Clinton IT specialist invokes the Fifth 100+ times

[w4rma]

Source: The Hill

But he declined to answer questions, his lawyers said, in part due to the federal government’s decision to grant him limited immunity as part of its ongoing criminal probe related to the server and the possibility that classified information was mishandled.

After a back-and-forth between the two legal teams, Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled this month that the details of that immunity deal could remain secret.
…
Unlike in criminal cases, judges in civil suits are allowed to draw inferences from a witness’s decision not to answer questions, potentially increasing the likelihood that Clinton herself is asked to testify as part of the Judicial Watch lawsuit. Clinton’s campaign would surely vigorously oppose any request for her to appear, and the event could dramatically shake up the presidential race.

Judicial Watch has filed multiple open records lawsuits related to Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email account and server while serving as the nation’s top diplomat. Depositions have been granted in two of those cases, and the decision in a third was this week put on hold pending the outcomes of those two other cases.

Two other former aides are scheduled to be interviewed before the end of the month: longtime deputy Huma Abedin and Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/284481-clinton-it-specialist-invokes-the-fifth-100-times

[scscholar]

1. This proves nothing

You have rights.

[former9thward]

23. And as the OP points out the Judge in this case has rights also.

He has the right to make assumptions why the witness is refusing to answer questions. But of course nothing to see here, please move on folks.

[merrily]

35. I didn't know people could plead the 5th in a civil case. That's not how

the Constitution reads.

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 offense 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.

[former9thward]

39. Ordinarily they can't.

But in this case there is a corresponding FBI criminal investigation based on much of the same facts. The IT guy has reached an immunity deal and the judge in the civil case felt that compelling him to testify in the civil case may harm the criminal investigation.

[merrily]

45. Do you grok why his answering questions truthfully under oath would harm any investigation?

[JonLeibowitz]

54. It could harm his position in the criminal case if he is a target (which we don't know either way)

[merrily]

58. That is very different from former9thward's statement. He has immunity, no?

[merrily]

36. The right not to testify *if* so doing might tend to show you were guilty of a crime.

[Travis_0004]

51. No.

The 5th protects the innocent and guilty.

[Renew Deal]

2. Did they ask if he planted the glove?

[w4rma]

4. That is, quite possibly, the least flattering analogy that you could cite.

Simpson was acquitted of the murders in a criminal trial (California v. Simpson) but later was found financially liable in a civil trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It

[Renew Deal]

21. Caution: Hijack in progress...

Did you see the ESPN special on OJ? I had forgotten that Furman took the 5th on every question after his dishonesty was revealed. Even when asked if he planted the gloves.

[NobodyHere]

24. I watched it too

Apparently you can't pick and choose which questions you can answer. You either plead the fifth to everything or nothing.

[elljay]

34. That is a correct statement of the law

You can't pick and choose which questions you want to answer. If that were permitted, witnesses would only answer questions that helped their case and would plead the 5th on any other questions. If a witness takes the 5th, all of his/her testimony is stricken.

[beachbumbob]

3. Right wing hack...Judicial watch....I wouldn't say a word to those scum

Either

[Grassy Knoll]

7. Exactly...

[bobthedrummer]

9. The fact is the IT person invoked the 5th over a hundred times-or don't you care about truth?

[pnwmom]

13. It is standard procedure for lawyers to make the witness repeat himself

over and over like that, even when the judge has approved him taking the 5th.

It's all just a show, signifying nothing about Hillary or her campaign.

[bobthedrummer]

18. I agree it's a perception managed political show pre-trial worthy of historical comparisons.

The Center for Media and Democracy/PR Watch
http://www.prwatch.org

[former9thward]

25. No its not.

There is no Judge who will allow the same question to be asked over and over. Not the real world.

[pnwmom]

26. It isn't the same question. But when a person has asserted his 5th amendment

right to not participate AT ALL, it is standard procedure to put on the record all the questions they were intending to ask, and to force the 5th-amendment-non-witness to repeat his claim for each one.

[msanthrope]

38. This was at a deposition. Judge wasn't present. nt

[former9thward]

40. As I am sure you know a judge has jurisdiction to rule on objections in the deposition.

Same difference.

[msanthrope]

57. Indeed. And any lawyer who calls a judge during a depo better have a good reason

that doesn't involve "he asked my client the same question too many times!" You let JW call the judge.....but you handle yourself.

[LanternWaste]

15. The fact is, screenwriter Adrian Scott also pleaded the fifth seventy-seven times in front of HUAC

The fact is, screenwriter Adrian Scott also pleaded the fifth seventy-seven times in front of HUAC. Joseph McCarthy also alleged a concern for "the truth," but alas and alack, had no access to crappy internet videos.

[DonViejo]

22. You're opposed to someone exercising his/her Constitutional rights?

[merrily]

37. Is anyone suggesting he be forced to testify, even if so doing would incriminate him?

Or are we pretending there is a constitutional right not to have posters assume you're guilty if you plead the fifth in a civil case?

[elleng]

28. FACTS?

People should be interested in THAT???

[840high]

41. They've been known to go

after Republicans, too.

[DirkGently]

5. Interesting! n/t

[George II]

6. A person can "take the fifth" for any number of reasons, and we don't know....

....the specific questions that were asked.

Plus, I wonder how details of a deposition in a CIVIL case can be known so quickly, if ever. I don't know if civil cases are subject to FOIA, and judges frown upon litigating in the press.

One more thing - I thought this stuff was going to end on Monday. I guess not.

[blackspade]

8. That's not good.

I wish the FBI would get the lead out on this.
Having this linger is damaging for the general election.

[pnwmom]

11. It's not bad, either. It's how it works when someone pleads the 5th,

which we've known for months is what he was going to do.

[blackspade]

12. Not my point.

The continuing FBI investigation propagates these continuing lawsuits.
That's damaging for the general.

[pnwmom]

14. Judicial Watch is never going to let up. If this lawsuit goes away, they'll file

another. These people have been on the warpath ever since Bill Clinton was in office. They will continue when Hillary is elected President.

They will never stop.

[winstars]

16. "Judicial Watch has filed multiple open records lawsuits" All this BS is part of the RW master plan.

[blackspade]

49. True but...

If the FBI makes a indicative statement exonerating her of any wrong doing, that will hamper further lawsuits and create and strengthen the public impression that Judicial Watch and their ilk are the political hacks they have always been.

[pnwmom]

52. Nothing has ever stopped them before. Kenneth Starr's $70 million

investigation ranged over a ranged of subjects involving both Clinton's, and the final report claimed no wrong doing except for Bill's behavior with Monica Lewinsky, and his lying about it.

Judicial Watch has also been going after President Obama.

They will not stop when the FBI exonerates her or when Hillary wins the election. They'll redouble their efforts.

[blackspade]

55. OK then, just ignore it all.

The perception of the FBI investigation and this FOIA shit is a problem for the general election.
Ignoring it won't change that fact.

[One_Life_To_Give]

46. Different things each is looking for

FBI is a criminal probe looking for mishandling of Classified Intelligence.
Judicial Watch is over obstruction of FOIA. Shame is this investigation is probably far more damaging than anything that might have been released in a timely FOIA response.

[blackspade]

48. I realize that, thanks.

My point is that the FBI investigation continuing enables crap like Judicial Watch to fish for crap to fling against Clinton.

[One_Life_To_Give]

50. FBI doesn't change Klayman's FOIA suit

It started with the non-response to his FOIA requests about Benghazi. And several years of claims there were no records of any emails that kicked this whole mess off. It's another case of the hiding stuff being far more damaging than what releasing the documents would have been.

[blackspade]

53. It changes the....

perception of it.
It also gives Clinton the green light to really go after these hacks in the media without fear of continued talk of an 'indictment'

I do agree that her handling of this has not been good. She clobbered them on the Benghazi bullshit, but this foia stuff, coupled with the FBI, not so much.

She has to really change the view of the public about it. The FBI investigation is a lodestone.

[pnwmom]

10. That's how it works. They know a person is going to rely on the Fifth amendment

but they make him repeat himself 100 times.

it's all a show.

[zipplewrath]

27. Almost has to

If I understand correctly, you are very limited in what you can decide to answer or not. Basically you either have to answer nothing, or everything. Obvious exceptions, but once you decide to "take the fifth", your lawyer will probably suggest you not answer anything. So in essence, you really only "take it" once. The guy asking the question just doesn't accept it.

Headline could have read "lawyer didn't understand the law 100 times".

[OnyxCollie]

17. LOL!

[NWCorona]

20. This shouldn't surprise anyone

But this move will more than likely lead to Hillary being deposed as well.

[NurseJackie]

29. I doubt it.

[NWCorona]

33. It's a wait and see for sure.

[George II]

31. It's got NOTHING to do with (Hillary) Clinton, and she will not be deposed.

[NWCorona]

32. I disagree. The judge has already said that Hillary's testimony might be needed depending

On what becomes of the testimony of her aides.

[840high]

42. Yes he did.

[cstanleytech]

56. That doesnt mean to much since few judges are willing to paint themselves into the corner

of saying someone will not have to testify in an ongoing case and then later on they might need the person to testify, its just common sense.
Mind you I think Judicial Watch needs to prepare itself for disappointment because I think what this is going to turn out to be is not a case of Hillary doing anything criminal but rather the IT guy did probably by either selling access to the server to someone or selling copies of her emails to someone for money in which case that someone had best have a damn good attorney.

[giftedgirl77]

30. Considering Judicial Watch is the one's doing the questioning

I would plead the 5th when they asked me to state my name & everything question thereafter.

[DCBob]

43. F'k Judicial Watch. I would have done the same.

They are scheming for anything to trash Hillary with.

[NWCorona]

44. And this is true.

[Cryptoad]

47. More Right wing attacks of Clintons,,,