Former Clinton Aide To Invoke The Fifth Amendment In Refusing To Testify On Email Scandal

170px-Msc2011_dett-clinton_029816-28The former aide that helped set up the private email server used by Hillary Rodham Clinton will, according to the New York Times, invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination before the congressional committee investigating the matter. Bryan Pagliano worked for Clinton in her failed presidential campaign in 2008. He was then brought into the State Department and helped her create a server separate from the secured State Department system so she could control her own emails. If this news was not bad enough, the Washington Post is reporting that Clinton herself wrote and transmitted classified emails on her unsecured server. If that is not bad enough, Fox News is reporting that Clinton staff members may have changed classified markings on documents to hide their classified status.

Pagliano’s lawyer has notified the congressional panel that Pagliano will refuse to answer questions on the matter in fear of self-incrimination as is his right. He could still be called to force him to invoke in person. He could also be given immunity to force him to testify. He was the information technology director for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and then worked at the State Department as an adviser and special projects manager for its chief technology officer. He then left the State Department in February 2013 when Clinton left. Clinton’s use of campaign associates for the server has raised eyebrows, particularly given recent reports that the State Department IT people did not know of the use of a personal server by Clinton and she used an iPad extensively that was not secured or approved.

The Clinton campaign issued a statement that Pagliano’s invoking the Fifth is “both understandable and disappointing to us, because we believe he has every reason to be transparent about his I.T. assistance.”

“We had hoped Bryan would also agree to answer any questions from the committee and had recently encouraged him to grant the committee’s request for an interview. . . Bryan is an utter professional and a wonderful young man who does not live in the public eye and understandably may not wish to be drawn into a political spectacle.”

The question will now become one of immunity. The problem with investigations of this kind is that people can trip criminal wires with false statements to investigators — that can then be charged separately as a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. That can then put them into a precarious category for the Clinton campaign and folks looking for deals in cooperation with investigators. In the meantime, the scandal bleeds into the campaign. Even with the controversial delay of debates and the limitation of debates that Clinton will have to face, the scandal is clearly having an impact on Clinton with her highest unfavorable ratings since her last presidential campaign.

85 thoughts on “Former Clinton Aide To Invoke The Fifth Amendment In Refusing To Testify On Email Scandal”

  1. Paul C … I am familiar with “The Mouse That Roared” and that is why I cited Grand Fenwick…an impotent mini-state that stumbled into lucky…what concerns me is that we are rapidly becoming militarily impotent ourselves on any large scale….and really cannot move large units without contractors. In short, some p*ss ant state could get lucky here or nearby. Between 80,000 and 120,000 line forces are being cut as we speak…wonder how many are Pentagon Rangers? I’d bet you can count them on one hand. General Odierno spoke the truth once he didn’t have the administration’s thumb on his tail. Too late?

  2. Lest anyone believe that Hillary’s sudden lapse in judgment was only confined to her, here is an article which describes that the Blackberry devices belonging to both of her aides–Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin–have gone missing. I wonder why this has not been more widely reported–or reported, at all–in the media? ____________________________________________________________________________________
    State Dept: Huma Abedin’s Blackberry was Destroyed
    Set on fire, bathed in acid and buried at midnight
    August 20, 2015
    Daniel Greenfield

    I’m sure it was. Set on fire, bathed in acid, blowtorched and then buried at midnight at the bottom of a lake next to Jimmy Hoffa who can finally get internet access.

    State Department BlackBerry devices issued to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin have likely been destroyed or sold off, the department said in a court filing on Wednesday.

    Mills and Abedin “were each issued BlackBerry devices,” department Executive Secretary Joseph Macmanus wrote in the filing.

    The department, however, “has not located any such device,” and believes that they would have been destroyed or removed from the department’s control.

    So it’s more of the same story. This is the system’s response to any investigation.

    1. We can’t find it

    2. It’s probably destroyed

    3. Ooops, looks like we found it

    We went through this with the IRS where the hard drives were all but nuked from outer space. It’s harder to retrieve emails from this administration than finding all that Nazi gold.

    Mills and Huma Abedin are Hillary’s closest associates. Their role in the government was already problematic. Like Hillary Clinton’s private email server, there was always a whiff of monarchy about the whole arrangement, with Hillary Clinton retaining her private court while serving in government. These investigations challenge her privileges and expose once again her habit of preemptively covering everything up as another one of her privileges of power.

    1. bam bam – the State Dept is doing it’s damdest to keep her out of jail. That is why things keep disappearing.

  3. “What is your reasoning for why the rules should not apply to Hillary Clinton…….”

    Karen, what are you talking about?

  4. Playing catch up … 🙂

    Karen S said …

    We get what we deserve when we allow this behavior to continue…

    Bless your heart for saying that…I’ve been saying that in various places, sometimes to derision, when the topic was communities and their police and governments. Some people seem to think votes don’t matter and just re-install candidates who take advantage of their ambivalence.

    Kerry … good to hear that others beside me were & are well aware of the protocols. Yeah, “Leavenworth” was cited a few times just to assure we paid attention. One thing for sure, there was no ambiguity regarding the rules. When I cite “Roles & Permissions” I always wonder if anyone else knows what I am talking about…although I’ve tried to explain it. The day I retired I handed in my government computer and made it clear that any other records on my personal PC were available on request & near instantly in digital format…and that no copies of my government PC’s files existed…nor had I shared my DOD VPN account info with anyone. I still consult now and then and I am v-e-r-y careful with information provided me, always redacting anything questionable (like from OPM’s Db’s … they seem to like over sized flat tables with TMI … though usually not security implicated, just PPI Act stuff) … and I always notify my counter parts still active when it happens. On the very rare occasion something untoward gets through to me now I redact using a minimum of 7 overwrites.

    Squeeky … I think Trump is a bit too thin skinned, with the fuss about women being one example among others. If he’s the last man standing versus Hillary, I’ll vote for him anyway & hold my breath just in case you’re right 😀 …I am definitely in the ABH camp….and her skin is very thin, makes Trump seem tough hided, and she rambles on without purpose when the answer is otherwise obvious. That said, I also am definitely in the camp of those who would prefer “outsiders” who didn’t go to DC in their 20’s and stay forever, with minor sojourns between official positions. Hillary went in her 20’s (counsel to the Nixon Impeachment effort) and so did Cheney (and Rumsfeld) as part of the Nixon West Wing…for the life of me I don’t understand why he’s still on television news….but I guess if Hillary is, why not him, too? He did his bit, good or bad, and needs to retire for real. SAme for Karl rove and his little white board. Seriously. I am admittedly biased vis a vis Cheney due to his part in contracting (well below his pay grade…e.g., who was he advocating for? Yeah, I know, but most don’t) at the start of the Iraq war where an associate of mine got hammered for trying to abide the law and 48 CFR. BTW…she won her lawsuit with back pay against the government for her treatment. Truth is today we can’t battle Grand Fenwick without contractors if the contretemps lasts over a week or so (an exception would be the 173rd Airborne Brigade and maybe a couple other specialized units) … in itself that scared me a bit even while still in DOD & DA. When others from my unit went off to Iraq I worried about them (I even provided the Brits with a dart board and good darts for their “beer tent” aka “the Oasis” in Iraq, near Al Faw and Basara, because they welcomed GI’s there). Fortunately I retired 3 months before I was to deploy to Afghanistan, but that was NOT the reason I departed….believe it or not 😀

    1. Aridog – Grand Fenwick attacked on a day NYC was having a practice atomic bomb alert. Actually, they were a failure. They were supposed to be defeated so the would get money from the US. However, they found the bomb and became a nuclear power, instead.

  5. Karen,

    I wondered the same thing, and I wonder how both Bushs’ would answer. How Dick Cheney would respond to your same statement. The Washington Cartel has to be undone.

  6. “I don’t pity them. I do however wonder if they think this forum is part of the Rush Limbaugh Show.”

    What is your reasoning for why the rules should not apply to Hillary Clinton, and do you apply it to all Democrats and no Republicans or Libertarians? What about her being caught lying time and again? What do personal politics have to do with breaking the law and lying? Why do politics provide an excuse?

  7. “There is a cancer growing on the Presidency.”

    I can’t wait to read the exchange between Hillary and Obama on Benghazi night.

    I can’t wait to connect the electronic dots, the e-dots, between Obama and Lois Lerner et al. at the IRS, during which there was clearly abuse of the power of government against the people.

  8. Samuel said:”You have to pity those that cannot think of anything bettet to say than name calling. You wonder why the political landscaping is in the condition that it is in.”

    I don’t pity them. I do however wonder if they think this forum is part of the Rush Limbaugh Show.

  9. Of course Hillary’s emails would have been classified after she left office. Since she did not use the State server, which has a classification system that has to be selected before you can hit send, none of her emails were designated classified at the time.

    She’s been in government for a very long time. Any government employee who deals with classified documents receives detailed training on the classification system. There are all those stern warnings that include the phrases “failure to follow protocol” and “espionage” and “prison.”

    She, herself, sent out a cable reminding all of her State employees to never use private email for State business.

    Her alibis are growing weaker.

    My dad has been retired for over 20 years, and he still won’t reveal any information that was classified at the time unless I provide documentation proving that it was declassified. I haven’t tried that, yet, but I suspect he still wouldn’t tell me.

    This isn’t a matter of wearing casual clothes to work when it wasn’t Casual Friday. People can and do go to jail for this kind of intentional lapse.

  10. Nick – every couple of days a new Clintonista gets on to defend their darling.

  11. What is a clintonista troll? You have to pity those that cannot think of anything bettet to say than name calling. You wonder why the political landscaping is in the condition that it is in.

  12. But you have to love the temerity of a Clintonista calling others “dishonest.” More balls than brains as my old man would say.

Comments are closed.