election victory, but is indicted in October. There is no time for Bernie or anyone else to mount a campaign, and early voting may have already begun. This guarantees a victory for Trump. Obama caves and issues a pardon. Clinton probably loses to Trump due to the scandal, but she has a pardon. Clinton benefits by delaying the investigation to at least this point.
Scenario F: Clinton wins the nomination, and wins the election, and is indicted prior to taking office. Obama issues a pardon. Clinton gets the Presidency and her pardon, though she is under the cloud of scandal for her entire term. Clinton wins.
Scenario G: Clinton wins the nomination, and wins the election, and no indictment is issues prior to her taking office. Her Justice Department declines to proceed with an indictment. Game-set-match.
The only case where delay is not in her favor is if she is innocent AND can prove it. Apparently that's not the case.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
Which leads to my speculation below...
The game has changed and the odds of indictment went up since March. So she is trying to push this out as long as possible.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
Left out one: the James Michael Curley option.
Hillary, Cheryl, Huma and Patrick could run the country from Leavenworth--a west West Wing. Wise guys manage to run the Mafia from prison. Why can't the extraordinarily talented HRC run 'Murca from behind bars?
We'd be an Official Banana Republic if we did that
Not sure why Noriega springs to mind, I might have that all wrong, but I could have sworn he did some "official things" while he was in prison. Or maybe it was the Marcos regime in the Philippines. Can't remember now...
Details to Scenario D:
DNC By-Laws
Article Three, Section 1, Gives the DNC this power:
c. filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President
Meaning if Clinton drops out after getting the nomination, the DNC can put in Biden without a convention. They'd be stupid enough to do it, I believe.
Ex-pat in central Europe trying to bring democratic socialism back to the homeland
The only thing that make sense to me...
Is that Clinton was banking on a few of those deleted e-mails not seeing the light of day and somehow, the FBI has fully recovered them - and there is something pretty damning in there (like TS classified Humint). And now the game has changed. Also, if there (ed) is classified info in there, there may be other agencies that are putting pressure on the investigation. I agree. Her refusal smacks of desperation.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
Yup
And that's why neither she nor Cheryl Mills want to say anything about who decided to delete what.
At the time she was promising to cooperate, she didn't know they were going to be able to recover those deleted emails which prove not only personal emails were deleted. We already know that she didn't turn over some of the exchanges that she had with Sidney Blumenthal (but he produced them to the Benghazi panel). What else did she try to sweep under the rug?
Will Mills play the Scooter Libby role and take the fall for her boss? If so, I hope she realizes her pardon is unlikely to be as forthcoming as quickly as Libby's was. And Hillary would have to be elected first, something that is looking increasingly difficult for her to accomplish.
The other interesting thing is that Mills attempting to use attorney/client privilege to shield her conversations with Clinton about creating the private server back when Mills was chief of staff (and a government employee) may not be a valid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Mills
And it shouldn't be in this case! Mills was chief of staff for the Secretary of State. Her professional responsibility and duty was to the office, not to Clinton personally. She was not a personal lawyer with a duty to a personal client, and she certainly did not have a professional responsibility to help that individual figure out how to evade federal laws.
Another person in Clinton world wearing multiple hats with conflicting interests. Somehow, though, for these folks the public interest always seems to come last.
Even the smallest person can change the course of the future
Clintons should be less focused on spin
and more focused on how they do not end up getting charged with Treason
Does she evenhave facetime today?
I haven't looked, being disinterested. Is she down in the bomb shelter? Looking for a flight out? Strangely quiet weekend for someone in the end-game of a primary.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
why delay?
Probably to stall past the convention then force Obama to bail her out.
She's a terrible decision maker though. The FBI may push for
subpoenas' right now and they could ratchet the heat on her.
She's hoping to aim for a 72, "Don't eagleton me" but who knows the
delegates may bail.
See my update above
To subpoena her now you need to empanel a Federal Grand Jury.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Is there one empaneled, anywhere?
I have relatives who served on Fed Grand Juries. I would not be surprised if one isn't already in place.
I would not get on one.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I've read speculation
That since Pagliano has immunity that yes, there is a grand jury.
You would think
one doesn't get immunity granted just for fun--or to cover one's ass from "political witch-hunts". I'd put money down on the odds of that speculation being correct.
Reading through Cheryl Mills deposition
Wow! You would need an IT nerd to make heads or tails out of all the "email account" talk in Mills' deposition!!! Evidently Hillary had various accounts set up on her email server for herself and her associates. With numerous accounts serving different purposes. It is quite conceivable that some accounts could "wipe" themselves clean depending on the "aged" setting on the account. Backups could have been done or NOT DONE on various accounts depending on the backup settings. There were accounts with clintonemail.com, clinton.com and att&t.net domains. BlackBerry's were both state.gov and at&t domains. It's a real mess that will take a long, long time to unravel. Ms Mills had three (yep three) attorneys with her at the deposition and objections were flying left and right. The public will NEVER understand fully WTF was going here with all the changes in email accounts and who had what accounts or who had both accounts and on and on.. The phrase ".com" is mentioned hundreds of times. What a cluster! I hope someone can sift through the various depositions and emphasize the pertinent passages. I have and IT background but hell, unless you have this Pagliano guy (Hillary's appointed IT person) sitting there spilling his guts it all will make no sense to the layman. Bryan Pagliano will probably be Hillary's patsy in the end = make room Snowden here comes Bryan!!
The thing that could do Hillary in might be the auto forwarding settings on the various accounts which would ignore the "classified" headings and just do the "illegal" aspect of forwarding classified messages to non classified accounts automatically...
Mills deposition just released yesterday: opens in PDF format
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JW-v-State-Mills...
Peace
FN
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN
Not really
you only need someone who understands servers. It's definitely complicated, but it's not indecipherable.
Plus, we need to remember, the FBI investigation is separate from the Judicial Watch depositions....
Yes "server speak" is complicated
But the aspects of this email scandal involve lax security, thwarting of state dept procedures, misuse of email domains, backup procedure, secure communications, doctoring classified emails, SCIF facilities, employing state dept officials for private email work, intimidation of IT staff, violation of records management, network auditing files and on and on. She's smart no doubt but covering all these tracks is very, very hard = something will bite her.
Yeah, the server plays a part but she could very well have been using a State Department server and STILL have violated many security processes listed above...
Peace
FN
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN
Which is exactly why this stonewalling is bullshit
And she wasn't using a State Department server. Which in and of itself is the biggest problem. No need to make this overwhelming, complicated or terribly involved, though I'm sure as part of "stonewalling" that motif will be foisted on us. But this should have been over long ago. That we're all still having this discussion means that someone is covering up for Hillary Clinton and helping her run out the clock.
When does that stop? When are those people called to account?
#DropOutHillary
Second thought on Hillary's own server...
The idea of running one's own email server can bring out temptation to create various "suspiciously hidden accounts" and temptations to doctor emails that would have been impossible to accomplish on a government system, so yeah I see that permissions to tamper email activity on one's own server could lead to criminal behavior; so yes I change my vote to "server" plays a big nasty part in all of this...
Peace
FN
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN
Mills Deposition
Don't have time today to read the deposition, but it certainly sounds like it was really "convenient".
Ex-pat in central Europe trying to bring democratic socialism back to the homeland
When will the media pick up on the John Edwards angle on HRC?
Does anyone remember when John Edwards was willing to gamble with the potential ruin of the Democratic Party, and our election chances on the dubious premise that he would not get caught in his deception about his affair with a mistress while his wonderful wife was dying of cancer?
What kind of sociopath would let their own political ambitions go so far as to have no more respect for thevoters, our party, and nation and our common good?
How is this situation with HRC any different? She has known all along what she was doing, that there were classified docs on her servers. Even if we give her the benefit of the doubt about the original set up of the server, she was briefed and knew full well what the requirements of the Federal Records Act, and NARA were.
She was repeatedly briefed that her Blackberry was not an approved of device for accessing classified documents.
For this entire last year, when she has claimed that her server was "approved" she knew this was not true.
When she originally said there were no classified documents on her server, she knew this was not true.
When she changed her story to say there were no documents "marked" classified she knew this makes no difference under the law, and that it was her specific legal responsibility to make sure any unmarked classified document became marked.
She knew when George Stephanopouolis reminded here that whether or not classified docs were "marked" are not is irrelevant she chose evasion to an honest response which she has still not adequately responded to. And, there has been no media follow up on this and her numerous other evasions. Reporters just sit there slack-jawed letting her get away with obvious deception.
Even now her website claims she has cooperated with all investigations, and is happy to "answer all questions by anyone." She refused to cooperate with the OIG, and now apparently there are questions about her willingness to meet with the FBI.
Her supporters keep making a big deal of "intent" but we know that intent is irrelevant for 18 793 (f). The whole point of repeating the whole paragraph adding the phrases “gross negligence” and “knowledge of” was to establish the the “intent” requirement of the previous paragraphs is not required in this case.
Read it again. Mere “knowledge of” a national security breach requires immediate notification of the CIA and security officer. Failure to so is a crime in and of itself by virtue not just of this paragraph but also from the NDA she signed. Apparently there is no evidence that she contacted a security office or the CIA when classified documents came into her authorized server in an unauthorized location.
Ask anyone with a security clearance.
But, now that the OIG report establishes intent to violate FRA and NARA does this not establish malicious intent for the many other section of the Espionage Act that she appear to be in violation of?
I did not even know until a decade after his death that my father had a TOP secret clearance to work on the software systems of the Trident submarines. He never mentioned even to us. After he was inducted to one of the Navy's Hall of Fames, I saw a photograph of the plague. Secrecy is such a big deal we just thought he was a computer scientist for the government. Two of my brother also have also held security clearances.
One tells me that in one of their many repeated workshop on the requirements of our national security rules he was instructed that if someone come across a classified document, or suspected classified document in an unauthorized location they are to immediately put it on the floor and stand on it calling for a security officer.
If one is not immediately available they are not to go to the bathroom, or even to their desk to get their phone but to stand on it, even over night if necessary.
This sounds bizarre, however, the reasoning is that if they carry it back to their desk they are going to be interrogated if the looked at any of it, etc.
If they went to the bathroom, or turned their back on it even to go find their phone how could they testify that no other non-authorized person didn’t photograph it.
He was told that even if he were innocent he would be interrogated for days about why he didn't follow procedures.
So this is what we tell millions of Patriotic Americans who go through incredibly pains to correctly follow national security procedures but HRC get’s to live in a rarefied special world where the rules do not apply to her?
For the first two months, she didn’t even have a password on the computer and it was set up with “remote access” activated with two open ports!
She allowed Pagliano access to the server and instructed that it be transferred to Platte River Networks, a company not authorized to handle classified material and not having a single employee authorized for classified material.
This actually may bring in the next section 793 (g) into play with describes charging criteria for conspiracy.
But the most important and least discuss aspect of this is she has known this all along yet looked us all repeatedly in the eye and assured us that we had nothing to be concerned about.
Now I see rumors on admittedly dubious sites that she has told her staff that even if she is indicted she will not withdraw.
So all this time, and even know, she is has been willing to gamble the common good of the Democratic Party, all of our down ballot candidates, and the common good of the United State of America on the idea that she wouldn’t get caught and could bulldoze her way through all of this.
And apparently now her plan is to hope that she locks in the Democratic nomination so no one will be able to do anything about it.
And she is now falling back to the new line that "it was a mistake and I wouldn't do it over, but consider the totality of what it would mean if Trump were to become President." WTF?
This is not going to go well for us. or her. And, if the super delegates do not step up to the plate and show more concern about the level of trustworthiness, character, and judgement required to be our Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States of America, it will be on them. They will be enablers and co-conspiraters, and enablers after the fact.
Does it really make any difference now what additional evidence the FBI may or may not release? BTW they do not usually issue public reports, and neither or Grand Jury deliberations public.
We already know enough to know she has not been honest with Democratic voters, fellow party members, fellow candidates, and the American people.
And despite what she is implying over the last couple days we are not yet past the point of "no other choice but Trump being president."
When are Democratic Party leaders and super delegates going to step up to the plate and lead us out of this disaster and embarrassment before it gets worse.
They protect Hillary to keep Bernie OUT
and that's criminal. #DropOutHillary
I have had it with this. Had it. This conversation should have been over WEEKS AGO. Hillary Clinton has no business still being in the primary race for POTUS, and as far as I'm concerned, with each passing day, those "Super Delegates" are aiding and abetting "high crimes".
I think that is correct.
The Hillary camp's accusation that Bernie's refusal to butt out is hurting Hillary is pure projection. I think what's going on is that Hillary is staying in the game to hurt Bernie. The Hillary camp would rather see Trump as President than Bernie.
pending...
^^^This!!!^^^
Outstanding comment! For the life of me, there is no way that I can conceive that what she did can be justified. I am appalled that the leaders of the Democratic party continue to try to shove this corrupt and fatally flawed candidate upon us.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Further...
It is appropriate to indicate that the type of intelligence that she dealt with is THE MOST CLASSIFIED information in the US - Human Intelligence. Your father dealt with submarine tracking software. The state department runs non-official personnel through the US embassies. This is the reason why the Valerie Plame story was such a big deal. Burn a spy and you destroy an entire network of intelligence gathering.
What this hole incident also proves is something I refused to believe in the '90's. The media is in the tank for the Clintons. Really, this should be all the media should be talking about - instead they are talking about Trump University.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
Wow HoundDog!
I wish there was some way to get your comment on the front page of a national paper. That is the most compelling thing I've read on why Hillary Clinton should be disqualified from serving as president of this country. You hit every nail directly on the head! Well done! Hope you don't mind if I cut and paste that comment and send it around!
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
George W. Bush
BYOD - Bring Your Own Device is acceptable Gov't practice... BUT
Hillary could have gone through the proper channels to get her BlackBerry approved by the IT Department. This would have required the installation of various Government approved software(s) to be installed the device such as "GO". You can google BYOD and see what a mess trying to use your own device at work is.
White House directive on BYODs:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/digitalgov/bring-your-own-device
Even with a proper BYOD in the federal government I'm not sure classified material could be transmitted to it.
PEACE
FN
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN
Your guessing appears to be correct
It could not.
What she did was unique and it was criminal.
She Requested a Secure BlackBerry Like Obama's
But it was apparently very hard to configure, and she was told she didn't need to be using a BlackBerry for gov't business. So, Hillary decided she would do things her way since the rules do not apply to her.
Objections by Cheryl Mills 3 attorneys
I did a count on the number of times "objection" appeared in the deposition.
255 yepers 255 times!!!!
Mills deposition just released yesterday: opens in PDF format
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JW-v-State-Mills...
Peace
FN
- See more at: http://caucus99percent.com/comment/99643#comment-99643
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN
Thank you Jonathan Turley
He did a great job on the Diane Rehm show and when he started talking about Powell's emails and that Fallon said she knew about them beforehand - my jaw dropped. Prior to that I had been telling my husband that this could be a key point - - did she know before or after the fact that Powell used email. Then I started questioning my sanity and thought maybe it wasn't a big deal cause no one was talking about it. Thank you Mr. Turley for validating my sanity! Indictment here we come.
Thank you Jonathan Turley
He did a great job on the Diane Rehm show and when he started talking about Powell's emails and that Fallon said she knew about them beforehand - my jaw dropped. Prior to that I had been telling my husband that this could be a key point - - did she know before or after the fact that Powell used email. Then I started questioning my sanity and thought maybe it wasn't a big deal cause no one was talking about it. Thank you Mr. Turley for validating my sanity! Indictment here we come.
thanks
for the stellar research and analysis, Steven D.
I am remind of the famous Bush Falsism, that no doubt Senator Clinton supported:
Sure seems like flip-flopper Hillary, has been doing a LOT of worrying lately.
More than her usual two-sided nonsensical talk.
Another trait the Bushies and Clintons
seem to share - they never accept blame for anything.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
careful wording
HRC carefully crafts her sentences, like, "I have never emailed anything marked classified ..." while I'm sure we've all seen her email where she says, "Remove all markings and then send it ..."
Well, The Free Beacon is catching on:
My reading of that is that she just didn't answer the question, and instead inserted her own talking point. The reporter should have followed up, "I'm not asking if you scheduled an interview ... perhaps they contacted you and you refused to be voluntarily interviewed?"
As one of the comments at your reddit link for this article says: "I am thinking she was finally sent a 'target letter'. Absolutely no reason to cooperate then. Once informed you are the target of the investigation, even the worst attorney in the country would advise not to answer any more questions."
the last Hillary interview I listened to
I turned off after she was questioned about the "mess" in Nevada.
"Wasn't that awful!" she said, shaking her head.
She was pressed -- You mean what Bernie supporters did?
"A real mess," she reiterated.
But what was a real mess? She expressed emotional disapproval of -- of something -- but what? I mean, you could even imagine she was disapproving of what the officials of the Nevada state Democratic Party did, if you decided to let your imagination leap that far, because Hillary refused to be specific about anything. Ye gods, I thought, four years of this?
[above quotes not exact]
Attorney Client Privilege
I'm not a lawyer, so I could be completely wrong on this. It seems to me that attorney-client privilege would be invoked in those matters where Mills was actually representing Clinton or working on her behalf. All other matters would be fair game. Mills was just a political appointee when Hillary was SoS, and wasn't acting as her counsel.
So, later work for Hillary as her attorney affords attorney-client privilege to everything that ever happened before that?
Mills' "Claim"
Mills claims that she first learned of the private server after Clinton left SoS and after Mills became her attorney. Too convenient by half. I fully expect this to be proven false, and Mills to be charged with perjury. I'd put my money on Mills trying to take the fall for Clinton. She'll be the one who deleted the e-mails. Unfortunately for Clinton, there is just too much "there" there for Mills. I suspect that the current Clinton plan is to get attention on Mills long enough for Clinton to be elected. I don't think it will work, but what else is Clinton to do, tell the truth? I don't think so.
Ex-pat in central Europe trying to bring democratic socialism back to the homeland
Clinton Makes Me Sick
Please, please, please end this charred. Look literally everyone in Washington DC understands that Hillary hid her emails intentionally to hide actions that would not be allowed otherwise or were most likely illegal at minimum and trains at worst.
Before anyone tells me treason is to strong a word think about this. What would you call approving arms sales to despot countries in return for donations to your personal foundation, that is treason