Meanwhile, in non-Trump land, Hillary Clinton’s legal woes deepen

"Immunity? Like with a shot or something?"

“Immunity? Like with a shot or something?”

Before too many people get carried away thinking Donald Trump-as-GOP-nominee would hand the presidency to Hillary Clinton, it’s a good time to remember Clinton has her own very real problems on her hand. The latest, via the Washington Post:

“The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

“The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

“As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.”

Now, I’m no lawyer. But is it commonplace to grant immunity to a witness in a case where investigators don’t anticipate charging someone with something? I think not.

That someone may not be Clinton, and it wouldn’t have to be her to be severely damaging to her presidential campaign. If — as has been speculated — State Department staffers under Clinton are found to have copied sensitive information from the classified system into an unclassified system for the purposes of emailing it to her private, un-secure server, simply limiting indictments to those staffers wouldn’t keep the taint of impropriety off Clinton. That’d be especially true if those staffers were some of her closest aides, some of whom have roles in her presidential campaign. In the case of such charges, Clinton could not shirk responsibility for having put them in the position of potentially breaking the law because of her paranoid insistence on maintaining control over her emails.

Nor are her problems confined to the FBI’s investigation. The New York Times reports that court filings indicate Judicial Watch, a conservative government-watchdog group suing for access to emails related to Clinton staffers at the State Department, is seeking to take depositions not just from Pagliano but with two of Clinton’s closest aides: Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. The group may also seek testimony by Clinton herself, and the judge in the case indicated that may be necessary: “I think there are some legitimate issues that arise because of this very atypical system that was created,” the Times quotes District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan as saying.

With Trump also embroiled in a legal controversy — the state of New York is suing him for fraud in relation to his “Trump University,” and he faces two class-action lawsuits related to that business in California — both parties face the prospect of having front-runners who are making headlines from courtrooms this spring and summer. That is no small part of the Republican establishment’s efforts to keep Trump from winning the nomination outright before the convention in July. Democrats are in a tighter spot, having no alternative in the race besides Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has been all but eliminated mathematically from winning the nomination himself.

This political cycle may not have hit peak absurdity just yet.

Reader Comments 0

141 comments
JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

I suggest that Republicans focus on one issue a day on why Republicans must win over Democrats.

For me today, it is the example of gay marriage.

Democrats will never just move on to another bake shop as John Kasich suggested in last night's debate should the first not want to cater a gay wedding.

Instead, Dems will not be satisfied until the boot of government is on the throat of everyone who does not agree with them.

That cannot be allowed to stand.

Penses
Penses

@JohnnyReb

Agreed. They are trying to compel universal acceptance (which they will never get), perhaps to soothe their conscience at some deep level. Kind of like white racists did in the South.

Finn-McCool
Finn-McCool

Regarding Trump, I don't think we can have such a thin-skinned person in the role of President.

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

@Finn-McCool I don't think he is that thin skinned.

He would not be as successful if he was.

He did state from the outset that if someone attacks him, he will return the fire.

Finn-McCool
Finn-McCool

@JohnnyReb @Finn-McCool Successful? As in "Trump Air", or 'Trump Steaks" (which he planned to sell through The Sharper Image)? 


Or how about Trump Mortgage? Trump University? bankrupted casinos?


LOL

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

@Finn-McCool @JohnnyReb so he has some failed businesses.  He is not a billionaire from those failed efforts.

He deserves credit for trying.

Something like 7 of 10 business startups fail.

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

Romney gave an interview this morning where he stated 65% of voters do not want Trump.

That's a total fabrication, designed for the low information folks, and shows the desperation of the establishment.

Yes, there are about 65% of voters in primaries that have not voted for Trump.

However, that does not mean they would not vote for Trump.

When their guy drops out, they decide who to support.

And except for the stupid, they would pull the lever for Trump over any Democrat.

JKToole
JKToole

Until you catch a fish it's still just cutting bait, digging worms and seining creeks. If it wasn't it would be called catching, not fishing.

A lot of wishing and hoping going on here.

The moderator and his supporters at the end of the day scream "liar" anytime Clinton's name is mentioned.

There was very little truth on display in Detroit last night. The vast majority of it resided "off stage left' - where Kasich stood. I wonder if anyone in the GOP or FOX News recognized the irony.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

@JKToole

Was Hillary lying when she said there was no classified information on her homebrew server?

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

@Lil_Barry_Bailout @JKToole yes and positively.

There were four SAP docs which are the highest sub-level of Top Secret.

They require a code to open and the code changes each day.

She is deceiving the low information people when she states she did not send or receive any emails marked Confidential or Classified.

It's not the marking, it's the content and as SOS it was her responsibility to recognize content as being confidential information.

She is a serial liar of the highest order.

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

@Finn-McCool @JohnnyReb @Lil_Barry_Bailout @JKToole I wish but who knows what will happen.

If Obama does not oppose her indictment it will be like handing the Repubs the keys.

If he does oppose her indictment there will be political war not seen in our lifetimes.

This will be very interesting.

RoadScholar
RoadScholar

I hear they have granted immunity to Clinton's dog. What is the dog guilty of? Oh and I thought that you were innocent until PROVEN guilty!

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

@RoadScholar

Big boys and girls are capable of developing an opinion of guilt or innocence, honesty or dishonesty, integrity or corruption, based on facts that have come to light since the homebrew server came to light.

Penses
Penses

@RoadScholar

ROFL. You thought wrongly. One is PRESUMED to be innocent until proven guilty, and that presumption is a legal fiction (since people are held in jail until trial if they can't make bail, are subjected to search warrants, required to provide fingerprints or DNA that are permanently stored in a database regardless of culpability and so on). In fact, a person is either guilty or innocent of a crime the very instant it is committed, depending upon his involvement - whether he did it or not.

Got it now? Good!

RoadScholar
RoadScholar

@Lil_Barry_Bailout @RoadScholar So you trust the press that cons have said is slanted and lying...... truth is not based on going to the grocery store and only selecting things you agree with or want to happen. Until she gets indited, she's innocent.

I did not say I like her, trust her, or would vote for her. But I guess you have read every e-mail, checked every server, tapped her phone lines....to know YOUR truth.


Based on your logic, Gov Deal should be in prison.

RoadScholar
RoadScholar

@Penses @RoadScholar Kept in jail if they are a flight risk, or are dangerous to the public. They supposedly have EVIDENCE to arrest them also.

Penses
Penses

@RoadScholar @Penses

Thanks for proving my point. They are not, in fact, presumed to be innocent for those two reasons and others. Everyone presumed Al Capone was guilty of murder, but he was never convicted of it. By your logic, he never committed that crime.

Finn-McCool
Finn-McCool

Just the fact that the Cons can't find someone/anyone among themselves that should be able to easily beat Hillary is just hilarious.


You Conservatives are DONE on a national level.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

@Finn-McCool

Not that Trump is a conservative (he isn't), and not that I support him (I don't), but whenever I'm feeling certain that Trump can't beat Hillary, three names keep coming to mind.

Jesse Ventura

Al Franken

Arnold Schwarzenegger

lvg
lvg

I hope Kyle is not relying on Newt for his Hillary smear campaign.

Penses
Penses

BTW, Kyle...you're captions are hilarious.

MaxMose
MaxMose

Hillary and bill are tired of republicans bringing up this old email stuff---in november, hillary beats donald in a landslide---with bill raising 500 million more from his mideast / asia connections and all those california PAC millions, hillary has all the money to win big!!!

Penses
Penses

@MaxMose

LOL.For a pretty fertile land, America sure seems to have a lot of sand. Why otherwise would we have so many ostriches?

Here's_to_Blue
Here's_to_Blue

@Penses @MaxMose If I'm not mistaken, MaxMose's comment above is satire.  Hint:  "with bill raising 500 million more from his mideast / asia connections."

Penses
Penses

@Here's_to_Blue @Penses @MaxMose

LOL. I sure hope you're right. But, as I recall, Jonathan Swift never failed to properly capitalise words. Are you suggesting he is playing a dolt as well (which Gulliver was)?

Here's_to_Blue
Here's_to_Blue

@Penses @Here's_to_Blue @MaxMose It's been a long, long time since I've read any Jonathan Swift, so I don't recall his capitalization of words.  I'm not sure you can compare commenting on the Internet, where so many people don't bother with capitalization, with anything Jonathan Swift may or may not have done . . .

Penses
Penses

@Here's_to_Blue @Penses @MaxMose

My point was this: satire is a sophisticated literary device and I would expect someone using it to display greater signs of literacy than MM. That's all.

Here's_to_Blue
Here's_to_Blue

@Penses @Here's_to_Blue @MaxMose And what led me to assume it was satire was an oblique reference to the Clinton Foundation as well as the sums of money BC is suspected of raising from foreign countries (Mideast/Asia connections).

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

Pagliano's lawyers were smart to seek immunity.


It's called CYA. Happens everyday in our justice system.


Doesn't mean anything more than that.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@Hedley_Lammar When the recommendation to indict leaks out you will have more excuses, (witch hunt, political, not as bad as they claimed).  When she is indicted more excuses.  When she makes a plea deal, you will say that the charge she was allowed to plead to was the only thing she did, blah, blah, Headley.

Penses
Penses

@Hedley_Lammar

You missed Kyle's point, Sparky: they don't give immunity for no reason, but usually to secure the conviction of others.

Here's_to_Blue
Here's_to_Blue

@Penses @Hedley_Lammar Not necessarily.  The techie's lawyers probably insisted on getting an immunity deal for him to protect him from a grilling in Congress . . .

JKToole
JKToole

@RafeHollister  ... and if she is not indicted, you will blame President Obama. Or if she is indicted and arraigned and pleads out, you will blame President for letting her off easy. 

But if she is tried, convicted and sentenced to hang for 'high crimes and treason" would Obama get the credit? Never.

332-206
332-206

Rafe has more faith in the Obama Justice Department than anyone here.

Touching, really...

xxxzzz
xxxzzz

@332-206 Obama is above all, as vain as Trump.  Just not as insecure.  He doesn't place the good of the country real high on his list of priorities, but his own legacy is more important than his desire for the good of the Democratic party.  So I think he lets them indict her.  And offers Biden to replace her on the ticket.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

 The Clinton Mafia is in deep trouble.


Been hearing that one for about 20 + years now

BurroughstonBroch
BurroughstonBroch

Where there is smoke there is usually a fire. The Clintons have been smoking for decades.

Penses
Penses

@Here's_to_Blue @BurroughstonBroch

Bill Clinton committed adultery in work place. Try having sex at your workplace and see what happens to you. THAT was the wrong he committed. Lying is nothing compared to that.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@Penses @Here's_to_Blue @BurroughstonBroch In the oval office.  Think at the outrage if they had caught Reagan doing the same.  But he was held to a higher standard that Slick, who everyone expected to get a little on the side based on who he was married to.

Here's_to_Blue
Here's_to_Blue

@Penses @Here's_to_Blue @BurroughstonBroch I agree that BC showed a serious lack of judgment there.  But don't forget that Monica Lewinsky was no ingenue (forget the innocence implied by the term "intern").  She was a 26-year-old woman who should have known better than to get involved with a married man, even if he was the president.

Here's_to_Blue
Here's_to_Blue

@xxxzzz @Here's_to_Blue @Penses @BurroughstonBroch I don't recall Paula Jones being raped.  What I remember is that when BC was governor of Arkansas, he had Paula summoned (don't remember where he was at the time), dropped his pants in front of her, and may have made some lewd suggestion.  I also vaguely recall that Paula commented quite some time later that she was amused by the situation.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@Here's_to_Blue @BurroughstonBroch Says that Web Hubbell and Susan McDougal served time and an indictment was drawn up against Hillary and due to prosecutorial discretion never presented to the Grand Jury.  Slick was forced to give up his law license and pay Paula Jones a huge amount of money.  Other than that nothing.

Here's_to_Blue
Here's_to_Blue

@BurroughstonBroch "Where there is smoke there is usually a fire."  $40 million in taxpayer funds spent by the Ken Starr investigation says what??

Here's_to_Blue
Here's_to_Blue

@RafeHollister @BurroughstonBroch Other than that, is exactly my point.  $40 million, and that's ALL that Starr could come up with??  He started off investigating Whitewater and other alleged criminal acts, and Paula Jones is what he found?  If there had been as much "there" there as Clinton's enemies had hoped, $40 million (not to mention any under-the-table funds that may have supplemented Starr's budget) should have been more than enough to come up with a whole bunch of stuff.  As wily as you may think the Clintons are, NOBODY is smart enough to cover their tracks that effectively.  Someone is bound to "sing" at some point.