HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » You don't get offered imm...

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:12 AM

 

You don't get offered immunity for collecting stamps.

Pagliano is complicit in something. The other shoe's gonna drop. The question is, will the Democratic Party be up shit creek when it does?

21 replies, 1489 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 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply You don't get offered immunity for collecting stamps. (Original post)
Jester Messiah Jun 2016 OP
hrmjustin Jun 2016 #1
Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #2
hrmjustin Jun 2016 #3
Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #4
hrmjustin Jun 2016 #7
Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #8
hrmjustin Jun 2016 #9
Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #10
hrmjustin Jun 2016 #11
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #12
hrmjustin Jun 2016 #13
HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #6
HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #5
HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #17
bobbobbins01 Jun 2016 #19
onenote Jun 2016 #14
Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #15
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #16
Bob41213 Jun 2016 #18
2cannan Jun 2016 #21
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #20

Response to Jester Messiah (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:14 AM

1. You guys keep talking about dropping shoes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:16 AM

2. It's an expression.

 

Google it if you're having trouble with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:17 AM

3. I am scarsd to walk outside with all these dropping shoes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:18 AM

4. Don't be afraid. It's gonna be all right. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:23 AM

7. You guys are scaring me with these raining shoes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:25 AM

8. You're easily scared, it seems.

 

But don't worry, you'll be fine I'm sure. You must be, if you're content to vote for the status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:28 AM

9. We are going to have to design special umbrellas if it is raining shoes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:29 AM

10. Forecast only calls for one. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:31 AM

11. But still.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:37 AM

12. You are in luck, they do exist

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:38 AM

13. Well played!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:22 AM

6. Welcome to Denial Underground.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:20 AM

5. He didn't disclose his outside employment by the Foundation, ...

 

...as required by law on financial disclosure forms. FBI had him dead to rights on that... that's probably what the immunity is for. However, immunity isn't just handed out willy-nilly on "security reviews". He had specific information that incriminates higher-ups. FBI wouldn't give immunity for anything less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:37 AM

17. I'm guessing Abedin disclosed both her 'known' her outside jobs

because we know about them.

But even in knowing about them, we are left with another eddy that concentrates political flotsum in an ugly looking gyre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 08:33 AM

19. That would be a slap on the wrist.

They wouldn't waste time with immunity if that was the only thing. This is bigger than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:54 AM

14. What dime store gave you your law degree?



http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5977&context=jclc


"It is not intellectually safe to conclude that whenever a witness is granted immunity he must be guilty of a crime. An involuntary witness often receives immunity simply because a prosecutor wants to know what the witness knows......

Voluntary witnesses are immunized pursuant to a strategic decision by the prosecutor. There is no statutory way to get immunity from prosecution, but friendly witnesses get it anyway when they, in person or through their lawyers, sit down and make a deal with the government. The issue in either case is not the guilt of the witness. The decisive factor is the conclusion that has been reached by the prosecutor and the way he conclusion to the witness or to the witness's lawyer. For the witness, it is the prosecutor's belief and asserted position that create the crime. After all, the witness's real fear is the indictment itself. He knows what every prosecutor should know: that the power to indict is the power to destroy. The witness knows who holds the power; he reacts to what he is told, although what he is told is not necessarily a valid legal conclusion."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:58 AM

15. Gave?

 

Clearly it cost at least a dime.

Notwithstanding, there's an awful lot of smoke for there to be no fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:42 AM

16. The only smoke is what the Republican Party has been blowing. Sadly now abetted by some progressives

The indictment fairy is not going to come down and reverse the outcome the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 08:20 AM

18. Pagliano's immunity

I've read Paul Thompson's theory regarding the immunity and I don't really buy it. Paul has done fine work and lots of research but I think the disclosure form is a bit of a stretch for immunity. Seems like there needs to be more to it. That form is a slap on the wrist at best I think (and he very easily could have filed the form with and still hid Hillary's server). I believe the purpose of those forms is to cover conflict of interest which this really isn't.

I see a few possible other issues:

1) What I do see here is he was working at the State Dept and was essentially Hillary's 24 hour on call tech support. So the government is paying him, but while he's working if she has a problem, he fixes it. And Hillary got him said job. Seems like that's somewhat illegal and Hillary was complicit. It's kinda like Hillary got the government to pay him to work for her privately. Fraud?

2) The missing emails from Pagliano could very well be destruction of evidence. Was he told to get rid of those correspondence? I also wonder who was his go between because I don't know if he communicated much with Hillary (she couldn't even bother to respond to his Happy Birthday email)

3) Security breaches? We know at the very least hacking attempts were supposed to be reported but were not. I'm not sure the legal repercussions from not reporting. It could again be a slap on the wrist like a FOIA violation.

I see point 1) as possibly having the most legal ramifications. I'm not sure what charges would be issued against this but I'm sure a few could come into play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob41213 (Reply #18)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:00 AM

21. Plus he probably didn't have the necessary (any?) security clearances to

have access to what was on her server.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Original post)

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 08:33 AM

20. 12 days (at most) nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread