quote:

Originally posted by Bigboreshooter:
As I've asked before, has anyone asked Hillary how she DID send & receive classified materials? We know she did not have/use a .gov email account.

So, did she not have any communications involving classified topics during her tenure as SoS? If she did, how did she do it?

How would one even do THAT job without handling classified data at some point?
Answer: You don't! Period.

quote:

How would one even do THAT job without handling classified data at some point?
Answer: You don't! Period.

No doubt classified information was sent to other people working for State through secure channels and the documents then handed to her when she was on her many jaunts abroad.
When in her office documents would have been circulated in the regular manner.

Evidently Queen Hillary likes to have constant up-dates over her Blackberry and Phones so her aides sent her memos all of the time and all of this chatter was over very insecure channels.

This "It wasn't marked classified at the time" BS is getting very tiresome, but I guess it's all she has so we can expect to hear it even during her trial.

This is just an opinion piece but I like the opinion.
Pagliano may be singing loudly. I said sometime ago that he would seem to be the guy that could pull the keys from the ignition of the Clinton machine. Young guy like that starts to sweat when looking at a long ass time in prison.
He's scared shitless as he should be.

quote:

I agree with Jonathan F. Keiler and Daniel John Sobieski that the odds are that we will see an FBI effort to prosecute Hillary, and that all political calculations about the election may have to be thrown out, even if the DoJ and Obama decline to prosecute. Babbin also sees:

I am not yet so cynical as to believe that FBI Director James Comey and his team won’t demand that Clinton and her aides be indicted. It may come down to them threatening to resign loudly if those indictments aren’t forthcoming.

What Pagliano may be singing about

http://www.washingtontimes.com...lary-clinton-email-/

Senate lawmakers are renewing their request to question the State Department staffer who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s private email server following revelations that he has been granted immunity by the Justice Department, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press on Monday.

Republican senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have asked Bryan Pagliano to appear before them to discuss the server and to provide documents and communications about Clinton’s personal email account.

Pagliano last year invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in declining to answer questions from the lawmakers about the server and email setup.

But in their letter to Pagliano, the senators argue that the immunity grant from the Justice Department – which is investigating the potential mishandling of sensitive information on the server – means that the “Fifth Amendment privilege is no longer applicable.”

“Because the Justice Department has granted you immunity from prosecution in this situation, there is no longer reasonable cause for you to believe that discussing these matters with the relevant oversight committees could result in your prosecution,” wrote Grassley and Johnson, who respectively serve as chairmen of the Senate committees on the judiciary and homeland security and governmental affairs.

The letter is dated March 3, the day after news broke about Pagliano’s immunity offer. The senators have also asked Pagliano and the Justice Department for copies of the immunity agreement.

Mark MacDougall, a lawyer for Pagliano, did not immediately return an email seeking comment Monday evening. Clinton and her campaign have said that they are pleased that Pagliano was cooperating.

letter to Loretta Lynch

The Honorable Loretta Lynch
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Lynch:

We are writing regarding the immunity agreement between the Department of Justice and Mr. Bryan Pagliano, the IT Specialist who was responsible for managing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s non-government email server and related matters during her time leading the State Department. In light of yesterday’s Washington Post article reporting that the Department of Justice has granted immunity to Mr. Pagliano, we request a copy of that immunity agreement.

As you know, in our September 14, 2015 request, the Committees specifically asked that you ensure that any agreement between the Department and Mr. Pagliano include a provision that requires Mr. Pagliano to cooperate fully with our Committees’ investigation. Subsequently, in a phone call with the Judiciary Committee on September 28, 2015, you stated that the Department had yet to make a determination on how it would approach Mr. Pagliano.

Now that the decision has apparently been made, the Department should provide a copy of the agreement and answer the questions in our previous letter so that the Committees may assess how best to secure Mr. Pagliano’s cooperation. The Committees believe that Mr. Pagliano possesses unique information about Secretary Clinton’s private email account and server that is vital to the Committees’ ongoing inquiries into this matter.

Accordingly, we request a copy of the immunity agreement between Mr. Pagliano and the Department by March 10, 2016. Thank you for your prompt cooperation with this request.

Sincerely,

Ron Johnson
Chairman
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary



LTR to Pagliano:

Mr. Bryan M. Pagliano
c/o Mark MacDougall, Esq.
Constance O’Connor, Esq.
Connor Mullin, Esq.
Sean D’Arcy, Esq.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Pagliano:

We are writing to request that you reconsider your decision to not participate in an interview with the Committees in light of the recent news that you have been granted immunity by the Department of Justice. We respect your constitutional rights and any legitimate personal assertion of your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. However, the privilege is confined to instances in which the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger of prosecution based on his answers. See Hoffman v. U.S., 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). Because the Department of Justice has granted you immunity from prosecution in this situation, there is no longer reasonable cause for you to believe that discussing these matters with the relevant oversight committees could result in your prosecution.

Accordingly, we write to request that you make yourself available to provide information relevant to the Committees’ ongoing examination of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account and server during her time at the State Department. In addition, we request that you provide a copy of the immunity agreement.

As mentioned in our prior correspondence, on August 19, 2015, staff of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee requested an informal, voluntary interview with you to which you, through your attorney, declined and suggested you would likely avail yourself of your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Then, on August 28, 2015, staff of the Judiciary Committee reached out to you seeking an interview regarding your role in setting up and maintaining Secretary Clinton’s private email and server. In response, your attorneys suggested that you would rely on your Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer any questions the Committee posed. In an attempt to find a path forward, we wrote to you and your attorneys requesting your attorneys meet with Committee staff to explore alternative options, such as a proffer session, to obtain the unique information you possess.

Rather than meet with Committee staff, your attorneys declined to participate in any further discussions. On September 14, 2015, we wrote to you again to reconsider your decision to not voluntarily engage with the Committees. On September 15, 2015, your attorneys again declined to cooperate with Committee staff to discuss possible alternatives to obtain your testimony.

As the Committees continue investigating Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email account and server, and in light of your recent grant of immunity by the Department of Justice, the Fifth Amendment privilege is no longer applicable, and we are thus reintroducing our request to speak with you voluntarily regarding your involvement with Secretary Clinton’s private email account and server.

We are also reintroducing our October 8, 2015 request that you produce all documents and communications sent or received from your @pagliano.com email address referring or relating to Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email account or server.

The Committees believe that you possess unique information about this matter that is otherwise unavailable and would appreciate your full cooperation with the Committees’ requests, including providing a copy of the immunity agreement. As such, we request that you or your attorney contact Committee staff by March 10, 2016 to arrange the interview and production of responsive documents.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Ron Johnson
Chairman
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

I guess Zippy gave the go ahead for things to come out.

Everybody wants in on the action

The Republican National Committee filed two lawsuits on Wednesday seeking to obtain emails related to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's tenure as U.S. secretary of state.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/repu...mails-154248813.html

The RNC said it filed the lawsuits after the State Department failed to respond in a timely manner to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted in December. It sought the information to ensure the public has information to decide if Clinton is "fit to serve" as president, the RNC said in a statement.

The first lawsuit seeks emails, BlackBerry Messenger or text messages between then-Secretary of State Clinton and several key senior aides, including her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and director of policy planning, Jake Sullivan.

The second lawsuit seeks emails and other electronic exchanges between nearly a dozen State Department officials and any Clinton associate using one of more than a dozen different internet domain names. It covers the period between Feb. 1, 2013, when Clinton left the job, and Dec. 4, 2015.

The request includes any emails to the State Department officials from Clinton's campaign website, HillaryClinton.com, or the website of former President Bill Clinton's foundation, ClintonFoundation.org.

The suit also targets emails from domains like MediaMatters.org, a liberal non-profit group that seeks to counter what it believes is misleading conservative information in the U.S. media.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Everybody wants in on the action

The Republican National Committee filed two lawsuits on Wednesday seeking to obtain emails related to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's tenure as U.S. secretary of state.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/repu...mails-154248813.html

The RNC said it filed the lawsuits after the State Department failed to respond in a timely manner to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted in December. It sought the information to ensure the public has information to decide if Clinton is "fit to serve" as president, the RNC said in a statement.

The first lawsuit seeks emails, BlackBerry Messenger or text messages between then-Secretary of State Clinton and several key senior aides, including her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and director of policy planning, Jake Sullivan.

The second lawsuit seeks emails and other electronic exchanges between nearly a dozen State Department officials and any Clinton associate using one of more than a dozen different internet domain names. It covers the period between Feb. 1, 2013, when Clinton left the job, and Dec. 4, 2015.

The request includes any emails to the State Department officials from Clinton's campaign website, HillaryClinton.com, or the website of former President Bill Clinton's foundation, ClintonFoundation.org.

The suit also targets emails from domains like MediaMatters.org, a liberal non-profit group that seeks to counter what it believes is misleading conservative information in the U.S. media.

Anyone else view this as a very bad idea. The more this gets politicized, the more cover Hillary and her crew can generate from the great 'Republican conspiracy to get her that's been going on forever' nonsense.

I'm thinking a few well placed comments to the media in response to the Pagliano deal, and then ongoing to respond to developments and to keep the issue active in the media, while letting Comey finish his investigation, might be the better course of action.

The more politicized this gets, the weaker the narrative against this criminal.

You have got to be shitting me.


Attorney General Loretta Lynch indicated Wednesday that the law doesn't require the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email system, even if the FBI recommends criminal charges. Lynch was asked in a hearing by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, what her department would do if the FBI were to recommend that step. "If the FBI were to make a referral to the Department of Justice to pursue a case by way of indictment and to convene a grand jury for that purpose, the Department of Justice is not required by law to do so, are they — are you?" Cornyn asked. Lynch didn't answer directly, but seemed to indicate the department has some wiggle room, and can consult with officials before deciding what to do. "It would not be an operation of law, it would be an operation of procedures," Lynch said in reply. She added that the decision to pursue a criminal case would be "done in conjunction with the agents" involved in the investigation. "It's not something that we would want to cut them out of the process."

She's right I think, it's not strictly a criminal matter that she used a personal email. However, the classified contents of those emails IS a criminal matter and it'll be hard to wriggle out of charges on that one IMO. Then you can also add obstruction charges and conspiracy charges and a whole host of other criminal charges that are most definitely crimes and there appears to be lots of evidence to support them all.

FBI Director is now a political liability for the White House...

http://thehill.com/policy/cybe...meys-fbi-makes-waves

The aggressive posture of the FBI under Director James Comey is becoming a political problem for the White House.

The FBI’s demand that Apple help unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino killers has outraged Silicon Valley, a significant source of political support for President Obama and Democrats.

Comey, meanwhile, has stirred tensions by linking rising violent crime rates to the Black Lives Matter movement’s focus on police violence and by warning about “gaps” in the screening process for Syrian refugees.

Then there’s the biggest issue of all: the FBI’s investigation into the private email server used by Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former secretary of State and the leading contender to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

A decision by the FBI to charge Clinton or her top aides for mishandling classified information would be a shock to the political system.

In these cases and more, Comey — a Republican who donated in 2012 to Mitt Romney — has proved he is “not attached to the strings of the White House,” said Ron Hosko, the former head of the FBI’s criminal investigative division and a critic of Obama’s law enforcement strategies.

Publicly, administration officials have not betrayed any worry about the Clinton probe. They have also downplayed any differences of opinion on Apple.

But former officials say the FBI’s moves are clearly ruffling feathers within the administration.

With regards to the Apple standoff, “It’s just not clear [Comey] is speaking for the administration,” said Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism and cybersecurity chief. “We know there have been administration meetings on this for months. The proposal that Comey had made on encryption was rejected by the administration.”

Comey has a reputation for speaking truth to power, dating back to a dramatic confrontation in 2004 when he rushed to a hospital to stop the Bush White House from renewing a warrantless wiretapping program while Attorney General John Ashcroft was gravely ill. Comey was Ashcroft’s deputy at the time.

That showdown won Comey plaudits from both sides of the aisle and made him an attractive pick to lead the FBI. But now that he’s in charge of the agency, the president might be getting more than he bargained for.

“Part of his role is to not necessarily be in lock step with the White House,” said Mitch Silber, a former intelligence official with the New York City Police Department and current senior managing director at FTI Consulting.

“He takes very seriously the fact that he works for the executive branch,” added Leo Taddeo, a former agent in the FBI’s cyber division. “But he also understands the importance of maintaining his independence as a law enforcement agency that needs to give not just the appearance of independence but the reality of it.”

The split over Clinton’s email server is the most politically charged issue facing the FBI, with nothing less than the race for the White House potentially at stake.

Obama has publicly defended Clinton, saying that while she “made a mistake” with her email setup, it was “not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

But the FBI director has bristled at that statement, saying the president would not have any knowledge of the investigation. Comey, meanwhile, told lawmakers last week that he is “very close, personally,” to the probe.

Obama’s comments reflected a pattern, several former agents said, of the president making improper comments about FBI investigations. In 2012, he made similarly dismissive comments about a pending inquiry into then-CIA Director David Petraeus, who later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for giving classified information to his mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell.

“It serves no one in the United States for the president to comment on ongoing investigations,” Taddeo said. “I just don’t see a purpose.”

Hosko suggested that a showdown over potential criminal charges for Clinton could lead to a reprise of the famous 2004 hospital scene, when Comey threatened to resign.

“He has that mantle,” Hosko said. “I think now there’s this expectation — I hope it’s a fair one — that he’ll do it again if he has to.”

Comey’s independent streak has also been on display in the Apple fight, when his bureau decided to seek a court order demanding that the tech giant create new software to bypass security tools on an iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the two terrorist attackers in San Bernardino, Calif.

Many observers questioned whether the FBI was making an end-run around the White House, which had previously dismissed a series of proposals that would force companies to decrypt data upon government request.

“I think there’s actually some people that don’t think with one mindset on this issue within the administration,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s top Democrat, at a Tuesday hearing. “It’s a tough issue.”

While the White House has repeatedly backed the FBI’s decision, it has not fully endorsed the potential policy ramifications, leaving some to think a gap might develop as similar cases pop up. The White House is poised to soon issue its own policy paper on the subject of data encryption.

“The position taken by the FBI is at odds with the concerns expressed by individuals [in the White House] who were looking into the encryption issue,” said Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

This week, White House homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco tried to downplay the differences between the two sides. The White House and FBI are both grappling with the same problems, she said in a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“There is a recognition across the administration that the virtues of strong encryption are without a doubt,” Monaco said on Monday. “There is also uniformity about the recognition that strong encryption poses real challenges.”

But former officials see Comey as wanting to blaze his own trail on the topic.

“I have been very surprised at how public and inflammatory, frankly, the FBI and the Justice Department’s approach has been on this,” said Chris Finan, a former National Security Council cybersecurity adviser.

“That doesn’t tend to be the administration’s preferred approach to handling things.”

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
You have got to be shitting me.


