Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server

ipatent · Mar 3, 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...21e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

This looks like a significant development, but I have a hard time believing she is the target at this late date. Maybe they are investigating a hacker, who could be anyone from foreign intelligence agencies, political dirty tricksters to jealous husbands of Bill's girls.

ETcallhome · Mar 3, 2016

ipatent said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...21e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

This looks like a significant development, but I have a hard time believing she is the target at this late date. Maybe they are investigating a hacker, who could be anyone from foreign intelligence agencies, political dirty tricksters to jealous husbands of Bill's girls.

they don't grant immunity unless they are trying to indict somebody up the food chain

Clubber Lang · Mar 3, 2016

ETcallhome said:
they don't grant immunity unless they are trying to indict somebody up the food chain

We can only hope!

ETcallhome · Mar 3, 2016

Clubber Lang said:
We can only hope!

I'm sure Hillary is well insulated

They gave Oliver North immunity, but they never could get to Reagan

and if you are really good, the guy that gets the immunity is the fall guy

Max E. · Mar 3, 2016

Seems like a Dog and Pony show to me, they pretend they are trying to get to the bottom of it by granting this guy immunity, he would have had immunity regardless imo, all the guy did was setup an Email server for Hillary, Hillary was the one who chose to use it do to business on it that included top secret information.

I cant see what they could have even charged the guy with even if they wanted too, its not against the law to setup an email server for someone, it would be the equivalent of trying to charge the IT guy at enron because they did nefarious business over their email accounts.

fhl · Mar 3, 2016

Max E. Pad said:
Seems like a Dog and Pony show to me, they pretend they are trying to get to the bottom of it by granting this guy immunity, he would have had immunity regardless imo, all the guy did was setup an Email server for Hillary, Hillary was the one who chose to use it do to business on it that included top secret information.

I cant see what they could have even charged the guy with even if they wanted too, its not against the law to setup an email server for someone, it would be the equivalent of trying to charge the IT guy at enron because they did nefarious business over their email accounts.

Immunity from being Vince Fostered.

Scataphagos · Mar 3, 2016

Max E. Pad said:
Seems like a Dog and Pony show to me

Likely they will find a way to throw her aids under the bus and put the blame on them... while "above the law Hillary" gets off scot-free.

jem · Mar 3, 2016

I am very encouraged by the immunity deal.

She could have said she was not a techie and just told this guy to to set up the system to State Dept standards. That would have been a acceptable defense from her crime family in this election environment.

Now, that defense is clearly not going work. This guy got immunity - so he is not going to claim he was told to set the system up to proper security standards and he blundered due to ignorance. We now can deduce he knew this server and system was not set up to meet security standards... and now we also know he was directed to set it up incorrectly.

People up the chain are now at risk for serious prison time. Their attorneys are now telling them there is an FBI criminal target and someone is going to prison. More roll overs may commence. It could get very serious.

Hillary's people are talking to Obama about a pardon in exchange for not bringing him and Jarrett into it.

ipatent · Mar 3, 2016

Maybe the IT guy put a backdoor in for someone, and they're going in that direction. Has to be some reason why the likes of Biden (who should know) stayed out of the race. Not that he knew of a backdoor, but was of the impression that Hillary was not the main target.

Ricter · Mar 3, 2016

jem said:
We now can deduce he knew this server and system was not set up to meet security standards... and now we also know he was directed to set it up incorrectly.

The first is possible, maybe probable (which would explain requesting immunity), but the second does not necessarily follow, though I'm sure you really really want it to.