The former information technology adviser to Hillary Clinton is reportedly intending to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at a deposition next week in answering questions about Clinton’s decision to use an unsecure personal server exclusively in her communications as Secretary of State. Bryan Pagliano made the disclosure in a court filing where he also sought to prevent the videotaping of his invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination.
Pagliano’s lawyers Mark MacDougall and Connor Mullin wrote that “Mr. Pagliano will invoke his right under the Fifth Amendment and decline to testify at the deposition . . . 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, Inc. … from creating an audiovisual recording of Mr. Pagliano’s deposition.”
Putting aside the question of videotaping, the invocation raises a concern that (with the reported immunity deal with the Justice Department) Pagliano could effectively bury the truth about what occurred in the controversy. If no criminal charges are brought by the Justice Department, Pagliano can remain silent and effectively walk with his knowledge. It would seem reasonable for Judicial Watch to ask for the scope of any immunity deal that would already protect him from such disclosure.
The silence of Pagliano and the reported lapse of memory of other top aides is likely good news for the Clinton team in pre-November damage control. If top aides will claim faulty memories or invoke their right to remain silent, the only disclosures before the election would have to come from the FBI or Congress. Yet, the FBI would turn over any proposed indictments to the Justice Department and, if the Justice Department scuttles any indictment, there would not normally be a public report.
Paul,
Why on Earth would you think I’m defending Hillary? I’ve said a dozen times or more that the one and ONLY reason I would ever vote for her is to keep Donald (lil Hitler) Trump from becoming president. The end.
But in spite of all the venom spewed by the regressives on this board and elsewhere, in spite of Turley’s all-Hillary-all-the-time posts on this blog, and in spite of the tens of millions of dollars spent by Congressional Republicans, not one indictment, not one “finding” not one, well, anything. No there there on Benghazi, and no proof on any damage done by her incredibly stupid email server choice. Nothing. Nada.
That said, I hope she steps aside and lets Bernie run, because he will CREAM Drumpf, name an awesome SCOTUS justice, have an incredible cabinet and get America back on track to becoming a nation of, by and for the people.
As for you, you never refuted one thing from the article about the RNC and and Bush White House email scandal, so until that happens, I’m going to take it that you cannot refute anything and are simply bent on misdirection and denial. So long now.
phillyT – I have refuted several things. The Bush WH had no part of the actual deletion of emails, that was regular housecleaning by the RNC. They adjusted their housecleaning when they thought they might be coming afoul of the law.
Now, the challenge for me is: what does this have to do with Hillary’s breaking the law unless you are playing the “they jumped off the cliff first” card. Thus, you are defending Hillary.
phillyT writes, “I’ve said a dozen times or more that the one and ONLY reason I would ever vote for her is to keep Donald (lil Hitler) Trump from becoming president. The end.”
Conceptually, voting for the lesser of two evils, knowing Hillary’s foreign policy goals and her past, including apparently approval of the transfer of Libyan stockpiles of sarin gas to Syrian insurrectionists, regime change, and selling access to banks, is not in the best interest of this country and to me, as ::ahem:: climate change Is real states, “living in fear.”
Hillary’s got blood on her hands, and Trump, as undiplomatic and potentially dangerous as he is, doesn’t. Were you principled, you’d vote for neither, but you chose to continue the killing game and empire.
Paul,
And yet still not an actual answer or specific critique.
I’ll take that as confirmation that the Bush White House did in fact break the law, purposefully hid information from the public and the archivists and hid illegal activities.
Thanks for playing.
phillyT – Never take anything I say as a confirmation unless it is an actual confirmation.
I do have a question. Why are you trying so hard to defend a woman who has never shown the American people any respect?
Sorry Paul, that’s pure bullcrap. No one rejects a source out of hand. Unless it’s Breitbart or the RNC. Wikipedia has cites for everything posted.
If you knew anything about academics, you would know that one argues the validity of the facts, the source origin of the citations, the author’s credibility, with other facts, sources and citations. There is no valid academic argument in rejecting Wikipedia with nothin backing you up. Want to reject the article about the Bush White House and the RNC conspiring to avoid the archive rules, find a source, show a citation. You see, if you scroll all the way to the end of an article on that Wikipedia page, you will find dozens of sources cited. Want to challenge that, be my guest.
A really good teacher would know how citations work. You obviously don’t.
phillyT – I have taught reseach methods. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about its information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer