ADVERTISEMENT

Former Clinton Aid will plead the 5th...........

If this guy is granted immunity...

1. Hillary is toast (and she may drag others down with her)

Or

2. This guy is toast (he will be found in a river or landfill)
 
I'd take the 5th in a witch hunt situation. Every American has certain rights, and the ominous tone used by Fox would have been followed up nicely by a long list of Republicans who have exercised their right to utilize the 5th Amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhatWouldObamaDo
Trying hard to figure out how this guy could incriminate himself by testifying all he did was set up the network.
 
I'd take the 5th in a witch hunt situation. Every American has certain rights, and the ominous tone used by Fox would have been followed up nicely by a long list of Republicans who have exercised their right to utilize the 5th Amendment.
I love how the Left always says... "but but they did it"... like it makes it okay. It doesn't, you plead the 5th it gives the impression of guilt (much like deleting a bunch of emails and waiting months before turning over your server...).

Keep on keepin' on there Dem's.
 
th
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexMichFan
Trying hard to figure out how this guy could incriminate himself by testifying all he did was set up the network.
He may at greater risk if he opens his mouth at all.

Immunity doesn't ensure you are going to have a future, just that you won't get charged with a crime.
 
I'd take the 5th in a witch hunt situation. Every American has certain rights, and the ominous tone used by Fox would have been followed up nicely by a long list of Republicans who have exercised their right to utilize the 5th Amendment.
Spin with all your might.
 
You democrats on here are so stupid! Dump her she is not president you dont have to defend her! Find a new person with ethics, morals, conviction and a clean slate!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepperman
This seems like a perfect situation to grant immunity and force him to testify. It might not work -- Susan McDougal went to prison rather than testify about the Clintons in the Whitewater probe -- but it seems like a no-brainer.

What's actually mind-boggling about this situation is seeing Elijah Cummings DEFEND the aide.
 
This seems like a perfect situation to grant immunity and force him to testify. It might not work -- Susan McDougal went to prison rather than testify about the Clintons in the Whitewater probe -- but it seems like a no-brainer.

What's actually mind-boggling about this situation is seeing Elijah Cummings DEFEND the aide.


What did old Eli have to say?
 
This is what you've voted for. Left and right, democrats and republicans. Garbage in, garbage out. You can claim this is "the left." But, this is merely someone getting caught. These people do this sh*t all the time. And, I'm supposed to trust them to have our (the people's) best interests in mind when they legislate and govern? No, thanks!
 
He must have been the guy who used the cloth to wipe the emails...

He knows where the proverbial bodies are buried, and doesn't want to join them.
 
I'd take the 5th in a witch hunt situation. Every American has certain rights, and the ominous tone used by Fox would have been followed up nicely by a long list of Republicans who have exercised their right to utilize the 5th Amendment.

This is the obvious thing. Even if you don't really know "incriminating information", you plead the Fifth, get your immunity, then blab away.
 
I'd take the 5th in a witch hunt situation. Every American has certain rights, and the ominous tone used by Fox would have been followed up nicely by a long list of Republicans who have exercised their right to utilize the 5th Amendment.

Lucas,

If you are not already employed as a politician's spin doctor, you should be!
 
You have commented in this thread. Were you not able to read the entire article or did you feel you didn't need to read the article to form an opinion?


Oh, was I supposed to read it in order to have an opinion?

Here's another one, Hillary is in the wrong..... she knows it, we all assume it, and some here are trying to avoid it.

This broad better hope it isn't jail time. Had it been you or me we would've been taken into custody by now.
 
Commit “suicide” by shooting himself three times in the back of the head

It's funny you bring that up. I watched "Kill the Messenger" last night on HBO. The movie is about Gary Webb and how he broke the story on the CIA helping fund the Nicaraguan Contra. Anyways to make a long story short, they found Gary Webb in 2004 dead in his apartment from "2 gunshots to the head". The coroner classified it as a "muiltiple gunshot suicide" (different from suicide by cop). Apparently this is a real thing and it even has its own Wikipedia page. So not to say your situation isn't a homicide but apparently multiple gunshot suicides exist.
 
I'd take the 5th in a witch hunt situation. Every American has certain rights, and the ominous tone used by Fox would have been followed up nicely by a long list of Republicans who have exercised their right to utilize the 5th Amendment.

It's certainly his right to invoke is 5th amendment privilege.
 
86...calling this guy an "aide" is a lot misrepresenting. He was HIRED to set up and install her server. He was paid for that service. Calling him her "aide" is like me calling the kid who I pay to mow my lawn, my dependent.

So why would he need to take the 5th? It's certainly his right to do so.

He was simply a service provider.
 
This broad better hope it isn't jail time. Had it been you or me we would've been taken into custody by now.

