Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Jester Messiah

(4,711 posts)
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:41 AM Jun 2016

Clinton IT aide to plead Fifth in email case

Questions about Pagliano’s role in Clinton’s bespoke email arrangement ramped up after he accepted a deal for immunity from the federal government as part of his cooperation with the FBI’s ongoing investigation into Clinton’s setup.

Yet very little is known about Pagliano and how he maintained the server at Clinton’s New York home.

The IT expert has previously refused to answer questions on Capitol Hill, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights before the House Select Committee on Benghazi and rejecting requests from leaders of the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security committees to answer their questions.


Shadier and shadier...

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281925-clinton-it-aide-to-plead-fifth-in-email-case
68 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton IT aide to plead Fifth in email case (Original Post) Jester Messiah Jun 2016 OP
Have we just identified the fall guy? n/t Orsino Jun 2016 #1
Nope. He is not responsible for the CONTENT. IdaBriggs Jun 2016 #2
I saw a theory that Hillary was setting him up for that... Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #3
FBI wouldn't have given him immunity.... HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #4
Immunity and pleading the Fifth don't go together, either. n/t Orsino Jun 2016 #5
There's different types of immunity. HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #7
He plead the 5th in the civil case brought by Judicial Watch. Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #10
Civil case, not criminal nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #28
Using protections guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution is not "shady" Tarc Jun 2016 #6
Yes. Even guilty parties have constitutional rights. HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #9
No, surely not. Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #11
Shady. Curious. Comical. Expected. It's all four. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2016 #13
It's funny to see Sanders supporters, the alleged champions of free speech and equality Tarc Jun 2016 #14
Not quite sure what this has to do with free speech and equality. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2016 #16
I am not surprised Tarc Jun 2016 #17
LOL I wouldn't expect you to be. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2016 #24
If Hillary has nothing to hide... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #18
If Bernie has nothing to hide Nonhlanhla Jun 2016 #20
A tax return is EXTREMELY TRIVIAL... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #22
If it's trivial, then why the secrecy? Nonhlanhla Jun 2016 #39
Nothing nefarious about it??? Herman4747 Jun 2016 #40
Listen to yourself Nonhlanhla Jun 2016 #43
Well, then... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #48
What a ridiculous demand Nonhlanhla Jun 2016 #54
CONSIDER YOUR ARGUMENT ANNIHILATED... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #55
Oh, TIFFANY said there's a tax return? Nonhlanhla Jun 2016 #56
Evidently, you overlooked this link: Herman4747 Jun 2016 #61
Those are his 2014 tax returns. nt. Nonhlanhla Jun 2016 #62
Not surprising, given that the article was from April. Herman4747 Jun 2016 #63
This, from an article published a day later... Nonhlanhla Jun 2016 #64
Hillary could simply release all her speech transcripts & destroy... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #65
Actually I don't care about Bernie's taxes Nonhlanhla Jun 2016 #66
And you shouldn't care about Bernie's taxes!! This we do agree upon. Herman4747 Jun 2016 #67
At what point do we go into a different realm? Nonhlanhla Jun 2016 #68
Thank you for proving my point Tarc Jun 2016 #25
Hillary has pretty much EVERYTHING to hide. Optimism Jun 2016 #53
I guess we've moved away from "Cooperating fully with the investigation." Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2016 #26
As well they should Tarc Jun 2016 #27
Because goevrnment is only accountable to citizens when they pass a partisan litmus test. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2016 #29
You are free to get in bed with Judicial Watch if you like Tarc Jun 2016 #30
I refuse to get in bed with the corrupt. And it's not JW you're kicking at, it's the OIG. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2016 #32
Suit yourself Tarc Jun 2016 #34
You abandon facts as quickly as Hillary abandoned the law. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2016 #36
Emailgate is a tempest in a teapot that will not deliver the nomination to Bernie Tarc Jun 2016 #41
The OIG begs to differ. Trump is riding an anti-establishment wave. A Hillary nomination Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2016 #42
Obviously the Democratic voters feel differently Tarc Jun 2016 #44
As long as only Democrats are allowed to vote in November you should be safe. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2016 #45
We'll have the vast majority of the Bernie voters too Tarc Jun 2016 #46
Arrogance, condescension, secretive, dismissive and untrustworthy Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2016 #47
What's he hiding? Octafish Jun 2016 #8
It appears... HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #12
You're the confusing the JudicialWatch civil case w the FBI investigation emulatorloo Jun 2016 #51
After he invoked the 5th before congress and after immunity morningfog Jun 2016 #59
Please note: This relates to the CIVIL case, not the FBI's CRIMINAL investigation. Fawke Em Jun 2016 #15
We know he spoke to them pursuant to immunity. morningfog Jun 2016 #60
He may want to protect his immunity in the FBI investigation... TCJ70 Jun 2016 #19
Again? randome Jun 2016 #21
Fifth of what Bourbon? Skink Jun 2016 #23
self-proclaimed "progressives" throw the Fifth Amendment under the bus onenote Jun 2016 #31
It's not that we think Pagliano's immunity is unacceptable. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #38
I'm responding to suggestions that his taking the Fifth in a civil case against the State Dept onenote Jun 2016 #49
"shady" is sort of a vague term, lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #50
People are just frustrated because it means there were obviously crimes committed here SpareribSP Jun 2016 #52
No it doesn't onenote Jun 2016 #57
You are right SpareribSP Jun 2016 #58
I expected that. Others will as well. Perhaps even HRC. EndElectoral Jun 2016 #33
If Hillary pleads the Fifth, that will be devastating. She's stated she would talk to anyone anytime BillZBubb Jun 2016 #37
Smart move by Pagliano's attorneys. He's got criminal immunity from the FBI. That's all he needs. BillZBubb Jun 2016 #35
 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
2. Nope. He is not responsible for the CONTENT.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:57 AM
Jun 2016

But I think he figured out how he was being set up. The Platte River and Datto people had the same concerns, which is why the FBI has copies of ALL of her emails.

 

Jester Messiah

(4,711 posts)
3. I saw a theory that Hillary was setting him up for that...
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:59 AM
Jun 2016

but then the FBI gave him immunity, which pooches that plan quite thoroughly. And, as someone else noted, they don't give you immunity for having done nothing.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
4. FBI wouldn't have given him immunity....
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:01 AM
Jun 2016

...if he was the extent of guilty parties. They gave him immunity to get his testimony against bigger fish.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
7. There's different types of immunity.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:11 AM
Jun 2016

We don't know exactly which was offered. Also, this is part of JW's lawsuit, not part of the FBI investigation.

 

Jester Messiah

(4,711 posts)
10. He plead the 5th in the civil case brought by Judicial Watch.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:19 AM
Jun 2016

He has immunity in the FBI's investigation, which would be a criminal matter.

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
14. It's funny to see Sanders supporters, the alleged champions of free speech and equality
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:28 AM
Jun 2016

take a "If you have nothing to hide, why are you worried about testifying?" angle on this.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
24. LOL I wouldn't expect you to be.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:10 AM
Jun 2016

Free speech and the Fifth Amendment go hand in hand with equality, or something like that.

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
22. A tax return is EXTREMELY TRIVIAL...
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:06 AM
Jun 2016

...compared to being paid $675,000 by Goldman Sachs, for unknown promises made.

Get that? Got that? Good.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
39. If it's trivial, then why the secrecy?
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:49 AM
Jun 2016

Hillary was paid for speeches. Nothing nefarious about it. There is no history of candidates being asked to deliver the text for every speech they've ever made. There is, however, precedent for candidates releasing their tax returns. And in Bernie's case, given his wife's disastrous college presidency, there is reason to ask for them. If they're so trivial, why does he not release them?

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
40. Nothing nefarious about it???
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:00 PM
Jun 2016

You know for sure that she made Goldman Sachs no promises? Then she would have NOTHING to hide. But she shows she does have something to hide. We don't want the text to "every speech" (your words) she's made. Many would settle just for what she told Goldman Sachs. And how can you speak of "precedent" when this is a new situation: candidate receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from speeches to Wall Street.

Bernie's wife is NOT running for president, Bernie is.

Here, fill in the blank: "I am perfectly okay with the Democratic Presidential candidate being bought by Goldman Sachs because___________"

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
43. Listen to yourself
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:15 PM
Jun 2016

Those kinds of speeches are usually pretty bland. However, Hillary has every reason to believe that her enemies on both the left and the right will twist every word and phrase in those speeches, which is why she is not releasing them. You are basically ASSUMING that Hillary made promises in exchange for money. You're just echoing Bernie's months-long smear campaign against Hillary, which is based on little more than innuendo.

And no, Jane is not running for president. So why can't they release Bernie's tax return then? It's long-standing practice for presidential candidates to do that, and Hillary has done so. Where does Bernie get the nerve to demand Hillary's speeches if he's not even releasing his taxes?

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
48. Well, then...
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 01:10 PM
Jun 2016

If Hillary fears (as you assume) that "both the left and the right will twist every word and phrase" of her speeches to Goldman Sachs, then do please provide us all with an example in which one of Hillary's past speeches (that would be one she's not hiding) in which every word and phrase was in fact twisted by enemies on the left. You should have no problem doing this.

Go on, I dare you.

Okay, if you're not willing to find such a speech wherein every word was twisted by those on the left, at least listen to Tiffany:



the entire video is quite good, but what is especially relevant is found after 3:25.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
54. What a ridiculous demand
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 03:25 PM
Jun 2016

Pretty much everything she's ever said or done had been over analyzed, twisted, turned into weapons against he. It's well known that Rove started a smear campaign against her a year ago, with many of the smears and innuendos that we've also heard from Bernie (who has been very useful to the GOP). These are the people who successfully swift boated a war hero. Why should Hillary place more things in their hands for them to use against her? They will turn the most innocuous phrase into a weapon.

The primaries are over. There is no reason to ask the presumptive nominee to make herself more vulnerable for attack.

And I still want to know, why is Bernie not releasing his tax returns? That's been expected from presidential contenders, unlike what you're asking from Hillary.

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
55. CONSIDER YOUR ARGUMENT ANNIHILATED...
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 03:42 PM
Jun 2016

If you can't find one speech (just one) in which "every word and phrase" Hillary said ultimately wound up being "twisted" by "enemies on the left."

Of course, I should be demanding even more than one, since one by itself would NOT be enough to establish any rational fear to forego doing the right thing and telling the public what you said for $675,000. But for now, just one.

Did you not watch the video? In the video Tiffany indicated that evidently a tax return was released. Sanders’ tax return: As ‘boring’ as promised. I can't believe I'm dealing with this relatively TRIVIAL shit.

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
63. Not surprising, given that the article was from April.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:35 PM
Jun 2016

Can you find a more recent tax return from your beloved candidate than this one here for 2014?

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/files/returns/WJC_HRC_2014_Form_1040.pdf

Note: I am truly getting sick and tired about addressing tax returns for a guy who received less annual income than Hillary received in a single speech from Goldman Sachs.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
64. This, from an article published a day later...
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:37 PM
Jun 2016
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article72097232.html

"Sanders released his 2014 tax return late Friday. It showed that he and his wife, Jane, earned $205,271 that year, largely from his $174,000 Senate salary and the Social Security benefits they both receive.

He owed $27,653 in federal taxes, but had $31,825 withheld, and received a $4,172 return, according to the documents.

Still, only Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has fully disclosed years worth of returns. Sanders has released an abbreviated version of his taxes for a single year. Trump hasn’t released anything...
"

Personally I could not care less about either of their tax returns. But the demand that Hillary release her speech transcripts is absurd. It is a thinly veiled smear that she made promises in return for money - i.e., basically whored herself out. This is rich coming from a guy who has not released all his tax returns, and who moreover is on record for ACTUALLY trading votes for support (NRA).
 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
65. Hillary could simply release all her speech transcripts & destroy...
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:20 PM
Jun 2016

...the conjecture that she made promises to Goldman Sachs. YET SHE WON'T DO THAT. WHY??? Because she did make promises to Goldman Sachs??
We both know that you will now scurry off to find some argument indicating that it is wise rather than unwise for Hillary to refuse to tell the world what she told Goldman Sachs for $675,000.
Yet,
if tomorrow she were to release her speech transcripts YOU WOULD DEFEND THAT TOO, RIGHT? (Or would you truly instead say "Hillary, that is so unwise of you to release your speech transcripts!&quot
If Hillary does one thing, you defend it.
If she does the opposite, you defend that too, right?
*****************************
And so now you're not satisfied with the release of a 2014 tax return by Bernie and his wife. You want more. BUT YOUR BELOVED HILLARY PROVIDES NOTHING AT ALL -- NOT EVEN the transcripts for a single speech!!!

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
66. Actually I don't care about Bernie's taxes
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:16 PM
Jun 2016

As I said before. I just think it takes a lot of nerve to ask for her speeches ( for which there is no precedent) while being less forthcoming with taxes (for which there is precedent). Pure hypocrisy.

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
67. And you shouldn't care about Bernie's taxes!! This we do agree upon.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 06:36 AM
Jun 2016

But "precedence" here is INAPPLICABLE!!! When Hillary is paid $675,000 for three hour-long speeches, then we are being taken into a vastly different realm.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
68. At what point do we go into a different realm?
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:00 AM
Jun 2016

Do you know that Karl Rove started a smear campaign against Hillary, with the clear goal of driving down her approval numbers (which were quite high at one time)? Do you know that Bernie has played right into that smear campaign with his innuendos that Hillary has sold her soul to money interests? (A charge that has particular potency in the case of a woman, since it basically comes down to saying she's a whore.) Are you aware that those kinds of fees are normal for such high profile speakers?

And why do you care, at this late stage, about those stupid speeches. From what I've read from people who actually attended speeches of that kind, they tend to be pretty standard fare. I'm sure Hillary said a few complimentary things at most (not coming even close to the nefarious promises you're hinting at, though), and I'm equally sure that her enemies will twist and turn it into something unrecognizable if they were to get the transcripts. But in the end the matter is a simple one: there is no reason for the release of the transcripts. And there is particularly no reason to demand this kind of action from Hillary, and Hillary alone, when Bernie is not forthcoming about something as simple as his taxes, and Trump (at this point her real opponent, since Bernie will be done by next week) has not released any tax returns or been asked to release any other documents. It is absurd to have such a special set of rules just for Hillary. It's as if she's being asked to strip while the men remain clothed.

Optimism

(142 posts)
53. Hillary has pretty much EVERYTHING to hide.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 03:06 PM
Jun 2016

And for the Supers to make a Trump presidency LIKELY by making Clinton the nominee is incredibly dangerous.

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
27. As well they should
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:39 AM
Jun 2016

This aspect is only about the Judicial Watch nonsense. Those right-wingnuts can go pound sand.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
29. Because goevrnment is only accountable to citizens when they pass a partisan litmus test.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:50 AM
Jun 2016

Is that in the Constitution?

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
30. You are free to get in bed with Judicial Watch if you like
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:56 AM
Jun 2016

I'd suggest you do a bit of research on your new buds, though.

Media Matters

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
32. I refuse to get in bed with the corrupt. And it's not JW you're kicking at, it's the OIG.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:01 AM
Jun 2016

You might as well be grousing, "And we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!"

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
41. Emailgate is a tempest in a teapot that will not deliver the nomination to Bernie
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:12 PM
Jun 2016

The bright side is, we'll be done hosting these discussions on the DU around Jun 16th.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
42. The OIG begs to differ. Trump is riding an anti-establishment wave. A Hillary nomination
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:14 PM
Jun 2016

plays right into his hands.

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
46. We'll have the vast majority of the Bernie voters too
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:20 PM
Jun 2016

A shame that the Bernie or Busters are a statistical insignificance within their own support base.

Consider this the proverbial "last word".

