Latest Breaking News

pnwmom

(108,950 posts)

114. One more nothingburger. nt

Reply to moriah (Reply #108)

Tue May 10, 2016, 07:29 PM

May 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

336 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Clinton aide reported to have walked out of FBI interview [View all] w4rma May 2016 OP

there is no attorney client privilege with Mills and Clinton. grasswire May 2016 #1

Yeah this explanation makes no sense. Cheryl Mills is an advisor and confidant, not counsel. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #16

yep nt grasswire May 2016 #46

The original WA Post story said Mills was counsel to Clinton, and the FBI pnwmom May 2016 #62

Uh, no. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #72

Funny the part of the sentence that you not-so-cleverly left out. pnwmom May 2016 #74

The part I left out is irrelevant to the question of whether; it is why I left it out. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #92

I give up. You win. pnwmom May 2016 #99

there IS NO attorney client privilege between Mills and Clinton. nt grasswire May 2016 #107

So you keep saying, on the basis of zero evidence -- and as contradicted by the WA Post. pnwmom May 2016 #112

There is until a judge rules there isn't. nt msanthrope May 2016 #140

After watching all this hyper-ventilating, pnwmom May 2016 #209

Good analysis and fact-finding! nt msanthrope May 2016 #252

Thank you! pnwmom May 2016 #253

Mills has been the Clintons's family attorney since the 1990's. pnwmom May 2016 #163

Wrong. The FBI wanted to talk about the private server, and THAT was set up in 2008 pnwmom May 2016 #198

She was not Hill's counsel, she worked for her as an employee of the State Dept. cui bono May 2016 #179

She was both her personal attorney and worked for the State Dept. as a manager. pnwmom May 2016 #180

Well isn't that convenient. I guess they saw this coming and knew they were doing something wrong. cui bono May 2016 #181

The WA Post article says that after Cheryl cited attorney-client privilege, those questions pnwmom May 2016 #183

Well she walked out. Hard to question someone when they're not in the room. cui bono May 2016 #184

That's perfectly normal behavior in a legal interview. She and her attorney stepped out of the room pnwmom May 2016 #186

It is exactly the "behavior" that any attorney would recommend onenote May 2016 #232

I guess conflict of interest got thrown out by Hillary when she worked in the State Dept. cui bono May 2016 #288

The private server was set-up in 2008 so any advice about the set-up would be covered. pnwmom May 2016 #294

Well that is a good thing. But that doesn't cover the usage of it when it was up and running. cui bono May 2016 #318

She didn't take on Mills "again." Mills was involved in the events under discussion, pnwmom May 2016 #319

"Again" meaning as her attorney. Or are you stating that she was Hillary's attorney while a govt cui bono May 2016 #321

She was her private attorney during the period when the private server was set up, when the decision pnwmom May 2016 #323

It appears you've managed to miss the dozen or so posts explaining why there is no conflict onenote May 2016 #298

Yes, and she is answering questions about the time when she was a govt employee cui bono May 2016 #310

Your comment makes zero sense onenote May 2016 #313

So you believe that she should not speak about anything that happened during her time as a govt cui bono May 2016 #317

The articles say that the Justice Department and the attorney pnwmom May 2016 #320

No. I said exactly the opposite. onenote May 2016 #324

What's significant isn't whether her conversation w/HRC was privileged, it's that the FBI asked her leveymg May 2016 #221

No, that's not significant. Mills was doing her job as an attorney, the job she was sworn to do, pnwmom May 2016 #223

This incident points out one thing: HRC doesn't want the FBI to go there. The FBI does. She lost, leveymg May 2016 #282

No conclusion can be drawn from the fact that the attorney asserted attorney-client pnwmom May 2016 #291

It is so sad to see how folks are throwing important protections afforded to those being questioned onenote May 2016 #303

They think that legal rights should only apply to their fav people. pnwmom May 2016 #304

Uh, yes. Kinda weird that you did not reference the WaPo story, but went with selectively synergie May 2016 #101

the WaPo is not the determiner of any attorney client privilege!! grasswire May 2016 #109

Oh, but YOU are! pnwmom May 2016 #113

show me some proof grasswire May 2016 #115

I showed you evidence. You just keep making completely unsupported claims. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #117

evidence????? grasswire May 2016 #124

You've now had two licensed attorneys on this thread tell you you're wrong on privilege. msanthrope May 2016 #201

Privilege isn't the issue. It's what HRC knew and when did she know it. leveymg May 2016 #222

Mills invoked privilege, not Hillary. And when she did that Mills was doing the job pnwmom May 2016 #225

Exactly. She talked to her client and her client didn't want her to go there. Who is her client? leveymg May 2016 #228

I have shown that Mills had a legal obligation to protect attorney-client privilege. pnwmom May 2016 #243

Think again. She would have an obligation to discuss her testimony with her client before being leveymg May 2016 #251

The attorney had the legal obligation to inform her client about attorney client privilege, pnwmom May 2016 #295

The "proof" is in the WaPo article, you are not correct. You made an assertion synergie May 2016 #157

laughing heartily at your silly authoritarian nonsense. grasswire May 2016 #158

Cheryl will have her day in court. And I doubt it will be pretty. floriduck May 2016 #136

yes grasswire May 2016 #138

Believe, or desperately hope? Justice May 2016 #145

Do I want anyone indicted? grasswire May 2016 #149

Obama obviously doesn't think she was insubordinate or arrogant, pnwmom May 2016 #193

Why? Hillary set up the private server in 2008, before she came to State. So Mills pnwmom May 2016 #199

It's not when the server was purchased, it's when Hillary started using it for official DOS business leveymg May 2016 #224

That would be when Hillary arrived at State. And any advice Cheryl gave her in the first pnwmom May 2016 #227

You're missing the point. Mills discussed with HRC the NSA warnings about the Blackberry. HRC leveymg May 2016 #244

Mills's employment with State didn't begin till May 2009. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #296

She advised Hillary on the NSA warning about using her Blackberry in February leveymg May 2016 #300

Thank you for showing that this would have been covered by attorney-client privilege pnwmom May 2016 #301

Thank you for making my basic point: the FBI is investigating HRC and her attorneys for setting up leveymg May 2016 #311

Did anyone other than you suggest they were. The sources asserted that there were synergie May 2016 #156

Here's the kicker Perogie May 2016 #128

I was reading a Politico article from this past September and realized I was wrong JonLeibowitz May 2016 #133

Yep. It seems that they knew they were doing something very wrong and put things in place to try to cui bono May 2016 #187

I tend to agree; Isn't this what the Mafia does -- they hire a lawyer as a confidant/advisor JonLeibowitz May 2016 #189

And didn't Hillary have a campaign ad that mimicked the Sopranos? cui bono May 2016 #190

They're all lawyers. This tactic is as old as Washington, and it is routinely pierced leveymg May 2016 #226

What you missed was that the private server was set up at the Clinton's home pnwmom May 2016 #200

The scope of the privilege covers when she was Clinton's attorney. onenote May 2016 #236

She's still Clinton's attorney. pnwmom May 2016 #250

She was her attorney. Then she wasn't (when she was Chief of Staff) and now she is again onenote May 2016 #267

Yes. And it's discouraging to see so-called progressives acting like Ken Starr pnwmom May 2016 #269

looks like payola to me grasswire May 2016 #139

Mills was Clinton's chief of staff at State Yo_Mama May 2016 #159

She has been the Clinton's personal attorney since the 1990's. And still is. pnwmom May 2016 #165

That has nothing to do with the administrative handling of the FOIA request. Yo_Mama May 2016 #168

Of course it does. When these requests were made neither of them was working at the pnwmom May 2016 #172

Precisely why Hillary instructed her not to talk to the FBI about this subject. Silence is damning. leveymg May 2016 #230

She didn't. Cheryl Mills, Hillary's attorney, had an obligation to the legal profession pnwmom May 2016 #238

Wrong again. If she were a good att'y and there was no reason to withhold info, she would have her leveymg May 2016 #246

There is nothing about being a "good attorney" that would suggest she "should have her client pnwmom May 2016 #248

Mills had a dual role as Chief of Staff. Part of that is political and part is legal. Where there leveymg May 2016 #258

Her role now is as a legal advisor. She has no obligation to do anything but represent her client pnwmom May 2016 #261

Exactly. Thank you for making my point. leveymg May 2016 #264

No. No conclusion of guilt can be drawn from the fact of invoking attorney-client privilege pnwmom May 2016 #271

This was a subject that Hillary, Mills, and her attorney tried to make off-limits leveymg May 2016 #278

They had a pre-agreement, and it was the attorney's job to make them stick to it. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #292

It was a bad move by Mills because it focused the public's attention on the role of HRC's lawyers in leveymg May 2016 #312

Not a bad move, despite all your speculation and fond hopes. And none of the emails contained pnwmom May 2016 #322

You think that drawing attention to Clinton's lawyers involvement was a good move by Mills? leveymg May 2016 #325

"foreign government information" doesn't mean it should have been classified at the time. pnwmom May 2016 #326

Whoever wrote Executive Order 13526 disagrees with your take on that> leveymg May 2016 #331

A strict definition of "foreign government information" would mean that the State Department -- pnwmom May 2016 #332

That is precisely why the State Dept went through each and every email on a case-by-case basis leveymg May 2016 #333

Clinton did not write 104 classified emails. pnwmom May 2016 #334

"Retroactive classification" is a campaign talking point, not a legal defense. leveymg May 2016 #335

She had the authority to decide whether any state department document was classified or not. pnwmom May 2016 #336

See Reply 176. Also, a WAPO writer is not the be all and end all of legal issues. merrily May 2016 #177

Mills is an attorney herself and offered legal advice. Clinton could have more than one attorney. pnwmom May 2016 #22

sorry grasswire May 2016 #39

This is what the original article in the WAPost says. They left it out in the Hill's pnwmom May 2016 #59

"the people"?? grasswire May 2016 #79

I know it's hard but you could try reading. The answer to your question's in the WA Post article. pnwmom May 2016 #83

bogus. grasswire May 2016 #85

I want to know that every time I see a story on this. moriah May 2016 #88

worthless, isn't it? nt grasswire May 2016 #102

The entirety of all these stories? Absolutely. Nt moriah May 2016 #108

One more nothingburger. nt pnwmom May 2016 #114

What is going on with this drip, drip, drip? CoffeeCat May 2016 #119

Well, I don't know. It could be simply that... moriah May 2016 #132

As it turns out, the private server was set up in 2008, for Hillary's campaign -- when Cheryl Mills pnwmom May 2016 #194

Amazing, isn't it..... Mustellus May 2016 #153

They need to hide something or there would be no claim of privilege as to the emails. merrily May 2016 #176

And there you have it: those being questioned by law enforcement should have no rights onenote May 2016 #239

Not at all what I said. Imputing hate to me says more about you than it does me. nt merrily May 2016 #273

Actually, it is exactly what you said. onenote May 2016 #274

This is what you claimed* I said: "those being questioned by law enforcement should have no rights" merrily May 2016 #275

Yes Run away. It's what one does when they have nothing else. onenote May 2016 #276

It is kinda odd is it not considering HRC's statement Bob41213 May 2016 #330

There's Hillary's mission right there. She didn't want her lawyer to talk about this very topic. leveymg May 2016 #233

Cheryl and her lawyer invoked the privilege, not Hillary, as it is the lawyer's JOB TO DO, pnwmom May 2016 #235

But, by invoking privilege she's carrying out her client's instructions not to talk about this. leveymg May 2016 #240

There is no such legal conclusion to be drawn. Mills has an obligation to protect attorney-client pnwmom May 2016 #242

If what she knew was exculpatory, she is free to discuss it. But, HRC doesn't want Mills to talk leveymg May 2016 #247

Your lack of legal training is showing. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #249

When you don't have the law or the facts on your side, go ad hominem. You've got nothing else left leveymg May 2016 #254

I have conceded nothing about Hillary. You have only proven that you think pnwmom May 2016 #255

This case is all about politics as well as the law. The facts show that Mills leveymg May 2016 #257

No. It merely showed that she wanted to end the interview as expeditiously as possible. pnwmom May 2016 #260

Gee, why would that be? leveymg May 2016 #262

it was early in the interview grasswire May 2016 #285

So? That meant they could move on to the next topic. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #286

Okay. Please explain where pwnmom went astray ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #64

It turns out most of this fuss is because people didn't bother to check the most basic facts. pnwmom May 2016 #211

And even if it was about when they were in office ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #266

That's mighty crude. moriah May 2016 #110

well, no.. grasswire May 2016 #125

Surely you aren't suggesting confidentiality of attorney work product... moriah May 2016 #135

there is little comparison between corporate counsel matters (as you reference above) grasswire May 2016 #137

Um, wrong. If you pm me for legal advice knowing I am an attorney....privilege attaches. msanthrope May 2016 #142

Or at the very least, you'd want to CYA by having your own lawyer's advice... moriah May 2016 #152

I put a lot of ifs in my statement... moriah May 2016 #143

Yes -- the fact that she consulted her lawyer during an important FBI interview pnwmom May 2016 #166

A job description does not determine that jberryhill May 2016 #154

Mills was not acting as Hillary Clinton's lawyer when she was Chief of Staff Yo_Mama May 2016 #160

