HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Hillary Hires Criminal At...

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:18 PM

Hillary Hires Criminal Attorney David Kendall...

As I've been saying, the FBI doesn't do "security reviews."

From Whitewater to the Lewinsky affair, David Kendall has been there for the Clintons. And now LawNewz.com has learned that the longtime Clinton attorney is also representing Hillary Clinton in the FBI’s probe into her private email server. He will likely not be far when she is interviewed by the FBI, which is expected to happen soon. Kendall knows a thing or two about classified information: He helped former CIA director David Patreaus avoid felony charges when Patreaus allegedly gave “black books” to a mistress who was writing his book.

Several reports indicate that the FBI investigation has entered its final stages. So it is no surprise that Clinton would need a lawyer by her side, and who better than the man who has been loyal to the Clinton family for more than twenty years. The choice of Kendall is not shocking as he’s also been handling the State Department and Senate’s inquiry into her private emails for months now. There was some speculation that as the investigation reportedly intensified, she may hire another attorney to deal with the FBI’s probe specifically, but Clinton is staying with a friend she knows well.


http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/the-longtime-clinton-attorney-now-representing-hillary-in-fbis-criminal-probe/

And, yes, Kendall is a criminal attorney - not a civil one. He handled a number of high-profile death penalty cases before becoming Clinton's go-to man.

164 replies, 14355 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 164 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Hires Criminal Attorney David Kendall... (Original post)
Fawke Em Apr 2016 OP
Actor Apr 2016 #1
nichomachus Apr 2016 #3
Actor Apr 2016 #5
berniepdx420 Apr 2016 #76
Actor Apr 2016 #86
berniepdx420 Apr 2016 #87
rhett o rick Apr 2016 #118
Actor Apr 2016 #149
rhett o rick Apr 2016 #155
leveymg Apr 2016 #132
LonePirate Apr 2016 #54
2pooped2pop Apr 2016 #81
LonePirate Apr 2016 #85
Th1onein Apr 2016 #93
Else You Are Mad Apr 2016 #4
Logical Apr 2016 #7
Actor Apr 2016 #10
rock Apr 2016 #50
pinebox Apr 2016 #51
Oilwellian Apr 2016 #121
Fawke Em Apr 2016 #125
rock Apr 2016 #49
Purveyor Apr 2016 #53
workinclasszero Apr 2016 #18
Fawke Em Apr 2016 #26
2pooped2pop Apr 2016 #83
Punkingal Apr 2016 #23
Fawke Em Apr 2016 #24
brush Apr 2016 #113
Fawke Em Apr 2016 #135
brush Apr 2016 #139
Autumn Apr 2016 #28
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #30
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #43
TheBlackAdder Apr 2016 #58
Actor Apr 2016 #61
Kentonio Apr 2016 #64
TheBlackAdder Apr 2016 #114
DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2016 #75
2pooped2pop Apr 2016 #79
catnhatnh Apr 2016 #97
MariaThinks Apr 2016 #103
boobooday Apr 2016 #151
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #152
northernsouthern Apr 2016 #128
Betty Karlson Apr 2016 #136
Else You Are Mad Apr 2016 #2
The Old Lie Apr 2016 #52
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #67
awake Apr 2016 #84
Fawke Em Apr 2016 #126
HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #98
Else You Are Mad Apr 2016 #99
Logical Apr 2016 #6
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #8
cyberpj Apr 2016 #15
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #19
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #153
Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2016 #120
Fairgo Apr 2016 #9
ky_dem Apr 2016 #31
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #32
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #36
Fairgo Apr 2016 #39
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #47
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #102
Warren DeMontague Apr 2016 #71
catnhatnh Apr 2016 #101
LineLineReply .
mmonk Apr 2016 #140
IamMab Apr 2016 #11
riderinthestorm Apr 2016 #17
IamMab Apr 2016 #20
riderinthestorm Apr 2016 #21
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #56
Land of Enchantment Apr 2016 #40
Fawke Em Apr 2016 #134
yourpaljoey Apr 2016 #156
Fawke Em Apr 2016 #27
IamMab Apr 2016 #33
ky_dem Apr 2016 #157
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #34
xloadiex Apr 2016 #78
Else You Are Mad Apr 2016 #104
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #109
4139 Apr 2016 #12
antigop Apr 2016 #13
CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #14
1StrongBlackMan Apr 2016 #16
Fawke Em Apr 2016 #29
1StrongBlackMan Apr 2016 #45
Fawke Em Apr 2016 #133
1StrongBlackMan Apr 2016 #138
HassleCat Apr 2016 #22
Autumn Apr 2016 #25
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #37
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #38
Autumn Apr 2016 #112
Yurovsky Apr 2016 #119
Congruente Apr 2016 #35
Fawke Em Apr 2016 #131
speaktruthtopower Apr 2016 #41
smiley Apr 2016 #42
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #46
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #55
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #82
smiley Apr 2016 #63
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #44
snowy owl Apr 2016 #48
2cannan Apr 2016 #59
snowy owl Apr 2016 #68
grasswire Apr 2016 #65
snowy owl Apr 2016 #69
grasswire Apr 2016 #72
Oilwellian Apr 2016 #122
grasswire Apr 2016 #124
berni_mccoy Apr 2016 #57
antigop Apr 2016 #60
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #62
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #70
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #73
msanthrope Apr 2016 #89
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #100
msanthrope Apr 2016 #106
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #110
Admiral Loinpresser Apr 2016 #116
msanthrope Apr 2016 #137
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #142
nashville_brook Apr 2016 #146
Punkingal Apr 2016 #66
snowy owl Apr 2016 #74
Aerows Apr 2016 #92
nashville_brook Apr 2016 #147
Aerows Apr 2016 #96
polichick Apr 2016 #77
senz Apr 2016 #123
amborin Apr 2016 #80
Logical Apr 2016 #88
arcane1 Apr 2016 #95
RiverLover Apr 2016 #141
NCTraveler Apr 2016 #90
frylock Apr 2016 #91
Fawke Em Apr 2016 #127
frylock Apr 2016 #150
seafan Apr 2016 #94
highprincipleswork Apr 2016 #105
still_one Apr 2016 #107
berniepdx420 Apr 2016 #129
AzDar Apr 2016 #108
demwing Apr 2016 #111
BigBearJohn Apr 2016 #115
SusanCalvin Apr 2016 #117
NanceGreggs Apr 2016 #130
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #143
nashville_brook Apr 2016 #148
BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #144
lindysalsagal Apr 2016 #145
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #154
lindysalsagal Apr 2016 #159
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #160
lindysalsagal Apr 2016 #161
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #162
lindysalsagal Apr 2016 #163
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #164
DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2016 #158

Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:20 PM

1. It is sad to see this republican conspiracy theory being so successful in trying to

discredit the Clinton's.

But they have been at it for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:22 PM

3. So, you're saying the Clintons have a "get out of jail free" card?

Because the Republicans have attacked them, they can now do anything they want and no one can question it without it being called a Republican conspiracy?

How very clever of them. Very, very Karl Rove tactic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:23 PM

5. Karl Rove?



Oh my...

Transparent as can be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:10 PM

76. you really think Bob Marley would support clinton over bernie... no way no how

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berniepdx420 (Reply #76)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:37 PM

86. No, and I support Bernie. But you might not recognize someone like me.

I support the defeat of the right wing even if that means voting for Hillary.

I can state the undeniable fact that the right has an orchestrated campaign of propaganda on the Clinton's and support Bernie at the same time.

Even Bernie believes that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #86)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:38 PM

87. fair enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #86)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:39 AM

118. LOL, who do you think you are kidding?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #118)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:33 AM

149. You are evidently new to this politics thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #149)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:55 AM

155. I am new? You have a lot of audacity for only 26 posts. Actually you sound very familiar. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #86)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 03:51 AM

132. Deep in the state of denial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:43 PM

54. Why are you assuming she is guilty and warrants jail time here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #54)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:27 PM

81. I don't think anyone has to assume she is guilty and warrants jail time.

 

the server was illegal, the hiding of the emails, or wiping if you prefer was illegal, her testimony was illegal, and we haven't touched on her selling government contracts to the highest donor to her foundation yet.

It's obvious that she is guilty. It remains doubtful if she will get the jail time she deserves due to our two tiered legal system. That will only make the people hate her even more. She will be impeached if she should ever make it to the White House. I doubt though that that republicans will let her get that far with all of her baggage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #81)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:35 PM

85. Interestingly, plenty of legal scholars disagree with everything you have said, even our President

Frankly, I am going to side with people who have actual knowledge and who are performing the investigation instead of swinging an executioner's axe for purely partisan reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #81)


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:23 PM

4. Please tell me...

Which party is running the executive Branch -- which the FBI falls under. If this was nothing, President Obama would have squashed this from the get go. Just saying...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:24 PM

7. 2 posts??? Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:28 PM

10. I dont have to be an old timer here to know who has orchestrated a 25 year long

propaganda campaign to discredit the Clinton's.


My knowledge of this and pointing it out has nothing to do with whether or not I support her or Bernie Sanders.

She could be running against anybody, would not change this simple fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:40 PM

50. Welcome to DU!

Hope you stay awhile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:41 PM

51. You fail to understand the FBI is under the DOJ umbrella which falls under Obama

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 01:28 AM

121. How is this right wing when...

Obama appointed the Inspector General at the State Department who asked the FBI to investigate this case?

