tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59324506101124457.post9087466406209204800..comments2024-03-24T21:06:57.039-07:00Comments on FOUSESQUAWK: Hillary Tech Aide Pleading 5th AmendmentGary Fousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014739065121483409noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59324506101124457.post-27373229482166109792015-09-16T15:25:37.052-07:002015-09-16T15:25:37.052-07:00Why elwood, I was merely taking you at your word. ...Why elwood, I was merely taking you at your word. If mature consideration leads you to believe your first remarks were a trifle hasty, then say so.Siarlys Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15083839117838391267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59324506101124457.post-69412016236289171562015-09-06T09:01:56.972-07:002015-09-06T09:01:56.972-07:00Siarlys--your conclusion may be both premature and...Siarlys--your conclusion may be both premature and a little bit of a stretch/reach at this early stage of the game. And it may not be. Just to nick at pits, might have been a little better for you to have said "possibly" rather than "apparently". I probably should have said "perceived" rather than "apparent". It may be that neither of these two actually engaged in any criminal conduct. Or it may be that they BELIEVE they did not. They could be wrong.<br /><br />There is reporting out there with particular regard to Mills that her memory relative to this boondoggle/debacle was not especially keen, but that it did improve somewhat when she was confronted with documents. Of course she is a lawyer, but fairly typical for a ducker/dodger. <br /><br />It would be quite interesting to know how many times Mills answered "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" in the nine (9) or so hours of testimony. After all, this is not exactly ancient history we are talking about.<br />elwood p sugginsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59324506101124457.post-66062696318592460222015-09-05T16:24:22.722-07:002015-09-05T16:24:22.722-07:00Good point elwood. Apparently nothing illegal or d...Good point elwood. Apparently nothing illegal or disreputable in the handling of the Benghazi matter, but perhaps there is something fishy about the server.Siarlys Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15083839117838391267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59324506101124457.post-19165685651987400242015-09-04T09:09:05.562-07:002015-09-04T09:09:05.562-07:00Pagliano may be wangling for immunity.Pagliano may be wangling for immunity.Gary Fousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17014739065121483409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59324506101124457.post-76678700480794193522015-09-04T09:03:20.603-07:002015-09-04T09:03:20.603-07:00Interestingly enough, neither Cheryl Mills nor Jak...Interestingly enough, neither Cheryl Mills nor Jake Sullivan have any apparent Fifth Amendment problem when called testify about the Benghazi caper. <br /><br />Howsomever, Bryan Pagliano, Hillary's campaign AND State IT dude, has invoked his right against "self-incrimination" to requests from the FBI, the State IG's, and Congressional committee(s) for documents and testimony relative to HIllary's server, of which I understand him to have been the principal installer/maintainer/fixer.<br /><br />I would just again note that we have no Constitutional protection against ignorance or embarrassment. Unless this is a frivolous, improper, and illegitimate invocation of the right, looks like he has something to worry about. By extension, if he has a problem, she (and probably others as well) almost certainly does too, no??<br />elwood p sugginsnoreply@blogger.com