Clinton IT aide to plead 5th in email case

[Redstreak 6,653]

The man believed to have set up and maintained Hillary Clinton’s private email server will assert his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions as part of an open records lawsuit against the State Department.

Bryan Pagliano will decline to answer questions from Judicial Watch, the conservative legal watchdog group, during a deposition scheduled for Monday, his lawyers wrote in a court filing on Wednesday afternoon. 

The move forecloses the possibility that Pagliano would break his months of silence about the server issue, even as scrutiny has intensified on his role.

Pagliano’s lawyers told Judicial Watch more than a week ago that he would not be answering any questions, they claimed in their filing on Wednesday, and asked that it drop its subpoena. The organization refused.

In the filing, Pagliano’s lawyers tried to have a federal judge block Judicial Watch from recording his deposition, given his planned refusal to answer questions. The lawyers said that a written transcription of the proceedings should be enough to satisfy the public’s interest. 

“Given the constitutional implications, the absence of any proper purpose for video recording the deposition, and the considerable risk of abuse, the court should preclude Judicial Watch …. from creating an audiovisual recording of Mr. Pagliano’s deposition,” they wrote.

Videotaped depositions “pose a serious danger to deponents invoking the Fifth Amendment,” the lawyers added, pointing to past court decisions warning that the video makes a good “soundbite.”

According to the filing, Judicial Watch said it would oppose any such motion. 

Questions about Pagliano’s role in Clinton’s bespoke email arrangement ramped up after he accepted a deal for immunity from the federal government as part of his cooperation with the FBI’s ongoing investigation into Clinton’s setup. 

Yet very little is known about Pagliano and how he maintained the server at Clinton’s New York home.

The IT expert has previously refused to answer questions on Capitol Hill, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights before the House Select Committee on Benghazi and rejecting requests from leaders of the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security committees to answer their questions.   

Last month, the State Department said that it had lost the backup archive of Pagliano’s emails from his time at the department. However, it had been able to cobble together some emails through the accounts of other officials. 

Last month, a federal judge gave Judicial Watch the go-ahead to ask Pagliano questions under oath as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit connected to Clinton’s emails, alongside key Clinton aides such as Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.  

Mills answered questions for roughly seven hours last Friday, during which she claimed never to have seen Pagliano interacting with Clinton or her senior aides. 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281925-clinton-it-aide-to-plead-fifth-in-email-case

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

When both general election candidates are facing charges MESS SMH

[FATCAT 60,972]

Just to be clear, this is not the FBI indictment case. He's already been granted immunity for working hand in hand with the FBI. They're going for the big prize.

[Redstreak 6,653]

Just now, FATCAT said:

Just to be clear, this is not the FBI indictment case. He's already been granted immunity for working hand in hand with the FBI. They're going for the big prize.

Each day brings more stories that make this thing just look more and more imminent.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Pleading the 5th doesnt make you guilty.

You need to stop the guilty til proven innocent millennial ideology.

"Nothing to hide" is a moot point. Immunity is not absolute. He may have done things both unknown or ordered that he doesn't want getting out there, legal or otherwise.

I also find it fascinating that you're so concerned with this. It truly is marvelous how people go to the depths of depravity hating people they know so little about.

[Redstreak 6,653]

3 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

 

I also find it fascinating that you're so concerned with this. It truly is marvelous how people go to the depths of depravity hating people they know so little about.

Coming from the person who started a thread about a fake video of Sanders coming out to a rap song that didn't play any of its homophobic parts?

 

This is my first thread made in this section in a few days. This email thing is very much in the national spotlight right now and Bryan Pagliano has a pretty notable part in unraveling this fiasco. Do I just... not post threads about new updates? No one's saying this is guilty until innocent, it's just a piece of this whole situation.

[Goosey 3,017]

1 hour ago, FATCAT said:

Just to be clear, this is not the FBI indictment case. He's already been granted immunity for working hand in hand with the FBI. They're going for the big prize.

She's going down, folks!

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

10 hours ago, Redstreak said:

Coming from the person who started a thread about a fake video of Sanders coming out to a rap song that didn't play any of its homophobic parts?

 

This is my first thread made in this section in a few days. This email thing is very much in the national spotlight right now and Bryan Pagliano has a pretty notable part in unraveling this fiasco. Do I just... not post threads about new updates? No one's saying this is guilty until innocent, it's just a piece of this whole situation.

It wasn't fake when I posted it and I quickly edited the topic upon getting updates in order to not post something fake about Bernie, but I'm not shocked a Bernie supporter employs revisionist history. 

And lol don't hide behind claims of neutrality. 

I'm glad that's all you could respond to though. Nice deflection from the actual content of the post which completely shuts down your "imminent indictment" argument.

[Redstreak 6,653]

4 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

It wasn't fake when I posted it and I quickly edited the topic upon getting updates in order to not post something fake about Bernie, but I'm not shocked a Bernie supporter employs revisionist history. 

And lol don't hide behind claims of neutrality. 

I'm glad that's all you could respond to though. Nice deflection from the actual content of the post which completely shuts down your "imminent indictment" argument.

Because anything you say is just as much speculation as mine. It's clearly the top news trend of FB and everyone is reporting so obviously it was something worth posting.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

30 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

Because anything you say is just as much speculation as mine. It's clearly the top news trend of FB and everyone is reporting so obviously it was something worth posting.

I mean good job doing the GOP and media's work for them  

It's fine keep posting about imminent indictments. I'll savor every tear when she's vindicated in yet another overblown Clinton scandal.

[Redstreak 6,653]

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

I mean good job doing the GOP and media's work for them  

It's fine keep posting about imminent indictments. I'll savor every tear when she's vindicated in yet another overblown Clinton scandal.

