Fed. Judge orders Clinton aide to prove legal basis for pleading 5th

[Redstreak 6,653]

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that a court order was issued by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan requiring Bryan Pagliano, the Clinton State Department IT official who reportedly provided support for the Clinton email system, to produce to the court his reported immunity agreement and the legal basis for the Fifth Amendment claims he planned to assert in Judicial Watch’s discovery into the Clinton email system.  The order delays Mr. Pagliano’s deposition, which had been scheduled for Monday, June 6.

Judge Sullivan’s order, issued at 5:22 pm, “minute order” states:

The deposition of non-party Bryan Pagliano is hereby postponed until further order of the Court. Counsel for Mr. Pagliano shall file a Memorandum of Law addressing the legal authority upon which Mr. Pagliano relies to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in this civil proceeding, including requisite details pertaining to the scope of Mr. Pagliano’s reported immunity agreement with the Government. Mr. Pagliano’s Memorandum of Law, along with a copy of his reported immunity agreement, shall be filed no later than Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. The parties are ordered to file responsive memoranda of law no later than Friday, June 10, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. Mr. Pagliano shall file a reply memorandum no later than Monday, June 13, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 3, 2016.

“The court’s order is an important step to getting more answers from Mr. Pagliano about Hillary Clinton’s email system,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

 

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/federal-judge-orders-clinton-witness-produce-reported-immunity-agreement-legal-basis-fifth-amendment-claims/

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

It appears Pagliano does not have transactional immunity which implies protection from all prosecution. He appears to have use immunity, which means they cannot use the specific testimony you give them to prosecute you. But if they can uncover evidence without using that specific testimony, they can still prosecute.

So with use immunity, you may have to assert the 5th several times. In this case, the federal immunity deal would be very unlikely to extend to separate testimony in a civil case. But each of these deals is drafted specifically for each case so the judge wants to validate it.

So basically, the existence of an immunity agreement in one case does not remove someone's right to plead the Fifth in another case, especially if that second case might lead to additional legal or civil penalties.

By the way. The reason Pagliano has immunity is not because of the e-mail server. It's because he didn't disclose his side employment with Hillary since he was being paid on the side. That's not on Hillary. It was his responsibility to do so. Not reporting full financial disclosure is a major criminal offense which involves jail time.

Now the funny part about this ruling is that the judge is effectively undermining the FBI's criminal case, the one that you should be following if you're hoping for an indictment. 

The judge cannot compel a witness to testify on a case that's the subject of an ongoing Federal investigation. It would have to show that Judicial Watch's investigation is materially similar to the FBI case and not more wide-ranging in scope, which would necessitate a new immunity agreement to remove Pagliano's right to plead the Fifth.

The FBI may have actually advised him to plead the fifth for risk of exposing details of their own investigation to the target.

They also have to consider the fact that a testimony can infringe on the integrity of the criminal case's jury should there be a trial. 

So basically, most likely nothing will change and he'll still be able to plead the Fifth. 

----

Posting Breitbart articles and following Judicial Watch's private lawsuit, both being uber conservative fronts, the latter being funded by GOP billionaires.  

By the way, the Judicial Watch case is a civil one. If you're following this case for hopes of indictment, you're going to be sorely disappointed because this is not a criminal investigation.  

It's a witch hunt, nothing more nothing less, and you can expect to keep seeing Hillary and her team refuse to fully cooperate with them as they focus on the one that matters, the FBI case. They are fully aware that this suit is being used for political purposes. Just look at yourself and your vehement posting of any single detail. 

Keep doing the GOP's work for them  

[Redstreak 6,653]

25 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

 

Keep doing the GOP's work for them  

I had no idea the GOP's last hopes of winning depended on my threads on a Gaga forum. I can't believe I have all this power.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 hours ago, Redstreak said:

I had no idea the GOP's last hopes of winning depended on my threads on a Gaga forum. I can't believe I have all this power.

Who's talking about them winning? You're a pawn of their machinations.You're being manipulated. How about you realize you're getting played, or is your irrational animus regarding Hillary so hard to let go of?

And for someone who is apparently serious about this, you sure do fail to address any point beyond picking one line and cracking a joke in an attempt to misdirect. 

[Eighteen 5,430]

this email thing def. should NOT be as scandalous as it has turned out to be imo. same w/ benghazi. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

28 minutes ago, hahahahahahahah said:

this email thing def. should NOT be as scandalous as it has turned out to be imo. same w/ benghazi. 

Eh Clinton is the poster girl for scandal, even though she has never been charged.

She's the GOP's greatest enemy. It's why she has so many. No person is under as much scrutiny as Clinton.

Then people wonder why she isn't transparent.

[Redstreak 6,653]

2 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

Who's talking about them winning? You're a pawn of their machinations.You're being manipulated. How about you realize you're getting played, or is your irrational animus regarding Hillary so hard to let go of?

And for someone who is apparently serious about this, you sure do fail to address any point beyond picking one line and cracking a joke in an attempt to misdirect. 

We've had this discussion before. There's no point when you answer a misrepresentation of everything members say to you.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

We've had this discussion before. There's no point when you answer a misrepresentation of everything members say to you.

You're being pretty pretentious when you assume that what you say isn't indeed a misrepresentation of the facts. The very same pretentiousness you accuse me of. 

Also stop employing fallacies with every sentence you write. A few members having the same opinion as you does not make it a correct one.

[Redstreak 6,653]

54 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

You're being pretty pretentious when you assume that what you say isn't indeed a misrepresentation of the facts. The very same pretentiousness you accuse me of. 

Also stop employing fallacies with every sentence you write. A few members having the same opinion as you does not make it a correct one.

Case in point, what does other people's opinions have anything to do with what I just said? Why can you never respond to what people are actually saying to you?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 hours ago, Redstreak said:

Case in point, what does other people's opinions have anything to do with what I just said? Why can you never respond to what people are actually saying to you?

Um...

"misrepresentation of everything members say to you"

Case in what point?

You're literally taking one or two anecdotes of people ( I can tell you exactly who they are) having the opinion that I misrepresent what they say and using it as a generalization. 

It's also rich how you are telling me to respond to what you say to me when you consistently ignore any actual content I post to focus on one singular point.  

Honey you may be used to talking to simpletons but you aren't as slick as you think you are. Your words betray your intentions. It's as clear as day  

[Redstreak 6,653]

2 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

Um...

"misrepresentation of everything members say to you"

Case in what point?

You're literally taking one or two anecdotes of people ( I can tell you exactly who they are) having the opinion that I misrepresent what they say and using it as a generalization. 

It's also rich how you are telling me to respond to what you say to me when you consistently ignore any actual content I post to focus on one singular point.  

Honey you may be used to talking to simpletons but you aren't as slick as you think you are. Your words betray your intentions. It's as clear as day  

I'm not taking anecdotes. You consistently do it to me, I see you consistently do it to other members. When you have several different people giving you the same complaint, maybe it's time to realize you're the problem.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

I'm not taking anecdotes. You consistently do it to me, I see you consistently do it to other members. When you have several different people giving you the same complaint, maybe it's time to realize you're the problem.

Again using a group-think fallacy.

I assure you I get far more compliments than criticisms. Take it as you will.

[Redstreak 6,653]

5 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Again using a group-think fallacy.

I assure you I get far more compliments than criticisms. Take it as you will.

That's uh, not really how that works. I mean it's fine if you're unable to fairly take criticism and reflect on it, I understand. A lot of people have that issue. I'll let you work on that on you're own.

 

And I hope you don't take those compliments too  much to heart. If a few criticisms are enough to illicit fallacy accusations, I certainly wouldn't want you to fall to the same vice when reversed. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, Redstreak said:

That's uh, not really how that works. I mean it's fine if you're unable to fairly take criticism and reflect on it, I understand. A lot of people have that issue. I'll let work on that on you're own.

 

And I hope you don't take those compliments too  much to heart. If a few criticisms are enough to illicit fallacy accusations, I certainly wouldn't want you to fall to the same vice when reversed. 

Who says I don't reflect on criticisms?

Lawd your assumptions are too much. Is that how you analyze everything?

It's hilarious how you are assuming your criticisms have had any value. 

I also never stated that I am right because I get compliments. I explicitly said "take that as you will". If you're trying to lob the "other members" argument, I'm telling you outright that your viewpoint is very inaccurate, so your conclusion is unequivocally false. Frame it differently.

[Redstreak 6,653]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Who says I don't reflect on criticisms?

Lawd your assumptions are too much. Is that how you analyze everything?

It's hilarious how you are assuming your criticisms have had any value. 

My posts in these threads usually get several likes (compliments) so I mean I guess they must.