Pagliano's silence increases the odds that HRC will be forced to testify.

[grasswire]

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282188-clintons-it-aide-keeps-email-server-shrouded-in-mystery


Bryan Pagliano’s laywers have said that he would remain silent during a deposition with the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, originally scheduled for Monday but now delayed until further notice. His decision increases the odds that Clinton herself will be forced to testify in the case.
And, because of quirks of the legal system, his decision to stay quiet could be seen as an implicit confirmation that he or the State Department had done something wrong.

Unlike in a criminal case, judges in civil cases such as Judicial Watch’s can draw inferences about someone’s guilt from a witness’s decision to plead their rights under the Fifth Amendment. For lawyers, there’s a reason to go through the motions and ask questions, even if the response is the same over and over again.

Staying silent “can be used against you,” said Peter Toren, a former federal prosecutor and partner at Weisbrod Matteis & Copley. “It’s extremely tedious, but the fact that [a witness] took the Fifth is an inference that what I’m asking is true,” said Toren.

So even if Pagliano doesn’t say a word during the deposition, he will impact the case moving forward. “His doing that in this context tells you something about the purpose of the system, potentially, and what was going on and whether it was a good faith issue — a matter of just folks making honest mistakes — or something more nefarious,” Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch’s head, told The Hill. “We do learn something from this, no matter what. It’s not a pro forma process. It’s not just an exercise in futility.”

“In certain circumstances, the witness taking the Fifth Amendment, you can draw some negative conclusions based on that about the State Department’s conduct, and the agency’s head — the State Department’s head —which is Mrs. Clinton,” he added.

[annavictorious]

1. Keep flogging those right wing talking points.

Mrs. Clinton is not a party to this law suit. Judicial Watch is suing the Sate Department.

[-none]

3. During what time period?

Who was in charge of the State Department during this period? So how is Hillary not a part of this law suit?

[Duval]

2. It continues to look bad for Hillary.

[Tal Vez]

4. I don't believe that a judge or jury can usually draw inferences about guilt

in a civil case based upon the assertion of a witness's Fifth Amendment rights.

Here is what civil juries are told in California:

&quot Name of party/witness) has an absolute constitutional right not to give testimony that might tend to incriminate [himself/herself]. Do not consider, for any reason at all, the fact that [name of party/witness] invoked the right not to testify. Do not discuss that fact during your deliberations or let it influence your decision in any way."

https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/216.html

So, I think it would be important to find out about the rules of evidence for the particular court in which the case is going to be presented.

[Babel_17]

5. The judge is open to allowing Secretary Clinton to be called

He seems to be seriously put out by how long it's taken the State Department to address the issue of FOIA requests not being serviced. My take is that the judge left open the possibility of Clinton testifying because he wanted all the loose ends tied up. He wants a resolution to this.

However, he may find these loose ends tied up by the sum of all the other testimony. Needless to say, it's likely that outcome will depend on how much everybody else remembers, and how forthcoming they are. The judge might want to weigh the possible value of what Pagliano has to offer, and how likely it is that Clinton can fill in any of the void left by Pagliano not testifying.

This isn't the movie JFK, and the judge shouldn't allow a fishing expedition just because some people think they are on the trail of a big story. IIRC the judge's earliest rulings were reasonably clear. If he sees a vital utility to Clinton providing information by way of testimony, then he'll consider it.

This case is a huge deal to the judge's reputation and legacy. I think he'll rule in a carefully reasoned manner. We don't know what he knows, and his mandate, as he sees it, may not align with any of our various concerns.

[Jim Lane]

6. Pagliano may yet testify.

He can't invoke the Fifth if he's been immunized, because then his compelled testimony wouldn't expose him to criminal liability. Per the linked article, the judge has directed the parties to brief the question. It depends on the exact scope of the immunity he was granted. He can remain silent if he can make a colorable argument that answering the questions might be used against him in a prosecution for something not covered by the immunity, but otherwise, he must testify.

[grasswire]

7. He must feel very afraid, being in the middle of this.

But I hope he has some protection.

[NWCorona]

8. I believe this is why the state department is fighting tooth and nail to block Hillary's deposition

[amborin]

9. taking the 5th typically implies something was done illegaly