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
47. Arrogance, condescension, secretive, dismissive and untrustworthy
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:23 PM
Jun 2016

are terms often associated with Hillary's negative poll numbers. If only those people could be proven wrong.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
8. What's he hiding?
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:15 AM
Jun 2016

Seems the guy would have one important answer: Who, by name, ordered him to do what, exactly?

Did the Feds grant him "immunity" for a Grand Jury?

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
12. It appears...
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:22 AM
Jun 2016

...that his immunity agreement only requires his cooperation with the FBI/DoJ investigation. It actually helps the FBI that one of their 'star' witnesses not be telling all in Judicial Watch depositions and Congressional hearings. The closer to the vest the FBI plays their cards, the more off balance the subject(s) of the investigation and greater likelyhood they're tripped up in lies.

emulatorloo

(44,087 posts)
51. You're the confusing the JudicialWatch civil case w the FBI investigation
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 02:20 PM
Jun 2016

Easy mistake to make.

He's taking the 5th in the JW civil case.


 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
59. After he invoked the 5th before congress and after immunity
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 05:32 PM
Jun 2016

was granted by the DOJ and after he spoke to the FBI.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
15. Please note: This relates to the CIVIL case, not the FBI's CRIMINAL investigation.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:36 AM
Jun 2016

Just wanted to make that clear.

Pagliano will not answer questions posed by Judicial Watch's attorneys; however, we do not know what he's told FBI investigators.

TCJ70

(4,387 posts)
19. He may want to protect his immunity in the FBI investigation...
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:57 AM
Jun 2016

...anything that ends up being contradictory (and given how cases generally work, contradiction is the name of game for lawyers) could be cause to remove his immunity agreement with the FBI. It's a smart move, but doesn't help anyone's appearances.

onenote

(42,642 posts)
31. self-proclaimed "progressives" throw the Fifth Amendment under the bus
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:01 AM
Jun 2016

If only Paul Robeson and members of the Hollywood 10 had known they were being "shady" by invoking the Fifth Amendment.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6440/

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
38. It's not that we think Pagliano's immunity is unacceptable.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:28 AM
Jun 2016

The point is that it indicates he is useful to a bigger case. Clearly, the bigger case is against his boss.

onenote

(42,642 posts)
49. I'm responding to suggestions that his taking the Fifth in a civil case against the State Dept
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 01:11 PM
Jun 2016

should be read as suggesting something is "shady".

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
50. "shady" is sort of a vague term,
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 02:17 PM
Jun 2016

but taking the fifth implies that he believes he's participated in something for which he might incriminate himself if he answers questions in connection with the e-mail server.

SpareribSP

(325 posts)
52. People are just frustrated because it means there were obviously crimes committed here
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 02:21 PM
Jun 2016

but we probably won't learn about them until after the convention. If there were no crimes, why would he be given immunity and plead the fifth?

onenote

(42,642 posts)
57. No it doesn't
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:50 PM
Jun 2016

And it's the height of RW, non-progressive thought to assert that anyone who asserts their Fifth Amendment Constitutional right not to testify obviously is guilty of a crime.

If you believe that, then you also must believe that the actors and activists that refused to testify in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee were all guilty of crimes. And, presumably, you also think anyone who asserts their related Fifth Amendment Miranda rights "obviously" committed a crime.

Not cool. Not cool at all.

SpareribSP

(325 posts)
58. You are right
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 05:30 PM
Jun 2016

I'm biased here and it clouded my thought a bit. I think Hillary acted inappropriately here and I want to see here called out on it. For me it feels inevitable that things far worse then the earlier report are going to come out, but we won't see them until Hillary is the nominee.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
37. If Hillary pleads the Fifth, that will be devastating. She's stated she would talk to anyone anytime
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:24 AM
Jun 2016

Of course that doesn't prove she's guilty of anything, but when you are a distrusted as she is, it is a horrible situation.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
35. Smart move by Pagliano's attorneys. He's got criminal immunity from the FBI. That's all he needs.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:22 AM
Jun 2016

No sense putting himself at risk in civil cases.

It does mean, though, that Pagliano has some criminal issues to worry about. But he's a small fish in the FBI investigation.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton IT aide to plead ...