Former Clinton Aide to Invoke Fifth Amendment in Email Case

By BYRON TAU
Updated June 1, 2016 8:26 p.m. ET

A former technology staffer for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will invoke his constitutional right to refuse to answer questions about how and why her private email server was set up, an attorney representing the ex-aide said in a court filing.

Bryan Pagliano, a former State Department employee who helped Mrs. Clinton maintain her private email account when she was secretary of state, is scheduled to answer questions next week in a civil case against the department by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Mr. Pagliano “will invoke his right under the Fifth Amendment and decline to testify at the deposition,” his attorney said in the court motion filed Wednesday.

The news came as a part of a request from Mr. Pagliano’s attorneys to Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is overseeing the case, to block Judicial Watch from creating an audio or visual recording of his testimony.

“Given Mr. Pagliano’s clear intention to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, Judicial Watch can articulate no proper purpose — much less a ’need’ — for an audiovisual recording of the deposition,” an attorney for Mr. Pagliano wrote in the filing.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton noted that a judge had already ordered audio and video recordings to be sealed and said that a recording could help the judge determine the credibility of a witness through demeanor and other cues.

Mr. Pagliano wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Somewhat surprising. Who's gonna fall on his sword for Cankles?

He knows how it works: testify about the Clintons and you'll wind up dead.

I thought that she and Podesta said that she was encouraging everyone involved to cooperate?

I thought we'd covered this ground. Pleading the Fifth is a smart move when you don't know what you could be charged with, absent an offer of immunity, and transactional immunity is what one would want. Especially in this case.

Also he doesn't want to end up like Vince Foster.

Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought we'd covered this ground. Pleading the
> Fifth is a smart move when you don't know what you
> could be charged with, absent an offer of
> immunity, and transactional immunity is what one
> would want. Especially in this case.


It's a civil suit and not against him. There are no potential charges against him in this case.

>
> Also he doesn't want to end up like Vince Foster.

Good point.

Something tells me that there are not a lot of emails within the State department concerning the need and setup of this email server for her. If there were, she would be feeling more heat.

Ludwig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Something tells me that there are not a lot of
> emails within the State department concerning the
> need and setup of this email server for her. If
> there were, she would be feeling more heat.


That's only because all of Pagliano's email at State "just happens" to have been "lost."

Quote

State Department claims it can't find any Clinton texts or email file for IT aide

By JOSH GERSTEIN 05/09/16 04:03 PM EDT Updated 05/09/16 09:50 PM EDT

The State Department maintains that it cannot find any text messages sent to or from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and cannot locate any emails received or sent by a key information technology staffer during her tenure, lawyers for the Republican Party said in a court filing Monday.

However, a State spokeswoman said Monday the agency has located some emails belonging to the computer specialist, Bryan Pagliano, although the messages were found in other people's accounts.

,
Attachments:

Yet another Clinton Coincidence Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ludwig Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Something tells me that there are not a lot of
> > emails within the State department concerning
> the
> > need and setup of this email server for her.
> If
> > there were, she would be feeling more heat.
>
>
> That's only because all of Pagliano's email at
> State "just happens" to have been "lost."
>
>

Quote

> State Department claims it can't find any Clinton
> texts or email file for IT aide
>
> By JOSH GERSTEIN 05/09/16 04:03 PM EDT Updated
> 05/09/16 09:50 PM EDT
>
> The State Department maintains that it cannot find
> any text messages sent to or from former Secretary
> of State Hillary Clinton and cannot locate any
> emails received or sent by a key information
> technology staffer during her tenure, lawyers for
> the Republican Party said in a court filing
> Monday.
>
> However, a State spokeswoman said Monday the
> agency has located some emails belonging to the
> computer specialist, Bryan Pagliano, although the
> messages were found in other people's accounts.
>

Another part of the Clinton cover up!!! So who did the cleaning of the State Department Email server??? Did they use 2nd & 3rd parties to communicate? Was a trickle down order done verbally?? Most likely.

Np4eU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I thought we'd covered this ground. Pleading
> the
> > Fifth is a smart move when you don't know what
> you
> > could be charged with, absent an offer of
> > immunity, and transactional immunity is what
> one
> > would want. Especially in this case.
>
>
> It's a civil suit and not against him. There are
> no potential charges against him in this case.

Okay, I'll spell it out:

"Mr. Pagliano, when you were deposed in the aforementioned civil suit, the deposition I'm looking at right now because subpoena, how did you answer the following questions? Keep in mind that you are once again under oath, this time in a criminal court."

You seem sincere so I'm not going to mock you for not anticipating that scenario. Pleading the Fifth is the way to go, absent an offer of immunity, and transactional immunity is what one would want.

He's not protecting himself in the civil action in which he's merely a witness, he's protecting himself against potential federal criminal charges.

Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Np4eU Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I thought we'd covered this ground. Pleading
> > the
> > > Fifth is a smart move when you don't know
> what
> > you
> > > could be charged with, absent an offer of
> > > immunity, and transactional immunity is what
> > one
> > > would want. Especially in this case.
> >
> >
> > It's a civil suit and not against him. There
> are
> > no potential charges against him in this case.
>
> Okay, I'll spell it out:
>
> "Mr. Pagliano, when you were deposed in the
> aforementioned civil suit, the deposition I'm
> looking at right now because subpoena, how did you
> answer the following questions? Keep in mind that
> you are once again under oath, this time in a
> criminal court."
>
> You seem sincere so I'm not going to mock you for
> not anticipating that scenario. Pleading the
> Fifth is the way to go, absent an offer of
> immunity, and transactional immunity is what one
> would want.
>
> He's not protecting himself in the civil action in
> which he's merely a witness, he's protecting
> himself against potential federal criminal
> charges.


Justice already granted immunity in the criminal probe.

Quote

March 2

The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

I was aware of this, but is it use immunity or transactional immunity? There's a huge difference.

Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was aware of this, but is it use immunity or
> transactional immunity? There's a huge
> difference.


They're not giving someone like that complete blanket immunity but for purposes of the Justice Dept's investigation it would necessarily need to be broad enough to cover all aspects of his testimony and their investigation related to the email server which is of larger scope than this suit. His attorney would be an idiot to agree to it otherwise.

y96Ch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I was aware of this, but is it use immunity or
> > transactional immunity? There's a huge
> > difference.
>
>
> They're not giving someone like that complete
> blanket immunity but for purposes of the Justice
> Dept's investigation it would necessarily need to
> be broad enough to cover all aspects of his
> testimony and their investigation related to the
> email server which is of larger scope than this
> suit. His attorney would be an idiot to agree to
> it otherwise.

What I hear you saying is you don't understand why people get immunity (cf. your use of the term "blanket immunity") and you don't know what kind was granted in this case.

Don't give the teabaggers anything.

drip drip drip drip drip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bryan Pagliano, a former State Department employee,
> “will invoke his right under the Fifth Amendment
> and decline to testify at the deposition,” his
> attorney said in the court motion filed Wednesday.
>
> The news came as a part of a request from Mr.
> Pagliano’s attorneys to Judge Emmet Sullivan,
> who is overseeing the case, to block Judicial
> Watch from creating an audio or visual recording
> his testimony

Attachments:

drip drip drip drip drip Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> Bryan Pagliano, a former State Department employee,
> “will invoke his right under the Fifth Amendment
> and decline to testify at the deposition,” his
> attorney said in the court motion filed Wednesday.
>
> The news came as a part of a request from Mr.
> Pagliano’s attorneys to Judge Emmet Sullivan,
> who is overseeing the case, to block Judicial
> Watch from creating an audio or visual recording
> his testimony

Fuck these Judicial Watch cunts.

Judicial Watch = Parasites Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> drip drip drip drip drip Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Bryan Pagliano, a former State Department
> employee,
> > “will invoke his right under the Fifth
> Amendment
> > and decline to testify at the deposition,”
> his
> > attorney said in the court motion filed
> Wednesday.
> >
> > The news came as a part of a request from
> Mr.
> > Pagliano’s attorneys to Judge Emmet
> Sullivan,
> > who is overseeing the case, to block
> Judicial
> > Watch from creating an audio or visual
> recording
> > his testimony
>
> Fuck these Judicial Watch cunts.


Lol. "Let the left do whatever they want." Scumbag.

Felicitate me, Frank, like you do those teenage boys. lol.

Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> y96Ch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mike O'Meara Show Fan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I was aware of this, but is it use immunity
> or
> > > transactional immunity? There's a huge
> > > difference.
> >
> >
> > They're not giving someone like that complete
> > blanket immunity but for purposes of the
> Justice
> > Dept's investigation it would necessarily need
> to
> > be broad enough to cover all aspects of his
> > testimony and their investigation related to
> the
> > email server which is of larger scope than this
> > suit. His attorney would be an idiot to agree
> to
> > it otherwise.
>
> What I hear you saying is you don't understand why
> people get immunity (cf. your use of the term
> "blanket immunity") and you don't know what kind
> was granted in this case.


No, what you hear me saying is that they would not give complete transactional immunity from any and all prosecution in a case like this even if they did give some form of transactional vs use immunity. You seemed to be implying that transactional immunity provide for blanket immunity from any prosecution. That's not the case.

Nobody knows exactly what the scope of immunity given is at this point. But you can safely assume that it was broad enough to cover the full scope of the FBI's criminal investigation re the email server; otherwise as I said he'd be an idiot to agree to it.

Now if this was were involving some aspect of inappropriate receipt or use of funds related to the Clinton Foundation or something else along unrelated lines, then he might since that may not be within scope of provided immunity.

Part of getting immunity is "no pleading the Fifth Amendment". Since as has been pointed out this is a civil matter, he would be stupid not to plead the Fifth.