Posted on 06/01/2016 4:19:12 PM PDT by jazusamo
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.
Any documents had the classification markings stripped.
In one case, it was done at Clinton’s direction, and there is a email trail proving it.
Bump!
They are prolly archived next to Lois Lerner's e mails filed under the 'plead the 5th folder'.... Sooo transparent...
depends on the agreement, if he has Transactional Immunity, he GOES TO JAIL FOR CONTEMPT!
But I think that is still a red herring, this testimony is about the “Server”, his “Immunity” is about the “Server” also.
without blatant CORRUPTION, and Overturning 240 years of Juris Prudence, I don’t see how he gets away with this.
How can one be prosecuted in a civil trial?
Are they later criminally prosecuted for things they testify to during that civil trial?
I hope Pagliano doesn’t have a heart attack or something.
Immunity is the next step.
5.56mm
Immunity in a criminal case doesn’t shield you in a civil case, or compel you to testify.
And vice versa: Cosby is facing criminal prosecution for testimony in a civil case, where he was promised it wouldn’t be used in other civil cases
You also run the risk of violating an immunity agreement by saying something that contradicts your prior testimony.
Stomping your feet doesn’t change this.
Are you sure about this? Maybe the Judicial Watch lawsuit doesn’t have anything to do with the immunity deal. Just wondering.
<><>State Dept personnel under Hillary may be facing charges of misleading a US court WRT the court's request for documents...and for tampering w/ evidence.
<><> And what of Bill's culpability? The first server Hillary used was the one in their Chappaqua house for Slick/s use when he left the White House......against the advice of Slick/s people.
<><> At some point Hillary went from Chappaqua to a server managed by an outside company. Pagliano probably had some involvement in the migration (if not sole responsibility).
<><> Hillary obviously had to keep her multiple pay-to-play Foundation business off government computers. Fortunately whether it was Pagliano or someone else, the file deletion/wipe was less than professional.
<><> Pagliano’s dual role as: 1) a tax-paid US government employee, and, 2) Hillary's personal employee, opens a whole new arena for investigation.
<><> What was Pagliano’s day-to-day State Dept job? What did he actually do, not just his job description, but actual work accomplishments? Is there a paper trail showing he did any actual work at all, or was the State “job” just a make-work position to get him on the tax-paid payroll in return for his services to Clintons?
<><> Pagliano listed himself on LinkedIn as a political-appointee saying he “Serves as strategic advisor and special projects manager to the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) / Deputy Chief Information Officer (DCIO) overseeing the operations of the Information Resource Management (IRM) bureau.”
<><> Pagliano being employed, by his own admission, at such a high level inside State’s IT structure assures that State’s most senior info officers knew about Clinton’s email setup, and apparently did not, or were not, able to stop it. Unless Brian never told his supervisor about his "other" job.
=============================================
And what abut Sid Blumenthal? He had inside govt info and was constantly in touch w/ Secy Hillry.
<><> For public consumption, Sid was beng touted as a Clinton Foundation hire---the factotum hired to preserve Bill's pesidential legacy (cue laugh machine).
<><> Sid's emails show he had classified info almost verbatim (as confirmed by the NSA).
<><> Blumenthal was urging Hillary to bomb Libya b/c he had profit-making business interests predicated on a new Libyan govt.
<><> Sid also used scare tactics----that Obama would lose reelection if they didn't bomb Libya.
Hillary passed on this information to Obama.....did he know it came from a person he banned from govt employment?
He's safe now. He was in incredible danger, but the Clinton Syndicate missed their opportunity. Now that he has been granted immunity, he has certainly already spilled all the beans in videotaped depositions so it's too late, and would look too suspicious.
Foster and McDougal were offed BEFORE they cut a deal with the Feds.
This is rather curious. Perhaps there are state law crimes involved as well, and he has not been granted immunity for them.
“...because YOU CAN NOT BE PROSECUTED”
Unless he committed other crimes, related to the Benghazi case, that he does not have specific immunity for in the FBI’s email investigation.
I applaud Judicial Watch for pursuing this case, but I have no expectation the FBI will help them, or a civil judge will cite the immunity deal in another criminal case. AFAIK, their case deals with Benghazi, and (although they stirred up the email scandal with a FOIA request) their case is not exactly parallel to the FBI’s investigation. They’re on their own.
you can plead the 5th after immunity?
what was the point to grant immunity?
I hate lawyers and how they screw EVERYTHING UP EXCEPT THEIR OWN BANK ACCOUNTs
but this is beyond WTF and for a change my $ are not involved in their stupid BS
(PS Freaking Lawyers should be required to take and pass a simple High School exit Exam ... some of the dumbest idiots that I have ever met ... but they know the Law, know the Judges and where and who to file the papers with ... and can and do they LIKE to argue with each other ... get their times synched up with other ... buy each other the Lobster maybe share a hotel room for the night and then send the bill to the suckers)
end rant
He accepted immunity from the federal government, in a criminal proceeding. He has to testify there.
This is a suit brought by Judicial Watch regarding the state departments refusal to honor FOIA requests, so he can claim protection from self-incrimination here.
Mark
If they manually typed the classified information into an email client, like Outlook, the new email with the classified information WAS sent by her server. In technical terms, an exchange server provides a number of services, including message stores (email mailboxes,) and MTA (message transfer agent, which delivers messages from one email server to another.) When someone enters an email and clicks on "Send," the message is placed in the "outbound" queue on the mail server by the email client (like Outlook.) The message is then delivered by the sender's email server to the receiver's email server by the MTA service.
More importantly, email is a "store and forward" system, which means that the messages were also stored on the server. And quite possibly on the computer where the classified information was re-typed.
Mark
Read this very slowly, and repeat as necessary until you understand:
The immunity was granted by the FBI for a criminal case.
This testimony is for a completely different CIVIL case. The previous immunity deal doesn’t apply.
Stomping your feet and shouting doesn’t change it.
Information given under oath in either a civil or criminal trial CAN be used as evidence or testimony in the other sort of case.
I believe that's exactly what's going on with Bill Cosby right now.
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
