Reddit post apparently related to Clintons email coverup

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Here is the letter filed by Chaffetz asking the Full house to vote and back him on the contempt charge.
oversight.house.gov...

Interesting in that Pagliano's attorney's sent Chaffetz a letter that explained why he would not appear...but it is not included, only cited.

Also interesting in that Pagliano agreed to show up (even on short notice) if Chaffetz would agree to an "Executive Session" vs. public hearing with camera's rolling..

Executive Session is closed door

executive session because disclosure
of matters to be considered would endanger national
security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information,
would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the
House.

Chaffetz would not allow him to appear in executive session.

My guess is that the CIA, NSA and or FBI have Pagliano's back in this matter and they will lean on the GOP House not to pass a contempt resolution.

a reply to: Indigo5

Thank you for the link to the letter. It's always good to have direct primary sources rather than regurgitated news pap.

My guess is that the CIA, NSA and or FBI have Pagliano's back in this matter and they will lean on the GOP House not to pass a contempt resolution.

Not too sure about the NSA, but there are a lot of connections between Comey and the Clintons, and the CIA also has recent Clinton ties; her new plane is owned by a successor to a CIA front company and there is some indication that Chelsea's apartment may also have ties to the CIA.

That being the case, I do not have a lot of hope of any of those organizations holding Hillary's feet to the fire for fear of being burned themselves.

The Clintons have dirt on a lot of people due to all of the FBI files they've been in the possession of for a good number of years and I can only imagine that they have added to that pile of dirt.

What are We, the People, left with in the way of recompense against a thoroughly corrupt and tyrannical government that refuses to hold itself accountable?

originally posted by: sputniksteve

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I don't believe most, if not all, people would even consider doing such a thing even if they *cough* felt embarrassed pleading the 5th, again, in a public hearing. They could just go, plead the 5th and NOT be charged with contempt.

Their attorneys advised just not showing up, at all. Why? It's not in their best interest to do that.

Good question..

Showing up and pleading the 5th recognizes the legitimacy of the subpoena.

Sending your lawyers in your place or not showing means they are questioning the legal validity and justification of the subpoena.

For example, most committees’
rules authorize their subcommittees or chairpersons (occasionally in consultation
with the ranking members) to issue subpoenas requesting documents or
information. If a responding party fails to comply with the subpoena, committee
rules then typically require a majority vote of the full committee before a
resolution of noncompliance may be reported to the parent chamber. This
additional requirement operates as a political brake on any committee or
subcommittee hastily citing a party for contempt.

If there are insufficient votes in committee to report a resolution of
noncompliance to the full chamber, the committee may simply reject the
resolution and pursue no further action. If there are sufficient votes in favor, the
report must typically then pass from the committee to the parent chamber (either
the House or the Senate) to face a floor vote before a resolution of contempt may
be issued.

www.mayerbrown.com... 856/White-Paper-Congressional-Subpoena.pdf

So Chaffetz can issue a subpoena..

But to hold anyone in contempt for not complying?

He needs to get the full committee majority vote..(17 dems and 21 GOP) they have that vote and issued a contempt today..

Now it goes to a vote as a resolution to the full House Chamber where it needs a majority vote before a contempt resolution issued.

They will need 217 out of the 246 republicans to vote for the contempt resolution to get a majority vote in the house.

That should be an easy goal...so what are Pagliona lawyers gambling on?

I suspect they are gambling that the House will refuse to take up the resolution at all...

They will sit on it.

Why?
It has something to do with why Chaffetz is being stonewalled by Devin Nunes, Republican Chairman of the Intelligence Committee AND why Chaffetz lured the FBI, CIA and NSA into a meeting under the heading of closed door and classified, only to grand-stand in an open, televised forum asking questions he knew could not be answered.

Chaffetz is putting on a show for campaign purposes...

I am making a solid prediction right here and now...The GOP controlled house will not take up a vote on the contempt charge against Pagliano...

It seems to me, and I won't pretend to know for sure, but that quote you used for the rules says right at the top "For example most committees" it doesn't say "this committee". So we are presuming that what he is doing he can't do, and then presuming the lawyers are questioning the validity of a subpoena that can't be questioned?

It is indeed in his power, see Rule 12 (d) from the Rules hosted on the committee's website.

originally posted by: Indigo5

Showing up and pleading the 5th recognizes the legitimacy of the subpoena.

Also, of course it is legitimate. There's new evidence currently being discovered -- like the subject of this thread. Congress should be continuing their oversight. Apparently, the FBI never knew about this evidence -- even if they actually were told that 'they' asked Combetta to strip a VIP's email address from the email archive and investigated. If they did, Comey sure didn't mention it to them when he was questioned. Now they know, now they have a legitimate purpose for further questioning.

I don't think there's a legal argument to be made that it's not legitimate.

And if Pagliano had anything to do with the request to strip a 'VIP's' email address -- and never said anything to the FBI -- then his immunity agreement was violated. Being required to tell the truth to the FBI is the only limit to his immunity that I have heard, so far.

I want to hear Pagliano plead the 5th, in public, so I know the only possible reason he could plead the 5th is because he did not tell the truth to the FBI. Lying to the FBI in violation of his immunity agreement is his ONE & ONLY risk of self-incrimination.

Of course, there's more 'legitimate' oversight to be done.

originally posted by: coffeetalk

originally posted by: sputniksteve

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I don't believe most, if not all, people would even consider doing such a thing even if they *cough* felt embarrassed pleading the 5th, again, in a public hearing. They could just go, plead the 5th and NOT be charged with contempt.

Their attorneys advised just not showing up, at all. Why? It's not in their best interest to do that.

Good question..

Showing up and pleading the 5th recognizes the legitimacy of the subpoena.

Sending your lawyers in your place or not showing means they are questioning the legal validity and justification of the subpoena.

For example, most committees’
rules authorize their subcommittees or chairpersons (occasionally in consultation
with the ranking members) to issue subpoenas requesting documents or
information. If a responding party fails to comply with the subpoena, committee
rules then typically require a majority vote of the full committee before a
resolution of noncompliance may be reported to the parent chamber. This
additional requirement operates as a political brake on any committee or
subcommittee hastily citing a party for contempt.

If there are insufficient votes in committee to report a resolution of
noncompliance to the full chamber, the committee may simply reject the
resolution and pursue no further action. If there are sufficient votes in favor, the
report must typically then pass from the committee to the parent chamber (either
the House or the Senate) to face a floor vote before a resolution of contempt may
be issued.

www.mayerbrown.com... 856/White-Paper-Congressional-Subpoena.pdf

So Chaffetz can issue a subpoena..

But to hold anyone in contempt for not complying?

He needs to get the full committee majority vote..(17 dems and 21 GOP) they have that vote and issued a contempt today..

Now it goes to a vote as a resolution to the full House Chamber where it needs a majority vote before a contempt resolution issued.

They will need 217 out of the 246 republicans to vote for the contempt resolution to get a majority vote in the house.

That should be an easy goal...so what are Pagliona lawyers gambling on?

I suspect they are gambling that the House will refuse to take up the resolution at all...

They will sit on it.

Why?
It has something to do with why Chaffetz is being stonewalled by Devin Nunes, Republican Chairman of the Intelligence Committee AND why Chaffetz lured the FBI, CIA and NSA into a meeting under the heading of closed door and classified, only to grand-stand in an open, televised forum asking questions he knew could not be answered.

Chaffetz is putting on a show for campaign purposes...

I am making a solid prediction right here and now...The GOP controlled house will not take up a vote on the contempt charge against Pagliano...

It seems to me, and I won't pretend to know for sure, but that quote you used for the rules says right at the top "For example most committees" it doesn't say "this committee". So we are presuming that what he is doing he can't do, and then presuming the lawyers are questioning the validity of a subpoena that can't be questioned?

It is indeed in his power, see Rule 12 (d) from the Rules hosted on the committee's website.

Excellent thank you! It seems we can completely disregard that entire line of thinking then is that also correct? I have to admit, politics is terribly confusing for me..a normal guy.

originally posted by: Indigo5

That should be an easy goal...so what are Pagliona lawyers gambling on?

I suspect they are gambling that the House will refuse to take up the resolution at all...

They will sit on it.

I've been really miffed for the last couple of hours about this idea. I hope you are as concerned as me about both parties if they sit on this. I don't doubt this will happen.

You are suggesting Combetta's/Pagliano's attorneys can pull a lot of strings to guarantee such a thing to a client to convince them to ignore a subpoena from Congress.

I need to hear a Democrat say they are concerned about the level of corruption we are talking about IF your prediction turns out to be correct. I am feeling particularly hopeless after reading your comment.

Is it true? Do Hillary supporters expect me to roll over & take this kind of government corruption just because they expect Trump supporters to take it?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Indigo5

That should be an easy goal...so what are Pagliona lawyers gambling on?

I suspect they are gambling that the House will refuse to take up the resolution at all...

They will sit on it.

I've been really miffed for the last couple of hours about this idea. I hope you are as concerned as me about both parties if they sit on this. I don't doubt this will happen.

You are suggesting Combetta's/Pagliano's attorneys can pull a lot of strings to guarantee such a thing to a client to convince them to ignore a subpoena from Congress.

I need to hear a Democrat say they are concerned about the level of corruption we are talking about IF your prediction turns out to be correct. I am feeling particularly hopeless after reading your comment.

Is it true? Do Hillary supporters expect me to roll over & take this kind of government corruption just because they expect Trump supporters to take it?

Yes I am pretty sure they do. I really believe there are people that are so wrapped up in this every 4 years they are willing to fool themselves about what is better for the nation as a whole than to be on the "losing" team. As if being on the "winning" team grants them anything they wouldn't have otherwise, or loses something that wouldn't have been lost anyway.

If those people on BOTH sides of the fence weren't able to be controlled and manipulated to that extent, this entire charade would fall flat on its face.

So yeah dawg, you are going to have to eat that chit sandwich but the good news is some people are going to be able to say "we won" for a week before we go back to being manipulated in whole sale outside the election cycle.

Ok...I need to ask about this...

COULD this whole 'strip out an email address and replace it with a placeholder email address' have ANY connection to this:

Hillary's 'secret' email address -- Factcheck.org

The Republican National Committee thinks it has the smoking gun that proves Hillary Clinton used “multiple secret email addresses” as secretary of state. It doesn’t.

The RNC made its claim in a May 18 blog post hours after the New York Times published copies of emails that Clinton had sent and received when she was secretary. The emails displayed two accounts: [email protected] and [email protected]. That seemed to clearly contradict Clinton’s claim that she used only [email protected] while in office, which was from January 2009 to February 2013.

But the Clinton campaign says there is a simple explanation for this apparent discrepancy: The emails published by the Times were printed out in 2014 after Clinton had left the State Department and after she had changed her email address, so the printed copies of emails she sent while in office display her new address ([email protected]), even though they were originally sent under her old address ([email protected]). We agree that this is possible.

The Clinton explanation passed two tests — including one conducted for us by Ray Tomlinson, the man who is widely credited with inventing email.

Tomlinson ran an optical character recognition on the PDF of the emails that the Times posted to its website, and what he found is consistent with the Clinton campaign’s explanation for what happened.

We at FactCheck.org also tested Clinton’s explanation. Our IT staff created [email protected] and renamed it [email protected]. An email sent by [email protected] printed out as if it had come from [email protected] after we changed the name of the email account.

Tom Conte, a professor at the Schools of Electrical & Computer Engineering and Computer Science at Georgia Institute of Technology and president of the IEEE Computer Society, said Clinton’s explanation is “technically possible” and that our test “proves it.”

I am curious, because it seems that emails once appearing to be sent to/from one address, suddenly showed a different address after they were printed in 2014. Could Combetta have actually succeeded in replacing '[email protected]' with '[email protected],' and it was all explained away as Factcheck describes?

I don't recall this story, at the time. Anyone else care to help me understand what it was all about and if it could be related? It has the feel of being related to an email-address 'find & replace.' Doesn't it? And if it is related...the Clinton campaign offered an excuse that was NOT truthful.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I am far from a professional, but I would imagine you could do anything you want manipulation wise if you did it manually to each document or email. Obviously I hope someone with actual experience will comment on it. I don't see how it would be impossible but like I said I don't know for certain.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

THIS was always my candidate for a secret Clinton email address:
[email protected]

Even wrote a thread when it first turned up:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems to have been forgotten about over the past year.

a reply to: sputniksteve

Stonetear was specifically asking how to do a mass archive 'find & replace' of a VIP's email address.

THIS is exactly what it sounds like happened with regard to the secret Hillary email address story (Factcheck's version).

Emails previously shown to have been sent from [email protected] suddenly showed they were sent to/from [email protected] when they were printed in 2014!

The Clinton camp said that it was due to her renaming her email account. I am just having a hard time believing that in light of this Reddit post.

Anyone else get a whiff here that the Clinton camp might be caught up in a lie -- on the record -- which relates to the Reddit post?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I am all for transparency. But applied equally..

Chaffetz got reps from the FBI, NSA, CIA all to attend his hearing under the false pretense that it was an "executive session"...closed to the public so that everyone could speak freely about classified material and information.

When they showed up it was ambush...cameras rolling..and Chaffetz beating the hell out of the FBI rep.

Why? Why did they want a closed hearing..why did Chaffetz do the swap-a-roo on them?

Secondly...Maloney said that the GOP Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee had full access to the FBI notes un-redacted and that Chaffetz had requested the same access from that Chairman...but the Chairman had tabled it and not put it to a vote within the Intelligence Committee. Otherwise..The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (nunes) doesn't want to give chaffetz the full FBI notes un-redacted..

Why?

If Chaffetz had a case to reconcile the Reddit posts with the FBI Interrogation notes on Combatta...why not fire off a subpoena centered on that specific interview with his reasoning included? That would seem a much more productive, specific course to take? as opposed to "I get to see everything!!" drama.

See...I suspect that Chaffetz is asking questions he already knows the answer to...that is why a closed door hearing is useless to him...he already knows the answer (classified)...but grand-standing for the cameras? Asking the FBI rep questions he knows he can't answer in a public forum? That has political use for campaign purposes.

Chaffetz was much more interested in the drama and cameras than actually getting answers...If he wanted answers he could have agreed to closed-door executive sessions..Like he promised the FBI guy before he ambushed him..or with Pagliano who said he would come if it was closed door.

Everyone in that room knows something the camera's and public does not...and that is why I don't think the subpoena will be approved by congress.

Chaffetz is playing a game for the cameras...and you should take that into consideration while talking about corruption or calling for transparency.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

In the response to the original reddit post, a knowledgeable user replied and gave a good technical reason why what he wanted to do (find&replace) was not an easy task.

It has to do with the fact that this type of manipulation would easily be able to alter documents in such a fashion as would make them unusable for legal proceedings.

Essentially, it would be like going back and changing a word in a printed book. You might be able to do it, but anyone looking at the book would know that something had been altered:

Just because you have the messages available in multiple formats and locations doesn't change that it's an attribute of the envelope not meant to be rewritten. The functionality is just not built into any tool I know of. Having that functionality would create the ability to screw with discovery (I mean, there could be mitigation with versioning, but that would need other configuration)
While it may not be a read-only part of the envelope(I'm not actually sure), the only tool that MIGHT be able to do what you want is MFCMapi, and I don't think you want to play with that for this job. The chance of getting it wrong would be pretty high I think and it is not a particularly friendly tool. I'm not sure it could be scripted with it either.

linky

a reply to: Indigo5

Ok, nevermind. 'Grandstanding' in front of cameras does not satisfy my questions. There must be compelling motive to sabotage that hearing.

My skepticism is FAR more critical and equally applied than simple 'grandstanding.'

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

Essentially, it would be like going back and changing a word in a printed book. You might be able to do it, but anyone looking at the book would know that something had been altered:

Right. And Republicans did 'know' that the email address had changed on the 2014 printouts. It was obvious the address had been altered.

Of course, the Hillary camp claimed it was due to changing her email address.

But Combetta could have done it. As a graphic designer, I use 'find & replace,' all the time...as long as the .pst file was full of text, I imagine it could be done.

I also recall someone on ATS saying it could be done and explaining how, like two days ago.

Whether Reddit knew how to do it or not. I think it could be done and, honestly, I have thought that from the time this story broke.

originally posted by: Indigo5

Chaffetz got reps from the FBI, NSA, CIA all to attend his hearing under the false pretense that it was an "executive session"...closed to the public so that everyone could speak freely about classified material and information.

When they showed up it was ambush...cameras rolling..and Chaffetz beating the hell out of the FBI rep.

Do you have proof of your opinion?

I can clearly see by the C Span recordings that your statement
lacks credibility.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

Ok, nevermind. 'Grandstanding' in front of cameras does not satisfy my questions. There must be compelling motive to sabotage that hearing.

My skepticism is FAR more critical and equally applied than simple 'grandstanding.'

You don't think Chaffetz has a political agenda with the hearings?

Another GOP congressman says Benghazi panel meant to hurt Clinton
www.cnn.com...

Ex-staffer: Benghazi committee pursuing 'partisan investigation' targeting Hillary Clinton
www.cnn.com...

Top Republican admits Benghazi Committee is all about attacking Hillary Clinton
www.dailykos.com...

If you fail to see the political utility in what Chaffetz is doing than you are far from objective...

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Indigo5

Chaffetz got reps from the FBI, NSA, CIA all to attend his hearing under the false pretense that it was an "executive session"...closed to the public so that everyone could speak freely about classified material and information.

When they showed up it was ambush...cameras rolling..and Chaffetz beating the hell out of the FBI rep.

Do you have proof of your opinion?

No more so than the speculations of this thread? Does mine warrant more proof than others?

I can clearly see by the C Span recordings that your statement
lacks credibility.

Strange statement...How?

originally posted by: Indigo5
You don't think Chaffetz has a political agenda with the hearings?

Sure I do. You apparently think he has personal motive with 'grandstanding.'

I think it's more likely that he --- like so many other Republicans -- are FULLY in bed with Democrats.