pool for hillary s withdrawal date....

[Big RR]

When has that ever mattered?

[Econoline]

...the cover up seems immense...

Okay now, what is it that the cover up is covering up, again? Oh, yeah...it's so immense that nobody yet has any idea what's being covered up, but the very immensity of the cover up is proof of how immense the things being covered up are...

Can't argue with that logic...

[wesw]

I could answer your questions, and I would have great answers...

but I m gonna plead the 5th

I m sorry if that is confusing but I am being as transparent as I can.

[Crackpot]

He's in a position where he can easily be made scapegoat for any wrongdoing. (Real or imagined) I'm not surprised he's pleading the city want him to talk grant him immunity.

[wesw]

crackpot. have your coffee and re post that last post, ok?

it was kinda incoherent.

press the re set button and try again.....

[Crackpot]

You're bitching about the guy who set up Hils server pleading the 5th. (well I am assuming you actually are trying to make a point. I may be overestimating you) I'm simply pointing out there is a good reason for it.

[wesw]

what the hell does what London wants have to do with any of it?

and how can you plead "the city"?

if he wants immunity he should get vaccinated....

[Crackpot]

He has a right guarunteed by the 5th amendment against self incrimination. If you don't like it move to a country that doesn't have such protections.

[wesw]

no crack pot, I m not going anywhere. and I do believe that criminals have that right, and should have that right. if they don t have that right things like torture and coercion become more likely.

I don t want to grant him immunity tho, let him live or die by his silence, if that is his wish. the truth will out , one way or another.

[wesw]

....me and my old shotgun ain t going nowhere.

if you don t like the second amendment move to a country where they have no such right (see how ignorant that sounds?)

[Crackpot]

Then don't bitch about him pleading the 5th. The simple fact of the matter is he could have done wrong without knowing it. Only a fool would put himself in a position to self incriminate. And given the circumstances unless there is evidence that he knowingly circumvented the law granting him immunity would get the truth and the person you're actually after. On the other and you're running a sideshow for political purposes.....

[Crackpot]

....me and my old shotgun ain t going nowhere.

if you don t like the second amendment move to a country where they have no such right (see how ignorant that sounds?)

You really are an idiot.

[wesw]

boo hoo. shall we change your nappy? or do you need a ba ba?

crackpot is a cranky bear this morning.....

that last sentence, two posts, above was incoherent as well.....

on the hand others get might it

[MajGenl.Meade]

on the hand others get might it

You'd be the expert at that, I'm betting

[Lord Jim]

I don t want to grant him immunity tho

I completely disagree; I definitely think he should be granted immunity. He's a small fish with critical information; that's exactly the type of guy you grant immunity.

There's a serious move afoot to do just that:

Two Senate chairmen want to give immunity to Hillary Clinton’s former top IT staffer, who’s planning to invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to answer incriminating questions from congressional investigators.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) hope an immunity agreement would allow Bryan Pagliano to testify about the former secretary of state's unusual email server setup. They sent a letter to Pagliano and his lawyer this week asking him to “make yourself available to provide information.”

The committees need "the unique information you likely have in order to exercise their oversight functions under the Constitution, which are unrelated to any potential prosecution or criminal inquiry,” the joint letter says. “Thus, the committees have the authority to obtain an immunity order, to acquire the information they need, while also protecting your right against self-incrimination.”

The two senators also asked Pagliano’s attorney to “meet with the committees' staff to explore how to obtain the unique information you possess while respecting your constitutional rights, such as the possibility of a proffer session so that we can better understand what your testimony would be without any waiver of your rights.”

The 2008 Clinton campaign staffer, who followed Clinton to the State Department to oversee the special server, said through his lawyers that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself when subpoenaed by the House Benghazi Committee. He’s refusing to answer the committee’s and FBI’s questions about what he knew of the technology.

But immunity could change all that and make it easier for him to answer the panels' questions. But it would also prevent any federal charges related to the email matter from being brought against him the future.

That’s what happened in the case of staffers involved in the Iran-Contra affair. Judges dropped charges against Oliver North, a key figure who opened up about the weapons scandal, because he had testified before Congress under immunity. When the Justice Department brought charges against him, officials were unable to prove that they did not use any of his testimony to make their case.

Since then, Congress has been leery of giving immunity to just anybody.

But both chairmen seem to think it would be worth the offer.

“My job is to get information,” was all Grassley would say to POLITICO when asked about the matter.

“I think it’s appropriate that we have those discussions” about immunity, Johnson said in a short interview off the Senate floor Tuesday evening. “He has information that we need to have, partly because of the national security implications of Secretary Clinton’s actions.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/b ... z3lFAKdQll

[Crackpot]

Wes you are just like rubato in that you ascribe positions to posters and insist posters hold positions regardless of all evidence otherwise not to mention you insert these imaginary positions into completely unrelated threads just to poison the well. But when your argument skills seem to consist of little more than "yes is is/no it's not followed by vote (flavor of the moment)". I guess I can't blame you.

[wesw]

no I m not.

vote Kasich!!!!

[wesw]

crackpot, I was not suggesting that you support gun control in any way.

I was demonstrating how ignorant it sounds when you tell someone to leave the country if they don t like a part of it. which was made clear by my statement in parenthesis after the statement.

I have been consistent in my support of Kasich, and my "vote Kasich!" theme.
I do see the value of carson, and trump, and , if the republicans are not smart enough to nominate Kasich, I hope one of them is nominated, also consistent.

[Lord Jim]

I do see the value of carson, and trump, and , if the republicans are not smart enough to nominate Kasich, I hope one of them is nominated, also consistent.

Frankly wes, I don't see how it's at all consistent to have the most qualified candidate as your first choice and then have the two least qualified candidates as your second and third choice...

Maybe it's consistent in the sense that it's a position you have "consistently" held for some time, but logically consistent...

Not so much...

[wesw]

yes. consistent in that I have consistently held the position. thanks....