Senate Republicans want immunity for Clinton's former IT staffer
Source: Politico
Two Senate chairmen want to give immunity to Hillary Clintons former top IT staffer whos planning to invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to answer incriminating questions from congressional investigators.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) hope an immunity agreement would allow Bryan Pagliano to testify about Clintons unusual email server setup. They sent a letter to Pagliano and his lawyer this week asking him to make yourself available to provide information.
The two senators also asked Paglianos attorney to meet with the committees' staff to explore how to obtain the unique information you possess while respecting your constitutional rights, such as the possibility of a proffer session so that we can better understand what your testimony would be without any waiver of your rights.
But immunity could change all that and make it easier for him to answer the panels' questions. But it would also prevent any federal charges related to the email matter from being brought against him the future.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/bryan-pagliano-senate-republicans-clinton-staffer-immunity-213420#ixzz3lBshVTKd
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/bryan-pagliano-senate-republicans-clinton-staffer-immunity-213420
Roy Rolling
(6,953 posts)What a novel way of threatening someone with jail if they haven't done anything wrong.
christx30
(6,241 posts)"You're a small fish. We don't care about you. We would rather let you off the hook for your crimes so you can get us the Clinton fish."
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Response to peacebird (Reply #2)
Post removed
karynnj
(59,519 posts)It seems at worse that he set up a server the way his boss asked. In addition, it's possible he did not declare the money on tax forms and he did not report to the State Department that he did any other work. Certainly not heinous crimes.
This is not testifying against the MAFIA. in fact, notice that Monica Lewinsky did not need witness protection. I doubt there are more than 1 percent of Americans who even know of an IT person in this story and even fewer know his name.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)he either didn't report the income on his income taxes, or he didn't tell the government that he was moonlighting which might not be allowed by the government without filling out some forms he didn't fill out.
karynnj
(59,519 posts)required to prove that he moonlighted. The IRS could open an investigation to see if he declared that income. That could become a problem with or without testifying to the committee. As to the State Department forms, I would guess that the penalty for that is you can be fired. He left in 2013 when Clinton left. (There is some ambiguity there as he since then has worked as a contractor since then.) Here, the State Department likely should have -as soon as he refused to cooperate with the FBI - dropped his contract. I would assume that failing to cooperate with the SD IG, the Intelligence IG and FBI would be suitable cause. (If he wasn't dropped, I can't believe he won't be soon. )
So, what questions does he want to avoid so much he is refusing to cooperate?
What is clear is that he was a highly paid State Department worker, hired for a job that may have been created for him by Clinton. (Not necessarily a problem, if the job and him holding it can be defended.) Given that many jobs at that level - in government and in corporations are de facto more than 40 hours, how much time did he spend on work dealing with Clinton's server? Did he do this remotely? Did he use his State Department or work during the regular work day - without taking vacation? ( If the SoS's system is down - as appeared to happen regularly per the published emails - don't you think they asked for IMMEDIATE help? Did he have anyone assisting him with regards to the server?)
What I suspect is that we know that he came from the HRC 2008 campaign - which means he is very likely politically partisan and both his 2008 job or the State Department one were something he saw as working for his political beliefs. Whether it is real or not, he may perceive cooperating here as helping destroy HRC and he may be willing to take the consequences to protect her.
At any rate, he is likely very unhappy to be where he is now.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)still_one
(92,595 posts)silenttigersong
(957 posts)be prepared to be called a republican and have your loyalties questioned.
840high
(17,196 posts)give a hoot what they call me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)talking points, it seems you've been talking about her this way since 1992.
And those things they say about you are probably right.
840high
(17,196 posts)to DU.
Go Bernie.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And that's where your talking points come from.
You're not fooling anyone.
Bernie Sanders supporters don't push the CBC talking point. It's Freeper trash.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027152187
840high
(17,196 posts)you one of the "nasty" Bernie supporters? Seems that way.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Actual Sanders supporters don't recycle talking points from Matt Drudge's toilet.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027152187
840high
(17,196 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This needs hidden. Nast Bernie supporters? WTF?
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 8, 2015, 11:29 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter has misread the post- no one is saying "Nast Bernie supporters", they are calling out shitty RW sourcing.
Get over it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Can't blame him. He seemed destined to be collateral damage in this whole deal.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)destined to take the fall.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)He might get offered use immunity regarding every question he'd be asked.
http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-717-transactional-immunity-distinguished
Then everybody can "gasp" if his lawyer turns that down, with the lawyer saying they're holding out for full immunity.
Because that would make it sound like the committee has hit paydirt. On the other hand, even use immunity can be helpful for dissuading future prosecution. Especially in a case wherein prosecutorial discretion will play a huge role. If he's basically innocent and just wants the government off his back, his lawyer might OK that.
On the other, other, hand, if he can offer a profer that whets the committee's appetite, they'll likely be tempted to offer full immunity. The caveat being that he couldn't have been the prime mover for anything shady, and with the dirt he has to offer being much less serious in nature.
Going down that road always risks looking questionable, and it raises questions of suborning perjury.
His lawyer might not want to negotiate, "give us full immunity or do your worst", if the judgement is that the government is just fishing and there's no actual criminality at the heart of things. The lawyer might think, "I have nothing to offer in exchange, and by engaging in discussion I'll be giving them clues as to where my client might be vulnerable*, if the deal falls through and they decide they want to look badass". Plus, merely engaging with the committees lawyers could make the public think that there's a there there.
Sadly, whether or not the public will tolerate raking this guy over the coals is a factor that could be worth considering. IANAL, but I'd like to play one on TV. lol
*IIRC there are rules about how those conversations can later be used. But, again, IANAL.
progree
(10,965 posts)( ^--from the article linked to in the OP)
Interesting. Stonewalling the FBI too. Optics not good. He's not just stonewalling the Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Committee.
840high
(17,196 posts)deal and eventually leave the country for safety sake.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)nerves. Where did I mention Clinton?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)safety from CIA and FBI. Shame on you. Now go amuse yourself elsewhere.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)he testifies against Hillary Clinton.
Not even coherent by conspiracy theory standards.
Not fooling anyone.
rurallib
(62,508 posts)a long line of backstabbers in that party.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)as geek tragedy notes, as does Snopes.
That is complete B.S. and anyone posting that here should be ashamed of themselves at the very least.
I think it is near 100% proof positive of someone being a rw troll.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.