Slashdot Mirror
Justice Dept. Grants Immunity To Staffer Who Set Up Clinton Email Server (washingtonpost.com)
schwit1 writes with this news from the Washington Post: The Justice Department has granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton's private email server, a sign the FBI investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing is progressing. A senior U.S. law enforcement official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009. As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents will likely want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said. The inquiry comes against a sensitive political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
Its not like the Clintons have not made people disappear when they testify against them.
They have emails from her telling people to take classification markings off. They have found CIA human intelligence on her private server. They have Special Access Program data which everyone with an IQ above 80 outside of the federal government knows is presumed classified. What she did makes Bradley Manning look like a prankster, since she was a cabinet level appointee responsible for overseeing the protection of classified data.
"Him" being Pagliano? If he's being granted immunity, it means he's probably going to talk. If she still gets in, she'll have him disappeared.
The guy who pushed the buttons was clearly just following orders, which was "set up a mail server", a relatively common task. Moreover, her statement of "it was above board when I did it" was correct, in that it was contingent upon those e-mails being turned over upon her exit from the position, so the initial setup wouldn't have had reasons to raise suspicions of wrongdoing at that time.
I see no reason not to grant immunity in this context.
You sure sound like a Cankles supporter.
1. You ignore, deny, or are outright ignorant of the FBI investigation, its scope and the level of people involved.
2. You desperately throw out the "just partisan which hunt" card
Next you'll be recycling the "not marked at the time" mantra.
As long as it's a fair investigation, go for it. As crimes go, though, setting up a private server (not explicitly forbidden by the rules) and receiving (not sending) some emails that are retroactively classified, seems to be a fairly minor crime.
Also, given that the email server was unclassified, and Clinton can demonstrate that she understood that and informed her subordinates not to use it to send her classified material, what more could she have done?
If the FBI charges Clinton with any sort of crime, it will just serve to further undermine the legitimacy of all law enforcement agencies in the US.
You have that exactly backwards. Letting her walk when it's so obvious that she's committed many more counts of the same crime that Patreus was convicted for would demonstrate that some people can avoid consequences for blatant felonies.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So, the little fish, who certainly did nothing wrong in setting up a mail server, gets immunity in exchange for all he knows, or can be persuaded to "remember".
Although I'm far from being a Clinton fan, (either of them), there's something sinister about a justice system that feels it necessary to "grant immunity" (often in exchange for unspecified "co-operation") rather than just being confident enough in itself to say "hey, you've done nothing wrong, but we would like to call you as a witness where your civic duty is to tell the truth".
I usually vote Democrat, you asshole!
Only "simpering fucking retards" think people can't recognize a lying, sociopathic criminal for what she is just because she claims to share some ideology.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Yes, they used an RNC server FOR POLITICAL PARTY PURPOSES. It's actually against the law to use Government servers for political party purposes - they are to be used for official Government business only. Now, are you asserting that actual Government work took place on that private server?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The are just pushing this forward so that the exoneration will be complete before the Dem convention
This is a set-up to get the gop to look like chicken little once that nothing is found that Hillary can be indicted for
Because Obama, who as chief executive controls the FBI, hates fellow-Democrat Clinton and wants her to lose?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"Obvious" and "proven in a court of law" are very different things.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Of course, if you're a DNC shill, you think she has done nothing wrong, in spite of the ongoing revelations of secret, classified, and beyond classified documents found on an unsecured server. I am sure that if this were an (R) running for President, you'd be calling for his hanging, and not saying "nothing to see here, move along"
Which is why I hate party politics, because people like you only see the Party, and not the crimes.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
And if she is ever charged with a Federal crime the chance of her being elected goes to some place around zero.
You have no idea about the stupidity of the American People, There are enough people who will vote for her, no matter what, simply because she has a (D) after her name, and even more because she has a V between her legs.
Here is a scenario that just might happen. She gets elected, gets sworn in, and pardons herself. And the newly appointed Supreme Court Justice, she appointed will support the notion that a President can pardon themselves, because there is no restriction against it in the Constitution. And the Senate will not be able to impeach her, and the (R) are too stupid / chicken / lame to do anything about it.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
the Phrase "Marked Classified" is a red herring, and completely irrelevant. Not only that, there is evidence that the markings were REMOVED by her staff (and orders to do so shown), which is ALSO a felony. FURTHER the law doesn't indicate it has to be marked at all. But keep spewing the DNC talking points, as it shows you care more about (D) party than actual security of our people serving overseas (exposed)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Think this through with me, please, think.
Is there anything more dangerous than to indict a popular (within their own political movement) and likely nominee for the office President of the United States?
Well, yes, electing an unindicted felon, one accused of federal crimes that would disqualify them for civil service.
But, if indicted and even convicted, could they be elected anyways? This is an interesting potential constitutional issue.
- Do elections overrule the law, and so require that a President-elect be permitted access to information they have already been found guilty of mishandling in the past?
- If indicted before nomination, and thence nominated, would any states declare the nominee disqualified? If so, how do they replace the nominee? Wait, which states decide the nominee? Don't most states merely oversee primary elections, and parties hold conventions where those delegates chosen decide the nominee?
- If indicted after nomination, would a judge be persuaded to void this indictment as being an improper interference in the election?
I'm proposing that any indictment must occur before nomination, and indeed before the primary process goes far enough to ensure the candidate will be the nominee.
So it is interesting that today two events are noted in the spew:
It is claimed that Bryan Pagliano has been granted immunity by the Justice Department to offer testimony regarding the operation of Hillary Clinton's private email server at her home.
And a former U.S. Attorney, Joseph diGenova, claims he is 'confident' that a grand jury has been convened to investigate the issues regarding the operation of Hillary Clinton;s email servers, the handling of classified material at the State Department during her tenure there, and the possible violation of law.
If this is true, three salient points come to mind:
0. The timing is probably crisis driven. This can't be rushed, but should/must be completed before Hillary is the presumptive nominee. That may happen pretty soon.
1. If true, the empaneling of a grand jury indicates the pressure is irresistible from the various government constituencies to 'do something' about this. If so, I doubt that a grand jury can merely whitewash the affair, for if the public reports are even marginally accurate, she is plainly guilty of several felonies, and the primary question is whether these infractions were intentional. Many groups will probably not care about that, as the results of such errors are the same whether intentional or not- lost lives and lasting harm to our nation and others.
2. And if this is indeed true, then Justice has either been compelled to move on prosecution, or given permission to do so, by the White House.
I'm not hopeful that this is true because I wish to see Hillary discredited and abandon her campaign. I'm hopeful because she needs to be held to account for her actions. She had the misfortune to be the first credible and likely woman to be a nominee for President, only to be up against the first credible black nominee. Now she should experience the self-inflicted misfortune of being forced to abandon her aspirations to the office due to criminal indictment and conviction.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
There were keyhole satellite spy photos which should not have been shared regardless of content (good way for the enemy to determine our capabilities), as well as a few documents apparently manually transcribed from classified sources by one or more interns. And that's just what has been disclosed. It's a wonder she's still free.
So what? Even if she was ignorant about security, she damn well knew that non-State Department-controlled servers were categorically disallowed because they could be used to circumvent FOIA requests.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That's not correct. There were document that were classified from the beginning that were on her server. Not documents retroactively classified. This IS a big deal.
If you understood how items get classified you would understand that wether or not someone said it was classified before or after, the information was still classified upon its creation. And if she didn't have a personal server this wouldn't even be an issue... She chose to have the server she chooses to take all responsibility. Even though she's really just trying to say it's a GOP witch hunt... Ironic she said the same thing before her husband was impeached. Turns out it was all legitimate then and it's all legitimate now.
Hillary also deleted her emails originally, then destroyed the servers, then handed over printed copies of the emails she deemed worthy of review. It was only after initial investigations had begun that it was found that she had given a copy to her lawyer and that drive was taken into custody.
She's cooperated much in the same way an inmate on death row 'cooperates' during his execution; never by choice, only because she was forced into having no alternatives.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Trying do some research Potsy:
"But the details in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not. "
And items that were classified had their classification removed before being emailed per Hillary's instruction.
Not entirely true, but your point is irrelevant anyway, because...
I used to work in the fun little world of TS and above clearances (specifically in a technical role with what eventually became the F-117A Nighthawk). Our instructions were very clear and simple: if it's marked classified, it never leaves Tonopah Test Range.
And yes, we had email back then - and so did the academic world. If I had so much as thought of doing what she did, *even if I generated/controlled the data in question*, I'd still be sitting in Fort Leavenworth, a quarter-century-plus later. And, no partisan hacks would be on the blogs or the Sunday TV shows trying to defend the act, either.
Therein lies my point - if it would land us peons in prison, then why should the law exempt her for doing the same thing?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
If this was anyone except the presumptive Democrat nominee, they'd be in handcuffs already.
Markings are irrelevant. Classified materials are classified regardless of markings and are generally easily identifiable as such (by subject matter or sources) and it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the receiver to identify possibly classified materials and contact the required authorities if (s)he receives them on an unsecured service.
That's besides the fact that in at least a few of the pieces of correspondence that have been reported on Hillary herself instructed underlings to remove the classification to make it easier to get the info she wanted sent to her.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Even if it were true that the markings had been removed before emailing, THAT in itself warrants a major investigation. And we know there is at least one email where someone was instructed to do just that.
There seems to be almost zero chance that this information wasn't compromised to foreign governments. As if Russia and China didn't know about this and have it breached...
Like that time Bush and Cheney deleted 22 million white house email or whatever it was an no one cared.
"Oops I accidentally all the evidence" - George Bush
Or no one remembers that his war dead still pile up and will until Iraq has a solid government again... which may take a few decades.
Your "DNC shill" is rather telling and covering with "Which is why I hate party politics, because people like you only see the Party" just doesn't work.
The fairness of "If republicans have shills then the DNC does too!" is false equivalency. While the DNC certainly does, shills is not most of their base. The DNC shills tend to not be nearly as crazy either.
Dems play stupid/nice, Republicans play dirty/evil but both are sock puppets for corporate money.
At least if Trump gets elected we will get a few more good angry Ministry albums.
And that has what to do with Hillary breaking the law with her e-mail server?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I think this is an excellent view. We should collectively try to rise above petty politics and have an objective look at what she did. She needs to go through the due process just like everyone else, no exceptions.
One could of course argue that there are other immoral or illegal actions closely tied to certain politicians (torture to death for example), but the glass shield needs to be broken somewhere. Once you punch through, the whole illusion of privilege tied to high positions in the political system will come down.
-SR
Last I heard, there was various HUMINT (some HCS-O) on the server, which is classified from the moment it starts existing, without any classification authority needing to be involved. But, hey, maybe someone else improperly declassified it before putting it on Hillary's server, so there's still a chance that she isn't the one to blame, right?
This is a fucking embarassment to anyone that holds a security clearance.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
1. It only works if you have the proof they need in their case against a "bigger fish"
2. It only works if the political class chooses to not use YOU as a scapegoat (i.e. blame it all on you, jail you, and tell the public that the case is over)
3. It only works if the prosecutors have a good case against their "bigger fish"... if not and if YOU have broken the law then you may be the only one going down.
4. None of this "works" in four favor, if you are the little guy without a good lawyer and the prosecutor is taking an approach to his or her case that does not require your evidence. If you and your evidence are not very helpful to the prosecution, then you are a co-conspirator and may be doing time at the same time as the "big fish" but in worse facilities and with nobody posting bail and no legal team working on your appeals.
The moral of this story, boys and girls, is that you are always better off doing the right thing and no matter how expedient it may seem to do somebody else's dirty work. You just never know when some cops and lawyers may show up and tell you they are prosecuting somebody for something that happened several years ago and which you might have participated in. Clean hands and a clean conscience are always best.