Clinton's Email Staffer Gets Immunity

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by major56, Mar 7, 2016.

  1. major56

    major56 Active Member

  2. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    No matter the outcome, I think this is a good thing. Without immunity, I would be reluctant to testify in a criminal proceeding to which I may have, intentionally or otherwise, contributed to any criminal activity.

    So, give the man immunity and hear what he has to say, knowing that he is disinclined to hide anything to cover his own butt. Then let's let the truth, wherever that leads us, come out.
  3. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I agree. And I doubt anything he has to say will be very good for Claire Underwood's presidential campaign.
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not at all into TV these days, so I had to Google that name. Then I literally laughed out loud. :biggrin:

    The most important thing of this, is that the former staffer now HAS to answer questions, since there is no risk of self-incrimination.
  5. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Every time a season of House of Cards is released on Netflix, the D.C. area stops for a few days to catch up. It's the best documentary about this town ever made.

    And they don't offer that unless they think it will be worth it, so this could be very interesting. On the other hand, it could lead nowhere, or it could be suppressed. And it's not like we'll ever really know the truth.
  6. major56

    major56 Active Member

    3/07/2016 6:18 PM EST "National Security: The Washington Post, of all places, found that not only did Hillary Clinton send and receive classified material on her unsecured email server as Secretary of State, she wrote dozens of classified emails herself."
    Email Scandal: Hillary Clinton
  7. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    If she was anyone else, she'd be indicted by now.

    I'm reminded of John McCormick, Ted Kennedy's primary opponent for his first Senate election, who said "If your name were Edward Moore instead of Edward Kennedy, your candidacy would be a joke."

    Ditto for Hillary; if her name was Hillary Moore, she'd be in prison.
  8. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    This is a convenient dodge for when she's not indicted. The Justice Department and the FBI carved out a special exemption for the liberals they like?

    This way, you and yours have a convenient explanation that, unfortunately, you cannot provide a shred of support for. I get that you have an opinion that she should be prosecuted. No problem with that. But to conjure up a conspiracy to guard against an outcome where your opinion doesn't become manifest? Where's the evidence (other than the collective disappointment of certain people)? Not evidence of her alleged wrong-doing; we have that. Evidence that she's being given some sort of "pass" from these law enforcement officials (or they're being pressured, something like that). No, not merely circumstantial, "She wasn't indicted, so obviously there's a conspiracy." Specific evidence of such a cover-up. And remember, the same song was sung about Benghazi, despite a series of investigations with findings to the contrary.

    I'm not defending her or her actions. I'd just like to see the evidence for this conspiracy, please. Such an allegation smears a lot of people not named "Clinton."
  10. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

    I have to admit that at first I figured they had something on her but the longer it goes without an indictment the more it seems like just another false alarm. Time will tell but in this world where everything gets strategically leaked to the press, nothing is coming out so after a while you just have to figure that there's nothing there. There are too many people involved who dislike her in order for there to be a cover-up conspiracy. In any case, they'll beat it to death because that's just what they do.
  11. major56

    major56 Active Member

    On this, I agree with Rich. He's right.

    I do not care for Hillary … or Bill whatsoever; although in opposition, I’m not going to concede to the notion that there’s an active conspiracy in the works to deliver a prosecutorial pass to HRC via politicization (cover-up pressure) of the investigative process. A criminal enquiry is continuing with about 150 FBI agents involved and headed-up by the FBI director James Comey. That certainly seems to be a very serious effort by agents to conclude as to whether or not there’s a substantiated criminal case that DOJ prosecutors can or cannot credibly present to a federal grand jury …
  12. jhp

    jhp Member

    Sadly, the DoJ carves out a special exemption for whoever is in power, in an implicit way. After all, the AG is part of the Cabinet.

  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    But Clinton is not. Not anymore. If you're concerned whether or not a former cabinet member can be prosecuted effectively, I suggest reading about John Mitchell.
  14. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Hillary is doing a wonderful job smearing the Clinton name even more than it already was, she doesn't need any help.

    The FBI doesn't open a criminal investigation because they want to chat with you about the weather. They go for the low-hanging fruit, and have an amazing conviction rate, once someone is indicted. Their M.O. is also start at the bottom and work their way up, which IMO is exactly why the former staffer has been given immunity; they're not interested in him, they want the big head to mount on their wall.

    I see this going one of two ways; she'll be indicted, at which point her political career should be over, but there are lots of people out there who would still support her if she tortured puppies on national TV. Or, the case gets sandbagged, at which point the FBI Agents who worked on the case will revolt, going on political talk shows, writing tell-all books, etc., which will just further expose how corrupt this administration really is.
  15. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Corrupt Administration? How? Evidence, please. This has been the cleanest Administration in modern times. No Watergate. No Iran-Contra. No Iraq War and torture (and wholesale firing of US Attorneys, and insider deals for Halliburton, and Blackwater, and....). How many Administration members have been forced to resign due to ethical lapses? I think the answer is "zero," but I might be forgetting someone.

    The President's opponents have complained about his use of executive orders, but (a) he's used them a whole lot less frequently than his predecessor (who also loved "signing statements," where he pointed out which portions of laws he disagreed with and would ignore) and (b) where's the corruption? Even if you think the President acted outside of the law, that's what we have checks and balances for. But that's not corruption.

    I get that the President has opponents and I get that they're agitated over his actions. Good. They should be (but not for the reasons they think). But that's not the same as being corrupt.

Share This Page