Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Clinto staffer who set up her servers plans to take the fifth to his up coming questioning.

Huge news

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-email-staffer-subpoenaed-plans-plead-the-fifth

Smart move. Always plead the fifth.

So if nothing shady went down why is this guy pleading the fifth? You'd kinda sorta maybe think if nothing shady went down they'd want to get that information out there.

Originally posted by Surtur
So if nothing shady went down why is this guy pleading the fifth? You'd kinda sorta maybe think if nothing shady went down they'd want to get that information out there.

Because it's his right as an American.



But you can also just read the article:

"“Although multiple legal experts agree there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is certainly understandable that this witness’ attorneys advised him to assert his Fifth Amendment rights,” said the Benghazi Committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings.

Cummings went on to suggest that Republicans’ asserts that Clinton had committed a crime could have lead Pagliano’s attorney to advise against testimony. “Their insatiable desire to derail Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign at all costs has real consequences for any serious congressional effort,” Cummings said."


Basically, Republicans are so hostile, and have made it such a political issue, that the only prudent legal move for him was to plead the fifth.

But again: if nothing shady went down wouldn't they want to get that out there?

EDIT: The reason given seems like a cop out. If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to hide. People are going to see this and think they have something to hide.

So the guy can't tell the truth, but not because anything shady went down..but just those gosh darn republicans.

Originally posted by Surtur
But again: if nothing shady went down wouldn't they want to get that out there?

EDIT: The reason given seems like a cop out. If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to hide. People are going to see this and think they have something to hide.

So the guy can't tell the truth, but not because anything shady went down..but just those gosh darn republicans.

Yes, he can't tell the truth because the political atmosphere is such that Republicans will take anything and try to spin it against him to get to Clinton. Better not say anything at all. It's a perfectly valid legal strategy, your constitution gives it to all Americans as a right...

You can be easily wrongfully committed for things, to play it safe does not imply that anything illegal happened.

Yes, and I'm telling you that just sounds like an excuse. "I can't tell the truth, but not because I did anything wrong..but those damn republicans".

Sounds like a cop out whether it is true or not and I 100% guarantee you I'm not the only American who will view it as such.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, and I'm telling you that just sounds like an excuse. "I can't tell the truth, but not because I did anything wrong..but those damn republicans".

Sounds like a cop out whether it is true or not.

Do you not think that the political climate currently is such that Republicans are extremely desperate to get dirt on Clinton?

It's still going to make some people think they have something to hide now. Has me wondering just what bit of info they'd feel republicans would "twist".

Originally posted by Surtur
It's still going to make some people think they have something to hide now. Has me wondering just what bit of info they'd feel republicans would "twist".

Sure, some people will think that, but oh well. And they probably don't know. Best to not give any info.

Problem with not giving any info is..now we don't know what it is one way or the other. When you don't give people all the information they tend to just fill in the blanks themselves. How can we be sure nothing shady was done if her staffer is going to dodge the questions and blame it all on the republicans?

So instead of the republicans twisting this into something shady..the lack of any explanation does that instead.

As an accomplished eLawyer, this is the best legal strategy atm.

Sure, as you noted, taking the 5th will make some people automatically assume the worst. But it's likely less worse/damaging than him telling the truth and it being spun into the dirt.

It's basically taking the least damaging option out of two damaging options.

Originally posted by Surtur
Problem with not giving any info is..now we don't know what it is one way or the other. When you don't give people all the information they tend to just fill in the blanks themselves. How can we be sure nothing shady was done if her staffer is going to dodge the questions and blame it all on the republicans?

So instead of the republicans twisting this into something shady..the lack of any explanation does that instead.

If you were stopped by the police and hadn't done anything wrong would you exercise your right not to answer questions or submit to a search and ask if you were free to go?

Giving away your rights when you've done nothing wrong is a slippery slope

Originally posted by Bardock42
Smart move. Always plead the fifth.

If you are guilty as sin.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Basically, Republicans are so hostile, and have made it such a political issue, that the only prudent legal move for him was to plead the fifth.

Seeing Clinton's National Security violation (not necessarily illegal depending on what actually happened but we won't know that because it was wiped which doesn't look bad at all), corruptions, and inappropriate actions in a powerful government office is just a petty election ploy?

It seems very serious. The simple existence of a "private server" is a problem, alone. But what happened and how she handled the fallout make it much worse.

I'm not part of a "GOP campaign against Hillary Clinton." Since I support Sanders for president, this is hardly an issue of me being anti-Dem. I just think Clinton is an atrocious person.


What does Snowden think of the Hillary Clinton case?


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/03/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-email-server


“This is a problem,” Snowden said, “because anyone who has the clearances that the secretary of state has, or the director of any top-level agency has, knows how classified information should be handled.”

He added: “If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the CIA … were sending details about the security of embassies, which is alleged to be in her email, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements that were made to them in confidence over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it.”




Of course, I think I'm every bit as professionally qualified (perhaps more so) than Snowden to speak on this matter. But people seem to think he's a god to speak on digital information and cyber security. So enjoy his perspective which "strangely" matches mine.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Basically, Republicans are so hostile, and have made it such a political issue, that the only prudent legal move for him was to plead the fifth.




Complete bs.

The FBI under Obama is conducting the investigation, wake up. He wants this, and so does Valerie.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial


Complete bs.

The FBI under Obama is conducting the investigation, wake up. He wants this, and so does Valerie.

If the president wants it to stick as well, then there's even more reason for the guy to use his constitutional rights.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If the president wants it to stick as well, then there's even more reason for the guy to use his constitutional rights.

Nice reversal

Thanks, so we all agree the guy is smart to do that rather than give anyone any fodder...?

She's guilty.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
She's guilty.

But you don't think this scandal will sink her, do you?

Yes, duh.

What do you think will happen to Clinton?

I think the quicker this entire scandal is nipped in the butt the less likely it will be to effect her chances. I mean if 6-8 months from now this story hasn't lost any steam...that won't be a good sign.

Plus remember this woman made news headlines by buying a burrito. Who knows how long the media will cling to this?

Now with that hacker apparently having 32,000 emails..they could release 1,000 a month and make that last 32 months.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think the quicker this entire scandal is nipped in the butt the less likely it will be to effect her chances. I mean if 6-8 months from now this story hasn't lost any steam...that won't be a good sign.

Plus remember this woman made news headlines by buying a burrito. Who knows how long the media will cling to this?

Now with that hacker apparently having 32,000 emails..they could release 1,000 a month and make that last 32 months.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/15/jon-stewart-hillary-burrito_n_7068268.html

Watch the video

Yeah surprisingly I very rarely feel ashamed on this country, but I'll be damned if that burrito thing wasn't one of the rare instances I did.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah surprisingly I very rarely feel ashamed on this country, but I'll be damned if that burrito thing wasn't one of the rare instances I did.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think the quicker this entire scandal is nipped in the butt the less likely it will be to effect her chances. I mean if 6-8 months from now this story hasn't lost any steam...that won't be a good sign.

Plus remember this woman made news headlines by buying a burrito. Who knows how long the media will cling to this?

Now with that hacker apparently having 32,000 emails..they could release 1,000 a month and make that last 32 months.

In 6-8 months the only person who's going to care about Emailgate is TI.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seeing Clinton's National Security violation (not necessarily illegal depending on what actually happened but we won't know that because it was wiped which doesn't look bad at all), corruptions, and inappropriate actions in a powerful government office is just a petty election ploy?

It seems very serious. The simple existence of a "private server" is a problem, alone. But what happened and how she handled the fallout make it much worse.

I'm not part of a "GOP campaign against Hillary Clinton." Since I support Sanders for president, this is hardly an issue of me being anti-Dem. I just think Clinton is an atrocious person. it seems kind of crazy to me that some people think this shouldn't derail her presidential campaign. her political career should be destroyed the same way that general patraeus's was.

Originally posted by Robtard
In 6-8 months the only person who's going to care about Emailgate is TI.

But what if the hacker has something juicy?

Originally posted by Surtur
But what if the hacker has something juicy?

Hacker story was a hoax.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it seems kind of crazy to me that some people think this shouldn't derail her presidential campaign. her political career should be destroyed the same way that general patraeus's was.

On the other hand I am finding that really most people actually don't care. By that I mean..they really don't care about issues like national security, etc. or anything else the specific case might entail. What they care about is "Hilary might of done something wrong".

I'm not condoning anything she may or may not have done, it is just something I noticed. Though I suppose this must be done a lot in politics.

So this staffer is like the master of female orgasms? Ok.

In all seriousness, I think the consensus behind Hillary is that if Biden or Sanders get the nomination, that would be marvelous, but if Clinton ends up getting it, she's not the best choice, but she's only option they got.

This just gives you a burning desire to know *what* information they thought the Republicans would twist. I need to know. Is it..is it that maybe Chipotle isn't her favorite place to get burritos? The world needs to know this information.

Originally posted by Lestov16
So this staffer is like the master of female orgasms? Ok.

In all seriousness, I think the consensus behind Hillary is that if Biden or Sanders get the nomination, that would be marvelous, but if Clinton ends up getting it, she's not the best choice, but she's only option they got.

This is a good statement.

Originally posted by Surtur
On the other hand I am finding that really most people actually don't care. By that I mean..they really don't care about issues like national security, etc. or anything else the specific case might entail. What they care about is "Hilary might of done something wrong".