Attorney General Loretta Lynch indicated Wednesday that the law doesn't require the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email system, even if the FBI recommends criminal charges. Lynch was asked in a hearing by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, what her department would do if the FBI were to recommend that step. "If the FBI were to make a referral to the Department of Justice to pursue a case by way of indictment and to convene a grand jury for that purpose, the Department of Justice is not required by law to do so, are they — are you?" Cornyn asked. Lynch didn't answer directly, but seemed to indicate the department has some wiggle room, and can consult with officials before deciding what to do. "It would not be an operation of law, it would be an operation of procedures," Lynch said in reply. She added that the decision to pursue a criminal case would be "done in conjunction with the agents" involved in the investigation. "It's not something that we would want to cut them out of the process."

The AG gets a recommendation, and can then decide what to do with it. If the AG was required to act, why bother with it?

quote:

Lynch didn't answer directly, but seemed to indicate the department has some wiggle room, and can consult with officials before deciding what to do. "It would not be an operation of law, it would be an operation of procedures," Lynch said in reply. She added that the decision to pursue a criminal case would be "done in conjunction with the agents" involved in the investigation. "It's not something that we would want to cut them out of the process."

I think she is simply stating the truth, that is: it is up to her as the Attorney General of the US to decide whether or not to bring charges. She has prosecutorial discretion not only involving whether to charge but what charge to make if she brings charges.

What has been stated all along is that if the FBI recommends criminal charges, as seems likely, and the DoJ elects not to indict, there will be severe repercussions. Her boss may decide that she should take the heat, that remains to be seen.

I know of nothing the Public or Congress could do about it, Congress could Impeach but that wouldn't change the situation because you wouldn't suddenly get a AG who would indict.
If there is a big enough stink it may further damage Hillary as a candidate which the Democrats have to consider.

I was just about to link that very article, Bigbore. I have read similar things about Comey's integrity from various sources. I certainly hope it is true. The "delay" that many complain about could just be Comey's thoroughness, especially because the case is so serious.

The government is swamped with corruption. But there are some good men and women, I'm sure. Let's hope that Comey is one.

quote:

has proved he is “not attached to the strings of the White House,” said Ron Hosko, the former head of the FBI’s criminal investigative division and a critic of Obama’s law enforcement strategies.

I can remember a time when I would have found it astonishing for someone to even contemplate that the head of the FBI might be "tied to the WH apron strings", or "marching in lockstep with the WH".

For me and not a few others here it is shameful to think that the DoJ and Attorney General would also be "marching in lockstep" with any administration. Sadly it is true not only in this matter but in many others.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

quote:

has proved he is “not attached to the strings of the White House,” said Ron Hosko, the former head of the FBI’s criminal investigative division and a critic of Obama’s law enforcement strategies.

I can remember a time when I would have found it astonishing for someone to even contemplate that the head of the FBI might be "tied to the WH apron strings", or "marching in lockstep with the WH".

For me and not a few others here it is shameful to think that the DoJ and Attorney General would also be "marching in lockstep" with any administration. Sadly it is true not only in this matter but in many others.

Remember Clinton/Reno/Freeh? That sucked.

quote:

The "delay" that many complain about could just be Comey's thoroughness, especially because the case is so serious.

Personally, I hope the "delay" is simply Comey nailing the last nails into Hilary's coffin to make certain that Loretta doesn't have nearly as much "wiggle room" as she seems to think she has.

RMD

It's becoming clear to me that Hillary is going to slither free of this whole homebrew server affair with nary a scratch.

quote:

Originally posted by rduckwor:

quote:

The "delay" that many complain about could just be Comey's thoroughness, especially because the case is so serious.

Personally, I hope the "delay" is simply Comey nailing the last nails into Hilary's coffin to make certain that Loretta doesn't have nearly as much "wiggle room" as she seems to think she has.

RMD

The "delay" is likely the enormity of the evidence that must be reviewed, analyzed, deciphered, the necessity of making a bullet proof case, or not, weighing ambiguities, potential defenses, explanations, the circumstances of each, interviewing potential witnesses on each potential charge, and, let us be candid, the stakes of charging a popular political figure with serious criminal conduct without extraordinary care, reputation and career ruining potentially.

This isn't a 7-11 stick up exactly.