Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Mum's The Word
Date:	6/22/2016 7:44:02 PM

What could the Clinton basement IT guy disclose that would be incriminating to him?  Does anybody read this as "clinton not guilty?"

Does anyone know of a single honest poltician in D.C.?

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Mum's The Word
Date:	6/22/2016 9:29:23 PM

Unfortunately, I doubt there are any.  And now the Dems are sitting on the floor doing nothing, and they threaten to continue to sit during their break.  We're paying them to sit on the floor and do nothing....

My first thought was given the age of those people, who was going to help them up?

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Mum's The Word
Date:	6/23/2016 1:49:39 PM

Any thoughts? 

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Mum's The Word
Date:	6/24/2016 3:46:30 PM

Anyone?  Should a govt employee be allowed to Fifth about government work?  I assume working for the Sec of State is govt work, and dude was paid by govt check. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Mum's The Word
Date:	6/25/2016 6:07:36 PM

It really depends on if he was performing these functions as a private contractor to the Clintons, or if these were made part of the duties of his government job.  of course he could have been a private contractor to the state department.  Each of these situations would make me give a different answer.  If he was a private contractor to the Clintons,no matter where else he worked, he would be entitled to plead the 5th, with regard to that contract.  If he was performing those duties as a direct hire to the State Department, then I would agree he should be required to answer the questions. 

(Although, being a govt employee does not take away your personal rights; but ethicly you should be transparent and accountable in your actions as a public employee a new  good steward of the taxpayers money.)

If he was a private contractor to state department, as long as he was performing to his statement of work, there isn't much can be done about him.  But one might ask State why they signed a contract with a statement of work so broadly written, and it is against federal regulation to sign a personal services contract with public funding (I.e., that he was under a government contract, but taking his order only from Clinton for her personal use.).  

No matter how you slice it, it is a nasty piece of business.  And yes, I believe public employees should answer all questions asked of them with regard to their official duties.  But I do feel a little sorry for this young man-- he is between a rock and a hard place.