No melanin immunity for the IT guy either.
Others have tried to obtain lists of STATE Contractors and have been rebuffed. Is the IT guy still on payroll? Are they still distributing the $6Billion they stole.
I have always thought, not that I am a lawyer, that an immunity agreement or grant is conditioned on full testimony from a grantee. If he’s been granted immunity then he doesn’t get to hide behind the 5th. AFAIK. But that ain’t probative.
I’ve been wondering how can he exercise his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incriminating testimony when the immunity agreement precludes any legal jeopardy for him?
I’ve been following Judge Andrew Napolitano’s take on this. The FBI had to get the Justice Department and a Federal Judge to agree to give Pagliano immunity. That means he had to convince them that he could give them somebody higher on the chain. Presumably that somebody is Hillary Clinton. It is to his advantage to confess every crime he was involved in to the FBI as, typically, once he has nothing he said can be used against him, but only against others. In the civil case he pleaded the fifth. The judge called bull sh*t and ordered him to produce his agreement. The judge will review it and depending on what he finds, may order Pagliano to talk or else.
I don’t know why Pagliano would attempt to get out of the civil trial testimony unless he can somehow be sued for his role. His immunity would only be against criminal prosecution, not civil suits. This will be a fascinating episode to watch.
As Yogi used to say, “It ain’t over til its over”.
Obama will pardon Clinton. But that is problematic in that dozens of people are complicit. Considering that each classified email can be a single offense, then there is a lot of jail time for a lot of people. I imagine the DOJ is going to hand B. Hussein Obama a list of people to pardon.
The speed with which Judge Sullivan ordered Pagliano’s lawyers to produce the immunity agreement implies he is fed up with the Clinton gang’s stonewalling, evading, and can’t remembering. Pagliano must prove that his answers to potential questions in this limited scope depo could actually be used against him in criminal proceedings. What transpires next will be very interesting. If Sullivan rules that the immunity agreement gives Pagliano sufficient immunity to submit to the deposition, P. has to answer, or, presumably, go to jail for contempt. Since Pagliano is a “little person”, that might happen. The publicity for Hillary would be, uh, adverse.
Forcing Pagliano’s DoJ immunity agreement into view could reveal whether the FBI is really investigating
or just pretending. (It’s possible the judge will review the agreement but seal it from public view. JW should try to get it into the public record.) I’ll actually be shocked if the Clinton/DoJ machine allows the immunity agreement to be released to the judge at all. Major delay, appeals, and DoJ interference coming up.
This being a civil case, the standard is preponderance of the evidence, not a beyond a reasonable doubt. I wonder if the judge will see stonewalling, pleading the fifth, etc., as positive evidence for people accused of stonewalling and evading the FOIA?
I hope Sullivan orders Hillary to submit to deposition. I’d like to see JW ask her, given Pagliano’s pleading the fifth and all, if she is aware of any crimes that Pagliano might have committed. Answering no could be a big perjury trap for her. Answering yes could be worse.
Yeah. Something smells. Then again when it comes to the clintoons; something always smells. They are simply corrupt.
Knowing what is in the immunity agreement is the key to knowing where the FBI is going with its investigation also what questions might be ripe for Pagliano to answer in the civil suit. I don’t think you can blanket take the 5th for all questions but only question by question.
5th amendment protections in civil cases are much more limited than in criminal cases. The person has to have a real, reasonable expectation that testimony would result in prosecution for them to be able to assert their 5th amendment rights. So you can’t take the 5th if your testimony would be embarrassing, or cause you to lose the civil case. Hell, you can’t even do it if your testimony would cause you to perjure yourself (I.e. You said one thing in a previous criminal case but something different in the civil case). The opposing attorney can challenge any attempt to take the 5th in a civil case, unlike a criminal case.
Pagliano has an immunity deal, he’s a witness (not the defendant) in the civil case, and he has no expectation of prosecution. He will have to testify.
Oh, also in civil cases you can’t just take the 5th and walk out. You have to assert for every question or set of questions. And the other attorney can challenge every time if he wants to.
JW know all this, and they will get Paglinao to testify or be held in contempt.
In Mills’ case the judge agreed not to video tape it because of the fear that those tapes would end up in anti Clinton commercials.
doj immunity guidelines
https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-23000-witness-immunity