Clinton aides unite on legal strategy, not worried about legal jeopardy

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Robisan, Apr 1, 2016.

  1. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #1
    The real money quote is at the bottom from Joseph diGenova, "a former U.S. attorney-turned-right-leaning legal commentator." diGenova is as partisan as they come, but he's also a high profile wired/connected DC lawyer. As a former US Attorney, he knows that if FBI/Justice had a case against these people the Justice Dept. would not allow this joint legal arrangement. He pretty much says that this indicates there won't be indictments.

    Additionally, you can see that the attorney, Beth Wilkinson, the only two-time recipient of the DOJ’s highest honor, the exceptional service award, is a serious, connected lawyer who knows all of the FBI/Justice players well. There's no way she allows herself to be in this position if indictments are possible.

    Clinton aides unite on FBI legal strategy (Caution, PoliticHo link.)

    Four former staffers have been using the same lawyer during the investigation — suggesting they're not worried about legal jeopardy.

    Four of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides appear to have adopted an unusual legal strategy, hiring the same ex-Justice Department attorney to represent them in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton's private email server.

    Beth Wilkinson, a well-connected former assistant U.S. attorney best known for prosecuting Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, is listed as representing three of Clinton’s top State Department staffers, according to a congressional letter obtained by POLITICO and dated Feb. 10. A fourth Clinton aide, Philippe Reines, is also represented by Wilkinson, according to sources familiar with their representation.

    The united front suggests they plan to tell investigators the same story — although legal experts say the joint strategy presents its own risks, should the interests of the four aides begin to diverge as the probe moves ahead.

    The quartet includes Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who counseled Clinton politically and legally; deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan, whom sources say authored a number of emails to Clinton that are now considered “top secret”; Heather Samuelson, Mills’ deputy who initially sorted Clinton’s work-related emails from personal messages that were then deleted; and Reines, who served as Clinton’s spokesman and also used personal email for work purposes at State.

    ~~~

    “The premise of employing the same counsel is that they believe there is not likely to be a situation where they start pointing a finger at one another to save their own skins — or perhaps at Secretary Clinton,” said Dan Metcalfe, founding director of the DOJ's office of information and privacy. “And there’s a sense that if one of them goes down, they all go down. It shows they think they can coordinate the defense to everyone’s benefit.”

    Metcalfe, now a law professor at American University, called it an “optimistic approach”: “They must believe prosecutors don’t have that much.”

    ~~~

    As a former assistant U.S. attorney in New York, counsel to the deputy attorney general and principal deputy to the Justice office on terrorism and violent crime, Wilkinson is the only two-time recipient of the DOJ’s highest honor, the exceptional service award.

    And she’s no stranger to high-profile cases. She prosecuted former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and Colombian drug cartel kingpin Dandeny Muñoz Mosquera for bombing a civilian airliner and killing U.S. citizens.

    “They’ve hired her because she knows everyone in main Justice,” said Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney-turned-right-leaning legal commentator. “She has very good personal relationships with all the political and career people in the Justice Department, so that’s very smart on their part.”

    ~~~

    DiGenova questioned why the DOJ would greenlight the arrangement in the first place, arguing that it “presents an amazing conflict of interest” and allows for coordination of stories.

    “If it’s a serious case, you don’t run the risk of having all sorts of collusion between people — it’s just not done,” said diGenova. “If the department has accepted that, that tells me they’re walking down the line of not bringing a case, because they’re not serious if they have accepted that arrangement … They’ve thrown in the towel.”
     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    Obama's DOJ not serious about prosecuting crimes of a democratic front runner? Say it isn't so.
     
  3. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    Everyone also thought Obama would go after Bush for war crimes. Even as recently as 2015:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/george-w-bush-officials-torture-human-rights-watch-216296

    Besides, the GOP didn't care about Bush's email server fiasco and 22 million deleted emails, so why would they care now? Oh, because the persons involved are not "Republicans", we see...
     
  4. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #4
    The Clinton's are too powerful, too corrupt and too skilled in deception to be held accountable. Crime pays.
     
  5. Robisan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #5
    Called it. The Clinton haters are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning...

    Of course when he comes back saying there are no charges you'll say he's in the tank.​
     
  6. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #6
    Does anyone really expect Obama's hyper-politicized DoJ to hold Obama's SecState responsible for anything? Like the poster said in another thread, all Obama cares about at this point is his legacy.
     
  7. Robisan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #7
    Another sunrise...
     
  8. Robisan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #8
    Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney-turned-right-leaning legal commentator: “If it’s a serious case, you don’t run the risk of having all sorts of collusion between people — it’s just not done. If the department has accepted that, that tells me they’re walking down the line of not bringing a case,..."​

    It's hilarious that usual suspects who spam every feverish word of Judge Napalitano and/or who generally chant "guilty, guilty, guilty" in every Clinton thread are completely ignoring this analysis by a high caliber right-wing partisan lawyer.

    Note that diGenova doesn't question Justice/FBI motives. He knows the top Justice/FBI career attorneys. He knows Comey. He knows Comey is not a guy who'll go in the tank for anyone. As former US Attorneys (both Comey and diGenova), he knows how a probe like this is handled. He flat out says: If Comey had a case he wouldn't allow this to occur. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is Comey doesn't have a case. Yet pretty much "crickets* from the "guilty, guilty, guilty" crowd here.
     
  9. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #9
    The bigger the government, the bigger the corruption.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10

Share This Page