If it's so bogus why did the FBI honor it? And why does Politico pnwmom May 2016 #162

Because the fix is in. Attorney client privilege would apply only to Yo_Mama May 2016 #167

Hillary had the private server set up during her 2008 campaign, so Cheryl Mills was only pnwmom May 2016 #188

She was her attorney when HRC operated the server to conduct official State Dept business. In her leveymg May 2016 #237

We don't know what they discussed, but any legal advice to Hillary before May 2009, when State pnwmom May 2016 #241

Yes, we do. Mills had an obligation to discuss with her client what she could and couldn't discuss leveymg May 2016 #256

She had NO legal obligation to advise Hillary to release her from attorney-client privilege, pnwmom May 2016 #263

That's right. HRC and Mills calculated the legal damage would exceed the political. What does leveymg May 2016 #265

It tells no one anything. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #270

^This^ n/t DebbieCDC May 2016 #42

No - there is no attorney client privilege with Mills and Clinton! awake May 2016 #51

She was counsel and chief advisor to Clinton radical noodle May 2016 #57

She was working for the American people She could not have been Hillary's lawer awake May 2016 #63

No, Mills wasn't working for the US when the private server was set up -- in 2008, pnwmom May 2016 #203

I did not know that the question asked by the FBI were about her action in 2008 awake May 2016 #208

There have been MANY reports that a major focus of the investigation pnwmom May 2016 #210

Oh we have been told that the FBI was just doing a "routine security review" awake May 2016 #212

The fact remains that any questions directed to Cheryl about matters she worked on for Hillary pnwmom May 2016 #213

If Cheryl had been given classified emails belonging to the Goverment awake May 2016 #217

Of course it applied. She had been Hillary's personal attorney for decades. Legal advice pnwmom May 2016 #220

But this was 2014 when they gave the SD the emails karynnj May 2016 #77

No, I think these questions were referencing, in particular, the CREW FOIA request in 2012 Yo_Mama May 2016 #161

Before Brock took over CREW for HRC dreamnightwind May 2016 #174

Thanks. Nt karynnj May 2016 #259

She did have counsel at that point -- including Cheryl. Cheryl has been her personal attorney pnwmom May 2016 #297

she was chief of staff. nt grasswire May 2016 #80

And the private server was set up in 2008 during Hillary's campaign, pnwmom May 2016 #204

The WA Post story says there was, and the FBI agreed to keep certain areas off limits pnwmom May 2016 #60

keep trying nt grasswire May 2016 #84

But that issue doesn't matter scscholar May 2016 #61

wrong azureblue May 2016 #73

duh. we know she is an attorney. grasswire May 2016 #76

Of course she does. Any legal advice she gave to Hillary in the years BEFORE pnwmom May 2016 #214

As I understand it, people of SoS Clinton's 'pay grade' are supposed to KNOW what is classifiable. Peace Patriot May 2016 #116

thank you for your post, peace patriot - hopemountain May 2016 #173

No, there is no classified info that is so sensitive it is "born classified." pnwmom May 2016 #299

I guess this puts to rest the lie that Hillary is Not under investigation by the FBI. NT fasttense May 2016 #245

good that the leaks have begun grasswire May 2016 #2

Oh, yes. yallerdawg May 2016 #3

Especially those Trey Gowdy leaks to the NYT. They were awesome Gomez163 May 2016 #5

Benghazi,,,, Drink!,,,,,, Cryptoad May 2016 #20

Hillary's problems all caused by Rightwingers! Brock meme! senz May 2016 #52

You support Republicans leaking info about Democrats Democat May 2016 #279

I support the truth being in the hands of the people. grasswire May 2016 #284

So we know that her Chief of staff got interviewed and that she did not like the line of questioning thereismore May 2016 #4

That's quite the fantasy life leftynyc May 2016 #8

Some are certainly forcing the narrative to fit their worldview Blue_Adept May 2016 #10

Yeah RoccoR5955 May 2016 #15

I think the "especially" part is definitely on both sides. Blue_Adept May 2016 #36

Oh yeah, getting up and walking out on the FBI -- so normal. senz May 2016 #53

Doesn't sound like a significant... ReRe May 2016 #6

30 years in the making! yallerdawg May 2016 #9

Because there was never more we don't know and what we know is there was never anything. Fla Dem May 2016 #21

I think you need to reread my comment. yallerdawg May 2016 #48

I apologize. Fla Dem May 2016 #65

And would Hillary Clinton ever had come this close to the Presidency RiverNoord May 2016 #50

Awesome post... rury May 2016 #123

the Clintons have used the VRWC as a shield. grasswire May 2016 #141

So true. SammyWinstonJack May 2016 #148

That was positively Rumsfeldian. frylock May 2016 #82

The... deathrind May 2016 #111

Agree.. ReRe May 2016 #32

Right out of freeperville. leftofcool May 2016 #26

You wish... ReRe May 2016 #38

Don't you wish.... 840high May 2016 #93

It isn't. Mills was Hillary's personal attorney in 2008, when the private server was set up. pnwmom May 2016 #205

"investigators had previously agreed not to broach the subject" misterhighwasted May 2016 #7

I'm glad I'm not the only person who read that line. Seems like much ado about nothing. LonePirate May 2016 #28

That was the only line that mattered. misterhighwasted May 2016 #30

Indeed she was. I'm still amazed by all the revolutionaries giving a wide berth to law & order types LonePirate May 2016 #34

LOL.. Rules only apply to others misterhighwasted May 2016 #45

Isn't that odd in itself, though? AgerolanAmerican May 2016 #47

They're not the Gestapo. This wasn't Guantanamo. misterhighwasted May 2016 #49

How dare the FBI ask questions? They have no right to information. senz May 2016 #71

That was the first and only thought I had about this post. Stryder May 2016 #58

It is an FBI interview! yallerdawg May 2016 #70

Since the time of ancient Rome, when the concept of attorney-client privilege pnwmom May 2016 #305

if there's no there, why protect and deflect?? nt grasswire May 2016 #40

But they still want to hide something? WHY !!!!????? Pauldg47 May 2016 #56

That is the right question. mmonk May 2016 #272

Truth should trump all when aspiring to the highest office in the land. PoliticalMalcontent May 2016 #11

NIce working "Trump" into the content Cryptoad May 2016 #17

No pun intended. I'm a user of english and that was the most apt word. PoliticalMalcontent May 2016 #33

Well said. nt senz May 2016 #69

So much for continuing Obama's legacy Lazy Daisy May 2016 #120

Hear Hear. I'm a fan of Obama. I'd like to truly continue his legacy. PoliticalMalcontent May 2016 #121

It's a criminal investigation, not a friendly chit chat tularetom May 2016 #12

I thought that was weird that "investigators would agree to limit the scope of the questioning." antigop May 2016 #14

they probably didn't agree to limit the scope Merryland May 2016 #100

investigators had previously agreed not to broach the subject" misterhighwasted May 2016 #35

I agree! 40RatRod May 2016 #144

independent progressive socialist democratic socialist and back to independent misterhighwasted May 2016 #146

Also, the "walk out" characterization is somewhat distorted, since they returned to the still_one May 2016 #178

technically, as far as we know she is not the "named" target. Yet. grasswire May 2016 #41

I know that, I just like the way it sounds tularetom May 2016 #89

I can dig it. grasswire May 2016 #91

Thanks for Cryptoad May 2016 #13

Yeah, the truth is always a RWNJ attack RoccoR5955 May 2016 #19

Trouble with the,, Cryptoad May 2016 #23

Just because you do not see it RoccoR5955 May 2016 #122

That's true, but there's a reason. MisterFred May 2016 #283

Drama queen much? leftofcool May 2016 #27

Thank Hillary for this mess. 840high May 2016 #95

So what? She wanted to ask her lawyer a question privately, which is her right. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #18

Mills is not her lawyer. grasswire May 2016 #43

Mills left the room to speak privately with HER lawyer, to which is her right. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #55

Of course that's her right, BUT . . . markpkessinger May 2016 #147

And that is easily explained. pnwmom May 2016 #216

Mills was a chief of staff . ,. . markpkessinger May 2016 #287

She wasn't hired on as Chief of Staff till May 2009, so any advice she gave before then pnwmom May 2016 #289

A very Nixonian argument n/t markpkessinger May 2016 #307

No, the argument of someone who believe in civil rights and donates to the ACLU. pnwmom May 2016 #309

Good for her. Don't let the Obama Administration push you around! jalan48 May 2016 #24

Ha! frylock May 2016 #87

Oh, the drama. closeupready May 2016 #25

with the FBI not all answers need to be verbal FreakinDJ May 2016 #29

Ouch. Drip, drip, drip. nt silvershadow May 2016 #31

So much for this being "no big deal, nothing to see here, move along" awake May 2016 #37

she has taken other breaks to confer with her atty aside from this one. grasswire May 2016 #44

No, it's just being careful. Anytime you are being interviewed by the FBI pnwmom May 2016 #75

That is a very simplistic interpretation. grasswire May 2016 #78

BRIEFLY walked out of an interview. Then, I assume, she walked back in. nolabear May 2016 #54

They came right back in. leftyladyfrommo May 2016 #66

Very strange paulthompson May 2016 #67

yep, very strange. Very strange indeed. nt antigop May 2016 #81

Thanks for identifying that, Paul. What vexed her was the issue of why emails were deleted leveymg May 2016 #90

Yes paulthompson May 2016 #131

They're all lawyers so they try to claim privilege. Oldest game in the book. leveymg May 2016 #155

those nasty old games lawyers play to defend people onenote May 2016 #308

I wonder too, Paul. grasswire May 2016 #105

Clinton lied under oath. Sound familiar? nt thereismore May 2016 #277

great example of "cooperating" with the FBI magical thyme May 2016 #68

She talked to her lawyer? Kingofalldems May 2016 #86

and the grandbaby as well dlwickham May 2016 #129

Yeah, that kid is suspicious. Kingofalldems May 2016 #130

witchhunt Mutant456 May 2016 #94

boo - Hillary did 840high May 2016 #96

Remember how many threads we saw when Bernie allegedly walked out of an interview with a local merrily May 2016 #97

There is a portion of that link that you "forgot" to include, I've supplied it for you. synergie May 2016 #98

little is the same as scant grasswire May 2016 #103

"According to reports" reports from whom? this is just more spin awake May 2016 #268

So if you deathrind May 2016 #104

no grasswire May 2016 #106

The FBI thought it was a solid enough point of law. BobTheSubgenius May 2016 #118

solid enough to ask about it, yes. grasswire May 2016 #126

Just found something that may pertain to this particular e-mail issue. passiveporcupine May 2016 #127

Sourcing paulthompson May 2016 #134

+1000 grasswire May 2016 #151

With the way things are going I don't think Hillary or Bernie are gonna beat Trump. WhoWoodaKnew May 2016 #150

Naw, the "communist" thing is dead in the water. Peace Patriot May 2016 #175

The "commie" is still the biggest boogie-man for most US voters. pnwmom May 2016 #192

Upon closer inspection paulthompson May 2016 #164

in that case, the leaks from the FBI begin grasswire May 2016 #170

Also paulthompson May 2016 #171

what I saw somewhere else on the Internet... grasswire May 2016 #182

grasswire, can you... dorkzilla May 2016 #219

You missed the key point. We know that the FBI has questions about the set-up pnwmom May 2016 #206

or...................... grasswire May 2016 #327

it's akin to a doctor poking your stomach to see where it hurts. grasswire May 2016 #328

Cover up much? Vote2016 May 2016 #169

Clinton has NOT been "cleared" of any crimes. Peace Patriot May 2016 #185

Hillary set up the private server in her home during her 2008 campaign. So any legal advice pnwmom May 2016 #191

This is not about that paulthompson May 2016 #229

You missed the part where I said this: pnwmom May 2016 #231

why didn't she just say 'cut it out' tomm2thumbs May 2016 #195

+1 whereisjustice May 2016 #197

I want to get my company email on a private server whereisjustice May 2016 #196

At least 2 attorneys on this thread have schooled you on privilege. Are you going to admit your msanthrope May 2016 #202

I wouldn't hold you breath. onenote May 2016 #234

Pro-Trump trolls are never wrong Democat May 2016 #280

Maybe the aide had... Mike Nelson May 2016 #207

Well, at least she did not fly out.... riversedge May 2016 #215

Yes. It's always suspicious when someone posts an article from the Hill INSTEAD of the pnwmom May 2016 #218

How would that violate attorney-client privilege? blackspade May 2016 #281

Mills was Clinton's personal attorney dating back to the 90's. pnwmom May 2016 #302

What is corrupt is using the 'privilege' as a way to avoid transparency. blackspade May 2016 #306

How is that "corrupt?" Adrahil May 2016 #314

I already explained how I think it is corrupt. blackspade May 2016 #315

Yes, I am speaking of the Fifth Amendment rights of Sec. Clinton. Adrahil May 2016 #316

that's fine and all, but.... blackspade May 2016 #329

Since the FBI itcfish May 2016 #290

The FBI has not cleared Hillary. There was a Comey press conference IdaBriggs May 2016 #293