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]awake
(3,226 posts)268. "According to reports" reports from whom? this is just more spin
I do not think anyone here has the inside scoop on what the FBI knows or will do, this is just spin spin spin. I hope we find out the truth soon. If the worst is true then we can not have Hillary as our candidate if on the other hand the FBI clears Hillary of any wrong doing then we have no problem.
Let us all hope this comes to a close soon for it will be the best for our party to remover the clouds of uncertainty and have the sunshine in, for the truth will set us free.
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