Immunity for Hillary's staff?

[Razer]

On 10/03/2016 11:22 AM, jim bell wrote:
> 
> 
> *From:* Razer <rayzer at 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-to-save-hillary/
>    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 pardon can be withdrawn.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 such orders can usually be rescinded.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
> 
>