RIU poll Trump VS Clinton

choomer

choomer

Well-Known Member
.....and just so you can unholster your TLDR and if I just linked it you'd never click it anyway. ;)

Seems Hitlery is not quite out of the words yet as the House Judiciary Committee has found a fly in the ointment.
<Quoted for page brevity. Get clicky w/ it!>
In continuing the House Judiciary Committee's ongoing oversight of Secretary Clinton's unauthorized use of a private email server to send and receive classified information, we write to question the propriety, impartiality, and legality of circumstances surrounding the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ) interview of Secretary Clinton. The FBI and DOJ appear to have acquiesced in allowing two former State Department employees, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, to act as legal counsel for Secretary Clinton in order to influence an investigation into facts for which the former employees were substantially and personally involved. However, neither the FBI nor DOJ are in a position to investigate their own actions in connection with the Clinton interview, thus making this a tailor-made case for independent review.

We are particularly concerned by the fact that Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson, both of whom participated personally and substantially in matters that were the subject of the FBI's investigation, were permitted by both DOJ and the FBI to sit in on Secretary Clinton's interview. Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were fact witnesses who had previously been interviewed by the FBI regarding the setup of Secretary Clinton's private server, theirs and Secretary Clinton's communications, and their own familiarity with classified information sent via unsecure means during Secretary Clinton's tenure. Allowing them to sit in on Secretary Clinton's interview raises questions as to whether a serious interview of Secretary Clinton was ever even contemplated. In fact, it offered Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson an opportunity to further corroborate their stories with the target of the FBI's investigation — Secretary Clinton — and have insight into questions being asked of Secretary Clinton regarding communications to which they may have been parties.

We are also very concerned about the FBI and DOJ's acceptance of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson's assertions that they were serving as Secretary Clinton's attorneys.Did the FBI ask for an engagement letter?

Did the FBI probe into when the attorney-client privilege purportedly began?
  • Does the FBI have any record of investigating or internally deliberating on the patently absurd claim of attorney-client privilege?
  • Did the FBI ever ask whether either Mills or Samuelson had professional liability insurance?
  • Did the FBI consider whether 18 U.S.C. § 207 applies to the inappropriate representation of former Secretary Clinton by former State Department employees "personally and substantially" involved in matters pertaining to the Clinton investigation?
  • Did the FBI ever broach the subject of a conflict of interest with Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson, or contemplate the fact that their representation of Secretary Clinton as counsel in her interview was a clear violation of long-standing canons of professional ethics?
Not only did Secretary Clinton have able-bodied counsel from Williams & Connolly, a very prestigious law firm, but Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson are not practicing attorneys in any sense of the term. Illustrative of the incongruous declarations of attorney-client privilege are current biographies of both Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson. Ms. Mills' biography on the website for the Blacklvy Group, where she is currently CEO, states that she was Chief of Staff and Counselor during Secretary Clinton's tenure, neither of which are attorney positions. In fact, the current Counselor of the Department, Ambassador Kenney, is not an attorney, and only one of the previous five Counselors of the State Department even possessed a law degree.

Similarly, Ms. Samuelson's public Linkedln profile lists, after her time spent on the 2008 Clinton campaign, "Senior Advisor/White House Liaison" at the State Department for the period of January 2009 to March 2013, corresponding with Secretary Clinton's tenure. This was also not an attorney position. It seems clear that neither Ms. Mills nor Ms. Samuelson can credibly claim that they had an attorney-client relationship with Secretary Clinton while employed at the State Department. Rather, it is the duty of the Department's Office of the Legal Adviser to "furnish[] advice on all legal issues, domestic and international, arising in the course of the Department's work."

Ms. Mills' profile at her current company indicates that she now sits on the Board of the Clinton Foundation. DOJ and the FBI have yet to confirm whether the Clinton Foundation is under investigation for pay-to-play allegations and inappropriate foreign donations, but if it is the case that the Clinton Foundation is an FBI target, Ms. Mills' presence in the interview with Secretary Clinton is even more disconcerting considering her role on the Clinton Foundation's Board.

Suffice it to say, neither Ms. Mills nor Ms. Samuelson are currently practicing law in their post-State Department jobs, except for the specious claim of representing Secretary Clinton in an FBI criminal probe for which they were key players and witnesses. Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were responsible for culling and shredding documents related to Secretary Clinton's tenure and, whether willfully or inadvertently, are responsible for the destruction of evidence and official records. As such, they were key witnesses who could not have ethically provided legal representation to Secretary Clinton after their departure from the State Department.

The evidence plainly demonstrates that Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson's claims of attorney-client privilege in the Clinton email investigation are wholly without merit. It appears increasingly clear that political considerations hijacked the criminal process in this case, and routine, longstanding policies and procedures were ignored. As such, we request that you open an investigation into this matter at your respective Departments.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Click to expand...
 
srh88

srh88

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
You don't like Sammy?
Not the stuff he did w/ Montrose, his solo stuff, Van Hagar, nothing?
You live a bleak existence bud.
Click to expand...
man..now i know i can dislike you based on something other than politics. van hagar? come on dude. van halen went shitty without roth
 
choomer

choomer

Well-Known Member
srh88 said:
man..now i know i can dislike you based on something other than politics. van hagar? come on dude. van halen went shitty without roth
Click to expand...
I'm much more a fan of the Montrose days (Get on your bad motorscooter and riiiiiiide) and some of his solo stuff.
You're right about Van Halen. It was a 1-2 punch of Sammy and Eddie "discovering" keyboards.

It was included because there's a percentage of people that kept those 1st post-Roth albums on Billboard.
 
srh88

srh88

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
I'm much more a fan of the Montrose days (Get on your bad motorscooter and riiiiiiide) and some of his solo stuff.
You're right about Van Halen. It was a 1-2 punch of Sammy and Eddie "discovering" keyboards.
Click to expand...
growing up playing guitar.. i was a huge huge fan of van halen. still like em a lot. but i just couldnt get into the van hagar shit. too produced kinda in a way. didnt have that raw sound like van halen had before, when it was really just showing off crazy music skills..
 
testiclees

testiclees

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
I'm much more a fan of the Montrose days (Get on your bad motorscooter and riiiiiiide) and some of his solo stuff.
You're right about Van Halen. It was a 1-2 punch of Sammy and Eddie "discovering" keyboards.

It was included because there's a percentage of people that kept those 1st post-Roth albums on Billboard.
Click to expand...

Hold up Whose Stupid,

Rock n roll" has never been a fan of racist pussies. Quit fronting like you could have ever been associated with anything hip, pussy
 
srh88

srh88

Well-Known Member
testiclees said:
Hold up Whose Stupid,

Rock n roll" has never been a fan of racist pussies. Quit fronting like you could have ever been associated with anything hip, pussy
Click to expand...
there is one exception..


i do love the song stranglehold though.. awesome guitar in it
 
Big_Lou

Big_Lou

Well-Known Member
srh88 said:
growing up playing guitar.. i was a huge huge fan of van halen. still like em a lot. but i just couldnt get into the van hagar shit. too produced kinda in a way. didnt have that raw sound like van halen had before, when it was really just showing off crazy music skills..
Click to expand...
I'm not what you'd call a huge fan (or even a 'fan', really), but I dig some of their late 70s-early 80s stuff, sure. I've got 7 older siblings, so as you'd imagine I was exposed to a ton of stuff, heh.

This one's probably my favorite. What a main riff, so nasty, and Alex pounds out a menacing beat....

 
G

gonnagro

Well-Known Member
No legal pot if Hillary wins:

“During an on-stage Q & A session with Xerox’s chairman and CEO in March 2014, Clinton used Wall Street terminology to express her opposition to ending cannabis prohibition “in all senses of the word”:

URSULA BURNS: So long means thumbs up, short means thumbs down; or long means I support, short means I don’t. I’m going to start with — I’m going to give you about ten long-shorts.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Even if you could make money on a short, you can’t answer short.
URSULA BURNS: You can answer short, but you got to be careful about letting anybody else know that. They will bet against you. So legalization of pot?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Short in all senses of the word.”

** Trump/Pence 2016 **
 
choomer

choomer

Well-Known Member
srh88 said:
growing up playing guitar.. i was a huge huge fan of van halen. still like em a lot. but i just couldnt get into the van hagar shit. too produced kinda in a way. didnt have that raw sound like van halen had before, when it was really just showing off crazy music skills..
Click to expand...
Funny, You post a cut from the one Van Halen album I have (which tells you I'm old and I thought it was worth paying money for).
Actually bought it for the acoustic album title cut but came to appreciate the dead straight rock-roll of the band and then there was Eddie, of course. :D
His chops were putting him in the league of Zappa, Di Meola, Howe, Vai, etc. easy.
srh88 said:
there is one exception..
<snip>
i do love the song stranglehold though.. awesome guitar in it
Click to expand...
The guy plays some good guitar but is as much a cartoon character as Dumph.
He must have known his touring days were numbered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top