I'm not condoning anything she may or may not have done, it is just something I noticed. Though I suppose this must be done a lot in politics. yea... no doubt.. it's business as usual. but unless we're going to stop holding politicians to some ideal standard... then why should she get a pass? i feel like if it were anyone else this would have easily destroyed their chances. anybody who thinks this shouldn't be such a big deal with regard to her presidential campaign... think of the next/previous occasion where a front-running politician from the republicans has a scandal that requires an actual investigation... would you be so forgiving then as well?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
She's guilty.

Wanting someone to be guilty does not make them guilty, I thought we covered this.


We, as people far separated from the information, don't actually have a way of telling what happened.

She paid this guy to manage her server while he was in the state department

Originally posted by red g jacks
it seems kind of crazy to me that some people think this shouldn't derail her presidential campaign. her political career should be destroyed the same way that general patraeus's was.
Wasn't that a sex scandal though?

Sex scandals are like 10x regular scandals where voters are concerned. Unless your name is Chris Christie. That guy got screwed tbh.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Wasn't that a sex scandal though?

Sex scandals are like 10x regular scandals where voters are concerned. Unless your name is Chris Christie. That guy got screwed tbh.

It was a) a sex scandal and b) it seems pretty obvious that he did share classified (at the time of the sharing) information...also he resigned.

The FBI and Justice Department also brought felony charges against them, while Hillary is currently only investigated. An investigation is not the same as guilt.

You don't think there will be some sort of indictment?

I'm not sure, there may very well be, it's perfectly possible that she did do something wrong. But what is happening right now is mostly right-wing wishful thinking when we have not much to go on.

you don't have to be right wing to realize that clinton and her goons are looking shady as **** over this email shit

at best you have a case of "we didn't have a law restricting her reckless behavior at the time"

at worst you have her covering some shit up by wiping that server. like really... all laws and technicalities aside: you receive inquiries about the contents of a server from the govt... and your instinct is well lets wipe it clean and give it to them? that doesn't sound like a criminal move to you?

i even get pleading the fifth... that's a legal/political strategy. but what kind of reasoning goes into wiping a server before turning it into the state for evidence other than to cover something up?

honestly.... there are some cases where one party makes up a bunch of bullshit about a figurehead of the other side just out of tribal loyalty... but im tired of the assumption that if you criticize this woman you're some kind of republican... or maybe even a misogynist... or both. all this chick does is hide behind political shields like that all day long. if this country weren't so bitterly divided and blinded by partisan politics, and she was just some average joe schmoe on judge judy or something this ***** would get a scolding and a guilty sentence for her blatant obstruction of justice.

Originally posted by red g jacks
you don't have to be right wing to realize that clinton and her goons are looking shady as **** over this email shit

at best you have a case of "we didn't have a law restricting her reckless behavior at the time"

I do agree that the smear campaign has been pretty effective. But we'll see how she comes out at the end.

at worst you have her covering some shit up by wiping that server. like really... all laws and technicalities aside: you receive inquiries about the contents of a server from the govt... and your instinct is well lets wipe it clean and give it to them? that doesn't sound like a criminal move to you?


Originally posted by red g jacks
i even get pleading the fifth... that's a legal/political strategy. but what kind of reasoning goes into wiping a server before turning it into the state for evidence other than to cover something up?

No, not at all, I'd do that immediately. The government has no right to my private emails.


Originally posted by red g jacks
honestly.... there are some cases where one party makes up a bunch of bullshit about a figurehead of the other side just out of tribal loyalty... but im tired of the assumption that if you criticize this woman you're some kind of republican... or maybe even a misogynist... or both. all this chick does is hide behind political shields like that all day long. if this country weren't so bitterly divided and blinded by partisan politics, and she was just some average joe schmoe on judge judy or something this ***** would get a scolding and a guilty sentence for her blatant obstruction of justice.

You probably shouldn't double down on misogynist code when talking about how you aren't. Additionally before your last paragraph it did seem like you were making good points, but now you are just repeating the propaganda again blindly "we know nothing but she's guilty, she'd be found guilty already if she wasn't a politician, rargh....!!"

well when you're right, you're right, bardock42. i can now see the folly of my ways. let me offer my apology for calling into question the character our dear leader. hillary [email protected] is a gentleman and a scholar.

Yeah, because saying we should wait for actual evidence and not jump to conclusions like you did, is basically like making Hillary Clinton the head of a communist dictatorship...

Originally posted by psmith81992
You don't think there will be some sort of indictment?


It strikes me as unlikely.


