House to vote this week on contempt for former Clinton IT staffer

The Hill ^ | September 26, 2016 | Katie Bo Williams

[maggief]

The House will vote this week on a resolution to hold former State Department IT technician Bryan Pagliano in contempt of Congress, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters Monday.

“We’ll be taking up contempt on Bryan Pagliano for his lack of attending,” McCarthy said, referring to a committee hearing Pagliano skipped. McCarthy provided no further details on plans for the vote.

Pagliano was responsible for setting up Hillary Clinton’s private email server during her tenure as secretary of State.

The former State Department employee declined to appear at an Oversight Committee hearing on Clinton's server earlier this month, in spite of a subpoena demanding his presence. The committee on Thursday voted along party lines to recommend Pagliano be held in contempt.

“Subpoenas are not optional,” Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said Thursday. “Mr. Pagliano is a crucial fact witness in this committee’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to conduct government business.”

Outraged committee Democrats decried the move as an abuse of power that violates rules against harassing witnesses.

Pagliano’s lawyers say that the former State Department employee has already asserted his Fifth Amendment rights before the House Benghazi Committee and should not be forced to do so again.

“A subpoena issued by a congressional committee is required by law to serve a valid legislative purpose and there is none here,” reads a letter sent to Oversight leadership last week, which refers to the committee’s efforts to force Pagliano to testify as a “naked political agenda” with “no valid legislative aim.” Clinton is now the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

[SERKIT]

I truly hope Chaffetz and Gowdy have good security details. The Clintons scare the hell out of me. You have to wonder what this young man has been threatened with regarding any bean-spilling.

[unixfox]

Just like the held Lois Lerner in contempt.

As she flips us the finger.

[Revel]

We still have not heard anything about congress’s recent letter to the company that ran the email server. Interview Appointment dates were supposed to have been set for its employees by last Friday.

[CMailBag]

They just as well save it until 1-21-17.

[kaehurowing]

Watcha’ doin’ about the end of the internet, Congress?

Clock’s a tickin’.

[Paladin2]

Shouldn't the House be working on regular order instead of lame ducking continuing resolutions? They also should be working to save the Internet.

Where is PRYNO?

[Liz]

Hey, Jason, go after Cheryl Mills ASAP.

Meet the mastermind behind Clinton’s massive email coverup
New York Post ^ | September 4, 2016 | Paul Sperry / FR Posted by bushwon

EXCERPT--Newly released FBI documents detailing theinvest igation of Hillary’s State dept emails reveal the aide who would likely follow her into the White House as chief counsel was central to a cover-up of evidence sought by investigators.

Yet despite signs, Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills obstructed efforts by investigators to obtain Clinton’s emails, the FBI invited Mills to attend Hillary’s interview at FBI headquarters as one of her lawyers.

“It’s absolutely outrageous,” J/W President Tom Fitton said. “The FBI saw massive document destruction and clear intent to withhold material evidence,” he added, “and they just ignored that obstruction, and even let her sit in on the interview.”

The smoking gun is on page 16 of the FBI’s 47-page report. It details how Mills ultimately made the determinations about which emails should be preserved before she and Clinton decided to delete the rest as “personal.” Clinton conducted both government and personal business using a personal email account — clintonemail.com — tied to an unsecured server set up in the basement of her New York home.

The FBI makes clear the procedure Mills used to sort out the emails was suspicious. Mills was the one who ordered the server host to move the emails from the server to a laptop where she could screen them.

Mills told investigators she could “not recall” if emails with non-gov addresses were included in the transfer. It’s unlikely they were, because an aide who helped her search told the FBI she only screened for emails sent to or from Clinton with .gov and .mil — not .com — addresses.--SNIP-- (Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

[Liz]

Hillary's email coverup operation and deliberate destruction of govt property was so vast, at least five State Dept govt employees, including Clinton’s top suck-up, Cheryl Mills, needed DOJ immunity deals to avoid prosecution....and to prevent Obama from being implicated.

By Robert Gehl, Federalist Papers
Hillary didn't know and Cheryl Mills didn't know either (250 times)

She doesn’t recall, she doesn’t recollect. She’s not sure. She just doesn’t know. Hillary Clinton’s counsel, chief of staff (and US govt employee), doesn’t know a lot of things. She can’t remember testimony she gave. She isn’t sure if she spoke to anyone – she doesn’t remember Hillary’s email address, she doesn’t even know who might know anything. During seven hours of testimony before Judicial Watch, Cheryl Mills said “I don’t know” or some variation of ignorance at least 189 times. (Hillary didn't know 50 temes and blamed a blood clot on her brain for her forgetfulness).

Mills is clearly adept at finding ways to proclaim her ignorance. She was Bill Clinton’s counsel during the impeachment proceedings in the 1990s and has been a close advisor for both Bill and Hillary Clinton for decades.

Breitbart compiled a list of the near-200 times Mills declared how little she knows.

READ HERE http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/what-cheryl-mills-doesnt-know-could-last-seven-hours-wait-it-does

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

I don’t understand why there is a vote.

They subpoena’ed him.

He didn’t show.

That is contempt.

Right now.

Like A = A. Or X = X.

There is no decision to make, this isn’t an FBI deciding to not prosecute HRC. It is a perfect equivalence.

[mtrott]

“Outraged committee Democrats decried the move as an abuse of power that violates rules against harassing witnesses.”

Well, how does issuing a subpoena to a witness constitute “harassing”? Harassment would occur when when a witness is actually giving testimony, which this guy is refusing to do.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Yeah! Turn him over to the DOJ for a spanking immediately.

[Noamie]

Can a body harass a witness who will not... Uhm, Witness?

[The Antiyuppie]

Wow, this is going on his Permanent Record. What WILL he do?

If anything, it should be a career boost - someone who can “get it done” and then STFU.

[onedoug]

They’re turning the tiny screws. It’s the big ones need that.

[a fool in paradise]

And Nana Hillary wasn’t being contemptuous when she mockingly responding, “you mean with a rag?” when asked if she’d wiped the servers?!!

[a fool in paradise]

Simple facts, if there were no crimes committed, why were so many people in this case granted IMMUNITY?

[ClearCase_guy]

Similarly, if Hillary’s server had no sensitive documents, why are some of the released emails so heavily redacted?

[i_robot73]

>
I don’t understand why there is a vote.

They subpoena’ed him.

He didn’t show.

That is contempt.

Right now.

Like A = A. Or X = X.

There is no decision to make, this isn’t an FBI deciding to not prosecute HRC. It is a perfect equivalence.
>

Well, you see, it’s MUCH easier to go back ‘home’ and tell the pleebs, “But, I T-R-I-E-D”, while having done NOTHING that their power\authority ALLOWS. The ol’ slight-of-hand...bait-n-switch if you will.

You don’t expect anyone to rock the boat do you? Why else, in an ELECTION YEAR, would the GOP(e)\RNC be so demur and quiet re: so much malfeasance from the ‘opposition’??

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

When president Trump is elected, he really needs to light a fire under congress: if someone is in contempt of congress, they need to go to jail. Three to six months to ponder their behavior is good.

If someone in the executive branch shows contempt to congress, that should amount to their resignation, unless it is an authorized presidential challenge to what congress is demanding, given officially and in writing by the president.