TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
- Status
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Pssh, what do judges know about criminal investigations...
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
Why don't you ask specifically about this judge ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmet_G._Sullivan
BTW, is this current case a criminal investigation ?
Yes, all we know is that a federal judge with 20 years experience used the phrase "criminal investigation". Maybe he was being sloppy, but I'm betting he had good reason.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Here is a copy of the entire order we have been discussing.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v.-State-Pagliano-Minute-Order-01363.pdf
He specifically considered the immunity agreement in connection with the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Hubbard factors.
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.
Therefore the determination that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation was critical to his determination of the issues before him.
Last edited:
That's my reading of it as well.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
No one's questioning the judge. What is being question is the right wing echosphere playing Internet Lawyer, Judge and Jury. The judge seems like a swell guy.
The question is: What do 16.5, Fudrucker and Bob001 know about criminal investigations. Seems to this interested observer that they're merely very fond of the onerous sounding importance of getting "criminal" in there.
Once again, we have a judge in a civil suit who used it as an adjective. We have a WH press secretary who used it in error. And the ignoble opposition is running around slapping themelves high fives and chest-bumping.
It is so reminiscent of 911 Truthers and their cherry-picking that they should all be embarrassed to see the similarities.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Well, if you two agree, that's enough for
More reasonable minds look at the entire paragraph and see other ways to read it. But that might be because we're not desperately combing through text looking for Smoking Gun Words.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
you said it so well earlier, "pull it"
I guess it comes down to who are you going to believe, some shrillaries, or your own lyin eyes?
"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. Mr. Pagliano's immunity agreement with the government was filed with the Court by Mr. Pagliano solely to enable the Court to assess the legitimacy of his intent to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in this civil proceeding. The parties shall meet and confer to find a date and time for Mr. Pagliano's deposition prior to the close of discovery. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 14, 2016. (lcegs4)
"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. Mr. Pagliano's immunity agreement with the government was filed with the Court by Mr. Pagliano solely to enable the Court to assess the legitimacy of his intent to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in this civil proceeding. The parties shall meet and confer to find a date and time for Mr. Pagliano's deposition prior to the close of discovery. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 14, 2016. (lcegs4)
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Well, I'm certainly not going to believe a couple of HDS sufferers over the FBI. You know, the ones actually deciding what is being investigated and for what reasons, both of which the judge you keep citing is not privy to.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Ask Comey. He's a lot more knowledgeable as to what is being investigated than 16.5 or Fudbucker, yet he won't use that phrase while they do.
That's true, Comey specifically avoids that phrase.
It's a distinction without a difference, really. When the FBI investigates, they're trying to find evidence of criminal wrongdoing. What makes it such a good derail is Clinton tried to weasel out of even the word "investigation", by calling it a "security review".
It's just one of her many charms.
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
Can't answer these easy questions, but has posted the same sentence from the judges order 5 times.
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
Since you missed it the first time ...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...sified-info-in-hillary-clintons-email/447648/
A spokeswoman for I. Charles McCullough, III, the intelligence community IG, said he sent a referral to the FBI earlier this month.
"The letter IC IG sent to FBI earlier this month was a counterintelligence referral indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Sec. Clinton's emails. The emails exist on a at least one private server and thumb drive and that was the counterintelligence information concern we referred to the FBI," said spokesman Andrea Williams in an email.
A Justice Department official said Friday that "The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral."
Although it's definitely not a criminal referral, it's a criminal investigation ?
I understand it's not a security review. I'm not sure I understand if there is a difference between a security investigation and a criminal investigation, or why the director of the FBI chose not to call it a criminal investigation. Why do you think he did that ?
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
let me try. He's not able to hide behind an Internet persona, tries to ensure his comments are accurate and is held accountable if he errs.Since you missed it the first time ...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...sified-info-in-hillary-clintons-email/447648/
A spokeswoman for I. Charles McCullough, III, the intelligence community IG, said he sent a referral to the FBI earlier this month.
"The letter IC IG sent to FBI earlier this month was a counterintelligence referral indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Sec. Clinton's emails. The emails exist on a at least one private server and thumb drive and that was the counterintelligence information concern we referred to the FBI," said spokesman Andrea Williams in an email.
A Justice Department official said Friday that "The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral."
Although it's definitely not a criminal referral, it's a criminal investigation ?
I understand it's not a security review. I'm not sure I understand if there is a difference between a security investigation and a criminal investigation, or why the director of the FBI chose not to call it a criminal investigation. Why do you think he did that ?
Edit. This also reminds me of that other critical word thing, radical islam. It's like they're trying to win without scoring more points.
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/
Clinton’s phrasing — calling it a "security inquiry" — is not necessarily wrong, said Mark Pollitt, former chief of the FBI’s computer forensics program. But it obscures the fact that an investigation can be both security-related and criminal.
It clearly seems possible for the FBI to conduct security-related investigations that are both security-related and criminal.
Therefore it clearly seems possible for the FBI to conduct security-related investigations that are either security-related or criminal, but not both.
Hmmmm.....
Last edited:
That's a good link, but you cut off the rest of the paragraph:
"A reasonable person might take Clinton’s phrasing to mean the FBI is simply conducting a risk assessment of her server to see whether it’s secure. Agents might do that as part of an investigation, but it’s not the end game, Pollitt said."
You know what else is in that link?
"But of course, Clinton’s actions are clearly front-and-center in the FBI investigation. Based on her knowledge of how classified information mishandling cases proceed, and her understanding of public reports about Clinton’s role in the email setup, Glasser said the FBI is very likely looking at Clinton specifically.
"My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation," Glasser said."
So that link is kind of a double-edged sword for you.
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
That part you quoted (again) was previously quoted. What was left out was the portion I just quoted.
I understand there is an opinion in there that Clinton is the subject of a criminal investigation. She might be.
But I thought it was more important to put to rest this fallacious notion that all the FBI does is criminal investigations. That's simply not correct.
And it relates directly to the two two questions you have been ignoring.
- Status