Immunity for Hillary's staff?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-blind-eye-1475191703 [partial quote follows] By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL Sept. 29, 2016 7:28 p.m. ET 1067 COMMENTS Two revealing, if largely unnoticed, moments came in the middle of FBI Director Jim Comey’s Wednesday testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. When combined, these moments prove that Mr. Comey gave Hillary Clinton a pass. Congress hauled Mr. Comey in to account for the explosive revelation that the government granted immunity to Clinton staffers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson as part of its investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled classified information. Rep. Tom Marino (R., Pa.), who was once a Justice Department prosecutor and knows how these investigations roll, provided the first moment. He asked Mr. Comey why Ms. Mills was so courteously offered immunity in return for her laptop—a laptop that Mr. Comey admitted investigators were very keen to obtain. Why not simply impanel a grand jury, get a subpoena, and seize the evidence? Mr. Comey’s answer was enlightening: “It’s a reasonable question. . . . Any time you are talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer from a lawyer—that involves the lawyer’s practice of law—you know you are getting into a big megillah.” Pressed further, he added: “In general, you can often do things faster with informal agreements, especially when you are interacting with lawyers.” The key words: “The lawyer’s practice of law.” What Mr. Comey was referencing here is attorney-client privilege. Ms. Mills was able to extract an immunity deal, avoid answering questions, and sit in on Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview because she has positioned herself as Hillary’s personal lawyer. Ms. Mills could therefore claim that any conversations or interactions she had with Mrs. Clinton about the private server were protected by attorney-client privilege. Only here’s the rub: When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was not acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary's chief of staff. Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence from that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice Department. Ms. Mills was allowed to get away with this “attorney-client privilege” nonsense only because she claimed that she did not know about Mrs. Clinton’s server until after they had both left the State Department. Ergo, no questions about the server. [end of partial quote] Jim Bell
On 10/03/2016 12:25 AM, jim bell quotes wall street:
Only here’s the rub: When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was not acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary's chief of staff. Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence from that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice Department.
Hunh? THere is no 'rub' Here's the ...Megilla... (Really. Magilla, the WHOLE big dumb gorilla) Immunity is Immunity. They can grant it for whatever reason they like if the they believe it furthers their ability to make a case against the target of their persecution. Advice. Don't vote for criminals to be the Executive of the US government. That disqualifies Clinton and Trump, and most likely Johnson... Fortune Magazine LUVS Johnson. That ought to tell everyone everything they need to know about this Ringer Republican.
For the most part, the principles and policies put forward by former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson are the sort supported by the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. A lifelong Republican,
http://fortune.com/2016/06/21/gary-johnson/
'Boosting his friend George W. Bush to reporters, Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico recalls a conversation they had at a conference on state government: "George turns to me and says, 'What are they talking about?' I said, 'I don't know.' He said, 'You don't know a thing, do you?' And I said, 'Not one thing.' He said, 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived.' - New York Times, July 28, 2000
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle/ Rr :
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-blind-eye-1475191703
[partial quote follows] By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL Sept. 29, 2016 7:28 p.m. ET 1067 COMMENTS Two revealing, if largely unnoticed, moments came in the middle of FBI Director Jim Comey’s Wednesday testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. When combined, these moments prove that Mr. Comey gave Hillary Clinton a pass. Congress hauled Mr. Comey in to account for the explosive revelation that the government granted immunity to Clinton staffers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson as part of its investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled classified information. Rep. Tom Marino (R., Pa.), who was once a Justice Department prosecutor and knows how these investigations roll, provided the first moment. He asked Mr. Comey why Ms. Mills was so courteously offered immunity in return for her laptop—a laptop that Mr. Comey admitted investigators were very keen to obtain. Why not simply impanel a grand jury, get a subpoena, and seize the evidence? Mr. Comey’s answer was enlightening: “It’s a reasonable question. . . . Any time you are talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer from a lawyer—that involves the lawyer’s practice of law—you know you are getting into a big megillah.” Pressed further, he added: “In general, you can often do things faster with informal agreements, especially when you are interacting with lawyers.” The key words: “The lawyer’s practice of law.” What Mr. Comey was referencing here is attorney-client privilege. Ms. Mills was able to extract an immunity deal, avoid answering questions, and sit in on Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview because she has positioned herself as Hillary’s personal lawyer. Ms. Mills could therefore claim that any conversations or interactions she had with Mrs. Clinton about the private server were protected by attorney-client privilege. Only here’s the rub: When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was not acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary's chief of staff. Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence from that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice Department. Ms. Mills was allowed to get away with this “attorney-client privilege” nonsense only because she claimed that she did not know about Mrs. Clinton’s server until after they had both left the State Department. Ergo, no questions about the server. [end of partial quote]
Jim Bell
From: Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> On 10/03/2016 12:25 AM, jim bell quotes wall street:
Only here’s the rub: When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was not acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary's chief of staff. Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence from that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice Department.
Immunity is Immunity. They can grant it for whatever reason they like if the they believe it furthers their ability to make a case against the target of their persecution. As a positive statement of law, that is generally correct. However, there are (at least) two kinds of "immunity": Transactional (blanket) immunity and "use immunity". The latter doesn't prevent prosecution, it merely prohibits the prosecutors from using the material obtained (physical evidence and/or discussion/interrogation) from being used to prosecute the person 'immunized'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_immunity × But further, in this case, I think it's obvious these staff were given the latter immunity (use immunity), but at least not for the reason "to make a case against the target of the prosecution". They WERE among the valid targets of the prosecution. Rather, the goal of this immunity was and remains to make it difficult to prosecute these crimes, and those of Hillary Clinton. But I doubt whether the immunity given was anything more than mere 'use immunity', which means that a new administration (Trump?) could easily prosecute them still.
Could Obama pardon Hillary Clinton? It would be rather embarrassing. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/a-pardon-from-obama-might-be-the-only-way... The precedent for Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon exists, unfortunately. But that probably won't be needed if Hillary is elected, because she will control the "Justice" Dept. This makes me wonder if a pardon can be withdrawn. A pardon is an "executive order", and ordinary such orders can usually be rescinded. If Trump wins the White House, and Obama responds by pardonning Hillary, can Trump simply issue another executive order, rescinding Obama's pardon? It isn't as if Trump couldn't rhetorically justify this: Declare that the upper echelon of the Justice Dept and the FBI conspired to help obstruct her prosecution, and those of her staff. Declare THAT a crime, and prosecute.It would be hard to imagine a pardon written so broadly as to preclude all prosecution of Hillary Clinton, at least a pardon that had a chance to be issued.
Advice. Don't vote for criminals to be the Executive of the US government. That disqualifies Clinton and Trump, and most likely Johnson... Fortune Magazine LUVS Johnson. That ought to tell everyone everything they need to know about this Ringer Republican. To follow such advice, it's necessary to discover and expose WHY these candidates are criminals. In Hillary Clinton's case, we already know plenty. Trump? Less clear. Who knows, about Johnson. That's one big reason I advocate prosecution of Hillary Clinton. Jim Bell
:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-blind-eye-1475191703
[partial quote follows] By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL Sept. 29, 2016 7:28 p.m. ET 1067 COMMENTS Two revealing, if largely unnoticed, moments came in the middle of FBI Director Jim Comey’s Wednesday testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. When combined, these moments prove that Mr. Comey gave Hillary Clinton a pass. Congress hauled Mr. Comey in to account for the explosive revelation that the government granted immunity to Clinton staffers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson as part of its investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled classified information. Rep. Tom Marino (R., Pa.), who was once a Justice Department prosecutor and knows how these investigations roll, provided the first moment. He asked Mr. Comey why Ms. Mills was so courteously offered immunity in return for her laptop—a laptop that Mr. Comey admitted investigators were very keen to obtain. Why not simply impanel a grand jury, get a subpoena, and seize the evidence? Mr. Comey’s answer was enlightening: “It’s a reasonable question. . . . Any time you are talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer from a lawyer—that involves the lawyer’s practice of law—you know you are getting into a big megillah.” Pressed further, he added: “In general, you can often do things faster with informal agreements, especially when you are interacting with lawyers.” The key words: “The lawyer’s practice of law.” What Mr. Comey was referencing here is attorney-client privilege. Ms. Mills was able to extract an immunity deal, avoid answering questions, and sit in on Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview because she has positioned herself as Hillary’s personal lawyer. Ms. Mills could therefore claim that any conversations or interactions she had with Mrs. Clinton about the private server were protected by attorney-client privilege. Only here’s the rub: When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was not acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary's chief of staff. Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence from that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice Department. Ms. Mills was allowed to get away with this “attorney-client privilege” nonsense only because she claimed that she did not know about Mrs. Clinton’s server until after they had both left the State Department. Ergo, no questions about the server. [end of partial quote]
Jim Bell
On 10/03/2016 11:22 AM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Razer <rayzer@riseup.net>
On 10/03/2016 12:25 AM, jim bell quotes wall street:
Only here’s the rub: When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was not acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary's chief of staff. Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence from that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice Department.
Immunity is Immunity. They can grant it for whatever reason they like if the they believe it furthers their ability to make a case against the target of their persecution.
As a positive statement of law, that is generally correct. However, there are (at least) two kinds of "immunity": Transactional (blanket) immunity and "use immunity". The latter doesn't prevent prosecution, it merely prohibits the prosecutors from using the material obtained (physical evidence and/or discussion/interrogation) from being used to prosecute the person 'immunized'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_immunity × // //
But further, in this case, I think it's obvious these staff were given the latter immunity (use immunity), but at least not for the reason "to make a case against the target of the prosecution". They WERE among the valid targets of the prosecution. Rather, the goal of this immunity was and remains to make it difficult to prosecute these crimes, and those of Hillary Clinton. But I doubt whether the immunity given was anything more than mere 'use immunity', which means that a new administration (Trump?) could easily prosecute them still.
Could Obama pardon Hillary Clinton? It would be rather embarrassing. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/a-pardon-from-obama-might-be-the-only-way... The precedent for Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon exists, unfortunately. But that probably won't be needed if Hillary is elected, because she will control the "Justice" Dept. This makes me wonder if a pardon can be withdrawn. A pardon is an "executive order", and ordinary such orders can usually be rescinded. If Trump wins the White House, and Obama responds by pardonning Hillary, can Trump simply issue another executive order, rescinding Obama's pardon? It isn't as if Trump couldn't rhetorically justify this: Declare that the upper echelon of the Justice Dept and the FBI conspired to help obstruct her prosecution, and those of her staff. Declare THAT a crime, and prosecute. It would be hard to imagine a pardon written so broadly as to preclude all prosecution of Hillary Clinton, at least a pardon that had a chance to be issued.
Advice. Don't vote for criminals to be the Executive of the US government. That disqualifies Clinton and Trump, and most likely Johnson... Fortune Magazine LUVS Johnson. That ought to tell everyone everything they need to know about this Ringer Republican.
To follow such advice, it's necessary to discover and expose WHY these candidates are criminals. In Hillary Clinton's case, we already know plenty. Trump? Less clear. Who knows, about Johnson. That's one big reason I advocate prosecution of Hillary Clinton.
Jim Bell
Donald Trump is essentially a common real-estate fraud artist and lied to the NJ Gaming Commission about the extent of loans used to back one of his now-failed casinos. The state regulates how much can be loan money. Lying to state regulators is typically a felony. As far as Johnson goes... He's criminally ignorant of world affairs. He didn't know what 'aleppo' is a month or so ago and is about as qualified as Trump to be dogcatcher. Rr
:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-blind-eye-1475191703
[partial quote follows] By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL Sept. 29, 2016 7:28 p.m. ET 1067 COMMENTS Two revealing, if largely unnoticed, moments came in the middle of FBI Director Jim Comey’s Wednesday testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. When combined, these moments prove that Mr. Comey gave Hillary Clinton a pass. Congress hauled Mr. Comey in to account for the explosive revelation that the government granted immunity to Clinton staffers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson as part of its investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled classified information. Rep. Tom Marino (R., Pa.), who was once a Justice Department prosecutor and knows how these investigations roll, provided the first moment. He asked Mr. Comey why Ms. Mills was so courteously offered immunity in return for her laptop—a laptop that Mr. Comey admitted investigators were very keen to obtain. Why not simply impanel a grand jury, get a subpoena, and seize the evidence? Mr. Comey’s answer was enlightening: “It’s a reasonable question. . . . Any time you are talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer from a lawyer—that involves the lawyer’s practice of law—you know you are getting into a big megillah.” Pressed further, he added: “In general, you can often do things faster with informal agreements, especially when you are interacting with lawyers.” The key words: “The lawyer’s practice of law.” What Mr. Comey was referencing here is attorney-client privilege. Ms. Mills was able to extract an immunity deal, avoid answering questions, and sit in on Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview because she has positioned herself as Hillary’s personal lawyer. Ms. Mills could therefore claim that any conversations or interactions she had with Mrs. Clinton about the private server were protected by attorney-client privilege. Only here’s the rub: When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was not acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary's chief of staff. Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence from that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice Department. Ms. Mills was allowed to get away with this “attorney-client privilege” nonsense only because she claimed that she did not know about Mrs. Clinton’s server until after they had both left the State Department. Ergo, no questions about the server. [end of partial quote]
Jim Bell
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 08:45:25AM -0700, Razer wrote:
Immunity is Immunity. They can grant it for whatever reason they like if the they believe it furthers their ability to make a case against the target of their persecution.
Advice. Don't vote for criminals to be the Executive of the US government. That disqualifies Clinton and Trump, and most likely Johnson... Fortune Magazine LUVS Johnson. That ought to tell everyone everything they need to know about this Ringer Republican.
Wordy but apropos: America at the Crossroads: Abrogation of Democracy http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/28/america-at-the-crossroads-abrogation-...
Cuban style bios of the two "leading" candidates: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/28/an-alternate-narrative-on-hillary-cli...
participants (3)
-
jim bell -
Razer -
Zenaan Harkness