quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

What, pray tell, is so damned sensitive?

The classified information that rolled around the world wide web?

The fact that Clinton had a private home-based server and used it to conduct both personal and governmental business?

We know that already. And much more.

Is this case "sensitive" because it involves a political figure? Tell that to Senator Stevens. Or Congressman DeLay.

Oh wait... they were Republicans. My bad. Nothing in those cases was too sensitive to allow out into the public domain.

BillClinton'swife-gate Part II stinks to high heaven, if only because of the unwillingness to our federal law enforcement agencies to discuss details or perp walk those who were directly involved in the failure to protect CLASSIFIED information.

It reeks of political corruption, favoritism, and the belief that certain pigs are better than others.

If you anticipate a trial, you don't necessarily want the other side to know everything you know. It helps prevent imaginative explanations, improving their lie, so to speak.

The prosecutor must turn over to the defendant evidence it has, especially exculpatory, as part of the confront the witnesses, fair trial ideas. That does not include the thinking and analysis of prosecutors, strategies and tactics, etc.

It must be carefully done, in proper order. You don't want to start granting immunity to higher ups before you know what they might be guilty of, so you start with the little guys, get their stories and use that to gather evidence against the next rung up the ladder, and use that to nail higher ups, etc.

An example might be that you don't want Detective Fuhrman to know you found the tape.

quote:

It must be carefully done, in proper order. You don't want to start granting immunity to higher ups before you know what they might be guilty of, so you start with the little guys, get their stories and use that to gather evidence against the next rung up the ladder, and use that to nail higher ups, etc.

Isn't there an old saw to the effect that you never want to ask a question of a witness unless you know what the answer will be?

I believe this is also true of granting immunity, if you have an involved person nailed you don't need to grant immunity, if you absolutely need Mills to nail Hillary, then you must get the goods on Mills first, so that she can see that rolling over on Hillary is necessary to keep her own butt out of prison.
Anyone involved must be aware that lots of bad things have happened to witnesses against the Clintons in the past. Until recently Hillary was probably promising pardons to those involved after her coronation. Now her accomplices evidently are entertaining doubts.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:
Source: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness':


http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ss.html?intcmp=hpbt1

I would be very surprised if he had any information that would result in serious charges against her. If he did he would be dead. The Clinton's don't play around.

1) You know she has a pardon in her pocket if needed
2) If she wins the election do you really think they will go after her then?
3) If she loses the RINO"s aren't going to care. She will probably get a letter of Censure from the Senate or something like that...

quote:

Originally posted by mark_a:

1) You know she has a pardon in her pocket if needed

I don't believe that for a minute. If HUSSEIN did not want her to be investigated and prosecuted, he would have squelched the investigation from the get-go. Remember the IRS and Lois Lerner? Fast and Furious?

HUSSEIN could have put an end to this with one phone call, but so far, he has not lifted a finger to help her.

quote:

Originally posted by mark_a:
I would be very surprised if he had any information that would result in serious charges against her. If he did he would be dead. The Clinton's don't play around.

1) You know she has a pardon in her pocket if needed
2) If she wins the election do you really think they will go after her then?
3) If she loses the RINO"s aren't going to care. She will probably get a letter of Censure from the Senate or something like that...

That's right, mark. Everything sucks and everything is against us. There is no hope. Obama's gonna pardon her before they even indict her, which they won't do in the first place. No matter what we do, no matter what happens, she's gonna skate and go on a book tour about all of it, making 50 million dollars on the lecture circuit.

Have I about covered it?

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

quote:

It must be carefully done, in proper order. You don't want to start granting immunity to higher ups before you know what they might be guilty of, so you start with the little guys, get their stories and use that to gather evidence against the next rung up the ladder, and use that to nail higher ups, etc.

Isn't there an old saw to the effect that you never want to ask a question of a witness unless you know what the answer will be?

There is an old saw like that. I was lucky to see a perfect illustration of that in the first trial I participated in, when the opposing counsel asked my expert appraiser "just how did you come up with that opinion of value?" It took the witness about twenty minutes to explain how, in the process convincing the judge and everyone in the courtroom that he was without doubt the most expert on the question of value of that property, the most careful and thorough, in the entire world.

This is a variation, that you don't want the witness to know where the next question is going to end up, or that you have evidence to contradict his answer.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by mark_a:
I would be very surprised if he had any information that would result in serious charges against her. If he did he would be dead. The Clinton's don't play around.

1) You know she has a pardon in her pocket if needed
2) If she wins the election do you really think they will go after her then?
3) If she loses the RINO"s aren't going to care. She will probably get a letter of Censure from the Senate or something like that...

That's right, mark. Everything sucks and everything is against us. There is no hope. Obama's gonna pardon her before they even indict her, which they won't do in the first place. No matter what we do, no matter what happens, she's gonna skate and go on a book tour about all of it, making 50 million dollars on the lecture circuit.

Have I about covered it?

Pretty much. Maybe I'm a little jaded but my expectation that anything will ever stick legally to anyone named Clinton is pretty low.

And hey, don't forget that the Clintons have their own crew of muscle and hit men. Hell, just for kicks, sometimes Hil does the hit personally. Risky, but hey, the Clintons are unstoppable, right? Superhuman, you might say.

Dem lawmakers sent their own letter to IGs.

Sounds like they are trying to muddy the water in advance of an FBI decision.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There is an old saw like that. I was lucky to see a perfect illustration of that in the first trial I participated in, when the opposing counsel asked my expert appraiser "just how did you come up with that opinion of value?" It took the witness about twenty minutes to explain how, in the process convincing the judge and everyone in the courtroom that he was without doubt the most expert on the question of value of that property, the most careful and thorough, in the entire world.

Kind of like asking Mona Lisa Vito how she KNOWS the tire tracks don't belong to the defendant's car.

quote:

Dem lawmakers sent their own letter to IGs.Sounds like they are trying to muddy the water in advance of an FBI decision.

Yes it does, and it's not surprising because they're desperate.

I doubt this letter ever gets answered it strikes me as a form of the old; have you stopped beating your wife.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
[

There is an old saw like that. I was lucky to see a perfect illustration of that in the first trial I participated in, when the opposing counsel asked my expert appraiser "just how did you come up with that opinion of value?" It took the witness about twenty minutes to explain how, in the process convincing the judge and everyone in the courtroom that he was without doubt the most expert on the question of value of that property, the most careful and thorough, in the entire world.

The riposte is "So, its just your opinion, and therefore not a fact."

Napolitano on the latest...


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...er.html?intcmp=hpbt4

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
[

There is an old saw like that. I was lucky to see a perfect illustration of that in the first trial I participated in, when the opposing counsel asked my expert appraiser "just how did you come up with that opinion of value?" It took the witness about twenty minutes to explain how, in the process convincing the judge and everyone in the courtroom that he was without doubt the most expert on the question of value of that property, the most careful and thorough, in the entire world.

The riposte is "So, its just your opinion, and therefore not a fact."

Except that the expert appraiser was there only to give his opinion of value.

In the event, the poor bastard tried to object, after a few minutes, but the judge told him, "you asked the question, he can give his answer."

The judge was most impressed, and gave judgment against my client for the damage evidenced by the appraiser's opinion, about 20% of what my settlement offer before trial had been, and about 5% of what these goons had been insisting on. I sent him the check in full payment of the judgment before he got judgment entered.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:
Napolitano on the latest...


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...er.html?intcmp=hpbt4

One more question to add to the judge's list - "What if the former Secretary (hopefully defendant) is a consummate liar that actually believes her own lies and lives in a fantasy world?"

quote:

Dem lawmakers sent their own letter to IGs.

Damn! This has kicked them right in the sack, huh?

They know that pajama boy spilling his guts is enough to tip the scale. It's the beginning of the end. In another month, Hillary will be surrounded by sharks in cankle-deep water. Meanwhile, Biden's in the tanning bed.

Hillary Clinton about Bernie Sanders:


"I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94,"

I wonder where he was ?

Republican's, please keep HillaryCare on the back burner. If she does get the nom, it will be a great tool to hammer her with. Sell it as ObamaCare on steroids and point out all the issues there was with it.

http://www.politico.com/story/...te-department-220689

Second State employee refuses GOP questions on Clinton server

A State Department staffer who oversaw security and technology issues for Hillary Clinton is refusing to answer Senate investigators’ questions about the former secretary of state’s use of a private email server — marking the second time an ex-State employee has declined to talk to lawmakers.

John Bentel, a now-retired State employee who managed IT security issues for the top echelon at the department, declined to be interviewed by GOP staff on the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, according to a letter obtained by POLITICO.

The chairmen of both committees, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), are now threatening to consider other ways to compel him to discuss the matter.

“We are troubled by your refusal to engage with the committees even after repeated overtures of accommodation,” the letter to Bentel and his lawyer reads. “We need to speak with you. … We would, of course, prefer that you meet with us in a voluntary and informal manner, but we will consider other options if faced with a continuing lack of cooperation.”

Bentel’s lawyer, Randy Turk of Baker Botts in Washington, did not reply to a request for comment, but the recent letter notes that Bentel told House Benghazi investigators last year he did not recall the server matter, according to the Senate letter. And in email correspondence between the panel and Bentel's laywer, which was reviewed by POLITICO, Turk lamented that Bentel had already talked to the House Benghazi panel “about precisely what the committtees’ letter states is the subject of their investigation.”

“Mr Bentel… is understandably not inclined to go through that process again since he has already been questioned at great length about what he knows and what he recalls about that subject,” Turk wrote to Senate investigators in an email last Thursday. "[I]t seems to me that what is really fair here would be for you and the committees to respect Mr Bentel’s decision not to be interviewed a second time about the same subjects he has already been interviewed about at great length."

According to his LinkedIn profile, Bentel joined State in 1974. He served as director of information resources management in the office of the executive secretariat, which includes the secretary and top staff as well as the deputy secretary and undersecretaries. The office also handles State’s relations with the White House, National Security Council and other agencies.

His position, according to the letter, would have made him responsible for Clinton’s information management and information technology needs, including perhaps her BlackBerry use.

On Dec. 4, 2015, Judiciary and Homeland investigators reached out to Bentel’s lawyer to schedule an interview. But Turk told them Bentel had already been asked about the matter when he sat before the House Benghazi Committee. Turk said Bentel told the committee he had “no memory of knowledge” of the server issue and there was “little point” in telling another committee the same thing, according to the letter.

But both Senate panels say Bentel may have been aware of the sever, noting that their investigators have been told that some of Bentel’s subordinates knew about the home setup: “It appears that you were an integral figure in the operations of the Executive Secretariat and that you would have particular and unique knowledge relevant to the committees’ inquiry. Indeed, Department personal have noted that your subordinates in the Executive Secretariat’s office, who reported directly to you, had knowledge of Secretary Clinton’s private email server, which leads one to conclude that you were likely made aware of the server.”

********************

"John Bentel, a now-retired State employee who managed IT security issues for the top echelon at the department"

This guy has a lot to answer to.

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