Clinton IT aide to plead Fifth in email case
Yet very little is known about Pagliano and how he maintained the server at Clintons 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...
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.
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.
...if he was the extent of guilty parties. They gave him immunity to get his testimony against bigger fish.
We don't know exactly which was offered. Also, this is part of JW's lawsuit, not part of the FBI investigation.
He has immunity in the FBI's investigation, which would be a criminal matter.
take a "If you have nothing to hide, why are you worried about testifying?" angle on this.
Free speech and the Fifth Amendment go hand in hand with equality, or something like that.
...compared to being paid $675,000 by Goldman Sachs, for unknown promises made.
Get that? Got that? Good.
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?
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___________"
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?
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.
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.
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.
Can you find a more recent tax return from your beloved candidate than this one here for 2014?
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.
"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 hasnt 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).
...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.
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!"
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
And for the Supers to make a Trump presidency LIKELY by making Clinton the nominee is incredibly dangerous.
This aspect is only about the Judicial Watch nonsense. Those right-wingnuts can go pound sand.
Is that in the Constitution?
I'd suggest you do a bit of research on your new buds, though.
You might as well be grousing, "And we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
The bright side is, we'll be done hosting these discussions on the DU around Jun 16th.
plays right into his hands.
A shame that the Bernie or Busters are a statistical insignificance within their own support base.
Consider this the proverbial "last word".
are terms often associated with Hillary's negative poll numbers. If only those people could be proven wrong.
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?
...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.
Easy mistake to make.
He's taking the 5th in the JW civil case.
was granted by the DOJ and after he spoke to the FBI.
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.
...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.
If only Paul Robeson and members of the Hollywood 10 had known they were being "shady" by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
The point is that it indicates he is useful to a bigger case. Clearly, the bigger case is against his boss.
should be read as suggesting something is "shady".
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.