Really, if she'd acted quicker in responding when this first came out, I doubt we'd still be talking about it, but while Hillary is willing to do gray-zone stuff occasionally, she is aware she often gets the microscope pointed at her and is unlikely to have done anything seriously bad.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, because saying we should wait for actual evidence and not jump to conclusions like you did, is basically like making Hillary Clinton the head of a communist dictatorship... yea that was a lazy early morning half assed post before i went to work, i didn't really have time to sit down and type out a reply. just a bit of humor really.

i don't think i've made any truly wild speculations. yes i know my posts on killermovies.com are not admissible evidence in court. must we really stick to such sterile legalese laden discourse when it's just two random people talking about shit on the internet?

with regard to saying that if she were not hillary clinton the political machine then she wouldn't be granted as much leeway as she has been so far... and i'll go ahead and admit that's speculation on my part. i still think it's true though.

other than that all i did was comment on the kind of image her/her team's behavior conveys. particularly with wiping the server... which only really seems to serve as an obstruction of the investigation. if she wants to claim privacy issues then maybe don't mesh your private emails with your work emails knowing that the govt has certain standards in terms of record keeping.

plus they say they turned over the emails in paper form so the privacy angle goes right out the window... it just seems like they were trying to make it a little more difficult to sort through. i can't imagine what other purpose they would have to wipe the server clean before turning it in. yes i know this technically doesn't prove any wrongdoing... i'm not making a legal case against the woman i'm just reading the situation how i see it.

So here is this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/second-review-finds-classified-material-was-hillary-clinton-email-report-n423201

An "intelligence review" says there was highly classified information in two emails. Hilary says nothing was classified.

So someone has to be lying.

Or neither could be lying, could be that Hillary didn't know the information was "highly classified", could be that the information was labeled "highly classified" after the fact/later date. Could be a few other things I imagine without there being a liar.

But as the story went on to point out: "At this time, any conclusion about the classification of the documents in question would be premature."

If it was labeled classified after she saw it that would be one thing. If it was labeled that way prior to it and Hilary just..missed that, well, that is a big problem.

Originally posted by Surtur
If it was labeled classified after she saw it that would be one thing. If it was labeled that way prior to it and Hilary just..missed that, well, that is a big problem.

Your article also points out that different intelligence agencies classify things differently. So it is perfectly possible that say the CIA says this is unclassified information, but the NSA says it is classified.

It seems this is a lose lose then. Either Hilary has done something wrong or our government is such a clusterf*ck the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Oh no, even if Hillary did do something wrong, the second is still true as well...

If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, how long do you think it will be for the Right to not give two shits about Emailgate?

Question to everyone.

Originally posted by Robtard
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, how long do you think it will be for the Right to not give two shits about Emailgate?

Question to everyone.

I'm not sure there is a time period small enough to answer that.

Originally posted by Robtard
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, how long do you think it will be for the Right to not give two shits about Emailgate?

Question to everyone.
Only God Forgives.

Or, to say it more plainly, about as long as it took for people to forget about that terrible movie, Only God Forgives.

On the real though, I think as long as Hillary tries to have a public life there will be Republicans touting emailgate. Unless something juicier comes along.

Pretty much as soon as she doesn't get the nomination people will move on. I would think the only people trying to keep this story alive are doing it so she doesn't get the nomination..which their job is done once that happens. It's doubtful we'll ever see Hilary in the White House if she doesn't get this nomination.

whats somewhat funny to me is the assumption that right wingers are more interested in hillary not getting the nomination than left wingers are

i consider myself leftist but if hillary gets the nomination i wouldn't vote for her... not over the email shit just cause i don't like her. so i hope this email shit does ruin her so we can get a better candidate (sanders) in there to go against trump.

Originally posted by red g jacks
whats somewhat funny to me is the assumption that right wingers are more interested in hillary not getting the nomination than left wingers are

i consider myself leftist but if hillary gets the nomination i wouldn't vote for her... not over the email shit just cause i don't like her. so i hope this email shit does ruin her so we can get a better candidate (sanders) in there to go against trump.

Would you just not vote then?

The only Republican nominee I would even consider voting over Hillary would be Ben Carson and that one cat who did the 'I'm the Bluecollar guy' shtick (he might actually be).

Carson, because I really don't know anything about him thus far, so I can't rule him out on that merit alone.

The other guy because he seemed very down to earth and progressive. He's the one that basically said "sure I have my own beliefs, but the law is the law and we need to accept and move on to more important things" in regards to the same-sex marriage question. But again, I'd need to know more about him.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Would you just not vote then? pretty much

Originally posted by Robtard
The only Republican nominee I would even consider voting over Hillary would be Ben Carson and that one cat who did the 'I'm the Bluecollar guy' shtick (he might actually be).

Carson, because I really don't know anything about him thus far, so I can't rule him out on that merit alone.

The other guy because he seemed very down to earth and progressive. He's the one that basically said "sure I have my own beliefs, but the law is the law and we need to accept and move on to more important things" in regards to the same-sex marriage question. But again, I'd need to know more about him. lol i would never vote republican unless it was for trump

He goes before a House Committee today.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/paglia-no-proffer-hillary-clinton-emails-213475

WOW

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/5-month-gap-in-hillary-emails/