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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Clinton aide reported to have walked out of FBI interview [View all]Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)120. So much for continuing Obama's legacy
You know the one about transparency.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
336 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yeah this explanation makes no sense. Cheryl Mills is an advisor and confidant, not counsel.
JonLeibowitz
May 2016
#16
The part I left out is irrelevant to the question of whether; it is why I left it out.
JonLeibowitz
May 2016
#92
So you keep saying, on the basis of zero evidence -- and as contradicted by the WA Post.
pnwmom
May 2016
#112
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
That's perfectly normal behavior in a legal interview. She and her attorney stepped out of the room
pnwmom
May 2016
#186
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
So you believe that she should not speak about anything that happened during her time as a govt
cui bono
May 2016
#317
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
Uh, yes. Kinda weird that you did not reference the WaPo story, but went with selectively
synergie
May 2016
#101
You've now had two licensed attorneys on this thread tell you you're wrong on privilege.
msanthrope
May 2016
#201
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
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
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
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
They're all lawyers. This tactic is as old as Washington, and it is routinely pierced
leveymg
May 2016
#226
She was her attorney. Then she wasn't (when she was Chief of Staff) and now she is again
onenote
May 2016
#267
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
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
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
"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
This is what the original article in the WAPost says. They left it out in the Hill's
pnwmom
May 2016
#59
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
As it turns out, the private server was set up in 2008, for Hillary's campaign -- when Cheryl Mills
pnwmom
May 2016
#194
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
This is what you claimed* I said: "those being questioned by law enforcement should have no rights"
merrily
May 2016
#275
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
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
No. It merely showed that she wanted to end the interview as expeditiously as possible.
pnwmom
May 2016
#260
It turns out most of this fuss is because people didn't bother to check the most basic facts.
pnwmom
May 2016
#211
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
Yes -- the fact that she consulted her lawyer during an important FBI interview
pnwmom
May 2016
#166
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
No, Mills wasn't working for the US when the private server was set up -- in 2008,
pnwmom
May 2016
#203
The fact remains that any questions directed to Cheryl about matters she worked on for Hillary
pnwmom
May 2016
#213
Of course it applied. She had been Hillary's personal attorney for decades. Legal advice
pnwmom
May 2016
#220
No, I think these questions were referencing, in particular, the CREW FOIA request in 2012
Yo_Mama
May 2016
#161
She did have counsel at that point -- including Cheryl. Cheryl has been her personal attorney
pnwmom
May 2016
#297
The WA Post story says there was, and the FBI agreed to keep certain areas off limits
pnwmom
May 2016
#60
As I understand it, people of SoS Clinton's 'pay grade' are supposed to KNOW what is classifiable.
Peace Patriot
May 2016
#116
I guess this puts to rest the lie that Hillary is Not under investigation by the FBI. NT
fasttense
May 2016
#245
So we know that her Chief of staff got interviewed and that she did not like the line of questioning
thereismore
May 2016
#4
Because there was never more we don't know and what we know is there was never anything.
Fla Dem
May 2016
#21
It isn't. Mills was Hillary's personal attorney in 2008, when the private server was set up.
pnwmom
May 2016
#205
I'm glad I'm not the only person who read that line. Seems like much ado about nothing.
LonePirate
May 2016
#28
Indeed she was. I'm still amazed by all the revolutionaries giving a wide berth to law & order types
LonePirate
May 2016
#34
Truth should trump all when aspiring to the highest office in the land.
PoliticalMalcontent
May 2016
#11
No pun intended. I'm a user of english and that was the most apt word.
PoliticalMalcontent
May 2016
#33
Hear Hear. I'm a fan of Obama. I'd like to truly continue his legacy.
PoliticalMalcontent
May 2016
#121
I thought that was weird that "investigators would agree to limit the scope of the questioning."
antigop
May 2016
#14
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
So what? She wanted to ask her lawyer a question privately, which is her right. n/t
pnwmom
May 2016
#18
Mills left the room to speak privately with HER lawyer, to which is her right. n/t
pnwmom
May 2016
#55
She wasn't hired on as Chief of Staff till May 2009, so any advice she gave before then
pnwmom
May 2016
#289
No, the argument of someone who believe in civil rights and donates to the ACLU.
pnwmom
May 2016
#309
Thanks for identifying that, Paul. What vexed her was the issue of why emails were deleted
leveymg
May 2016
#90
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
Just found something that may pertain to this particular e-mail issue.
passiveporcupine
May 2016
#127
With the way things are going I don't think Hillary or Bernie are gonna beat Trump.
WhoWoodaKnew
May 2016
#150
Hillary set up the private server in her home during her 2008 campaign. So any legal advice
pnwmom
May 2016
#191
At least 2 attorneys on this thread have schooled you on privilege. Are you going to admit your
msanthrope
May 2016
#202