C-Span: Investigation Into Hillary Clinton's Emails

[Bubzer]

Last edited Sun Mar 20, 2016, 08:54 PM - Edit history (2)

Joseph diGenova talked about the investigation into emails sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s personal email server during her time as Secretary of State. Video at link:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?406228-4/washington-journal-joseph-digenova-hillary-clintons-emails

*On edit*
Video has closed captioning

A specific quote worth calling out:

Caller: No one else would receive the kind of treatment Hillary has received.

Guest: it is the reverse. There are federal employees and former federal employees who have had their clearances revoked, jobs taken away from them, and who have gone to prison for compromising a single piece of classified information by not storing it properly. By leaving it on their desk overnight, by giving it to someone who was unauthorized. It happens regularly. In fact Mrs. Clinton is being given the benefit of the doubt because she is a famous and important person as former first lady, former U.S. senator, and former secretary of state. So she is receiving a kind of deference that would not be accorded to a private citizen.

[iAZZZo]

1. viewed this on c-span prior to seeing your post and thank you for alert

especially enjoyed the "call-in", viewer questions

the pace of technology prevents most all but the youngest and/or most technologically intrigued/adept from comprehension:

"private/personal" email vs. server

they just don't get it

"foia"?

"classified" (subterfuge from clinton vs. "confidential/secret/top secret sap-noform", et. al.???

[Jarqui]

3. Can't trust him entirely because he's a Republican mouthpiece.

He may or may not be right on the grand jury being set up but that isn't the only way for the FBI to get a subpoena:
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/victim_assistance/a-brief-description-of-the-federal-criminal-justice-process

In the case of federal offenses that are colloquially known as white-collar crimes (e.g., violations of the federal securities laws), agents often will need to obtain documents from suspects and innocent parties as part of the investigation. To do so, the agents can apply for a search warrant from a magistrate (or judge) to search a particular site for relevant evidence. Alternatively, the agents can request a subpoena from a grand jury.

As well, I think (not absolutely positive in this case) an Inspector General can sign off on a subpoena they issue. The subpoenas of the Clinton Foundation for information on Huma Abedin and information on donors Hillary also helped at the State Department were reported to have come from the Inspector General.

In criminal investigations, Inspector Generals are discouraged from issuing subpoenas so at the time they issued the subpoenas, it wasn't a criminal investigation - as the FBI said. Those subpoenas were issued long before the report made it to the Washington Post. I think late last summer or early fall.

As for the immunity, depending on where the case is, I think the Grand Jury if convened would have to hear about it. But if it isn't a criminal investigation yet, I think the Attorney General could approve immunity. So he might be a little over the top there too.

The rest of stuff - parts of it are likely to be true but I don't think we can take his word for it. It's like a FOX News interview.

[winter is coming]

4. I agree that the subpoena and immunity may not have come from a grand jury.

But the Hillary supporters are acting it's no big deal, and that's bogus. People don't ask for--and get--immunity for nothing.

[Jarqui]

5. "People don't ask for--and get--immunity for nothing."

Yep!

Their lawyers wouldn't let their client discuss with authorities their role in setting up or using an unauthorized, unsecure server containing classified information in someone's home unless they had immunity.

Obviously, laws have been broken. They want to get the bigger fish.