Monday Night TV and Open Thread

A new season of The Voice begins. The Bachelor is close to wrapping up. James Corden should have some funny commentary on the Oscars tonight.

In more important news, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled Apple does not have to decrypt an iPhone (not really a surprise.) [More...]

In a 50-page opinion disdainful of the government’s arguments, Orenstein found that the All Writs Act does not apply in instances where Congress had the opportunity but failed to create an authority for the government to get the type of help it was seeking, such as having firms ensure they have a way to obtain data from encrypted phones.

He wrote that the government’s interpretation of the 200-year-old law was “absurd” in that it would authorize what they were seeking even if every member of Congress had voted against granting such authority. It would, he added, undermine “the more general protection against tyranny that the Founders believed required the careful separation of governmental powers.”

He also found that ordering Apple to help the government by extracting data from the iPhone — which belonged to a drug dealer — would place an unreasonable burden on the company.

I've always liked Magistrate Judge Orenstein, who I remember as "Jamie." He was one of the federal prosecutors in the Oklahoma City bombing trials, and he and I "battled" on handwriting evidence.

I've quoted his opinions on historical cell cite data in my more recent cases. I really like when former federal prosecutors appointed to the bench don't turn out to be rubber stamps for the Department of Justice. In my experience, it doesn't happen often enough.

The NY ACLU applauds the ruling, which it published here.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sunday Night Open Thread | Justice Thomas Asks Questions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 03:31:21 PM EST
    jamming up Liz Warren and the CFPB, co-sponsoring legislation to delay consumer protections from payday lenders.

    That should dispel any doubts about who the Democratic Party leadership works for.  Geez Louise.

    she really is a disaster (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 03:35:13 PM EST
    It's like she's deliberately trying to piss people off.

    P.S. your link is broken.  I think you were going for this one.


    Disaster seems like too mild (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 04:50:02 PM EST
    a word to use when discussing DWS, but this is a family blog so I guess disaster will have to do.

    Obama, especially lame-duck Obama, has done things I like, but his handling of the DNC has been horrendous IMO. First he replaced Howard Dean with Tim Kaine, then replaced Kaine with the even worse DWS. It has been terrible for the party. And the GOP's complete control of Congress is the result.

    I hope this cr@p bill of DWS's gets squashed, and quickly.


    Much obliged... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    I Schultzed the link somehow;)

    Samantha Bee's show is so good (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:18:25 PM EST
    She has a great piece on the 2010 midterms this week.

    I think once a week is s good schedule. Keeps it biting without dilution with lower grade material.

    Better watch Better Call Saul (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:43:05 AM EST
    I have to say it again...even if you never liked or even watched Breaking Bad, this is a fantastic show. I find it a lot more emotionally satisfying as we watch Jimmy McGill find an outlet for his unique talents and struggle for acceptance from his brother, friend/girlfriend and 'respectable' workplace.

    It has all the great writing and beautiful production values of Breaking Bad - a time lapse sequence on Mike's daughter in law's house in this last episode is gorgeous.

    Just can't say enough good things about it. It makes me happy.

    25 years ago today on March 3, 1991, ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 12:46:44 PM EST
    ... George Holliday was roused from his sleep at about 12:45 a.m. by a loud cacophony of sirens and helicopters, and looked out his apartment window in Los Angeles to see what all the commotion was about. What he saw unfolding outside was a shockingly one-sided confrontation between taxi driver Rodney King and baton-wielding LAPD officers.

    Mr. Holliday proved himself to be one of America's unsung heroes that moment, because his decision to record the now-notorious incident on videotape and then give it to local media proved to be a watershed moment in the history of his city. Its legacy reverberates throughout L.A. County to this very day, and further continues to have serious repercussions across the entire country as well.


    Here's some must see TV... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:42:11 AM EST
    "Mavis!"...The Mavis Staples documentary running on HBO.  I highly recommend for fans and non-fans alike...an educational and entertaining tribute to one of America's greatest voices.  

    Count me in - it is already on my list. (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:54:20 AM EST
    She is one of the greats, no doubt.

    I think she has a memoir out...IIRC she had some fun in her youth. She seems like someone I would love to hang out with.


    Totally... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 11:04:47 AM EST
    she comes across as so sweet and kind and humble and down to earth.  With a heart even bigger than her pipes.

    Touching segments in the film with Mavis & Levon hanging out up at Levon's barn...and with Jeff Tweedy who has produced her recent records and remastered the last recordings of Pops Staples.  Lots of genuine love and affection there.


    It appears (none / 0) (#11)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:33:04 AM EST
    That The Bern has a real incentive to stay in to the end
    A Criminal Investigation conducted by the FBI...

    As Bernie has previously said, a real serious matter


    Washington Post breaks the story

    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.

    Bring it on. the sooner they get it over with (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 10:48:03 AM EST
    the better.

    Is this the classified email that was not classified until a long time after it was sent? Really happy to delve into that again.


    Yes (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 11:15:55 AM EST
    it is the same story over and over for the last year. It's getting downright comical from the GOP. The IG does not want the email released because, of course, it is going to prove 100% to everybody that he is an incompetent hack working for the GOP.

    Actually (none / 0) (#34)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    This has nothing to do with the GOP. Or the IG

    Unless the FBI started taking orders from the GOP, in addition to the Justice Department attorneys assigned to this case.

    The Clinton aide has accepted a immunity agreement in exchange for his testimony....in a criminal investigation.
    There are 22 e mails labeled Top Secret that cannot be released to the public.


    If you had information the FBI wanted (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 04:55:00 PM EST
    in a high profile case, would you talk to them without immunity? I sure wouldn't, even if all I knew was the tech details of how the server was set up. Who knows what they are going to try to make out of anything you say? I would not trust them any further than I can throw them.

    He pled the 5th (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 04:49:57 PM EST
    Most experts agree what he will tell the FBI will be routine IT stuff - how the server was set up,  what he was told, etc.

    And since the Clinton campaign publicly stated last summer that they wanted him to cooperate, I'm not sure what bombshell you expect him to reveal.


    He pled the Fifth (none / 0) (#38)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:00:13 PM EST
    To a Congressional Committee.
    He agreed to cooperate with the FBI only after receiving an immunity agreement.

    Ask any of lawyers present on the site how often the Federal Justice Department offers immunity agreements if they do not believe a crime was committed.

    Someone, higher up than the IT guy, is in hot water.

    Lol, Of course the Clinton campaign said they want him to testify, what are they going to say, Atta boy Brian, loose lips sink ships? They have to say that. Just like they have to say they want all 22 Top Secret e mails released, knowing full well they will not be.


    I AM a lawyer (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:13:56 PM EST
    He got "use immunity", which means the government cannot use his own testimony or any evidence derived from that testimony against him in a criminal prosecution, UNLESS they find that he misrepresented something OR they find evidence independent of his testimony.  It is not what they call "transactional immunity", which is a blanket immunity from any prosecution for these alleged crimes in the future.

    Use immunity is quite common at the federal level - this is standard practice.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#46)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:25:09 PM EST
    I do not believe that the FBI and Department of Justice hand out immunity agreements...

    Unless they have a good reason to believe a crime has been committed


    They (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:30:55 PM EST
    hand then out all the time. This is nothing unusual. You don't understand what is going on here. Like JB says it's not transactional immunity. It's immunity so they can't set him up for perjury trap.

    What does it mean? (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:33:41 PM EST
    What does a former staffer's immunity deal mean for Hillary Clinton?

    It could mean that Pagliano, concerned about his legal exposure, might implicate others, including Clinton. But it also could be an indication that agents and prosecutors are winding down an inquiry that won't result in charges, said Justin Shur, a former deputy chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section who now works in private practice at the MoloLamken firm.

    "I don't know that I would necessarily jump to the conclusion that this person has `flipped,' and now they're going to say a bunch of incriminating things about other people," Shur said, adding that the agents could simply be making sure they have spoken to everyone relevant to the investigation.

    More (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:35:51 PM EST
    More than (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    likely they're just winding it down and in order to get this guy to talk to him they're giving him immunity to finish up. I mean the guy was a tech person. There's honest to God nothing he would know about anything other than what he set up as far as a computer system.

    Most (none / 0) (#56)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:42:45 PM EST
    Of what I have read, or heard , do not take that tack.

    I do believe that we can agree that the FBI and Justice do not hand out immunity agreements unless they believe a crime may have taken place


    Rumors (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:45:19 PM EST
    are better than facts for you it seems.

    Whatever. The GOP fiddles on fake email story hoping it saves their imploding party. Good luck with that.


    No evidence she was hacked (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 07:46:09 PM EST

    The security logs bolster Mrs. Clinton's assertion that her use of a personal email account to conduct State Department business while she was the secretary of state did not put American secrets into the hands of hackers or foreign governments.
    The former aide, Bryan Pagliano, began cooperating with federal agents last fall, according to interviews with a federal law enforcement official and others close to the case. Mr. Pagliano described how he set up the server in Mrs. Clinton's home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and according to two of the people, he provided agents the security logs. The law enforcement official described the interview as routine. Most of those close to the case spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the continuing investigation.


    Mr. Pagliano, who last year invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before Congress, cooperated with the F.B.I. under a limited immunity deal. Limited immunity, which means that prosecutors may not use Mr. Pagliano's words against him, is a far more narrow agreement than what is commonly known as "blanket immunity," in which the government promises not to prosecute someone for crimes.

    Mark MacDougall, Mr. Pagliano's lawyer, said in an email that the limited immunity deal allowed his client to answer specific questions from investigators freely. "That's all there is to it," Mr. MacDougall said in an email. "Every citizen has that right. The government has the authority to grant immunity in order to obtain answers. In this case, they exercised that authority, we reached an agreement, and Bryan answered the questions."

    It is common for lawyers to request -- and receive -- such deals before allowing their clients to cooperate. Independent lawyers say that is true even in cases in which witnesses have nothing to hide.

    Excuse me, Tervor, ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    ... bot are you a criminal defense counsel? If not, then please don't insult the intelligence of those attorneys who respond to your politically motivated assertions about immunity agreements to inform you otherwise.

    Are you (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:14:13 PM EST
    kidding? They offer immunity all the time to all kinds of people. He just is going to talk about the tech stuff.

    Funny thing is after screaming for one whole year and shopping a conspiracy theory that she committed a "crime" by the GOP it's now starting to blow back on the GOP now that they are part of the "coverup"

    This is the same thing that happened with the GOP and Benghazi. They spent a lot of time fleecing people like you and then guess what? They were lying to you the entire time.

    It's already been established there was no crime in setting up a personal server. None of this is criminal. The FBI contacted Colin Powell and they also contacted all of Condi Rice's aids about this same thing.


    Once again (none / 0) (#45)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:24:13 PM EST
    This is the FBI and The Obama Justice Department conducting this investigation

    The Justice (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:33:14 PM EST
    Department is not conducting the investigation and that doesn't mean that a Republican is not guilty. You don't even know how government works but then after listening to 11 hours of testimony on Benghazi that is not surprising.

    The FBI has stated that she is not a target.


    Better tell Lynch (none / 0) (#55)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:39:47 PM EST
    She has some rogue attorneys working for her

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed to Congress Wednesday that career Justice Department attorneys are working with FBI agents on the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's email practices and the handling of classified material.

    Legal experts say the assignment of career Justice Department attorneys to the case shows the FBI probe has progressed beyond the initial referral, or "matured," giving agents access to the U.S. government's full investigative tool box, including subpoena power for individuals, business or phone records, as well as witnesses.

    The Associated Press reported earlier this month that career lawyers were involved, but Lynch's comments are the most expansive to Congress.

    "Do you know of any efforts underway to undermine the FBI's investigation? And please look the American people in the eye and tell us what your position is as you are the chief prosecutor of the United States," Carter pressed.

    Lynch replied, "...that matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate,"

    She confirmed that the FBI criminal investigation is ongoing, and no recommendation or referral on possible charges had been made to her

    What is the point (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:43:33 PM EST
    of highlighting "career" Justice Department attorneys?  Everybody at the DOJ who is an attorney is a "career" Justice Department attorney, with the exception of the Attorney General, the 93 US Attorneys and a handful of other high ranking officials who are appointed and confirmed.

    But all the lawyers who try cases at the DOJ are "career" attorneys - whether their career has lasted 30 years or 6 months.

    What point are you trying to make?


    And then (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:46:08 PM EST
    there's this:

    Legal experts say the kind of deal the Department of Justice (DOJ) has struck with Pagliano is common in cases where investigators want to work their way up the food chain in uncovering possible criminal activity.

    Still, several former DOJ prosecutors cautioned that the granting of immunity in no way indicates that charges against Clinton are likely.

    "If prosecutors confer immunity in a case, in general it means that they at least have some intention of pursuing the matter to a grand jury. Whether they ultimately decide to pull the trigger and press charges is a whole other question," said Bob Ray, a former federal prosecutor who was head of the Office of the Independent Counsel during the Whitewater investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    What the immunity deal does suggest, experts say, is twofold.

    First, that investigators believe Pagliano has potentially valuable information that will help it determine whether any laws were broken.

    Second, that the Department of Justice is at minimum setting the stage for the possibility of a criminal case.

    "It doesn't necessarily signal that there will be charges. What it does signal is that they are accelerating past the investigation stage and things have now risen to the level of a grand jury investigation," Ray said.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#62)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:48:37 PM EST
    That is exactly what I have been saying for 3 months.

    That the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation,
    Granting immunity doesn't mean someone is definitely guilty, but it means that the investigators feel there is important information that they need to make their case.

    "It doesn't necessarily signal that there will be charges. What it does signal is that they are accelerating past the investigation stage and things have now risen to the level of a grand jury investigation," Ray said.


    You have (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:54:23 PM EST
    been saying Hillary is a target which the FBI has said is not true.

    I believe (none / 0) (#66)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:58:12 PM EST
    I have stated that the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation...for a while now

    And I have been repeatedly told it is only a security review


    Look Trevor (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 06:03:09 PM EST
    You could be absolutely right and this whole she-bang will take down HRC.  If that hapoens, I will come here and virtually flog myself and do a huge mea culpa.

    But you still cannot address the fact that the president tacitly endorsed her twice, had the VP stay out of the race (a race he wanted to get into), sent many of his people over to work on her campaign,  and today, in what appears to be another show of support for her, endorsed a candidate in a Democratic Senate primary (something pretty unusual at this stage of the game for a candidate who was a Republican) against a sitting liberal Democratic Congressman, who coincidentally, endorsed the other guy earlier this week.  You can't tell me that, while it would be improper for the president to influence an investigation, that he has no idea what is going on, but yet he is making statements that, if she actually IS indicted,  could come back to bite him and the party on the butt.  You can't be that naive.

    These are people who have EVERYTHING vetted before they give an interview or speak.  Obama has a team of people who mull what color tie he will wear for any given event - you think he's going to just go and speak off the cuff about her??


    Short answer (none / 0) (#69)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 06:10:41 PM EST

    He has spoken out of turn on several matters, Henry Gates the 1st that comes to mind,
    And I recall he has often said (when convenient for him) I cannot comment as it is a ongoing criminal investigation.
    So when he wants, he does speak out of turn.
    Also, there were reports that the FBI was furious that the President made those statements, as if he was putting his thumb on the scale, precisely because the FBI Director doesn't let the President know the status of criminal investigations until they are completed.

    I have no idea as to how this will turn out, but I have been amazed as to how some very intelligent people, lawyers included, have  summarily dismissed this for months as a nothingburger. I just feel it was not given the seriousness it deserved, especially considering a presidential nomination lay in the balance.
    And I especially was amazed at how the Democrat Establishment basically cleared the field for her nomination , knowing this hiccup was festering .


    You're doing (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    a 180 from what you said before that Obama was pushing Biden to get in specifically because he knew what was going on. Now you're singing a different tune. Just make it up as you go along I'm sure.

    Read BTD'S posts on this (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 06:20:23 PM EST
    You aren't seeing the politics.

    His motives for concern trolling this issue over and again are ENTIRELY political. That he has no facts to support his baseless contentions and is relying solely upon his own misguided sense of certitude only underscores that point. It's like listening to Hugh Hewitt's echo, without ever having to actually listen to Hugh Hewitt himself. They just feed on each other.

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 06:16:58 PM EST
    Comey was telling the truth when he said the president wasn't being "briefed". However that does not mean in any way that Obama does not know what is going on. All indicators are that there is nothing here and the GOP is desperately searching for something. Although can you blame Republicans and people like Trevor for being desperate when you look at the GOP? I guess if I was a republican and looked around I would act just like Trevor.

    You have to realize so far this year Trevor has been 100% wrong on everything.


    Also (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 06:22:37 PM EST
    We keep hearing there's all this stuff with Benghazi.

    Still haven't seen it.  Why should this email situation be any different?


    Oh please (none / 0) (#79)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 08:09:55 PM EST
    That one is too easy.
    Because the FBI and the Justice Department are conducting the investigation.

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 08:15:40 PM EST
    So are, what 4 or 5 separate Congressional committees.



    What (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:47:42 PM EST
    you did a cut and paste on does not back up what you are saying.

    The FBI (none / 0) (#63)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:50:52 PM EST
    and the Obama Justice Department are conducting the investigation.

    Lynch confirmed that Justice Department lawyers are involved in the investigation

    Thats what I said, and Lynch confirmed it


    The justice (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:56:50 PM EST
    department does not conduct investigations. You are wrong. The FBI conducts investigations and then it goes to the justice department.

    Most experts say that what is likely IF ANYTHING is there will be a reprimand issued and likely it will go out to a lot of people including a lot of Republicans.


    Well (none / 0) (#67)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 06:01:18 PM EST
    Sorry to say, the Justice Department does conduct investigations.
    I worked on one back in the early 1980's,
    A white collar crime case involving falsifying stock trades on the Commodities Exchanges.

    The Assistant US Attorney ran the investigation, and investigators, myself included, (a mere rookie) assisted and performed all the legwork and forensic accounting.


    Trevor, I believe that the FBI (none / 0) (#83)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 08:39:52 PM EST
    has granted immunity to Pagliano for political reasons, not good or bad, just, simply political.

    They are acutely aware of the campaigns going on, and, the last thing they want is to be portrayed as "playing politics" in a Presidential campaign.

    I wouldn't draw any inferences from this immunity deal other than they know they can't drag out the investigation thru election day.

    They are going to announce their decision in May, which is their self-determined date of their, "go,
    or, don't go decision, from what I hear.


    Will (none / 0) (#86)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 05:32:45 AM EST
    Have to disagree with that one.

    Pagliano installed the server, the FBI needs to speak with him and get his cooperation.
    He refused, claiming the 5th.
    No other way to get his cooperation,

    Unless you see another way to compel his testimony?

    Where the politic came in is the FBI delaying this announcement until AFTER Super Tuesday.


    There's nothing to disagree about (none / 0) (#99)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    The point I was trying to make was that the FBI'S granting immunity to Pagliano isn't necessarily a signal that an indictment is imminent. In fact, it probably signals the opposite.

    My understanding is, unless there's a smoking gun not yet discovered, there will be no indictment. They need Pagliano's testimony to clear up one, fundamental question, heretofore still unclear : What was the "real" reason for setting up this private email system?

    They need Pagliano to answer, under oath, was it:

    A. Simply an innocent, albeit clumsy, attempt by a Tech-Newbie to simplify her communication activities?


    B. Set up for the express purpose of giving Hillary the ability to shield future communications from those she may not want them to be available to? In other words, the implication is that she wanted "veto power" over what was to be available, or not.

    That's it in a nutshell, and the way Pagliano answers it may just determine who our next President will be.


    They should be investigating, and maybe (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:03:26 PM EST
    they are, how those documents, assuming for the sake of argument they were marked Top Secret when they were on her server, got onto her server to begin with. How did they get off the classified system they were on? Someone would have had to transfer them off a secure network, no mean feat to do that without getting caught - should be easy to tell from system logs who did that, and then email them to her. There is no email connection from a classified network to an insecure one.

    Far more likely is that they were classified long after the fact, which is what has been said all along.


    You nailed it (none / 0) (#40)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:07:23 PM EST
    That is the crux of the biscuit
    (to quote Frank Zappa)

    Intelligence sources say many paragraphs in the e mails were lifted word for word from Classified Documents.

    Or all 22 Top Secret e mails were all classified after the fact.

    So, it will play out, and the FBI is supposed to be wrapping this up by May.

    But , considering the possibilities, I think The Bern should keep the pedal to the metal


    Yes, I'm all for having a plan B (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:12:27 PM EST
    I'm sure Bern will be more than thrilled to step up!

    It's (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:18:26 PM EST
    already been established that they were classified after the fact and that it's three emails but 7 or 8 threads on each email.

    If a Republican lifted classified information and sent it to Hillary then they are in big trouble. That would have to be a deliberate act. The things that came in on Hillary's computer she had the decision to decide whether they were classified or not. So you can't say she did something wrong if she is the final arbiter or what is classified or not.

    Yes, I know you're desperate with Trump being the GOP nominee and all.


    False (none / 0) (#48)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:28:44 PM EST
    already been established that they were classified after the fact

    That has not been determined


    It has (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:35:33 PM EST
    already been established numerous times. The entire intelligence committee has seen everyone of these emails and says they are innocuous and that there is nothing that would have come stamped classified in them. It's the same emails that people have been talking about for literally months now about a NYT times article about drones.

    Oh, for crying out loud, Trevor! Just stop. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 08:11:26 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "False. That has not been determined."

    You're the one who's trafficking in misinformation here, and not anybody else. NONE of Mrs. Clinton's cache of emails were EVER designated as classified, prior to the State Dept.'s receipt of the March 17, 2015 request from Judicial Watch per the Freedom of Information Act, asking to examine them.

    The IC IG has since sought to retroactively designate several emails as classified upon their own review of them, prior to agreeing to the State Dept.'s release of the documents to Judicial Watch per FOIA. In many instances, the select emails were designated as such by the IC IG two to three years after Mrs. Clinton's departure, a decision which has just as often been vigorously contested by the State Department's own IG.

    Now, you've been told this over and again, several times by me and more than a few times by others. Further, BTD has written several rather lengthy posts on the subject over the last few months alone.

    And yet here you are, still wasting Open Thread bandwidth by repeatedly trolling in right-wing innuendo, and further alleging criminal wrongdoing by Mrs. Clinton without any proof to that effect. What's it going to take to get you to stop -- a personal cease and desist order issued from the host herself?



    Now Donald (none / 0) (#82)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 08:18:21 PM EST
    I have repeatedly instructed you on this matter,

    No e mail is ever ever designated as classified, as everyone knows sending classified information via e mail is illegal.

    So we can agree upon that, not one e mail sent and stored on the Clinton server had classified markings on it.

    Now here is the tough part for you to conceptualize...the information in the e mail was already designated Classified by another Agency in a Classified document.
    Intelligence agency sources have been cited that complete sections of e mails stored on the CLinton server appear to be lifted verbatim from classified documents.

    The FBI will be interviewing the authors of those e mails and determine where they got the information that they placed in the e mail.

    Don't worry, this will all play out in another 2 months or so.


    Do you realize that it would have been the same (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 08:46:48 PM EST
    problem if that information had been emailed to Clinton's .gov email address? If there is a problem it has nothing to do with her server.

    I believe I have mentioned that repeatedly.


    Trevor (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 09:38:17 PM EST
    is being deliberately obtuse. The good news is Trevor is shooting goose eggs when it comes to being right about his predictions.

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#87)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 05:34:10 AM EST
    I have been saying all along that this is a Criminal Investigation, pretty accurate there.
    While others have called this a nothingburger, a security review.

    Nah, I'm doing all right here


    Oh (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 06:55:08 AM EST
    you said Rubio or Christie was going to be the GOP nominee. Christie is out and Rubio is dead man walking.

    Time to put on your big boy pants Trevor and grow up and quit shopping conspiracy theories and concern trolling. Yeah, I know that's a futile request from a Republican but I'll make it anyway.

    And you were shopping the same thing about Cuomo. You were wrong then too. You would think you would quit making predictions.


    Yes (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:43:14 PM EST
    it does have everything to do with the GOP as they are the ones sending the false stories to the press through the intelligence committee. Diane Feinstein has a copy of the email they sent to the IG ordering him to play this game and that IG was put there by the GOP. However it's also interesting that one of the people pushing this was also a person who sued Hillary and lost when she was a senator from NY.

    Those emails are labeled "top secret" by a hack. One top secret email inadvertently got out past him in and it was an internal memo on travel plans.

    I'm sorry you have to focus on this because the GOP is imploding. But keep wishing and hoping Trevor. The GOP has been trying this same thing and failing for about oh, 37 years now. Good luck. Maybe one day you'll allow the GOP to quit fleecing you.


    The new season of The Americans (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 11:23:12 AM EST
    Looks excellent.  

    yes! and House of Cards drops tomorrow (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    Regardless... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 11:44:22 AM EST
    of any merit to the case (or lack there of), or the seriousness of the charges (or lack there of), if Hillary Clinton is indicted before election day her dreams of the presidency are over.  

    A popular House Rep might get away with winning re-election while under indictment, but I don't think it will fly for a presidential candidate. Plus with the Trump Circus factor, forget it...if it's gonna drop lets hope it drops before the convention so the Dems can make other arrangements.  If it drops in October we are f*cked.


    Well yes, I will agree with this (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    if Hillary Clinton is indicted before election day her dreams of the presidency are over.  

    but I'd say the odds of that happening are about as low as they can be. It is a non-issue.


    You have more faith... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 12:26:29 PM EST
    in the (in)justice system than I do...who knows how politicized the FBI and DOJ are, and who might wanna get famous for taking out a Clinton.  Ya think I got trust issues with Hillary, they pale in comparison to my FBI trust issues!

    You're probably right...and I sure hope you're right.  We don't get a second chance to nominate my boy Bernie, and on the unlikely event we're scrambling at the convention ya know it's gonna be Joe F*ckin' Biden.


    Not to start a real fight (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    but in many ways I'd be happier with Biden than with Bernie. I'd have to think about it more than I am willing to right now though.

    It is not up to the FBI to bring charges. I'd be shocked that the same Justice Department that does not think it can make a case against any of the fraudsters in the financial crisis, or any of the liars in the Bush admin, thinks it can make a case against Hillary Clinton on this issue. Stranger things have happened though, I guess.  


    We don't fight... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 01:28:59 PM EST
    we discuss...other people wanna fight.

    For me, Biden & Hillary are basically the same sh*t... but Jeralyn wouldn't be happy!  I wonder who she would prefer between Sanders and Biden.  


    now THAT is a good question (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    I doubt she even wants to contemplate.

    There is NO WAY (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 01:11:42 PM EST
    Obama would have made not one, but TWO tacit endorsements of her,  and talked Biden out of running, if there was even the SLIGHTEST chance that she was going to be indicted.


    This is a fun parlor game for Republicans, but it is not serious.


    Why??? (none / 0) (#33)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 04:23:01 PM EST
    From Comeys testimony to Congress back in December

    President Obama does not receive briefings about the FBI's investigation into the personal email setup Hillary Clinton used as secretary of State, bureau Director James Comey said on Wednesday.

    As a result, Obama should have no way of knowing how the inquiry is proceeding, Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite the president's apparent dismissal of concerns about impropriety

    Then (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 04:51:59 PM EST
    He wouldn't have said anything.   Isn't that obvious?

    And Joe Biden sure as hell wouldn't have been talked out of running.


    Doesn't (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:26:44 PM EST
    receive briefings doesn't mean he doesn't know what is going on. Briefings would indicate regular updates. Besides even the biggest critics are saying nothing is going to happen because it would involve indicting Condi Rice, the majority of her aides, Colin Powell, the majority of his aides etc.

    ... of a prospective presidential nominee of one of our two major parties during an election year would require prior concurrence of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, unless that prosecutor is determined to end his / her government career on a politically motivated note of professional seppuku.

    If the Dept. of Justice is indeed considering charging someone at the State Dept. with a criminal violation for unauthorized dissemination of classified material via email -- and that's a very big "IF" -- they'd likely be looking much farther down that agency's chain of command at the poor schmuck who first sent it.

    Further, the Dept. of Justice wouldn't target the immediate recipient of that email, any of the people who were CC'd on his / her message, or any officials to whom it was subsequently forwarded, which would include Mrs. Clinton.

    And still further, the retroactive classification of such emails two to three years ex post facto by the Intelligence Community IG, rather than the State Dept. itself, would probably render any subsequent prosecution of any State Dept. personnel highly problematic.

    The indictment and jailing of Hillary Clinton is nothing more than A GOP wet dream. It ain't gonna happen, so the bedwetters on our own side might as well start changing their sheets.



    I'd love to be in that cabinet meeting! (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    Shorter Trevor: (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 11:36:16 AM EST
    Chris Matthews is salivating over it (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 06:38:43 PM EST
    so I'm sure it must be hot hot hot.

    Grayson (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 01:47:13 PM EST
    Since we were talking about him the other day, i thought I would point out that both the President and Vice President made a pretty unusual move and endorsed his primary challeger for Rubio's Senate seat - Patrick Murphy.

    President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have endorsed Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Fla.) to be the Democratic candidate for the Senate in one of the party's most competitive battles this cycle, according to Murphy's campaign.
    The campaign sent a statement to The Huffington Post and other outlets on Wednesday morning that cited Obama's praise for Murphy's work on a range of issues and a statement from Biden calling him a champion for the middle class.

    "The President, the Vice President and I share the same values and commitment -- strengthening Social Security and Medicare for our seniors, protecting a woman's right to choose, and growing America's middle class," Murphy said, per the statement. "Over the past seven years, President Obama and Vice President Biden have been champions for Democrats and hardworking families across our country, and I am humbled and proud to receive their endorsement and campaign shoulder-to-shoulder with them for what we believe in."

    The move snubs Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), Murphy's more liberal rival for the Democratic nomination in Florida's Senate race. Coming the day after presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton largely dominated Super Tuesday primary contests against her rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), it also appeared to be a sign of the party's direction as the general election nears: coalescing behind candidates who are keen to talk about Obama's legacy rather than the revolution Sanders envisions and are more likely to appeal to voters beyond the Democratic base

    Guess they aren't feeling the Bern.

    Patrick Murphy is no prize. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 02:42:20 PM EST
    He is a former Republican who became a Democrat simply to run against an even worse Republican, Allan West. Murphy is the epitome of a DINO.

    He is an unreliable Democratic vote, someone who was always happy to help John Boehner claim "bipartisan support" for some GOP legislation.

    I would not cheer about Obama and Biden throwing in for Murphy.


    I don't think anyone is cheering (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 02:47:35 PM EST
    Just pointing out that the president and vice presudent think a former Republican is better than someone under ethics investigation.

    Actually, I think it has little to (none / 0) (#74)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 06:25:31 PM EST
    nothing to do with whatever ethics charges are pending against Grayson and very much to do with Murphy being, at best, a corporate neo-Dem. Grayson has been just too uncontrollable by the Democratic powers that be.

    Thanks for the memory refresher (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 03:06:39 PM EST
    I should not have needed it...but I did. I remember now why he stuck out in my mind - I could not believe there was not a real FL Dem to contest West. ridiculous.

    Yeah, I'll go with Grayson.


    Obviously... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 03:41:15 PM EST
    they're a big part of the reason we are Bernin'!

    Joe Biden, (D - Credit Card Industry)
    Barack Obama, (D - Chicago School of Economics)


    I guess the Senate primary must be later in (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    the year... I did not see this race on my ballot sample.  Ah, August.

    BREAKING O J NEWS (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 10:52:43 AM EST
    flashing red light......


    I was just watching the mini series this morning.

    Apparently found years ago.  Hmmmmmmmmm

    Found in 1998, according to the (none / 0) (#90)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 11:08:53 AM EST
    story i read. A construction worker at OJ's estate found the blood covered knife, gave it to a cop he saw on the street, and the cop kept it. The cop kept the knife at his home. He did not turn it in to the police department. His plan was to frame it, and hang it.

    This plan was foiled when he recently told another cop about it, and that cop told his superiors.

    What is the deal with the first cop? Is he a complete and total idiot?


    Trivia (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 11:13:09 AM EST
    The lawyer for the successful civil case from the Goldman family is now the lawyer of one Donald Trump in the Trump University case.

    Small world.


    So The Cop... (none / 0) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 11:41:25 AM EST
    ... was thinking a knife used to murder someone would make a pretty cool decoration, but only if he got the case number to put on the frame ?  How is that guy not in jail.

    I mean seriously, this is why OJ was not convicted, the LAPD incompetence as it relates to evidence.

    What if NBS blood is on it, it's not like they can retry OJ and after that book, it's pretty much assumed that he did and the book was his confession.

    But damn that story just refuses to die, and what are the odds that the knife would show up in the same time frame as the series is airing.


    NBC (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 11:44:52 AM EST
    Investigators also trying to confirm the ex-cop's story to determine who'd handled the knife before he obtained it.

    The retired officer told investigators that he went to police at the time and was told it was worthless, and could keep it, the officials said. But when he mentioned it to an LAPD detective recently, the detective told him to turn it over.

    Knives remain an issue with the Simpson case because investigators never found the blade used to stab to death his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, in June 1994 at her rental condo. The owners of a high-end cutlery shop testified that Simpson had purchased a large knife from them weeks before the murder. The Simpson defense team produced a knife that they said was the one he'd bought earlier. That knife was tested and was found to have never been used for anything.


    I'm through with this story. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 02:08:41 PM EST
    People appeared far more enthralled by the real-time soap opera being broadcast live on cable TV, than really interested in any sense of justice for a physically abused woman whose earlier appeals to the authorities for help were literally ignored due to her ex-husband's celebrity, or for the poor guy who had offered to return her mother's glasses from the restaurant where he worked, only to find himself at the wrong place at the wrong time.

    And speaking for myself only, I'm quite certain as to who was personally responsible for all that carnage, any jury verdicts to the contrary notwithstanding. The entire sorry-a$$ed affair from start to finish left a thoroughly rotten taste in my mouth, and very much soured me on my former hometown more than I ever wanted to admit. The sad story of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman was not L.A.'s finest hour and brought out the worst in far too many people. I've really no desire to revisit or relive any of it.



    I Would Hope So... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    ... since OJ basically put out a book detailing what happened 'if he had done it'.  He basically confessed and while he may not have been found guilty, he most certainly is receiving the punishment he deserves, financially and the loss of freedom.

    Whoa. Wish the story said (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    exactly where - like along the route behind Kato's guest house where the bloody glove was found? (Yes, despite the problems with Fuhrman, I do believe he found the glove and did not plant it.)

    Like Donald I have no doubt who the murderer is. But I would like to have the loose ends tied up, and the whereabouts of the knife is one of those.

    I wonder who provided the pristine buck knife the defense turned over as the one OJ had supposedly bought in the weeks before the murders.  


    Me too (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 02:52:14 PM EST
    The defense was very successful in telling the story of how crooked and incompetent the LAPD was, at the same time that within a matter of hours, many people (within the same crooked and incomptent LAPD) managed to be brilliant enough to concoct a grand conspiracy without even knowing if OJ had and alibi or not - and nobody talked.

    People then didn't want to believe that a great sports star / actor would do something so heinous and evil.  Today, OJ would have been convicted on a whole lot less in probably a 2 week trial.


    Who's a progressive? (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 04, 2016 at 02:09:35 PM EST
    Why HRC, of course.

    Hillary Clinton is running for president on an extremely progressive policy platform. This fact has been drowned out somewhat by Bernie Sanders' calls for a social democratic revolution, not to mention the Trumpian drama that's on the verge of shredding the Republican Party to bits. But it's true: While the message hasn't always come across very clearly, Clinton has campaigned on things like universal pre-K, guaranteed paid family leave, a significantly higher minimum wage, debt-free college tuition, and, to fund much of it, higher taxes on the wealthy.

    It still slays me that someone that (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 05, 2016 at 06:41:56 AM EST
    took all the bullets for being a liberal  in the 80s', 90s and beyond - remember when 'the movement'  stopped saying 'liberal' because of all the bullets - now has to  prove her liberal cred. Because to get elected to national office - or even to big state office - in this country you can't rely on support from only liberals, she has found a way to appeal to moderates too.  Damn that woman for being successful.

    The Catholic Church in Michigan (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 05, 2016 at 06:50:52 AM EST
    may expand health care coverage to gay couples (as well as others).

    In a move praised by LGBT advocates, the Catholic Church in Michigan is making changes to its health care plan that could allow gays to get health care for their partners or spouses.

    In a letter sent this week to pastors and employees of the Catholic Church in Michigan, the Michigan Catholic Conference said it is modifying its health care coverage to include legally domiciled adults (LDA), meaning those who are above 18, have lived with the employee for at least six months and are financially interdependent with the employee.

    As long as the person meets those criteria, they will get health care coverage, regardless of their sexual orientation or activity, said a Michigan Catholic Conference official.