You can't hide behind GOPPPPPPPPP conspiracy when even heavy left wing publications are reporting and berating her over this. The IG Report was done by someone appointed under Obama, not very GOPPPPPPPPPPPP of him.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

16 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

You can't hide behind GOPPPPPPPPP conspiracy when even heavy left wing publications are reporting and berating her over this. The IG Report was done by someone appointed under Obama, not very GOPPPPPPPPPPPP of him.

Who ever said it was a GOP conspiracy? Stop putting words in my mouth  

Every Clinton scandal has had investigations. The investigations themselves aren't necessarily GOP-fueled conspiracies. Benghazi is a good example of one. The GOP conspiracies are systematic overblowing of the situations in order to give Clinton a negative image, one that has worked despite her being cleared from every single scandal she has ever been accused of. This time the GOP is just pointing towards the e-mail scandal as justification, especially enjoying the fact that the Democrats are the ones tearing each other apart this time.

The media is savoring any hint of conspiracy in the Democratic race because they want to keep the Clinton/Sanders competition look like a tight horse race when it's anything but. Everyone who isn't delusional knows Clinton will win, but everyone from the GOP to the liberal media is squeezing anything they can out of it. Trying to justify it using "left wing" is especially hilarious given you are forgetting that Sanders himself is left-wing so even his supporters are on this ship. This time the "enemy" is within the same group.

Why are you even quoting the IG report?  It vindicated Clinton by basically calling out the failures of the system in place and the Secretaries of the past, while spending a measly 6 pages addressing a potential but unlikely security threat (one sketchy email out of 30000  ) and giving her a tap on the hand of breaking rules set by the State Department. Rules that are functionally obsolete as the IG report also stated.

What's funny is that every renowned legal expert there is has outright stated that there is no precedent for this, and that Hillary will not get indicted given that any potential laws she may have broken were designed for spies and moles. Hillary isn't a national enemy and won't be treated as such. Given that she has no malevolent intent, and did not break any laws ESPECIALLY since the data was only retroactively classified after the fact, it is not likely at ALL that she will get indicted. Yet you ignore every single one of those facts and throw that context away every time a "story" pops up. 

It's quite sad and pathetic to see the liberal train hop on board because this time she's up against a fellow "Democrat" Sanders. 

As I said, keep doing the GOP and media's job for them  I won't stop you. I'll just make sure to laugh every time.

[Redstreak 6,653]

14 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Who ever said it was a GOP conspiracy? Stop putting words in my mouth  

Every Clinton scandal has had investigations. The investigations themselves aren't necessarily GOP-fueled conspiracies. Benghazi is a good example of one. The GOP conspiracies are systematic overblowing of the situations in order to give Clinton a negative image, one that has worked despite her being cleared from every single scandal she has ever been accused of. This time the GOP is just pointing towards the e-mail scandal as justification, especially enjoying the fact that the Democrats are the ones tearing each other apart this time.

The media is savoring any hint of conspiracy in the Democratic race because they want to keep the Clinton/Sanders competition look like a tight horse race when it's anything but. Everyone who isn't delusional knows Clinton will win, but everyone from the GOP to the liberal media is squeezing anything they can out of it. Trying to justify it using "left wing" is especially hilarious given you are forgetting that Sanders himself is left-wing so even his supporters are on this ship. This time the "enemy" is within the same group.

Why are you even quoting the IG report?  It vindicated Clinton by basically calling out the failures of the system in place and the Secretaries of the past, while spending a measly 6 pages addressing a potential but unlikely security threat (one sketchy email out of 30000  ) and giving her a tap on the hand of breaking rules set by the State Department. Rules that are functionally obsolete as the IG report also stated.

What's funny is that every renowned legal expert there is has outright stated that there is no precedent for this, and that Hillary will not get indicted given that any potential laws she may have broken were designed for spies and moles. Hillary isn't a national enemy and won't be treated as such. Given that she has no malevolent intent, and did not break any laws ESPECIALLY since the data was only retroactively classified after the fact, it is not likely at ALL that she will get indicted. Yet you ignore every single one of those facts and throw that context away every time a "story" pops up. 

It's quite sad and pathetic to see the liberal train hop on board because this time she's up against a fellow "Democrat" Sanders. 

As I said, keep doing the GOP and media's job for them  I won't stop you. I'll just make sure to laugh every time.

I still can't believe you're claiming it vindicated her when literally no one but you and a Forbes article written by someone who constantly defends her from everything  The indictment most likely won't happen, but you're being really desperate in trying to maintain that this whole thing is nothing.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

I still can't believe you're claiming it vindicated her when literally no one but you and a Forbes article written by someone who constantly defends her from everything  The indictment most likely won't happen, but you're being really desperate in trying to maintain that this whole thing is nothing.

LOL you're kidding right? I don't even mention media outlets. Did you not read the IG report yourself, or are you that reliant on the media doing the work for you? There is literally no mention of breaking of laws. 

Despite that, every non-biased article has outright stated that she broke rules, not laws. They all point to the failures of the system in place as well as previous secretaries. That in itself vindicates her. The conclusion of the authors clearly varies depending on motive, and almost all of them say "Omg she MAY be in trouble" (Keyword: may) when the contents of their posts imply anything but.  

Also when did I say it was nothing? Note how I have never stated that the indictment is impossible, merely unlikely. She may have done something illegal, but so far there is no proof of that.

Furthermore, I find it hilariously ironic that you think this is VERY IMPORTANT while your failed candidate's 700 page violations are apparently nothing. Apparently his tax returns are not important but Clinton's private speeches are. Please. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[Luiz 4,253]

the defensiveness in this thread  

thanks for the update fam lol.