2016 Postmortem

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

57. Okay. But that has no relevance here.

Reply to Trust Buster (Reply #56)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 01:47 PM

Mar 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DOJ granted (Clinton IT)Pagliano immunity almost certainly because it knows he did something illegal [View all] morningfog Mar 2016 OP

kick morningfog Mar 2016 #1

I do hope they're offering him protection as well as immunity NV Whino Mar 2016 #2

Hilarious! To think that a mundane email matter would bring out hidden ninja assassins! randome Mar 2016 #17

Snark away! tex-wyo-dem Mar 2016 #37

I heard this last night Blus4u Mar 2016 #3

Witness Protection status coming up Ichingcarpenter Mar 2016 #4

really! was discussing this last night and we were concluding he better have amborin Mar 2016 #21

Kick--this is extremely important. panader0 Mar 2016 #5

The IT guy committed some sort of crime? Punkingal Mar 2016 #6

That's what the FBI and DOJ will soon find out. morningfog Mar 2016 #7

I hope it's soon, for all our sakes! Punkingal Mar 2016 #10

The investigation is scheduled to be done by early May Arazi Mar 2016 #64

Also known as the Christie defense. In Reagan's case it might even have been true. nt tblue37 Mar 2016 #28

She will wash her hands of the whole thing Fairgo Mar 2016 #78

and yet the HRC supporters will shrug it off casperthegm Mar 2016 #8

K & R Blus4u Mar 2016 #9

Not according to this article.. DCBob Mar 2016 #11

Right, they are foregoing a case against him, which they would not have unless he spoke to them. morningfog Mar 2016 #12

You should be a thriller fiction writer. DCBob Mar 2016 #13

Thanks for the compliment on my writing. morningfog Mar 2016 #15

Don't let that get in the way of the hope of an indictment KingFlorez Mar 2016 #14

That entire section is based on assumptions. morningfog Mar 2016 #16

Your OP is based on assumptions KingFlorez Mar 2016 #19

My OP is based on experience. morningfog Mar 2016 #20

I think they are mainly interested in finding out more about the setup of the server. DCBob Mar 2016 #22

Possibly, but he would still have to have done something potentially illegal to receive immunity. morningfog Mar 2016 #23

"Potentially" sure. DCBob Mar 2016 #24

What sort of experience is it based on. Have you advised clients called to testify before a grand onenote Mar 2016 #82

"One less thing for her to worry about?" State of denial andrewv1 Mar 2016 #26

It can hurt the Dems, depending on timing. thesquanderer Mar 2016 #36

And that's why you clear it out now...This process should start moving very rapidly now. andrewv1 Mar 2016 #38

What is more sad Bob_Roony Mar 2016 #60

On MSNBC Bob_Roony Mar 2016 #89

If there is no case against Pagliano why would he accept immunity? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2016 #85

To set the matter to rest. DCBob Mar 2016 #90

Years of stonewalling and slow-walking requests -- which they're still doing -- just so Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2016 #91

Maybe.. speaktruthtopower Mar 2016 #18

I have to wonder if the Rethugs didn't push this Benghazi BS for so long... andrewv1 Mar 2016 #25

kick kgnu_fan Mar 2016 #27

"almost certainly because it knows he did something illegal" Chicago1980 Mar 2016 #29

This is how the DOJ works, I know from experience. They do not grant immunity morningfog Mar 2016 #30

Um, no. They grant immunity if the person holds out and they need the testimony. msanthrope Mar 2016 #58

Investigators have bigger fish to fry, than Mr. Pagliano, or else they wouldn't do immunity. 99th_Monkey Mar 2016 #31

HRC wasn't a techie Pantagruelsmember Mar 2016 #32

I'm not happy about this. blackspade Mar 2016 #33

Wow HillareeeHillaraah Mar 2016 #34

He was granted immunity! lol. There will be no prosecution against him, that is the whole point. morningfog Mar 2016 #40

What do you expect from a cabal ... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #53

What rot!!!! Punkingal Mar 2016 #75

More Hillary Derangement Syndrome from the Bernie crowd. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #35

That's really reaching...But at least you are not "MIA" like most of the Hillary group is right now. andrewv1 Mar 2016 #42

Well, they certainly can't hope their flailing candidate could beat Hillary fair and square... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #43

There is no such thing as a 5th Amendment right to protect you form annoyance and expense. morningfog Mar 2016 #44

If I were an attorney, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES would I expose my client Trust Buster Mar 2016 #52

The DOJ granted immunity. They don't do that unless it is to protect someone with exposure to morningfog Mar 2016 #55

No, I would demand that to keep my client away from a Republican witch hunting committee. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #59

That's incorrect. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #72

And another thing... HillareeeHillaraah Mar 2016 #39

It has everything to do with criminal liability. FULL FUCKING STOP. morningfog Mar 2016 #41

Totally unnecessary and without any basis in fact. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #46

The 5th Amendment only protects you against criminal liability. That is it. morningfog Mar 2016 #47

It thwarts fishing expeditions HillareeeHillaraah Mar 2016 #51

Only if the person is exposed to criminal liability. You don't get immunity out of convenience. morningfog Mar 2016 #54

I know that you REALLY want that to be the case... HillareeeHillaraah Mar 2016 #48

You are ignorant to the legal system and criminal liability. morningfog Mar 2016 #50

No...I think you are ignorant as to how good representation goes. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #61

The DOJ doesn't grant immunity for nothing. morningfog Mar 2016 #62

The DOJ will grant immunity if the person holds out and refuses to testify, msanthrope Mar 2016 #66

From the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology HillareeeHillaraah Mar 2016 #68

Do you believe your interlocutor is arguing so strenuously... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #63

Uh huh. n/t HillareeeHillaraah Mar 2016 #69

My fervent wish is they would join us in celebrating and taking advantage of the GOP crackup... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #74

Yes, you certainly will. You don't need our votes at all, do you? Punkingal Mar 2016 #77

I don't think Hillary will be indicted. I hope no one will. morningfog Mar 2016 #79

Hillary herself told the FBI that she will eagerly testify in front of the FBI way back in August. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #45

Who said anything about Hillary? morningfog Mar 2016 #49

I did. She's been waiting to talk to the FBI since August. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #56

Okay. But that has no relevance here. morningfog Mar 2016 #57

Sure it does. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #65

It has to with his his exposure to criminal liability as well as others. morningfog Mar 2016 #67

You don't know what his attorney's objectives are. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #71

Yes you did. The name "Clinton" appears twice in your OP. Unless you are referring to pkdu Mar 2016 #70

I said nothing of Hillary's culpability. That is not the point. morningfog Mar 2016 #73

Meanwhile, President Rubio gives the go ahead to House bill HR277B, titled randys1 Mar 2016 #76

This message was self-deleted by its author cyberpj Mar 2016 #80

"And the moderator said we're getting off target, let's get back to discussing Trump now." Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2016 #86

You don't know that. If I was his lawyer, I'd insist on an immunity grant onenote Mar 2016 #81

This message was self-deleted by its author cyberpj Mar 2016 #83

For those pretending to be immunity experts: the statutory standard for granting immunity onenote Mar 2016 #84

According to (b)(2) Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2016 #87

You may want to go back and revisit your constitutional law texts onenote Mar 2016 #88