Blaming the right wing on her own destructive behavior won't wash this time. Hillary created this scandal all on her own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 03:20 AM

125. Then your "knowledge" isn't based on much.

She's being investigated of a crime, not partisan bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:39 PM

49. Where would you have them start?

Are you one of those Bernie Sanders Math Geniuses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:42 PM

53. Hauling out the back-bench in desperation it seems... eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:33 PM

18. Yup freak republic shit

 

right here on the pages of DU.

Its been ongoing since Bernie entered the race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:43 PM

26. FBI investigations aren't partisan committees.

Get your head out of the sand about this, please, before you ruin the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:30 PM

83. the DOJ doesn't seem to think that this is republican made.

 

Why would you? Hillary brings her own trouble, and almost constantly, at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:41 PM

23. Making these pronouncements on your first day here?

Uh huh....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:42 PM

24. How, pray tell, is an FBI investigation a "right wing talking point?"

This is where Hillary supporters stick their heads in the sand.

Yes. I fully agree that the right-wing has trumped (no pun intended) up charges on the Clintons throughout the years and most of these investigations have been conducted by partisan hacks with crosses to bear, but this isn't one of them.

There is US Code (specifically 18 US Code 739) that relates to maintaining national security/defense data a certain way. If what we know is true about the unsecured server, she failed to meet the criteria set forth in that Code. I don't think it was intentional, but that doesn't matter. She was made aware of how she was supposed to treat that data and signed off on it, but, out of sheer convenience (and possibly to avoid FOIA requests) disregarded this warning.

But, if you'd like, I'll call up some of my colleagues in the FBI and let them know you think they're all some big right-wing machine. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:32 PM

113. Your headline for this OP is bull

You infer that she just hired a criminal attorney but then write that he's always been her attorney.

Many people have attorneys. Hell, I have an attorney.

Stop with the bs, she's not getting indicted, and Sanders is not getting the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #113)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 03:56 AM

135. You keep a CRIMINAL attorney on retainer?

Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #135)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 06:48 AM

139. I didn't say that. And the OP says the lawyer has always been her attorney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:46 PM

28. Hillary's own actions are a conspiracy theory?

Welcome back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:48 PM

30. Come on guys, a little discipline . . . remember the old rule "don't feed the trolls."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:02 PM

43. Because everybody undergoing an FBI 'security review' hires criminal defense attorneys?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:05 PM

58. A top notch attorney (family court, civil or criminal) is prudent, not a sign of guilt. It's just..

.


She should be thankful that she has the financial capital to spend hundreds of thousands or millions on a defense.


Any other person would be locked away, as soon as their money runs out to field a defense.



This all goes to the contributions of the Trial Lawyer industry, to keep things overly complicated and fucked up.
Just like those guys who pay to make the tax code complicated so you have to buy software or hire an accountant.


.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #58)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:25 PM

61. Any other person? It is like I found myself on KarlRove.com

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:45 PM

64. It's more like you don't recognize the simple truth

 

That hundreds of thousands of Americans annually receive a substandard legal defense because they don't have money and have to rely on overworked, poorly motivated public defenders who will often plea bargain just to clear their workloads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:20 PM

114. Perhaps you should look into the realities of the legal system, as you seem quite naive to it.

.


And, regarding Karl Rove: You lift that needle up a little because the record's skipping.


.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:08 PM

75. Source IP check, please.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:23 PM

79. I don't think you get a high priced lawyer that has gotten people off on similar but milder accusati

 

accusations when it's only a republican conspiracy theory. She is a seriously flawed candidate regardless of the republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:08 PM

97. It sure is sad

that an ex president and his spouse have had to hire a criminal attorney multiple times because they've been "at it" for years.

And welcome to the board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:15 PM

103. bush and his republican criminals lie their way into a war with iraq. where's the outrage?

Hillary chews food - she has no manners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MariaThinks (Reply #103)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:46 AM

151. I have plenty of outrage for all of them

And Hillary was a big supporter of the war in Iraq. She made a speech in support of it. That was the day she lost me forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MariaThinks (Reply #103)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:47 AM

152. Hillary VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR. Where's the outrage?

w. bush should be in jail with cheney and the rest. Did president Obama go after them for war crimes?

There is plenty of outrage to go around. That doesn't excuse any criminal activity by Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 03:26 AM

128. Actually I was wondering the opposite.

 

Why has it gotten so quite about this. I pops up on here once in a blue moon, but nothing like Popegate, Standgate, 1040Agate, 13%gate, apologygate, fingerwaggate, redgate, racistgate, and so on from the HRC crew. But is has been a bit. Why the lol in the news? Hillary would be happy if it was almost over, the FBI seems to be holding out? Are they waiting until the general election?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Actor (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 04:33 AM

136. The Clintons have indeed been shady for decades - and are finally meeting a generation of

 

progressives no longer willing to excuse it.

Praise Nancy Reagan?
DADT?
DOMA?
TPP?
TTIP?
NAFTA?
For-profit prisons?
"Superpredators?"
Iraq War?
Libya? - On the advice of Blumenthal? Whom Obama told Clinton to NEVER consult?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:21 PM

2. What always bothered me is...

That every time Clinton said she won't be indicted or what have you is the fact that those being investigated aren't told of the details of an investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Else You Are Mad (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:42 PM

52. Looks like JoePhilly's "Indictment Fairy" is about to make an appearance

 

shortly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Old Lie (Reply #52)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:55 PM

67. Welcome, Psychic Poster - member since Mon Apr 11, 2016, 08:53 PM

 

The indictment fairy is employed by the FBI (who rarely spend a year's worth of resources investigating "not crimes". We will all await the appearance of said fairy about whose investigation we can only speculate until it is complete. Until then, we can only rely on those famous words of President Barack Obama: "she didn't intentionally endanger national security - she was just careless!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #67)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:32 PM

84. "Vote for Hillary she could care less about national security" her new campaign slogan

I think that fits her to a T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #84)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 03:22 AM

126. Oh, no. You're wrong.

She LOVES it unless it inconveniences her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Else You Are Mad (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:09 PM

98. Well, you know she has to say that to look innocent.

But those of us without the privilege of being celebrity white politicians know it's possible to get indicted even if your innocent.

It's also possible to get convicted while being innocent.

I suspect her aides will find out about what that threat is like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #98)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:10 PM

99. Indeed.

And, the aides will do a few years in jail and then, after being released, will find good jobs at the Clinton Foundation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:24 PM

6. She brought this on herself. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:27 PM

8. New campaign motto: I'm not a crook.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #8)


Response to cyberpj (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:35 PM

19. There are certainly unpleasant similarities.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberpj (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:48 AM

153. That's not far off the mark. They both love Kissinger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 01:04 AM

120. Or: You ain't got nuthin on me, dirty coppers!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:27 PM

9. Flinch

You can pretend that your kitchen is not on fire, but eventually you have to explain why you are watering the stove.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:49 PM

31. :0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:49 PM

32. I tell you, I get more chuckles here than I do watching a comedian. . . . laugh out LOUD funny.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:54 PM

36. Never heard that one before! Hilarious!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:56 PM

39. Fresh baked this morning...

not me, just the joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:16 PM

47. "I'm watering the stove so it will grow up big and strong...

... and make little stoves."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #47)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:13 PM

102. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:02 PM

71. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:12 PM

101. Oh-I LIKE that

Well done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:26 AM

140. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:28 PM

11. How do you suddenly hire someone who has worked for you for decades?

 

Ooops, logic-bomb!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamMab (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:33 PM

17. How disturbing to have a criminal defense attorney on retainer...for "decades"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:35 PM

20. Not unusual for a couple that have had trumped-up charges leveled at them the whole time.

 

Your parents probably remember the 90s; ask them about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamMab (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:38 PM

21. Lol, never ASSume. I'm in my 50s whippersnapper.

 

Now get off my lawn!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamMab (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:51 PM

56. Your parents LOL LOL LOL I remember it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:58 PM

40. Better Call Saul...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land of Enchantment (Reply #40)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 03:53 AM

134. Ravens are lovely birds. I have several.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #134)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:57 AM

156. You have ravens... wicked cool

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamMab (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:45 PM

27. You call in the retainer.

Easy.

A retainer is simply a way to make payments and keep the attorney on notice that he/she represents you when need be. You don't always need him/her, but he/she will be there if/when you do.

However, most of us don't keep CRIMINAL attorneys on retainer, so it is a bid odd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:51 PM

33. Except everyone pays a retainer to a lawyer, whether they hire them for years or not.

 

Retainer: a fee that the client pays upfront to an attorney before the attorney has begun work for the client.

Most of us don't have the GOP abusing the government to pursue relentless and baseless prosecutions of us either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamMab (Reply #33)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:05 PM

157. Most people don't pay retainers if it's a long term relationship

I worked as a paralegal in a firm that is in the top 25 in terms of size - the only people who pay retainers are new clients who we haven't sussed out whether they are going to pay on time, other than that people just get billed. The only reason I can think of to put someone on retainer is because you want to create a conflict so that that lawyer can't work counter to your interests on a particular matter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:51 PM

34. most of us don't keep CRIMINAL attorneys on retainer, so it is a bid odd.

 

BECAUSE most of us don't NEED criminal attorneys on retainer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamMab (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:15 PM

78. I know I always keep a criminal defense attorney on retainer

You know, just in case I decide to do something..criminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamMab (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:17 PM

104. Simply put.

You put them on retainer and then have them work on your behalf regarding the issue at hand. It has to do with legal ethics laws and such blah blah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamMab (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:33 PM

109. Read the full story

 

Here to help you. I had the same question by the way.


There was some speculation that as the investigation reportedly intensified, she may hire another attorney to deal with the FBI’s probe specifically, but Clinton is staying with a friend she knows well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:29 PM

12. ?? Kendall has been her Attorney on this allong....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:30 PM

13. and Grassley sent him a letter asking if Guccifer hacked HRC's emails

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016-04-12%20CEG%20to%20HRC%20%28Guccifer%20Victim%20Notification%29.pdf


The letter was sent to HRC, c/o David Kendall, Clinton's lawyer.

It specifically asks:
"1. Have you received any notice from the Department of Justice or other government
agency relating to Mr. Lazar?
2. Has the Department of Justice or any other government agency informed you that you
were a victim of hacking, other unlawful computer access, or any other crime, whether
attempted or realized, by Mr. Lazar or any other person or entity?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:31 PM

14. Difference between...

 

....owning a fire extinguisher....

...and using it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:32 PM

16. I'm shocked that someone being interviewed by the FBI would retain counsel.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:47 PM

29. I didn't say it was shocking or even odd.

But it does negate her claim that the FBI was doing a "security review" (which they don't do. Companies like the one I work for do, but we're a private cyber security company - that's what we do. We don't do criminal investigations, but we're some times hired by the FBI to help them conduct them).

If it was just a review, you wouldn't need to call in your retainer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:09 PM

45. With all due respect ...

 

Only a fool would appear before the FBI (to talk about anything) without counsel in tow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #45)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 03:52 AM

133. Or a poor person...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #133)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 06:03 AM

138. Yeah ...Okay. Even a poor person.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:38 PM

22. You can't be too rich or too thin

 

Or have too many attorneys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:42 PM

25. Nothing says win like the leading democrat candidate having to lawyer up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:54 PM

37. Let's put the appropriate adjective on that "lawyer" noun . . . .and that would be "Criminal"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:56 PM

38. This situation makes me very sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:17 PM

112. It doesn't make me sad anymore. That's what Clinton does, stupid shit that needs to be

investigated for wrong doing. I spent 12 years defending them, 8 while Bill was in office and her when she was a senator and her last failed run when i supported her. I'm not about to waste another second of my life defending her from anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #112)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:58 AM

119. The crazy thing was it was all unnecessary ....

She claims they were $5m in debt (legal fees) but they got much more than that in book deals, plus between the 2 of them they were getting over $600k in annual federal pensions FOR LIFE (plus whatever Bill might get as a former governor).

With her name recognition, legit fund raising would be a breeze. Just keep your nose clean, live well (maybe crash at your rich friends vacation homes for a change of scenery...). She didn't have to go to the dark side.

But she did. When I stop to think about it, I guess she never left, despite there no longer being a need. They'd made it. But greed and vanity got the best of her. And I, like you, have washed my hands of the both of them. And it's on them, not me. I never sold out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:51 PM

35. "The choice of Kendall is not shocking" the article says

 

Do you want us to be shocked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Congruente (Reply #35)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 03:51 AM

131. No.

I just wanted to point out that the FBI does not do "security reviews." The do criminal investigations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:01 PM

41. Nothing wrong with hiring a lawyer...

even if you are completely innocent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:02 PM

42. Has this ever happened in U.S. primary elections?

How can anyone not see that this whole situation is a liability of Hillary is nominated?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smiley (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:10 PM

46. Does Rick Perry count?

and then you have Chris Christie & Co ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:50 PM

55. Rick Perry is not running for the Presidency last time I looked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #55)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:29 PM

82. but he was during this primary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:31 PM

63. Not the best company to be in heh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:05 PM

44. Leading Dem candidate lawyering up?

 

I don't think that's happened before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:29 PM

48. From my understanding, everyone has done it including Colin Powell

This is clearly political and unfair. Clinton unfairly targeted by Republicans. I expect honesty from both sides. Also, her "classified" wasn't classified when she sent them. Just shows how fucked up government is. Studies have shown way too much is classified. Should be transparent. And yes I'd get a lawyer too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #48)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:07 PM

59. No, snowy owl, Hillary is different because of the server.

She is the only Sec of State to set up her own email server (in her basement). She used her own personal email account for both work and personal emails and had all of her emails were stored on that server at her house. That's why orgs that requested copies of her emails from the State Dept through FOIA requests were told that there weren't any emails because there weren't any on the State Dept. servers. I believe that Powell and Rice used both personal and State Dept email accounts (on the State Dept servers).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2cannan (Reply #59)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:55 PM

68. Ok. I didn't understand that. I read early accounts that the same.Not for HRC but am fair-thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #48)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:49 PM

65. your understanding is wrong.

You are using old talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #65)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:57 PM

69. I'll take your word for it - can you provide link? Never mind. I found it!

Not an HRC supporter but I try to be fair. Thanks for putting me straight! Big difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #69)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:03 PM

72. well, right here on DU...

...an expert at gathering information who is a published author has been working on a timeline of all of the information about the matter. It is long, and complicated, but if you read the contributions of DU members to the thread, you will know more about the matter than most people.

ww.democraticunderground.com/1280158157

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #72)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 01:49 AM

122. We're just about finished up

I just sent him the last batch of illustrative work a couple of hours ago. No doubt he'll pick it apart and repairs will be made, but he's almost ready to go public with it.

It's a stunning piece of work and will be the go-to source of information for people who want to understand the full picture. I just don't see how she will be able to retain her security clearance after all of the information is out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #122)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 02:11 AM

124. yep

I have been copyediting.

How great that Paul came here to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:53 PM

57. Time to drop out now Hillary!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:20 PM

60. Grassley sent him a letter asking if Guccifer hacked HRC's emails

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016-04-12%20CEG%20to%20HRC%20%28Guccifer%20Victim%20Notification%29.pdf


The letter was sent to HRC, c/o David Kendall, Clinton's lawyer.

It specifically asks:
"1. Have you received any notice from the Department of Justice or other government
agency relating to Mr. Lazar?
2. Has the Department of Justice or any other government agency informed you that you
were a victim of hacking, other unlawful computer access, or any other crime, whether
attempted or realized, by Mr. Lazar or any other person or entity?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:26 PM

62. He has been the Clinton's lawyer forever.

If you watched the Benghazi hearings he was sitting in the audience the entire time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #62)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:00 PM

70. CRIMINAL Lawyer -- and you don't think it's ODD she has had him FOREVER?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #70)


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #70)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:43 PM

89. No. As a criminal defense attorney, no. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #89)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:11 PM

100. Okay, I don't even know how to respond to you.

 

On the one hand, you have serious professional expertise that I respect (plus as a fellow long time poster, I know some of your previous good deeds for members of this board for which I personally still admire you for performing).

On the other hand, I am not an attorney, and in my limited experience, people who keep hiring criminal attorneys are not always the most upstanding citizens and their misdeeds are rarely "first offense" situations.

Obviously innocent people employ criminal defense attorneys, but realistically, so do criminals.

You can see my dilemma. So I guess I will just stick with "it's odd in my social circle - I have no personal acquaintance with anyone who has had a long term client relationship with a criminal attorney who didn't end up spending some time in jail."

Is that fair?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #100)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:20 PM

106. You don't know who in your social circle has a criminal lawyer on retainer.

 

Bluntly.....you simply don't know. It's not something people trumpet.....But do you really think the Sanders family does not have criminal representation at this point? Given the calls for a federal investigation into the SAR filed against Burlington College, do you really think the Sanders campaign has not consulted a criminal attorney?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #106)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:37 PM

110. Again, fair point about my social circle.

 

I don't know. And I also don't know about the Sanders but I haven't investigated that like I've read up on the email server issues.

But I do know Hillary has had one on multiple occasions and the fact he got Petraeus off means he is good.

So let me change my answer to you: in my circles, to my knowledge, hiring a criminal attorney is not the sign of someone who is innocent of criminal wrongdoing. At a certain level, whether she is ever found "guilty or not" has little to do with it going forward - the public perception that she NEEDS A CRIMINAL ATTORNEY comes with a certain amount of damage to a reputation. It increases her "untrustworthy" factor, and leaves her the but of comedy jokes that are inappropriate when running for the position of "leader of the free world".

Is it fair? No, but life isn't always fair, and some of her Epic Bad Decisions brought her to this pass. Will she drop out? I doubt it. She is a fighter, and if she truly believes she is "not guilty" she may ignore everything else until the bitter end. This self deception on her part - my husband wouldn't cheat/those women are lying/there is a vast right wing conspiracy - isn't even new; the martyrdom of her position may even enhance her prestige for some people.

I personally hope she doesn't end up in jail. That would be a terrible "first" for a former First Lady.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #110)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:34 PM

116. As an avid Bernie backer and former prosecutor and crim defense attorney,

I have to say the long-time relationship with the named criminal defense attorney is understandable given the various witch hunts the Clintons have endured over the last quarter century.

Having said that, if their was cut-and-paste activity of classified documents by SOS staff at the direction of HRC for transfer and use on her private server, I would suspect that might satisfy the gravamen for illegal activity by her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #110)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 05:32 AM

137. Funny, in my circles, having lawyers on retainer is what we do. After all,who

 

else would manage things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #137)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:47 AM

142. Criminal lawyers are not the norm for mine.

 

Two relatives and a few out-laws (as opposed to in-laws) have temporarily engaged their services, but they all ended up doing (deserved) jail time. As I said, not my social friend circle.

Now civil stuff - real estate, probate and money stuff - yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #137)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 10:59 AM

146. that sort of privilege would explain the HRC loyalty.

the other 99% can't afford it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:50 PM

66. They would probably save money if they just put him on permanent retainer.

Especially if she gets the nomination and wins. They will need him for her entire term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:07 PM

74. Another questions: was her private server meant to be more secure? or secret?

I just found out that she did do it differently than predecessors. However, and I'm no clinton fan, what was really wrong about it. Esp. if all was found to be unclassified when she did it? and to what degree does the private server make a difference in this case? Is the charge that it was on a private server or that she sent classified information? Is this more gotcha or is there really something here?

I know we'll know eventually. But I want to know what really prompted all this right-wing ire and if it was merited?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #74)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:55 PM

92. By law all messaging must be journaled

 

for certain financial institutions and the government. Journaling means that there is a separate copy that is stored independently of backups, etc. for the purpose of retrieving them.

This is the LAW. All of this came out because it was discovered that the server that was operated was not keeping a journaled repository, thus they whacked the database and overwrote the backup tapes and thousands of emails were lost (or who ever incompetent person was running her server thought - any body halfway competent can restore an email data base on disk). The point is, however, that they did not fulfill this requirement.

Financial institutions get in deep shit trouble over this, Government agencies get in deep shit trouble over this. We are talking about the Secretary of State. She stated "Oh, well I assumed if I sent things to government agencies they were archived, and personal things didn't require that", which is not the intention of the law.

The intention of the law is that all communication via email used for official purposes must be archived. Not SOME, not "the ones I think are personal", not "I don't have to do that because I don't like fooling around with 2 email accounts, and not because "I was jealous because Obama got a special blackberry and they wouldn't give me one (and for a damn good reason, too) so I broke the law f 'em".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #92)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:10 AM

147. IIRC there were hearings/negotiations before she was confirmed, b/c there was concern

regarding how she would keep Clinton Foundation business and Dept of State separate. There had to be a wall of separation that could be confirmed.

as soon those hearing were over she immediately went and did this to circumvent those rules/concerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #74)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:04 PM

96. To add

 

Her server sat out there open on the internet for a few MONTHS while she was Secretary of State receiving information of the highest clearance levels UNENCRYPTED. Man in the middle would be a piece of cake for an amateur.

Basically, if somebody happened to wander on in there and copied the email database, they wouldn't have to do anything but open it up with the appropriate app and see every single thing sent and received. For EVERY ACCOUNT on that server. There most certainly was more than one.

Irresponsible with state secrets doesn't even cover it, because it was not just on that server, but people at two different other companies making cloud backups that had no security clearance at all that potentially had access to the contents of that server. Yes, somebody working as a low level admin had every opportunity in the world to copy it and sell secrets to the highest bidder. It would be a miracle if that didn't happen.

In fact, it is almost a certainty that someone with inappropriate clearance had access to the email database. What they did or did not do with it is a mystery because proper protocols were failed at every level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:12 PM

77. Maybe he can help when it comes to the Clinton Foundation arms deal too...

That case is more disturbing than the emails imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #77)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 01:51 AM

123. Yes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:23 PM

80. Wow! the plot thickens!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:40 PM

88. Rick Perry was arrested and this place LOVED IT. But the FBI doing their job is "right wing"? LOL!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #88)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:59 PM

95. And when members of the Bush admin used private email, everyone on DU hated it n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #95)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:38 AM

141. Did they use their own private server in their basement? Did they take million$ from foreign govts

for a "charitable" foundation or for themselves, when a spouse gave a speech, & then grant those countries favors from their govt dept?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:47 PM

90. I am simply going to believe...

 

The people acting like they don't see the enormous flaw in this article are just trying to score some cheap points. The other options are even worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:48 PM

91. Poor optics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #91)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 03:24 AM

127. I love both Eeyore and Canadian drama.

I hope you'll be my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #127)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:38 AM

150. Lets!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:58 PM

94. Attorney Kendall possessed a thumb drive of her potentially classified emails in his office.....

Doubtful that "attorney-client privilege" would hold water, now that she's called him back into service for her next round of criminal inquiries. Doesn't sound like a "security review" to me either, Fawke Em.


Longtime Clinton Attorney Now Representing Hillary in FBI’s Criminal Probe, April 15, 2016

But unequivocally, what thrust him most into the (unwanted?) spotlight was his defense of the Clintons over the last two decades. According to a 1998 Washington Post article that detailed the key players in President Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal, Kendall certainly has his critics:

Second-guessing Kendall has become a bloodsport in Washington where some of his fellow lawyers fault Kendall for not having Clinton come forward earlier with the truth about Lewinsky, for letting him testify … They also blame Kendall for pursuing a legalistic argument — that receiving oral sex did not constitute a sexual relationship — that has proved widely unpalatable.



Last year, he ran into media scrutiny again when he kept a thumb drive that contained potentially classified emails from Clinton’s private server at his law firm.

“In most situations like this you’d expect that a warrant would be issued and the Marshals and the feds, FBI, somebody would go and get the thumb rive and take it somewhere where it would be considered safe by the government,” national security attorney Edward MacMahnon Jr. told Fox News back in August.



Yes, you'd think.


Fast forward to 2016:

I am 100 percent confident (that the probe will not become criminal),” the former secretary of State said in a Democratic presidential debate last week. “This is a security review requested and carried out that will be resolved.”


Univision debate moderator Jorge Ramos confronted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday over her email scandal, directly asking her if she would drop out of the race for her party's nomination if she were indicted.

"If you get indicted, will you drop out?" he asked her.

The former secretary of state refused to answer the question.

"Oh, for goodness," she started when Ramos pressed her on the issue after she initially danced around it. "It's not going to happen. I'm not even answering that question."




via Business Insider


Comey has repeatedly attempted to shoot down concerns about political motivation in his bureau’s probe and fears that investigators will undermine evidence against Clinton or another Obama administration official.

“I hope the American people know the FBI well enough and the nature and character of this organization,” Comey told the Senate panel on Wednesday.

“As I’ve said many times, we don’t give a rip about politics,” he added. “We care about finding out what is true and doing that in a competent, honest and independent way. I promise you that’s the way we conduct ourselves.”



FBI Director James Comey
via The Hill (Getty Images)


There will be questions Madame Secretary, that you will be answering.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:19 PM

105. Oh but there's nothing we should be concerned about.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:25 PM

107. I would be bringing this up also after the disastrous Jewish Outreach appointment of Ms. Zimmerman,

and the misrepresentation that Bernie gave when he said he was meeting with the Pope:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017352798

I would want to change the topic also, and bring up the Benghazi issue, which Mr. Gowdy plans to waste more tax payer money on




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #107)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 03:34 AM

129. This is not about Benghazi.... this is a FBI criminal investigation on her emails and email server

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:25 PM

108. Drip, Drip, Drip...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:38 PM

111. Well, hell. She lawyered up.

 



Shit got interesting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:46 PM

115. I am not a crook!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:29 AM

117. Well, she can afford it...... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 03:40 AM

130. Awwww, this is SO cute!

When your candidate-of-choice has no possibility of winning, you can always pretend that his opponent is about to be indicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #130)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:55 AM

143. Be of good cheer - even if she is, she probably won't drop out.

 

That would require a level of class she just doesn't seem to possess.

Remember when Bill was telling everyone his legal troubles were no big deal? Remember how that turned out?

Your candidate has been involved in a year long FBI investigation, told Congress that she deleted 30k personal emails that are now in the possession of the FBI and weren't all personal AND BONUS has been named in 39 (let me spell that number out for you - THIRTY-NINE) lawsuits about failing to comply with FOIA issues and it looks like she will be testifying under oath in two of them so far.

Yeah, she and her baggage are exactly what America needs at the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #143)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:14 AM

148. the Rs are dying to run against HRC so they can subpoena her at their leisure.

it's really that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 08:01 AM

144. The Clintons destroy manufacturing jobs, but they have always created work for attorneys nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 08:02 AM

145. The GOP is pissed they couldn't tamper with it and plant incriminating evidence against her.

I wouldn't trust them, either with a government server. Not that I especially like her. But I'll vote DEM regardless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #145)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:51 AM

154. Unfortunately, they didn't have to plant anything. Evidence is already there.

Will you vote for an nominee under indictment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #154)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 08:23 PM

159. Evidence of what? Doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world?

I'm no hrc fan, but she's under attack from the GOP no matter what she does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #159)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 08:28 PM

160. The FBI wouldn't be investigating this unless there was real evidence of a possible crime.

Don't lose site of that in your desire to defend Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #160)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 08:35 PM

161. I asked and you had no answer. I'm not defending anything.

Hrc has been attacked by the GOP forever. This is nothing new.. I would love to see Bernie pres. But I don't think she did anything wrong, either.

I would have had my own tamper-proof server, too. I don't trust the GOP at all. I think she had to have her own server.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #161)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 08:46 PM

162. Among potential crimes is mishandling classified information.

There is no doubt that classified information was transmitted via a non authorized server. That is a crime if it is done intentionally.

Another is possible influence peddling involving the Clinton Foundation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #162)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 08:58 PM

163. Influence peddling is wrong but it has nothing to do with the server. If they really start enforcing

Influence peddling, they'll be taking themselves down with her. So, I'm not holding my breath on that, either.

You're doing the gop's work for them, or you're really a GOP troll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #163)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:13 PM

164. I'm just stating the facts. There are emails on the server in re Clinton Foundation issues.

The only people doing the GOPs work for them are those who will blindly support Clinton even when there is evidence of a crime.

Nothing would kill the Democrats chances in the election more than the lead candidate under indictment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:06 PM

158. I do hope that we reconfirm the shaky notion that we are a nation of laws.

 

It needs to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread