The Official Hillary Campaign Machine

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Yes, that is exactly right. He has nothing to prove. He does not need to come in and "prove his innocence."

Testifying would only have the GOPers hoisting him up time and again, threatening him, etc., just to keep their grills on camera and the story on the first page.

But if he proved that this was a non-story, right wing propaganda, "it's just to get at Hillary" and keep it in the news, then all he has to show is that the server was secure or that it did not contain or pass any confidential information as Hillary has already claimed.

If he could prove Hillary correct and make this story go away, wouldn't that be a good thing???

 

[lawgator1]

But if he proved that this was a non-story, right wing propaganda, "it's just to get at Hillary" and keep it in the news, then all he has to show is that the server was secure or that it did not contain or pass any confidential information as Hillary has already claimed.

If he could prove Hillary correct and make this story go away, wouldn't that be a good thing???

LOL.

If the committee was interested in getting facts, you might have a point. Alas. They are not.

 

[AirVol]

LG, lets say you are a prosecutor and the defense has a witness that you can't wait to get on the stand. They decide this witness will plead the 5th. What would be your next move?

This witness may hold key info that is critical to your case.

Would you think this witness has something to hide? Yes or No

 

[Biopsyman]

So ironic that Hillary helped in the being down Nixon as a young lawyer for the cover up... Pay back is a *****

 

[hog88]

LOL.

If the committee was interested in getting facts, you might have a point. Alas. They are not.

The one answering the questions controls the answers. This just might be a case of a guy not wanting to perjure himself as the only way to protect Hillary.

 

[vols4sure]

You are not recognizing the difference between not testifying because you implicate yourself in a crime, versus a reporter for example not naming a source.

The number of people who have been jailed for taking the Fifth is zero. Refusing to name a source is not invoking the Fifth; its usually cloaked in a privilege argument from the First Amendment.

The two are totally different animals.

Not if they give him immunity. Seems like this is the perfect scenario for immunity given that he is taking orders from the SOS.

 

[hog88]

The one answering the questions controls the answers. This just might be a case of a guy not wanting to perjure himself as the only way to protect Hillary.

How many Nixon aides plead the 5th?

 

[lawgator1]

LG, lets say you are a prosecutor and the defense has a witness that you can't wait to get on the stand. They decide this witness will plead the 5th. What would be your next move?

This witness may hold key info that is critical to your case.

Would you think this witness has something to hide? Yes or No

It doesn't matter what I think. And as I understand it ordinarily the jury will not be told of it in a criminal case.

 

[lawgator1]

Not if they give him immunity. Seems like this is the perfect scenario for immunity given that he is taking orders from the SOS.

Its unlikely. For the committee, the political value of him taking the Fifth Amendment, and implying as so many of you have here that it is proof of wrongdoing by HRC, far outweighs the benefit of actually getting any information from him.

I'll have grounds
More relative than this—the play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.


Hamlet, Act 2, scene 2


​

 

[bamawriter]

Its unlikely. For the committee, the political value of him taking the Fifth Amendment, and implying as so many of you have here that it is proof of wrongdoing by HRC, far outweighs the benefit of actually getting any information from him.

As I said before, that's only true if he takes the fifth rather than saying "it was a pretty standard install." The theatrics are only valuable if the truth isn't damning.

 

[hog88]

As I said before, that's only true if he takes the fifth rather than saying "it was a pretty standard install." The theatrics are only valuable if the truth isn't damning.

This.

 

[lawgator1]

As I said before, that's only true if he takes the fifth rather than saying "it was a pretty standard install." The theatrics are only valuable if the truth isn't damning.

Whatever he says, no matter how routine or vanilla, it would be spun as a criminal violation by the GOP committee in order to continue the narrative of criminal wrongdoing by HRC.

The witness knows this. His lawyer knows this.

I daresay even you know this. Though you won't admit it.

 

[bamawriter]

Whatever he says, no matter how routine or vanilla, it would be spun as a criminal violation by the GOP committee in order to continue the narrative of criminal wrongdoing by HRC.

The witness knows this. His lawyer knows this.

I daresay even you know this. Though you won't admit it.

I'm not denying it at all. The Republicans would absolutely try and spin it. Fox News and talk radio would as well.

But there is only so far you can spin "it was a pretty standard install." It's much harder to spin that than taking the Fifth.

 

[hog88]

Whatever he says, no matter how routine or vanilla, it would be spun as a criminal violation by the GOP committee in order to continue the narrative of criminal wrongdoing by HRC.

The witness knows this. His lawyer knows this.

I daresay even you know this. Though you won't admit it.

Or he could come in and say I used this and this as security measures, no I have no idea what it was going to be used for ext ext.

 

[lawgator1]

I'm not denying it at all. The Republicans would absolutely try and spin it. Fox News and talk radio would as well.

But there is only so far you can spin "it was a pretty standard install." It's much harder to spin that than taking the Fifth.

But that's why he takes the Fifth. Since there is nothing he can say that would be taken as vindicating either himself or HRC, and as he knows that whatever he says they would spin it that way, then why even go down that road?

The committee is subpoenaing him because they know that is what he will do. They know this in advance, and they know how they will be able to make it look. This will be how Gowdy and others get on Fox for the next week or so.

Then, as the Dem debate is nearing, they'll subpoena someone else, knowing that the same thing is going to happen. And they will stomp their feet and pound the desk in dramatic fashion, about how they are not able to get the information they need (and don't care about, in the slightest).

You can basically script the whole thing out.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Shrinking from being accountable has become the standard in the Obama Administration. From top to bottom they're pretty much crooks.

 

[hog88]

But that's why he takes the Fifth. Since there is nothing he can say that would be taken as vindicating either himself or HRC, and as he knows that whatever he says they would spin it that way, then why even go down that road?

The committee is subpoenaing him because they know that is what he will do. They know this in advance, and they know how they will be able to make it look. This will be how Gowdy and others get on Fox for the next week or so.

Then, as the Dem debate is nearing, they'll subpoena someone else, knowing that the same thing is going to happen. And they will stomp their feet and pound the desk in dramatic fashion, about how they are not able to get the information they need (and don't care about, in the slightest).

You can basically script the whole thing out.

Why should he be worried about vindicating HRC?

 

[Gramps]

Why should he be worried about vindicating HRC?

$$$$

 

[bamawriter]

But that's why he takes the Fifth. Since there is nothing he can say that would be taken as vindicating either himself or HRC, and as he knows that whatever he says they would spin it that way, then why even go down that road?

You don't take the Fifth when you aren't able to vindicate yourself or another person (and I fail to see how he couldn't vindicate himself if he had no knowledge of how the server would be used, and HRC really isn't his problem, is she?). You take the Fifth when failing to do so would implicate you or someone else.

But of course you knew that.

 

[lawgator1]

Why should he be worried about vindicating HRC?

Someone else was suggesting that, not I.

You don't take the Fifth when you aren't able to vindicate yourself or another person (and I fail to see how he couldn't vindicate himself if he had no knowledge of how the server would be used, and HRC really isn't his problem, is she?). You take the Fifth when failing to do so would implicate you or someone else.

But of course you knew that.

No, you take the Fifth when you know that there is no value to you in making yourself the poster boy for the GOP vicarious attacks on HRC.

He could come in and say he was off that day and someone on the committee would spin that as criminal. He could come in and say he didn't even know what it was for -- again, he'd be hoisted up by GOP committee members as complicit.

The issuance of the subpoena was intended to get this very reaction. If you can't admit that, then there is no hope for you ever being objective, about anything.

 

[AirVol]

He doesn't want to be the next entry in the Clinton dead pool.

 

[theFallGuy]

But that's why he takes the Fifth. Since there is nothing he can say that would be taken as vindicating either himself or HRC, and as he knows that whatever he says they would spin it that way, then why even go down that road?

The committee is subpoenaing him because they know that is what he will do. They know this in advance, and they know how they will be able to make it look. This will be how Gowdy and others get on Fox for the next week or so.

Then, as the Dem debate is nearing, they'll subpoena someone else, knowing that the same thing is going to happen. And they will stomp their feet and pound the desk in dramatic fashion, about how they are not able to get the information they need (and don't care about, in the slightest).

You can basically script the whole thing out.

.

 

[lawgator1]

Don't feed Gowdy after midnight or get water on him.

 

[bamawriter]

No, you take the Fifth when you know that there is no value to you in making yourself the poster boy for the GOP vicarious attacks on HRC.

I didn't know that the privileges of the Fifth Amendment had never been invoked by anyone, at any time, until this investigation started.

I guess you learn something new everyday.

He could come in and say he was off that day and someone on the committee would spin that as criminal.

Criminal how? If he was off, and didn't complete the order, it seems like he'd be in good shape.

He could come in and say he didn't even know what it was for -- again, he'd be hoisted up by GOP committee members as complicit.

Perhaps. But again, if the answer is "it was a pretty standard install," that's much harder to spin than invoking one's right not to implicate oneself, especially if there is nothing to implicate.

The issuance of the subpoena was intended to get this very reaction. If you can't admit that, then there is no hope for you ever being objective, about anything.

I'm willing to stipulate to that. But if that's what the purpose of the subpoena was, why not turn it around on them and show up in front of the committee and say "Look, I got a work order to move the server from the soon-to-close campaign office to the Clintons' private residence. That's it. I received no special instructions, and no one discussed with me how the server would be used going forward,"? If that's the truth, then pleading the Fifth only allows the GOP to win this game of political chicken. He's at no risk of facing prosecution either way.

 

[lawgator1]

I didn't know that the privileges of the Fifth Amendment had never been invoked by anyone, at any time, until this investigation started.

I guess you learn something new everyday.



Criminal how? If he was off, and didn't complete the order, it seems like he'd be in good shape.



Perhaps. But again, if the answer is "it was a pretty standard install," that's much harder to spin than invoking one's right not to implicate oneself, especially if there is nothing to implicate.



I'm willing to stipulate to that. But if that's what the purpose of the subpoena was, why not turn it around on them and show up in front of the committee and say "Look, I got a work order to move the server from the soon-to-close campaign office to the Clintons' private residence. That's it. I received no special instructions, and no one discussed with me how the server would be used going forward,"? If that's the truth, then pleading the Fifth only allows the GOP to win this game of political chicken. He's at no risk of facing prosecution either way.

Oh, first of all I agree that the Dems do the same thing with their committees when the roles are reversed.

And I tend to agree with you that a prosecution of him is unlikely. But even a small risk of that outweighs the completely nonexistent benefit to him of testifying, even if its mundane.

For one thing, the sheer expense of preparing and appearing, in terms of lawyer fees, would be daunting.