• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top Clinton aide Mills reportedly walks out of FBI interview about emails

I'm not sure what you mean.

What I' saying in that post is that everyone has the 5th Amendment right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel. Using that right can have adverse political optics and impact the person negatively in public opinion, but not legally.

Look, I feel that they are all (except for maybe the guy that was granted immunity) hiding the facts that the law was broken. However, the burden is on the state to prove they broke the law, not on the people being investigated (including Hillary Clinton) to prove they did not.

I get your point, but in a public employed position, the standards are different. There's nothing illegal about setting up a server or deleting e-mails in practice. But when it's the state's business, and not your own, it could be. And as an employee, you should be required to answer these questions, or resign your position. If Hillary does this, it should disqualify her for president.
 
If they're perfectly legal, what's to hide?

Someone just needs to assure Hillary that none of us want to see her yoga poses.
 
I could ask the same about you and allowing police to come look through your house.

It really depends on whether you have a server in your house that contains classified documents...
 
It's happened before that the FBI had the goods on people, arrested them, showed their evidence to Justice Dept. prosecutors who agreed they had an airtight case and should indict these people--and then saw the whole thing fixed by higher officials. Read about the Amerasia affair of 1945. A foreign service officer named Robert Service had been living in Chungking with two housemates, one another U.S. official and the other a Chinese, who were both Soviet agents. When Service returned to the U.S. for several months in late 1944, he contacted two more senior officials in the State and Treasury Depts., both later proven to be Soviet moles.

Go-betweens also arranged for Service to meet a man named Philip Jaffe. Jaffe was an ardent Marxist with plenty of money who had a longtime interest in China. In the late 1930's, he had gone there with several other U.S. comrades and met with Mao Tse-Tung. Jaffe was the publisher of an obscure journal of Far East affairs called Amerasia. The OSS had discovered in early 1945 that the contents of one of its secret documents had appeared in this journal almost verbatim. When it searched Jaffe's offices, it found evidence implicating several other people, some private and some connected with the State Dept. State then called in the FBI, which started closely watching and listening in on Jaffe. And so when Service met Jaffe in a D.C. hotel room, their conversation was recorded. The two met several more times, and Service went to New York, where he hobnobbed with the people the OSS suspected were subversives.

FBI agents observed a five-hour meeting at Jaffe's house, attended by the head of the Communist Party USA and a known Chinese Communist agent. And they observed and heard Jaffe refer to meeting a known Soviet spy at the Soviet Embassy. The FBI then searched Jaffe's New York offices, where it found about fifty secret military documents it had overheard Service offering to provide. It then arrested Jaffe, Service, and four others its observations had implicated. But the fix was in. Conversations involving senior State Department officials and Truman's Attorney General himself were recorded, in which they arranged to fix things to get Service off.

A grand jury was convened, but the prosecutors rigged the game by presenting only the most innocuous parts of the evidence and downplaying them. They portrayed Service and the others as having, at the worst, used poor judgment in an attempt to help a journalist. And all six of the people arrested were no-billed. Years later, when this scandal began to come out, administration officials then lied through their teeth to cover up the earlier cover-up.

here is a more accurate version of events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerasia
 
I get your point, but in a public employed position, the standards are different.
True, but not regarding Constitutional Rights.
There's nothing illegal about setting up a server or deleting e-mails in practice. But when it's the state's business, and not your own, it could be.
Oh, it is, not just maybe, if we're talking about using the private server for official business. (18 USC) It also could be seen as prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to defraud the government and circumvent existing document preservation laws as well.
And as an employee, you should be required to answer these questions, or resign your position.
Not really. They cannot and should not be fired for simply utilizing their Constitutional Rights. Now, the government has to do their job. For the Attorney General's Office to agree that certain subject are off limits just adds to the miscarriage of justice. Thank goodness the FBI said "screw that" and asked the questions, however, based on what the article said, after the interviewee came back in, the question was not answered or asked again.
If Hillary does this, it should disqualify her for president.
As far as you and I are concerned, it probably would. As far as her supporters, for some it may, but the hard core Hillary supporters will just write it off as part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy." As far as the law is concerned, well, no.
 
here is a more accurate version of events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerasia

That is false. Everything I wrote is entirely accurate. Your Wikipedia whitewash, whoever wrote it, is full of falsehoods, starting with the claim that Service was involved with passing only eight documents which contained no really sensitive information. In fact he provided Jaffe with about fifty, and a substantial percentage of them dealt with military secrets. It also lies by omission in conveniently making no mention whatever o the conspiracy by the powerful, influential persons I mentioned to fix the proceedings. Justice Dept. prosecutors who evaluated the evidence believed it was very solid, as did Director Hoover. The claim that the thing was dropped because the evidence had been illegally obtained is a canard, part of the effort to cover for government officials involved in subversion. They had good reason to cover things up. At least one of the people involved, Lauchlin Currie, the main White House assistant on Far East matters, was a Soviet agent who shows up in the Venona cables under his code name "Page."

A central figure in the coverup, Thomas Corcoran, had been prominent in helping to implement the New Deal and was well connected. The FBI, at President Truman's request and for reasons unrelated to the Amerasia affair, had been surveilling him for some time. So we know exactly what was said in his conversations with others in this felonious conspiracy. Currie was one of them. So was James McGranery, a senior Justice Dept. official. So was his boss, the newly appointed Attorney General Tom Clark. And so was Robert Hitchcock, a high-powered New York lawyer with connections at the Justice Dept. Kate Mitchell, the co-editor of [/I]Amerasia[/I] and one of the Communist sympathizers who had been arrested, pulled strings with her uncle, a influential lawyer who knew Hitchcock, to have him brought into the case. (Hitchock later went to work for the same prestigious Buffalo law firm in which Mitchell's uncle was a partner.)

The main concern of the conspirators in the cover-up was to help Service, who was directly and closely connected to several federal officials we now know were Communists working for the Soviet Union. That meant the damning information about the others arrested also had to be suppressed, so they got a free ride on his coattails instead of being prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act, as they deserved to be. The thing was a fix from the start, in which senior officials in the Truman administration are caught red-handed, on audiotape, engaging in federal felonies related to subverting justice. Further proof of that is that years later, when the coverup looked like it might come to the public's attention, even more lies were piled on by administration officials to cover up the cover-up. Whatever leftist hack gave you your five-minute Wikipedia "education" on the matter is full of applesauce.
 
Last edited:
Seriously?

I'm not the Secretary of State working in public service in representation of the American people. I'm not privileged to top secret information. I don't speak on behalf of my country to foreign ambassadors and statesman.

And the police wouldn't find anything in my house anyway.

They would if they wanted to.
 
The reason you hire a lawyer is because the lawyer is smart enough to know how dumb this line of thinking is, legally speaking.

What I don't understand is who's privilege is being protected?

Was Mills Clinton's attorney?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065855405 said:
Deflect much?

Refuse to think about the logical conclusion of an argument?
 
What I don't understand is who's privilege is being protected?

Was Mills Clinton's attorney?

No, the attorney in this situation would be representing Mills.
 
Top Clinton aide Mills reportedly walks out of FBI interview about emails | Fox News



Why would Mills need to claim attorney-client privilege over simple e-mails?

So you would simply walk in and talk to investigators without a second thought thinking that because you did nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about, more than one person ended up being charged and even convicted thinking exactly the same thing. There is a reason we have rights and should take full advantage of all of them, maybe you should consider that before Speculating what any sidebar meetings with their attorney mean.
 
What I don't understand is who's privilege is being protected?

Was Mills Clinton's attorney?


No, the attorney in this situation would be representing Mills.

Per the media article, "Mills, an attorney herself, was not supposed to be asked questions about the procedure used to produce emails to the State Department because it was considered confidential as an example of attorney-client privilege."

I am here because none of this makes sense to me. The way that it is being reported, Mills had to be the legal representative of Hillary Clinton at the time of the "email producing process." Otherwise, asking questions about it couldn't be legally off limits "because of privilege" since privilege allows attorneys to withhold information pertaining to clients NOT clients to withhold things they have discussed with their attorneys.

And so, I want to know, how long did Mills act as Clinton's attorney? When did the "attorney-client relationship" begin and end? It is highly unethical for a Chief of staff to the Secretary of State to simultaneously serve as attorney to an individual employee of that same state dept. This seems like it should be a much larger story because of the privilege issue. There is no way that it is anywhere near ethical that Mills and Clinton had an attorney-client relationship.
 
Its an interesting approach. "I cannot discuss how I determined to comply with the order because that would violate attorney-client privilege" How does one prove you actually complied if you say you can't talk about it?

IMO, they should be told that they can use the 5th if they don't wish to discuss an issue, but they can't hide behind attorney/client privilege... I think that's all this tactic is - a way to avoid using the 5th and the stigma that comes with it.
 
Per the media article, "Mills, an attorney herself, was not supposed to be asked questions about the procedure used to produce emails to the State Department because it was considered confidential as an example of attorney-client privilege."

I am here because none of this makes sense to me. The way that it is being reported, Mills had to be the legal representative of Hillary Clinton at the time of the "email producing process." Otherwise, asking questions about it couldn't be legally off limits "because of privilege" since privilege allows attorneys to withhold information pertaining to clients NOT clients to withhold things they have discussed with their attorneys.

And so, I want to know, how long did Mills act as Clinton's attorney? When did the "attorney-client relationship" begin and end? It is highly unethical for a Chief of staff to the Secretary of State to simultaneously serve as attorney to an individual employee of that same state dept. This seems like it should be a much larger story because of the privilege issue. There is no way that it is anywhere near ethical that Mills and Clinton had an attorney-client relationship.

That's what didn't make sense to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom