• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
RobRoy said:
No, but it's been dealt with previously and isn't germane to this discussion. It only gets brought up by folk trying to muddy the waters, even though those arguments have nothing to do with reality.
Click to expand...

Judge Sullivan's determination that:

Mr. Pagliano and the government object to disclosure of the immunity agreement. Indeed, the privacy interests at stake are high because the government’s criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential.
Click to expand...

is not germane to the discussion? That is utterly ludicrous.

I'm sorry, upon what magical thinking did you wish away that order?
 
16.5 said:
Oh dear! Did you think that was Judge Sullivan's only order in the case. Well that does not make any sense at all.



Order here



Hee hee!

That order and link are factual/material. Mayhap you wish to change you post as so:

Thanks for clearing this up for me. In the future, in the interest of critical thinking, I'll assume by default that the things that 16.5 FMW posts aren't factual/material

Oh man the timing is extra delicious!
Click to expand...

That ruling does not say what you wish it did. The judge is clearly ruling on something. It's stated,

Upon consideration of the parties' and non-party Bryan
Pagliano's pleadings addressing the legal authority upon which Mr. Pagliano
relies to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in this civil proceeding with respect to
any deposition questions regarding "the creation and operation of
clintonemail.com for State Department business", see ECF No. 73
Click to expand...

He is not "judging" or "ruling" or "finding" anything in legal terms. He uses the word "criminal" once. It is an adjective. It has nothing to do with his ruling. You are making crap up, as usual, because the spin suits your purposes. It'll be particularly useful, like your objections to the Gowdy report, when you later claim to be confused as to how they can say they're not charging anyone. "I all confuse. Everyone knows it's a criminal case. How can they not prosecute/indict "criminals". It's a conspiracy. Pull it. "
 
16.5 said:
I'm sorry, upon what magical thinking did you wish away that order?
Click to expand...

The part where we already discussed it in depth and addressed all your . . . umm . . . I guess they're "arguments", but those quotes are just for show.

Do feel free to scroll back up and read the relevant details. Its tiring pointing out to folk what has already been pointed out to folk.
 
16.5 said:
Judge Sullivan's determination that:



is not germane to the discussion? That is utterly ludicrous.

I'm sorry, upon what magical thinking did you wish away that order?
Click to expand...

You don't speak English? Maybe we need to rouse Ziggurat and sunmaster to make up some legal talk. That is not what the order is about. The order is about whether the witness can avail himself of a previous immunity agreement and whether its terms apply. "Criminal" is used as an adjective and is not what he was ruling on.

You know all this. I can't decide which is stupider. That you might be pretending that you don't understand it, which makes you look like a conniving liar. Or actually not knowing it which you makes you look illiterate.
 
RobRoy said:
The part where we already discussed it in depth and addressed all your . . . umm . . . I guess they're "arguments", but those quotes are just for show.

Do feel free to scroll back up and read the relevant details. Its tiring pointing out to folk what has already been pointed out to folk.
Click to expand...

Wait, you are disagreeing with Judge Sullivan's order?

Is that what Clinton fans have been reduced to?

Judge Sullivan specifically relied on the fact that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation to satisfy the 4th and 5th factors of the US v. Hubbard test.

This is so clear and so elemental that I am at a loss that anyone would tell you anything different.
 
16.5 said:
Wait, you are disagreeing with Judge Sullivan's order?
Click to expand...

No. Just you and your interpretation.

Is that what Clinton fans have been reduced to?
Click to expand...

I'm not a Clinton fan.

Judge Sullivan specifically relied on the fact that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation to satisfy the 4th and 5th factors of the US v. Hubbard test.

This is so clear and so elemental that I am at a loss that anyone would tell you anything different.
Click to expand...

This was discussed previously. I'm simply unwilling to go hunt it down for you so that you can ignore it a second time. FMW has done so again, succinctly and eloquently—but I'm sure you'll handwave it away and in another couple of pages you'll bring it back up as if it's the Excalibur of all arguments.

It's not.
 
RobRoy said:
This was discussed previously. I'm simply unwilling to go hunt it down for you so that you can ignore it a second time. FMW has done so again, succinctly and eloquently—but I'm sure you'll handwave it away and in another couple of pages you'll bring it back up as if it's the Excalibur of all arguments.

It's not.
Click to expand...

It is not my interpretation it is what the order says.

Indeed, the privacy interests at stake are high because the government’s criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential.
Click to expand...
 
Foolmewunz said:
You don't speak English? Maybe we need to rouse Ziggurat and sunmaster to make up some legal talk. That is not what the order is about. The order is about whether the witness can avail himself of a previous immunity agreement and whether its terms apply. "Criminal" is used as an adjective and is not what he was ruling on.

You know all this. I can't decide which is stupider. That you might be pretending that you don't understand it, which makes you look like a conniving liar. Or actually not knowing it which you makes you look illiterate.
Click to expand...

what in the name of god are you talking about?? I'll put aside the bizarre personal attacks. The Order does not concern whether the Pagliano "can avail himself of a previous immunity agreement and whether its terms apply." It concerns whether the immunity agreement should be "sealed" and Judge Sullivan applied a six factor test to conclude that it should be sealed including the fact that the "the government’s criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential."

this balancing of the factors was required by the DC Circuit Court in US v. Hubbard.

here is another case where a judge applies the Hubbard factors:

HAMIDUVA v. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-1221 (CKK) (D.C. Sept. 3, 2015).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10775641298516712275&q=obama&hl=en&as_sdt=400005&sciodt=400003

After weighing the six Hubbard factors, the Court concludes that four of the six factors support granting Petitioner's unopposed request to seal the factual returns in the instant action.

I literally gobsmacked that people are grossly misrepresenting Sullivan's ruling.
 
Last edited:
Loretta Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over a federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s personal email account, said Friday that she would accept whatever recommendations that career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director make about whether to bring charges in the case.

“I will be accepting their recommendations,” Ms. Lynch said.

The F.B.I. is expected to make a recommendation to the Justice Department in the coming weeks, though agents have yet to interview Mrs. Clinton.

Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?_r=0 (July 1, 2016)
Click to expand...


"Lawyers are not bound by merely the letter of the law but also by the lawyer's 'Code of Professional Responsibility' which in theory holds them to a higher ethical standard.

"The lawyer's ethical code historically prohibited them from engaging in activities that create an 'appearance of impropriety' and undermine public confidence in the justice system. The tarmac meeting here certainly feels improper. That code binds Lynch but possibly not the former president, whose law license was suspended by Arkansas after the Monica Lewinsky scandal."

Reference:
Bill Clinton & Loretta Lynch meeting: 'Incredibly bad judgment' (July 1, 2016)
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
"Former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to meet Saturday with the FBI, a source close to the investigation into her private email server tells The Daily Caller.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/01/e...d-to-meet-with-fbi-on-saturday/#ixzz4DCQip8YR

Good mo-
PLEAD FIFTH
Can I
PLEAD FIFTH
put
PLEAD FIFTH
my
PLEAD FIFTH
coat
PLEAD FIFTH
here?
PLEAD FIFTH
Click to expand...
Will you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about when she answers their questions and doesn't plead the fifth?
 
Tony Stark said:
Will you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about when she answers their questions and doesn't plead the fifth?
Click to expand...

If she doesn't plead the fifth, I think the investigation winds down and she doesn't get indicted.

If she pleads the fifth a million bazilion times, will it make you suspicious in anyway?
 
Fudbucker said:
If she doesn't plead the fifth, I think the investigation winds down and she doesn't get indicted.

If she pleads the fifth a million bazilion times, will it make you suspicious in anyway?
Click to expand...
Yeah. But she isn't going to take the fifth.
 
Fudbucker said:
"Former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to meet Saturday with the FBI, a source close to the investigation into her private email server tells The Daily Caller.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/01/e...d-to-meet-with-fbi-on-saturday/#ixzz4DCQip8YR

Good mo-
PLEAD FIFTH
Can I
PLEAD FIFTH
put
PLEAD FIFTH
my
PLEAD FIFTH
coat
PLEAD FIFTH
here?
PLEAD FIFTH
Click to expand...

So wrong. Time will tell though.

I hope some posters at least have the decency to be ashamed about just how wrong they will have proven themselves to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom