quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You're making assumptions and, really, I'm getting tired of the pervasive pessimism I've seen here lately. It really has gotten old. It's depressing. Can we try to have a fighting spirit, please? I don't even want to look at these threads any more.

Yes sir.

I'll do my best to try to stay positive here.

Have faith, my man.

Probably never in all of this country's history have people trusted their government less than they do now at this point in time. Comey, one man, at least has a chance to restore some of that trust with those of us who are about to let go forever the idea that justice in the United States of America is possible with the Criminals who are running and ruining this country.

He must realize this; I need to believe that he realizes this. He'll do the right thing. I have faith that there are still leaders in this country who are capable of doing so.

If he does pull it off...he might be the next AG. Imagine that a minute...

I keep hoping that the FBI read the 30,000 "deleted" emails. The ones about Hillary's "yoga" classes.

Besides the classified issues, there could be really ugly ties between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton as Sec State.

I wonder how many times the Clinton team has wished they had taken a sledge hammer to that server back in 2013.

The Fox article also mentioned this:

As the interviews evolve, the FBI, as first reported by Fox News last fall, will explore possible violations of Criminal Code section 1001, which covers "statements or entries generally," and can be applied when an individual makes misleading or false statements that cause federal agents to expend additional resources and time.

Legal experts, as well as a former FBI agent, told Fox News Section 1001 could apply if Clinton, her aides or attorney were not forthcoming with FBI agents about her emails, classification and whether only non-government records were destroyed.

High-profile names convicted of violating Section 1001 include Martha Stewart, as well as former CIA Director David Petraeus.

quote:

Probably never in all of this country's history have people trusted their government less than they do now at this point in time. Comey, one man, at least has a chance to restore some of that trust with those of us who are about to let go forever the idea that justice in the United States of America is possible with the Criminals who are running and ruining this country.

He must realize this; I need to believe that he realizes this. He'll do the right thing. I have faith that there are still leaders in this country who are capable of doing so.

^^^That's a good way to put it. I too feel that Comey is feeling this burden rather than the political pressures, implications and fallout. Plus he wants the FBI to keep the respectable reputation that it has.

I have faith in Comey. But the decision to prosecute is not his alone. I agree with other posters who say the Foundation may well be what sinks the Clintons. Let's hope it's one or another.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I keep hoping that the FBI read the 30,000 "deleted" emails. The ones about Hillary's "yoga" classes.

Besides the classified issues, there could be really ugly ties between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton as Sec State.

I wonder how many times the Clinton team has wished they had taken a sledge hammer to that server back in 2013.

The Fox article also mentioned this:

As the interviews evolve, the FBI, as first reported by Fox News last fall, will explore possible violations of Criminal Code section 1001, which covers "statements or entries generally," and can be applied when an individual makes misleading or false statements that cause federal agents to expend additional resources and time.

Legal experts, as well as a former FBI agent, told Fox News Section 1001 could apply if Clinton, her aides or attorney were not forthcoming with FBI agents about her emails, classification and whether only non-government records were destroyed.

High-profile names convicted of violating Section 1001 include Martha Stewart, as well as former CIA Director David Petraeus.

This can be impossibly tricky. They get you for telling them something that isn't true, or they get you for what you told them that is true and incriminating, or you claim 5th Amendment. Not many good choices in that hand.

Only three things can happen, and all of them are bad.

Does Hillary have a date with the director of the FBI?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/482...hpvid1#sp=show-clips

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
[O]r you claim 5th Amendment. Not many good choices in that hand.

Just so I understand, I assume refusing to talk at all is a bad choice for someone running for President—?

Not that I have any reason to be concerned myself (as far as I know, of course), but it’s long seemed to me that many/most people would be better off if they simply said, “Oh—you suspect me of a crime? Sorry; I’ll have to consult with an attorney. I’m sure she’ll be in touch. Nice meeting you. Ta.”

The more we discover, the dirtier she's revealed to be, the more shameless I understand she is. She knows what she did, yet can look us all in the eye and deny it. That is a dangerous person to give power to.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Just so I understand, I assume refusing to talk at all is a bad choice for someone running for President—?

The problem is that it triggers a punch line. If Hills refuses to talk, she only has one defense on the campaign trail, even though it's ready-made: "This is just a political witchhunt; Republicans in Congress are threatening the DOJ's budget if this witchhunt doesn't go forward", and so on. The punch line, of course, is that it's Obama's DOJ that would like to interview her about having possible committed a federal offense.

At the same time, I think she's convinced that she came through the Congressional hearings essentially unscathed. She may well be just deluded enough to assume she can run rings around the interviewers and either squash or massage anything that comes out at the interview through cronies in D.C.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
[O]r you claim 5th Amendment. Not many good choices in that hand.

Just so I understand, I assume refusing to talk at all is a bad choice for someone running for President—?

