Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
You don't get offered immunity for collecting stamps. (Original Post) Jester Messiah Jun 2016 OP
You guys keep talking about dropping shoes. hrmjustin Jun 2016 #1
It's an expression. Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #2
I am scarsd to walk outside with all these dropping shoes. hrmjustin Jun 2016 #3
Don't be afraid. It's gonna be all right. n/t Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #4
You guys are scaring me with these raining shoes. hrmjustin Jun 2016 #7
You're easily scared, it seems. Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #8
We are going to have to design special umbrellas if it is raining shoes. hrmjustin Jun 2016 #9
Forecast only calls for one. n/t Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #10
But still. hrmjustin Jun 2016 #11
You are in luck, they do exist nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #12
Well played! hrmjustin Jun 2016 #13
Welcome to Denial Underground. HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #6
He didn't disclose his outside employment by the Foundation, ... HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #5
I'm guessing Abedin disclosed both her 'known' her outside jobs HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #17
That would be a slap on the wrist. bobbobbins01 Jun 2016 #19
What dime store gave you your law degree? onenote Jun 2016 #14
Gave? Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #15
The only smoke is what the Republican Party has been blowing. Sadly now abetted by some progressives Lord Magus Jun 2016 #16
Pagliano's immunity Bob41213 Jun 2016 #18
Plus he probably didn't have the necessary (any?) security clearances to 2cannan Jun 2016 #21
12 days (at most) nt geek tragedy Jun 2016 #20
 

Jester Messiah

(4,711 posts)
8. You're easily scared, it seems.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:25 AM
Jun 2016

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

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
5. He didn't disclose his outside employment by the Foundation, ...
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:20 AM
Jun 2016

...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.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
17. I'm guessing Abedin disclosed both her 'known' her outside jobs
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:37 AM
Jun 2016

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.

bobbobbins01

(1,681 posts)
19. That would be a slap on the wrist.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 08:33 AM
Jun 2016

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

onenote

(42,690 posts)
14. What dime store gave you your law degree?
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:54 AM
Jun 2016


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."
 

Jester Messiah

(4,711 posts)
15. Gave?
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:58 AM
Jun 2016

Clearly it cost at least a dime.

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

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
16. The only smoke is what the Republican Party has been blowing. Sadly now abetted by some progressives
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:42 AM
Jun 2016

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

Bob41213

(491 posts)
18. Pagliano's immunity
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 08:20 AM
Jun 2016

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.

2cannan

(344 posts)
21. Plus he probably didn't have the necessary (any?) security clearances to
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:00 AM
Jun 2016

have access to what was on her server.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»You don't get offered imm...