Posted on 06/02/2016 6:31:22 AM PDT by xzins
Crooked is as crooked does – and Hillary Clinton has a Master’s degree.
From BizPac Review:
…
Former State Department aide for Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, blocked specific questions about Clinton’s private email server, citing attorney-client privilege, saying that she is now Clinton’s attorney, according to the Daily Mail.
Mills’ attorney repeatedly shut down questioning from Judicial Watch attorney Ramona Cotca, the group that has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against Clinton, claiming that the former chief of staff did not have to divulge information that she learned after the fact as Clinton’s attorney.
In other questioning, though, Mills said she could not recall any instances where the former secretary of state or her top aides spoke with IT aide Bryan Pagliano, who set up Clinton’s private email server, according to the Hill.
“In my presence, I don’t recall occasions where he interacted with the secretary,” Mills said. “In my presence, I don’t recall him engaging with folks in the secretary’s office.”
Nothing to see here, folks.
Move along.
Just Hillary being Hillary – doing whatever she can to skirt the law.
If the FBI can’t nab Clinton for her malfeasance regarding her private server, what hope do we have?
#OhHillNo
She should be in grave danger of that. So should Huma, Jake Sullivan, Patrick Kennedy, Pagliano & a bunch of others.
It is also quite apparent that more than a few people in the State Department knew of Hilly using personal email. They said & did nothing .... if they were enough of an “underling”, they were told never to speak of it. They should also be in jeopardy under the statutes that apply to the handling of classified info. Hilly has sucked a lot of the State Department into the big black hole of law breaking with her .... unfortunately, the “house cleaning” that State needs & the penalties Hilly should face, probably won’t happen under Obama’s DOJ. What Hilly did was MASSIVE ... worst security breach/leak in the country’s history.
Hillary has done this once before, blurring the lines between public servant and personal attorney in order to claim attorney-client privilege when questioned.
What was the guy’s name again??
Oh, yeah. Vince Foster.
These people are so corrupt and so crooked, and it is so obvious, and America is so manipulated.
It boggles my mind that a thinking middle class American, liberal or conservative, would support someone with a multi-billion dollar foundation, quarter to half million dollar speaking bribes, and the blood of Americans on her hands due to faulty handling of national secrets and downright cowardly absence during crises.
Why would a liberal not look elsewhere? How could anyone sell their soul to this stuff and keep quiet about it?
Sounds to me like a huge conflict of interest. Donald should have fun with this Crookes Hillary episode.
The sanitation department lawyer...
Mills is dirty. Really dirty.
Pod People, liberals are.
Wouldn’t you think that somewhere there’d be a judge that would throw this out?
Apparently it is, for the most part, which indicates what this formerly great nation has become.
They don’t even know what’s going on. It’s not being reported to them.
Anyone with a gram of brain matter and who is not willfully blind knows what's going on, despite the media blackout. They just don't care.
I admit that I don’t like to read the liberal take on things, but I read it, see it, hear it....and reject it.
Answer: Yes.
Comment: Look what is currently the President. As long as the crook promises Freebies to the alien invaders the crook will be elected. Electing crooks is what the aliens are used to in their home country "Diversity" merely brings homeland vices to the U.S.
But how do you read that she runs a charitable foundation that is lucky to spend 10% of its proceeds on charity, but hits a guy for giving 100% of the money he raised for vets to vets...how do you read that and explain it away?
Isn’t such a blatant conflict of interest grounds for disbarment?
First, there is a clear conflict of interest here that prevents the attorney client privilege from existing. Second, during the relevant period of time, both Clinton and Mills were employed by the government of the United States, and there could be no attorney-client privilege as between them (there may have been executive privileges and state secrets privileges, but that’s different). Third, the attorney-client privilege does not apply when the attorney is complicit in criminal acts. In other words, John Gotti’s attorneys could not tell him how to whack his enemies, and claim it was a privileged communication.
This is so transparently criminal.
But what about the millions and millions of middle class working people that are voting for these crooks. How does a thinking person do that?
Many years ago a very smart man told me:
"Judges are Lawyers who wear robes and they all are buddies and routinely go golfing together. And you should never trust any of them because they are all members of the oldest Old Boys Club and they have one unifying goal, to protect the legal racket they have created!"
I have several friends who are lawyers and one who is a retired judge and when I ask them about the above they just wink and smile and change the subject.
As an employee of the United States Department of State, Mills was Counselor to the Secretary of State; it is unclear under the Federal Rules of Evidence whether Attorney–client privilege applies to these communications.[20] Law Professor Patricia Salkin writes in The Urban Lawyer that government lawyers would be well advised to caution their government clients, particularly if the client is believed to be an individual public official, about the uncertainty of the privilege for what may be about to be disclosed [21] Mill's attorney raised this protection in May 2016, under questioning by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with the e-mail investigation.[22] In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reiterated that government lawyers may not exercise an attorney-client privilege in an effort to shield information from a grand jury.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Mills#Attorney-Client_Privilege
It would be if I were the judge. No way I’d allow that privilege to stand for a lawyer that was also involved in the suspected activity.
But it would take years to be litigated if anyone complained. At least it would take until after the election.
Joined at the hip region.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.