Not that I have any reason to be concerned myself (as far as I know, of course), but it’s long seemed to me that many/most people would be better off if they simply said, “Oh—you suspect me of a crime? Sorry; I’ll have to consult with an attorney. I’m sure she’ll be in touch. Nice meeting you. Ta.”

I assume she will have at least one attorney with her. This interview isn't a Grand Jury appearance where attorneys are not permitted for a witness.

Like it or not, right or wrong, when we learn that someone has taken the 5th to refuse to testify, that very often induces a very negative feeling about that person, like they have something to hide. Many times, they do indeed.

I don't have the faith in the bona fide law abiding respectability of the masses that I once did. It's more of a Beavis and Butthead mentality these days. But "taking the 5th," in the common vernacular, would ordinarily be a kiss of death to an office seeker. Respectable, responsible people would drop you like a hot rock. But we have seen all manner of appalling misbehavior by office holders and seekers in the past years, and it doesn't seem to bother the God Damned Commies much. Drug and alcohol violations, money laundering, bribery, a dead girl in your submerged car, a live one under your desk, riding to your inauguration in a limo bearing a license plate you made, as long as they are "down with the agenda" no problem.

thought this was very interesting

http://www.politico.com/story/...rategy-emails-221435

Clinton aides unite on FBI legal strategy

Four former staffers have been using the same lawyer during the investigation — suggesting they're not worried about legal jeopardy.

Four of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides appear to have adopted an unusual legal strategy, hiring the same ex-Justice Department attorney to represent them in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton's private email server.

Beth Wilkinson, a well-connected former assistant U.S. attorney best known for prosecuting Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, is listed as representing three of Clinton’s top State Department staffers, according to a congressional letter obtained by POLITICO and dated Feb. 10. A fourth Clinton aide, Philippe Reines, is also represented by Wilkinson, according to sources familiar with their representation.

The united front suggests they plan to tell investigators the same story — although legal experts say the joint strategy presents its own risks, should the interests of the four aides begin to diverge as the probe moves ahead.

The quartet includes Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who counseled Clinton politically and legally;

deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan, whom sources say authored a number of emails to Clinton that are now considered “top secret”;

Heather Samuelson, Mills’ deputy who initially sorted Clinton’s work-related emails from personal messages that were then deleted;

and Reines, who served as Clinton’s spokesman and also used personal email for work purposes at State.

Lawyers are barred from simultaneously representing people who may have conflicting interests in an investigation, or who would say something negative or potentially legally harmful about the lawyer’s other clients, experts say, although some such conflicts can be waived by the clients.

Thus, the aides' decision to use a so-called “joint-representation” or “common-defense” strategy suggests the staffers believe they’re in this together and are unlikely to turn on each other.

Metcalfe, now a law professor at American University, called it an “optimistic approach”: “They must believe prosecutors don’t have that much.”

By tapping Wilkinson, the Clinton confidants have selected someone with deep ties to Washington politics and the DOJ. The 53-year-old wife of former “Meet the Press” host David Gregory is a Clinton donor and Democratic contributor, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

She cut her teeth on classification issues early in her career, serving as a captain and assistant to the Army general counsel for intelligence and special operations.

As a former assistant U.S. attorney in New York, counsel to the deputy attorney general and principal deputy to the Justice office on terrorism and violent crime, Wilkinson is the only two-time recipient of the DOJ’s highest honor, the exceptional service award.

“They’ve hired her because she knows everyone in main Justice,” said Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney-turned-right-leaning legal commentator. “She has very good personal relationships with all the political and career people in the Justice Department, so that’s very smart on their part.”

Such joint strategies are typically used in corporate cases by people who share similar job responsibilities but are not the focus of the investigation, said 30-year trial lawyer Dennis Nowak of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell.


It is unclear who is paying the legal bills for the four staffers. But Wilkinson just this January left Paul, Weiss Rifkind, Warton and Garrison LLP to set up her own boutique firm , telling The Wall Street Journal that her company would ditch the billable hour setup typically used by big law firms in favor of flat fees that are intended to reward efficiency.

The strategy can also bolster the defense team as a whole, allowing the lawyer to gather information from multiple clients to help benefit another, legal experts said. Wilkinson, for instance, will get an idea of the FBI’s line of questioning after her first client's interview, which could benefit following witnesses.

But Bill Killian, former U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Tennessee, said the strategy “is fraught with danger” for the Clinton aides because “what they did, what they said, what they wrote, what their relationship was with whomever” is going to be different — potentially giving them different levels of legal exposure.

Sullivan, for instance, authored now “top secret” emails, sources have told POLITICO — potentially setting him apart from the group. And Samuelson, according to testimony Mills gave to House GOP investigators, sorted Clinton’s emails as either official documents or personal missives.

Both, for example, would likely be asked about what kinds of instructions they received, which could involve Wilkinson’s other client Mills, who was senior to both.

DiGenova questioned why the DOJ would greenlight the arrangement in the first place , arguing that it “presents an amazing conflict of interest” and allows for coordination of stories.

“If it’s a serious case, you don’t run the risk of having all sorts of collusion between people — it’s just not done,” said diGenova. “If the department has accepted that, that tells me they’re walking down the line of not bringing a case, because they’re not serious if they have accepted that arrangement … They’ve thrown in the towel.”

The DOJ declined to comment.

Several lawyers said the legal strategy would certainly benefit Clinton, if not the aides.

“If I were Ms. Clinton, I would want these secondary people to all say the same thing — not turn on one another, let alone me, and having one attorney represent them makes it all a hell of a lot simpler,” Metcalfe said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) last November asked Wilkinson, Clinton’s attorney David Kendall as well as lawyers for Bryan Pagliano — Clinton’s top IT staffer — and Huma Abedin if there was a third-party fee arrangement and joint defense coordination agreement that allowed them to share information.

The letter followed a report in a local Colorado newspaper showing that a company involved in maintaining Clinton’s server, Platte River, was planning to bill Clinton’s representatives for its legal fees.

“The invoice raises questions as to whether Secretary Clinton has similar arrangements with other people or entities associated with her email server,” the letter reads. “In light of this, it is important for the committee to know whether Secretary Clinton and her attorneys are providing financial support, legal support, or other coordination to those associates of hers who are involved in congressional committee and federal law enforcement inquiries relating to her email server.”

They declined to answer.

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

with her background, Wilkinson will probably be arguing that the emails are not truly classified

also suggestive that she formed her own company in January

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
The united front suggests they plan to tell investigators the same story — although legal experts say the joint strategy presents its own risks, should the interests of the four aides begin to diverge as the probe moves ahead.

......

Thus, the aides' decision to use a so-called “joint-representation” or “common-defense” strategy suggests the staffers believe they’re in this together and are unlikely to turn on each other.

For some reason, I am reminded of this Benjamin Franklin quote.

quote:

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.

Benjamin Franklin

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." -- Mark Twain

This comes to mind:


http://youtu.be/JcNhDstL4-k

So it's the this is our story and we're sticking to it defense? But how do they know what their story is? They don't know what the FBI may or may not know when they go in for questioning.
They don't know what emails may or may not have been discovered or what Pagliano may have divulged correct?

Seems to me the FBI is holding all the cards. Only they know what they know and their line of questioning could certainly be fraught with pitfalls for those being questioned.

I note a glaring and obvious party missing from that group; where is Huma?

Huma is in this up to her neck, at the very least I would have expected Huma and Mills to be working together. It seems they were Hillary's prime accomplices in this affair.

This would all make sense if all of them planned to plead the 5th, otherwise I would think the plan will fall apart when the FBI turns up the heat.

quote:

The united front suggests they plan to tell investigators the same story — although legal experts say the joint strategy presents its own risks, should the interests of the four aides begin to diverge as the probe moves ahead.

I would submit that there are three salient points which did not get mentioned.

One is rather prosaic - to a certain degree each of the staffers can save time and money if their lawyer is already versed in all or most aspects of the case.

The second point is that their lawyer now has a pile of trading chips that might result in a deal for all of them if a deal is in fact struck.

The third point is the one I think is particularly likely to have occurred to them. This is a built-in stall in the case that the staffers can use at discretion during much of the process. If the staffers decide their interests have diverged, they can then tell the court that everything has to come to a grinding halt until each of them can find their own lawyer and each of their lawyers are up to speed on the case. This might also open the door to appeals on various bases, including any arguments the new lawyer might have that the old lawyer did something prejudicial to any of the defendants' cases.

IMHO, this would be sufficient to ensure that there is no legal action before the election. And, again IMHO, no defense lawyer with a brain cell in their head would not want to delay the trial until after the election if only because everyone will be less excited about the outcome and the staffers' legal defenses would be less affected by external political pressures and strategies.

quote:

Several lawyers said the legal strategy would certainly benefit Clinton, if not the aides.

Gosh, wouldn't it be funny if the Clintons or some of their friends are the ones actually paying the lawyer's bill? This would raise at least one classic ethical question - is the lawyer responsible to the actual client or the person paying the legal fees? This also, IMHO, raises at least a couple of ways to argue that the initial lawyer screwed up the defendants' cases, which again would create ways to stall the legal process or reverse legal decisions on appeal.

I have dreams of Hillary sitting on a cliff watching bundles of coconuts in the surf...

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
I have dreams of Hillary sitting on a cliff watching bundles of coconuts in the surf...

In French Guiana? Maybe they can dust off a cell at Alcatraz.