You think she's going to get jail time? Look up Sandy Berger. He was Bill Clinton's National Security Advisor. He removed classified documents (some by stuffing them in his socks) from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. Guess what his jail time was? Nothing. $50,000 fine, 2 years probation, and 100 hours of community service. Hillary isn't getting jail time for this. Sorry to let you know

Also, if it had been you or BABiscuit then nothing would happen to you either. Do you think as a private citizen you can't have a private Exchange server? Is you were actually SoS you would be savvy enough to get away with it. Just like Clinton is.

Not defending what she did, just pointing out your hyperbole in the above post.
 
So why would he need to take the 5th? It's certainly his right to do so.

He was simply a service provider.

Yes, which could be pointed out while he is defending himself from prosecution.

You seem to think that prosecutors always charge the correct charge, they don't. Take this simple example: Dr. Richard Kimble did not murder his wife, therefore should not be concerned about criminal prosecution. Does he have the 5th right? Of course he does, he is likely (and was) prosecuted. The prosecutors were wrong, it didn't stop them from moving forward.
 
So why would he need to take the 5th? It's certainly his right to do so.

He was simply a service provider.

To quote the actual person who took the 5th. Its because he isn't a politician and doesn't want to be involved with what he called a "political circus" which it most certainly will be. The Republicans have been trying to pin something on Hillary for years now. They're going to be pretty bat-shit crazy over this one too.
 
Oh, was I supposed to read it in order to have an opinion?

Here's another one, Hillary is in the wrong..... she knows it, we all assume it, and some here are trying to avoid it.

This broad better hope it isn't jail time. Had it been you or me we would've been taken into custody by now.


You wouldn't get jail time and neither will she.

Clinton defended herself Aug. 18 with a carefully worded statement: “I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified.” Those may sound like weasel words, but they actually go to the heart of what might constitute a criminal case.

What happens in the real world of the State Department? Smith takes the hypothetical example of an assistant secretary who receives a classified cable from, say, Paris, about a meeting with the French foreign minister and wants quick guidance from the secretary. So he dashes off an e-mail — rather than sending a classified cable that would be seen by perhaps a dozen people.

“Technically, he has taken classified information and put it onto an unclassified system,” Smith said. “It’s the same as picking up a telephone and talking about it. It’s not right. But the challenge of getting the secretary’s attention — getting guidance when you need it — is an inevitable human, bureaucratic imperative. Is it a crime? Technically, perhaps yes. But it would never be prosecuted.”

Informal back channels existed long before e-mail. One former State Department official recalled the days when most embassies overseas had only a few phones authorized for secret communications. Rather than go to the executive office to make such a call, officers would use their regular phones, bypassing any truly sensitive details. “Did we cross red lines? No doubt. Did it put information at risk? Maybe. But, if you weren’t in Moscow or Beijing, you didn’t worry much,” this former official said.

Back channels are used because the official ones are so encrusted by classification and bureaucracy. State had the “Roger Channel,” named after former official Roger Hilsman, for sending secret messages directly to the secretary. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had a similar private channel. CIA station chiefs could send communications known as “Aardwolves” straight to the director.

Clinton to media: Nobody talks to me about e-mails besides you
Play Video2:43
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton responded to reporters in Las Vegas on Tuesday over the controversy surrounding her personal e-mail server. Clinton reiterated that she did not send or receive any classified material from her personal account. (AP)
Are these channels misused sometimes? Most definitely. Is there a crime here? Almost certainly not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html
 
Yes, which could be pointed out while he is defending himself from prosecution.

You seem to think that prosecutors always charge the correct charge, they don't. Take this simple example: Dr. Richard Kimble did not murder his wife, therefore should not be concerned about criminal prosecution. Does he have the 5th right? Of course he does, he is likely (and was) prosecuted. The prosecutors were wrong, it didn't stop them from moving forward.
You talking about Dr Richard Kimble from the movie or is there another one?

Seems like a weird example to give plus as far as I know he is neither under investigation or accused of anything. I would like to know what his security clearance was when he did it and who if anyone he worked with in the State Department or White House while doing it. I would put it down as another lapse in judgement by Clinton if he was setting up her server and had not been cleared to do it. Not necessarily a problem for him as it appears he was doing what he was asked to do but someone should have been asking the question.
 
You talking about Dr Richard Kimble from the movie or is there another one?

Seems like a weird example to give plus as far as I know he is neither under investigation or accused of anything. I would like to know what his security clearance was when he did it and who if anyone he worked with in the State Department or White House while doing it. I would put it down as another lapse in judgement by Clinton if he was setting up her server and had not been cleared to do it. Not necessarily a problem for him as it appears he was doing what he was asked to do but someone should have been asking the question.
We need Deputy U.S. Marshall Sam Gerard to get this thread back on track.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexMichFan
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT