Posted on 05/17/2016 11:09:36 AM PDT by Nachum
A conservative group will interview the first of six former aides to Hillary Clinton Wednesday as it pushes a federal judge to allow it to question the former secretary of state herself.
Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over its slow response to Freedom of Information Act requests, published a deposition schedule Tuesday that included upcoming meetings with Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, three of Clinton's closest staffers at the State Department.
The nonprofit will also question Bryan Pagliano, the Clinton aide who set up a private server in Clinton's home. Pagliano has reportedly received an immunity deal from the FBI, which is investigating Clinton's use of a personal server to handle classified information.
A federal judge granted Judicial Watch's request to interview Clinton aides after determining the State Department did not make a sufficient effort to provide documents requested through FOIA. The agency has repeatedly come under fire for its slow and incomplete responses to records requests.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
This is civil. No fifth amendment allowed. It’s contempt of court of they refuse to answer. How much you want to bet the FBI will be in attendance?
OMERTA! This is the Clintoon crime family!
Of course they FBI has all of that. But they will still try the Sgt. Schultz “I know nothing” ploy.
What I would give to be able to conduct the questioning of these worthless corrupt criminals.
They won’t lie. They won’t say anything other than invoking their 5th amendment rights. Anything they say can be used as potential evidence against them in any criminal case.
The FBI interrogator got into an area of attorney client privilege between Clinton and Mills. Mills and her lawyer did return for the interview after talking outside.
This is too easy. Repeat after me, “I do not recall”, “I have to recollection of....”, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”...Oops, wrong disposition.
Look at what else I found:
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=19933
At the bottom of this there is a link to read the full story, but isn’t David Mercer the same one that backs Glenn Beck and was a big backer of the Cruz Campaign????
6 more bullets in Trump’s arsenal....he will need to order more ammo boxes.
And each one will lie for her.
I am always coming across an article that identifies groups or businesses as conservative (or Christian, or sometimes both) in most publications.
Why is it I never hear about a liberal group, gathering, or business?
It makes it far easier to keep their stories straight and protect The Hildebeast.
More fifths than Hillary drinks in a year.
OK, no fifths allowed. Sorry.
My understanding (NOT a lawyer, just from an article I read on this - will try to find the link) is that since the FBI is investigating & there is or may be criminal liability, even though it is a civil case, there are some very case specific and fact specific issues that may result in the judge allowing some or all to plead the 5th. They cannot avoid civil liability using the 5th, but they still have their constitutional right to avoid criminal liability.
The all share a single lawyer - the Clinton’s David Kendall.
*************************************
Not Kendall (that I’m aware of) but Beth Wilkinson (David Gregory’s wife. Good article (link below) - worth reading.
“Beth Wilkinson, a well-connected former assistant U.S. attorney best known for prosecuting Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, is listed as representing three of Clinton’s top State Department staffers, according to a congressional letter obtained by POLITICO and dated Feb. 10. A fourth Clinton aide, Philippe Reines, is also represented by Wilkinson, according to sources familiar with their representation.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-fbi-strategy-emails-221435#ixzz48wuTj9Wd
Very good. I sit corrected.
More info on taking the 5th in a civil matter:
http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt00may-shield.html
Excerpts:
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution actually says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(Emphasis added.) Because the privilege “can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory,” Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445 (1972), the lawyer who has not navigated these particular legal waters before — and this may include most of those practicing in the civil arena — may fear (or trust) that the very invocation of the privilege will foreclose all further questioning, on any subject.
Civil cases are different. In civil actions, however, there is no prosecutor on hand. The issue then shifts to whether “the claimant is confronted by substantial and ‘real,’ and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination.” Marchetti v. United States , 390 U.S. 39, 453, 88 S. Ct.. 697, 705, 19 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). Because the privilege against self-incrimination applies only in “instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger” of criminal liability, the deposing lawyer should assess in advance, in light of what counsel knows about the case, whether the witness has a realistic basis for such a fear. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, (1951), quoted in U.S. v. Argomaniz, 925 F. 2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1991).
If they try to play dumb, get cute or clam up, all Judicial Watch has to do is get the judge on conference call and have the transcriber read back the question(s) to the judge along with the answer.
Then maybe a show cause (why the deposee shouldn’t be held in contempt) hearing.
There must be one or two of the queen bee’s drones who aren’t culpable and don’t want to fall on their swords/do jail time to protect Her Heinous. All JW has to do is make them understand they have more to fear from the law than from the Clintons.
This could be good. Like someone said upthread, `JW: Doing the job the US Justice Dept. won’t do.’
She seriously looks like she should be grazing at Keeneland in Lexington.
True. But really, that's what our Founders expected us citizens to do.
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.