Judge links Clinton aide's immunity to 'criminal investigation'

[NWCorona]

Source: Politico

A former information technology aide to Hillary Clinton received immunity from the Justice Department in connection with a criminal investigation, a federal judge confirmed Tuesday.

Bryan Pagliano, a computer expert who worked at the State Department while Clinton was secretary of state and was also paid privately by her, was previously reported to have received immunity in connection with statements he gave to the FBI about Clinton's private server set-up.

However, there had been no explicit confirmation that the investigation—which Clinton has repeatedly referred to as a "security review"—is actually a criminal probe.

In the order, Sullivan declined to make Pagliano's immunity agreement public. The judge ordered the deal be submitted to the court so he could assess Pagliano's plan to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a planned deposition of Pagliano in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit related to Clinton's emails.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314#ixzz4BZRF3U4r

[Lurks Often]

1. Let me get settled

[PoliticAverse]

2. "Sullivan declined to make Pagliano's immunity agreement public." - rejecting Judicial Watch's

request.

[NWCorona]

3. And I agree with the judge

Releasing Brian's agreement could harm the FBI’s investigation.

[cstanleytech]

4. Now we need to find out is if it's aimed at Hillary

which I doubt because they haven't announced it long ago which I suspect they would since she is running for president or is it aimed at someone who gained illegal access to the server and or was given copies of her emails by this guy which could explain his wanting immunity.

Edit: It would be funny if it turned out that the RNC, Trump, Fox News or some other higher up Republicans paid him to do this.

[Sunlei]

5. "lawsuit filed by Republicans" You republicans better worry about YOUR great white hope president.

[usaf-vet]

6. So is the Democratic "nominee" headed to the White House.....

.... or the big house?

[NWCorona]

7. There's practically zero chance of Hillary seeing a jail cell.

[EdwardBernays]

11. Or that her email was ever hacked.

Even though she was emailing her staff saying her email had been hacked.

Lol.

[NWCorona]

14. If I had to bet I'd say that the server was definitely hacked but that's just my opinion.

[EdwardBernays]

16. She thought it was

And it was spontaneously sending phishing emails to her so... Seems pretty undeniable.

[NWCorona]

18. Yup! I remember that "what's this zip attachment" email

Then things changing shortly afterwards.

[EdwardBernays]

19. Yep

"In another incident occurring on May 13, 2011, two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was “hacking into her email” after she received an email with a suspicious link. Several hours later, Secretary Clinton received an email from the personal account of then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs that also had a link to a suspect website. The next morning, Secretary Clinton replied to the email with the following message to the Under Secretary: “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” Department policy requires employees to report cybersecurity incidents to IRM security officials when any improper cyber-security practice comes to their attention. 12 FAM 592.4 (January 10, 2007). Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable
information. 12 FAM 682.2-6 (August 4, 2008). However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department."

And don't forget this:

• On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt want to let them have the chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut down for a few min.” On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.”

To summarise:

- technical support ... had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us"
- Later that day... “We were attacked again so I shut down for a few min.”
- The next day people were told ...not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.”
- a few months later Clinton herself expressed concern that someone was “hacking into her email” after she received an email with a suspicious link
- "Several hours later, Secretary Clinton received an email from the personal account of then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs that also had a link to a suspect website."

Do these sound like people that can definitely say no one ever hacked into their email?? In fact I'd say it's pretty obvious that the server at least had some sort of virus or something... as it was sending automated phising emails.

[NWCorona]

20. I've had a lotus account for years.

I've never had a phishing email make it into my inbox.

[EdwardBernays]

21. You've probably

Never been hacked by the Russians and Chinese.

[NWCorona]

22. And if I was I probably wouldn't even know.

[Yo_Mama]

26. Not everyone has the same level of interest to hackers.

It seems obvious that she was a prime target.

[NWCorona]

27. Definitely!

[Plucketeer]

13. And THAT....

you could take to any one of the Wall St. banks!

[cstanleytech]

8. I doubt the big house since they haven't announced that she is the aim rather

I suspect that since the guy was granted immunity that it's going to turn out to be a case of the guy either let someone access the server and or provided copies of her emails .
Edit: And a lack of encryption would not be an issue for her over this if it turns out to be that he did that since he had admin rights to the server anyway and could do pretty much what he wanted to do with it.

[Crepuscular]

9. The fact that

Pagliano was granted immunity makes it clear that he was not the target of the investigation. Certainly begs the question, who is?

Still wondering who will end up being the fall guy/girl in all of this, calls the wisdom of several of the potential targets deciding to use joint counsel into question, as it substantially limits the potential for individual skin saving.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-fbi-strategy-emails-221435

[NWCorona]

10. Brian also sought out a deal with the DOJ not the other way around.

I really wonder what information he gave up considering none of Hillary's aides want to talk about Brian and the server set up.

[Crepuscular]

12. The take home

for me resulting from Pagliano's being granted immunity is that the FBI and the DOJ considers a criminal violation plausible enough to grant such immunity. If this was just a simple technical violation that would result in slap on the wrist, it seems unlikely that immunity would be granted or that the investigation would be taking as long as it is.

Having said that, I still think it unlikely that Hillary will ultimately be charged, my guess is that one or more underlings will fall on their swords and take the heat.

[PoliticAverse]

17. It's reasonable to assume that the person who is running the computer equipment isn't the one...

that was primarily responsible for any classified information appearing on it.

[findrskeep]

15. K & R nt

[orwell]

23. I don't see anything in the article...

...about a criminal investigation other than the headline.

The quote from the judge references a "civil proceeding."

"In the Court's opinion, the need for public access to Mr. Pagliano's agreement with the government is minimal. Mr. Pagliano's immunity agreement has not previously been disclosed. Mr. Pagliano and the government object to disclosure of the immunity agreement" Sullivan wrote. "Mr. Pagliano's immunity agreement with the government was filed with the Court by Mr. Pagliano solely to enable the Court to assess the legitimacy of his intent to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in this civil proceeding."

[Wilms]

24. It's there.

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314#ixzz4Ba5JuujL

[getagrip_already]

25. by default..

The fbi only investigates criminal matters. We have known he had immunity for months. ergo the fbi investigation is a criminal investigation.

nbd.

the fbi investigates, they don't charge people without evidence.

In this case, they investigated based on a false statement by an individual in the state dept known to be openly hostile towards clinton.

So nothing there. Move along. Get over it.

[leveymg]

28. Thank you. Should have been para. 2 in the OP.