• 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!

GOP chairman demands interview with Clinton IT aides after Reddit posts

Harry Guerrilla

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The House Science Committee is demanding interviews this week with employees of the IT firm that managed Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Two of those employees, Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton, recently pleaded the Fifth Amendment when subpoenaed to testify about the server before the House Oversight Committee.
Click to expand...
“This raises significant concerns that materials directly related to the Committee’s investigation and responsive to its outstanding requests are being actively destroyed in an attempt to conceal relevant information from coming to light,” Smith writes.Smith threatened to issue a subpoena if the interviews with Combetta and Thornton are not scheduled by noon on Friday.
Click to expand...
GOP chairman demands interview with Clinton IT aides after Reddit posts | TheHill

This looks like it's heating up.
Paul Combetta's immunity should compel him to testify, if he doesn't the FBI can indite him.
 
Haha. Hillary should have been indicted so long ago. Corrupt Democrat administrations will cover for her though. Nothing is going to happen. If she wins the first thing she should do is lay a wreath on Nixon's grave and apologize to Nixon for resigning over something far far far more minescule compared to her stuff.
 
apdst said:
As long as Loretta Lynch is AG, nothing will happen. The tarmac pow-wow took care of that.
Click to expand...

She can only do so much if there's actual testimony revealing a blatant effort to obstruct any investigation and to destroy any damning evidence after it was requested. Also, betraying Clinton isn't as scary when she isn't predicted to steamroll the November elections anymore, and momentum is definitely shifting away from her. The dimmer her immediate political future looks, the looser certain sets of lips will get. This could turn into an avalanche, but every pebble that could start it is still tightly guarded. It will only take 1 slip though...... perhaps Combetta's immunity will be enough to pry one loose.

If the tarmac meeting prevents her from taking any action, someone else should be able to act in her stead. If the AG recuses herself, that shouldn't equal "charges are now unprosecutable". Although it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case, the Clintons knew it, and counted on it.
 
shagg said:
She can only do so much if there's actual testimony revealing a blatant effort to obstruct any investigation and to destroy any damning evidence after it was requested. Also, betraying Clinton isn't as scary when she isn't predicted to steamroll the November elections anymore, and momentum is definitely shifting away from her. The dimmer her immediate political future looks, the looser certain sets of lips will get. This could turn into an avalanche, but every pebble that could start it is still tightly guarded. It will only take 1 slip though...... perhaps Combetta's immunity will be enough to pry one loose.

If the tarmac meeting prevents her from taking any action, someone else should be able to act in her stead. If the AG recuses herself, that shouldn't equal "charges are now unprosecutable". Although it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case, the Clintons knew it, and counted on it.
Click to expand...

She can order a criminal investigation. She can press charges. But, we know that isn't going to happen.
 
The House Science Committee is demanding interviews this week with employees of the IT firm that managed Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Two of those employees, Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton, recently pleaded the Fifth Amendment when subpoenaed to testify about the server before the House Oversight Committee.
Click to expand...

Why are they demanding interviews with people who have already pleaded the 5th? So they can plead the 5th again?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Why are they demanding interviews with people who have already pleaded the 5th? So they can plead the 5th again?
Click to expand...

Well this is new evidence.
If he doesn't disclose all factually true information he can lose immunity and be prosecuted.

IF this is true, his reddit post shows intent, which Comey says was lacking from their investigation and why he didn't recommend charges.
 
apdst said:
She can order a criminal investigation. She can press charges. But, we know that isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... turns out I was wrong, she didn't recuse herself. It was strongly suggested that she do so by both parties, but she came out and said she will not shortly after. So she's still the one who has to pull the trigger. I have to agree with your earlier assertion, nothing will happen with her there. The fact she refused to recuse herself suggests she wanted to steer things a certain way, imho.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Why are they demanding interviews with people who have already pleaded the 5th? So they can plead the 5th again?
Click to expand...

The 5th Amendment doesn't protect people from answering non-incriminating questions. Doing so is obstruction of justice.
 
shagg said:
Hmmm.... turns out I was wrong, she didn't recuse herself. It was strongly suggested that she do so by both parties, but she came out and said she will not shortly after. So she's still the one who has to pull the trigger. I have to agree with your earlier assertion, nothing will happen with her there. The fact she refused to recuse herself suggests she wanted to steer things a certain way, imho.
Click to expand...

The fix is in. Jack Fabulous just asked why Congress want to interview them. The answer is, somebody has to conduct an investigation, because we know the DOJ and the FBI are in on the fix.
 
shagg said:
She can only do so much if there's actual testimony revealing a blatant effort to obstruct any investigation and to destroy any damning evidence after it was requested. Also, betraying Clinton isn't as scary when she isn't predicted to steamroll the November elections anymore, and momentum is definitely shifting away from her. The dimmer her immediate political future looks, the looser certain sets of lips will get. This could turn into an avalanche, but every pebble that could start it is still tightly guarded. It will only take 1 slip though...... perhaps Combetta's immunity will be enough to pry one loose.

If the tarmac meeting prevents her from taking any action, someone else should be able to act in her stead. If the AG recuses herself, that shouldn't equal "charges are now unprosecutable". Although it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case, the Clintons knew it, and counted on it.
Click to expand...

That's the thing with being corrupt with other people involved.
It only takes one slip, one person to spill the beans by accident, for the whole house to fall in.

At some point, something has to give.
 
apdst said:
The 5th Amendment doesn't protect people from answering non-incriminating questions. Doing so is obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

That sounds like tyranny to me. Obstruction should not extend to passive action. Govt can not compel you to speak.
 
jonny5 said:
That sounds like tyranny to me. Obstruction should not extend to passive action. Govt can not compel you to speak.
Click to expand...

Immunity is there so you will answer self incriminating questions.
Pleading the 5th with immunity would be bonkers, unless it's a very limited type, that doesn't cover other crimes.
 
reinoe said:
There's really no point though. Unless there's some legal way to compel him to answer then he'll just clam up. The GOP is threatening him with jail time but Hillary is threatening the lives of him and his family. What's he really gonna choose?
Click to expand...

Well, with all the heat on him now, he or his family suddenly dying would be highly suspicious.
I'm not really sure we should entertain the whole Hillary death list stuff though.

If the FBI knew about this stuff and they were trying to cover up for them, none of this would of been found.
I think they (HRC and Co) believed that they had pulled a fast one and he stupidly forgot about his reddit postings.
 
digsbe said:
Haha. Hillary should have been indicted so long ago. Corrupt Democrat administrations will cover for her though. Nothing is going to happen. If she wins the first thing she should do is lay a wreath on Nixon's grave and apologize to Nixon for resigning over something far far far more minescule compared to her stuff.
Click to expand...

Nixon: ordered a criminal break in and cover-up of the break-in.

Clinton: showed the same careless disregard of "confidential" information as the last five SoS's....
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's the thing with being corrupt with other people involved.
It only takes one slip, one person to spill the beans by accident, for the whole house to fall in.

At some point, something has to give.
Click to expand...

Not true. It takes lots, because....plausible deniability. This IT guy acted on his own, he was given no such orders, I have no recollection.


Gonzalez said " I have no recollection" over 60 times in one hearing, or something like that, and nothing happened to him.

At the end of the day, Clinton probably never did tell anyone to wipe the those emails. But I'll wager my bottom dollar that the folks working for her understood all the same that employment terms were the result of failure to adequately cover the boss.


Like I said once before...no one is ever TOLD to cheat...but people cheat all the same. Look at VW. Those engineers were never told to cheat, but they did. Why? Cuz they knew it would be their jobs if they didn't.
 
Mr Person said:
Nixon: ordered a criminal break in and cover-up of the break-in.

Clinton: showed the same careless disregard of "confidential" information as the last five SoS's....
Click to expand...

And then lied about it endlessly over the course of her entire presidential campaign.


It's not the act, everyone screws up from time to time. It's the attempt at a cover up that damns you in the public eye.

You **** up, just own it, learn from it, and move on.
 
KevinKohler said:
Not true. It takes lots, because....plausible deniability. This IT guy acted on his own, he was given no such orders, I have no recollection.


Gonzalez said " I have no recollection" over 60 times in one hearing, or something like that, and nothing happened to him.

At the end of the day, Clinton probably never did tell anyone to wipe the those emails. But I'll wager my bottom dollar that the folks working for her understood all the same that employment terms were the result of failure to adequately cover the boss.


Like I said once before...no one is ever TOLD to cheat...but people cheat all the same. Look at VW. Those engineers were never told to cheat, but they did. Why? Cuz they knew it would be their jobs if they didn't.
Click to expand...

This time though, we have his own words that "higher ups don't want" where he is saying other people ordered him to do this.
Their original lawyers were supplied by HRC and probably coached him how to answer.

This is all my speculation at this point, with a little fact.
 
digsbe said:
Haha. Hillary should have been indicted so long ago. Corrupt Democrat administrations will cover for her though. Nothing is going to happen. If she wins the first thing she should do is lay a wreath on Nixon's grave and apologize to Nixon for resigning over something far far far more minescule compared to her stuff.
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
Nixon: ordered a criminal break in and cover-up of the break-in.

Clinton: showed the same careless disregard of "confidential" information as the last five SoS's....
Click to expand...

KevinKohler said:
And then lied about it endlessly over the course of her entire presidential campaign.

It's not the act, everyone screws up from time to time. It's the attempt at a cover up that damns you in the public eye.

You **** up, just own it, learn from it, and move on.
Click to expand...



That doesn't make her Nixon's equivalent. That just makes her a damned liar. Nixon was sub-human scum that would cause hell to rot if he were sent there to rot himself. Watergate was just the tip of the chudfest with that one.

The trouble is that her opponent is just as much of a damned liar if not more so. So, being a damned liar really isn't a valid criterion for choosing between candidates, at least if you want to vote for one of the two with a realistic shot at election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom