Ex-Hillary Clinton Staffer Who Set Up Email Server Plans to Plead the Fifth
Source: NBC News
Sep 3 2015, 1:06 am ET
by Alex Seitz-Wald, Frank Thorp V and Kristen Welker
A former Hillary Clinton staffer who helped set up the former secretary of state's private email server has vowed to invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions after a congressional committee subpoenaed him, MSNBC confirmed late Wednesday.
Bryan Pagliano, who worked for Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign and at the State Department, has been identified in digital records as the person who set up her email server in 2009.
The House Select Committee on Benghazi, which is investigating Clinton's emails, subpoenaed Pagliano last month to testify. But his lawyer said Monday that the IT specialist would refuse to answer questions, asserting his constitutional right against self-incrimination, The Washington Post first reported Wednesday.
"While we understand that Mr. Pagliano's response to this subpoena may be controversial in the current political environment, we hope that the members of the Select Committee will respect our client's right," attorney Mark MacDougall wrote in a letter obtained by MSNBC to Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy.
Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/former-hillary-clinton-email-staffer-subpoenaed-plans-plead-fifth-n420711
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Makes you wonder if the alternative is perjury or just telling the truth... I'm guessing perjury.
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)to what they are investigating like what happened with Bill Clinton.
still_one
(92,116 posts)fifth, especially when Congress is in the middle of a witch hunt. Your example was perfect. It was also a tactic use during the McCarthy hearings.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)If I didn't murder Colonel Mustard in the dining room with the candlestick I just tell them that I didn't do it.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)But this is kind of a witch hunt, (even though I think she should never have set up her own server or co-mingled public/private email) so I support the guy taking the fifth, you never know what law they can find that you unintentionally broke that they will prosecute you for, just to make some hay.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)and someone talking about self-incrimination can hurt that without the hunt finding actual evidence.
Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #16)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)tried to nail him for lying about a blowjob under oath which was not even related to what they were allegedly investigating in the first place I would agree with you.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Iowans love people who take the 5th.
It's the American way!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
Hekate
(90,632 posts)...of President Bill Clinton.
It has nothing to do with perjury, and everything to do with this committee of GOP hatchet men looking to ruin Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and anyone connected with her.
I'd be scared shitless if I was this guy, and neither he nor HRC has broken any law or regulation. As has been proven again and again.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Maybe he was a Soviet spy, maybe he wasn't but the process by which he was ultimately convicted for perjury is frightening.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Followed by quietly dropping all charges.
They were all about keeping the illusion alive that they were on top of things.
One guy got busted for saying goodbye to his friends because he was going back home to get married. The prosecution claimed that was code for a suicide bombing.
(Which says a LOT about what their own marriage is like.)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Then they'll keep saying, "Remember the REAL scandal about Watergate didn't come out until AFTER the election" to justify further hearings.
However if Bernie is the winner of the primary than all of the sudden their "search for the truth" will be forgotten.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)Doesn't have to be big. The threat is enough because generally the worker cannot afford to go to court with the Federal government. They won't prosecute if you roll on someone above you.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)With a package deal of what's behind curtain #1?
former9thward
(31,970 posts)That is up to federal prosecutors -- appointed by Obama. This guy is not afraid of Congress, he is afraid of the FBI.
Midnight Writer
(21,738 posts)Any person with a lick of sense would also "take the Fifth". This is a prosecution, not an investigation.
You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)harmful to say about HRC.
He is smart to take the 5th now and make sure that he doesn't get hurt in their zeal to get her.
If nothing else, they could threaten to prosecute him for handling retroactively classified information. Which is patently unfair but everything that's been happening is unfair.
24601
(3,959 posts)the accurate term would be "retroactively marked". In other words, the content was always classified, but it was mishandled so that it could be put on the Clinton's unclassified ISP without calling attention that it contained classified information.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)retroactive classification, all were released under the lowest category of confidentiality.
This lends support to the idea that the whole system of classification is extremely variable and subjective, so many items are classified with this low ranking out of an abundance of caution.
Are you aware that they recently retroactively classified a decades old document that had been sitting out in plain view on the State Department's public website for 8 years? That's how crazy this all gets.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Oh, they weren't released so they don't count. 
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)It's news to the entire world because you were the first to notice it. Some pencil pusher, months later, says, hey, that could have national security implications (whether it does or not) and classifies it.
Should you then be prosecuted for emailing classified information?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It is not the whim of a "pencil pusher" that makes something classified. There's written criteria you are supposed to apply.
Yes, there can be confusion about that criteria and a specific bit of information. Which is why people who get security clearances are also told where to go when they have a question about whether or not something applies. Oh, they also have to treat it as classified until they get an answer to that question.
As for prosecution, that isn't happening, and can't happen. The relevant federal law has a large hole in it, whereby you can only get prosecuted if you sell the information or leak it directly to a foreign government.
If this was "government peon #8647" instead of Clinton, they would lose their clearance and get fired. That's it for "punishment". She would likely face the same, if she still had a government job or a clearance.
But Clinton's campaigning to get a job where judgement is very important, and this entire episode is a rather large indication of her priorities and judgement.
Hekate
(90,632 posts)Prolly not.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's a small fire that the GOP is attempting to turn into a large fire.
But the GOP's efforts do not mean there is no fire at all.
Clinton broke the rules - she stored classified in an unclassified environment. She broke the rules by doing something incredibly dumb, for no obviously good reason - if it was supposed to be about ease of use on her phone, setup a gmail account. Easier, cheaper and faster than setting up her own server, with better integration with her phone. And the people running Gmail actually understand network security.
Heck, there's a typosquatter on her email domain. Someone registered clintonmail.com years ago (no "e" before mail). Wonder how many of her emails they got?
She fucked up. She broke executive orders regarding classified, the people she hired to set up the server failed to set it up properly, and the whole idea provides a fantastic target for phishing and hacking. And her handling of this fuckup has been an stream of "drip...drip...drip" that makes the fuckup appear far worse.
GOP persecution does not change any of that.
Hekate
(90,632 posts)Might be one big reason the last several SOS's have had private servers set up -- tighter control. How did she fuck up, when it was not only not illegal but had been done before by Colin Powell?
This is a witch hunt. The old commie hunter Joe McCarthy would be so proud of today's GOP Senators.
Where do YOU stand on gefilte fish? Are you now or have you ever been a customer of Streit's or Manischewitz?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The people she hired to set up her server left the default encryption keys on the VPN device protecting her server. So anyone could get in. Kinda like leaving the key in your car door.
We can assume China and Russia got in. They also would not be advertising that they got in, and there's no reason Clinton or Obama would be advertising they got in.
Already covered that.
1) She stored classified on her server. We have evidence she did, in the form of redacted emails State has now released. No one has accused Rice or Powell of that, much less provided evidence.
2) The people she hired to set up the server botched the security. One example is mentioned above.
2b) This was a bad way to accomplish what she claimed she wanted to accomplish. So again, either her IT people were incompetent, or it wasn't about only carrying one phone.
3) The entire setup is great for phishing attacks. You get an email from "@clintonmail.com" and you reply thinking it's Clinton. It wasn't, because it was not "@clintonemail.com" (note the 'e' before mail in the real domain)
4) When the server first came to light, she first claimed it was all private. Drip.
Then she claimed she also did some state business through that server. Drip.
Then it was all her unclassified state business through that server. Drip.
Then she interrupted the outrage over the Iran letter to remind everyone about her server. Drip.
Then classified was discovered. Drip.
Then it was announced that her lawyer had a backup, but it was in his SECRET-level safe. Drip.
Then TS/SCI was discovered, and the FBI took the server and thumbdrive. Drip.
Then the IT guy who botched the security took the 5th. Drip.
And now she's managed to arrange for this to continue for months before she testifies about it. So she can remind everyone about it again in October. Drip.
"Drip...drip...drip" is a fantastic way to convince everyone you've done something wrong, even if you haven't.
None of this is criminal. That does not mean it was legal. Nor does it mean it was not really stupid. Nor does it mean her handling of this situation has not been really stupid.
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)level of a fuckup like Bush and Cheney over the WMD Intel over Iraq that led to the death of thousands of people.
Bush and Cheney didn't kill 6 million Jews, so clearly we should ignore their crimes, right?
Clinton screwed up. She continues to screw up the handling of this situation. She's running for a job that requires great judgement, and this incident shows bad judgement. And her handling of the aftermath shows abysmal judgement.
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Which means I have to be concerned about what happens to Goliath in the general.
This server is utterly fantastic for 30-second attack ads by anonymous PACs. And it is not possible to effectively respond in her own 30 second ad.
This server will hurt. We do not know yet just how much it will hurt, because Team Clinton is still being inept at damage control.
truthisfreedom
(23,142 posts)Drive the pukes crazy, then let them find nothing, as usual.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)On the most basic level, it is to blame for a group of 12 professional people working for a year each on cleaning up the emails so they can be put on line - a direct outcome of HRC asking that it be done. (Don't bother responding that the same magnitude of work would have been done had she - like Secretary Kerry - used a state.gov account. )
Go to the state.gov site and look at the daily briefings. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/index.htm You will see - nearly every day -- that they are asked questions about the email. They have themselves been sued because of NOT getting HRC's stuff out faster. I worry more about the State Department career professionals, who could be pulled into this if they were asked to prepare the summaries from classified information. They could well have not even considered that their work would go out to a non secure server operated by their departments head person.
I also worry about the effect on the reputation of the Obama administration. Not to mention, every action that the Department of Justice, the FBI, the SD IG, or the Intelligence Community IG takes on this has been blasted here as "undercutting HRC". The alternative is that the Obama administration engage in a coverup to protect HRC - something the State Department was already accused of. No one should be asked to destroy their own reputation to cover for HRC - especially when she is NOT in office, not President, not the nominee. From a pragmatic point alone, IF there is really something worth covering up - then it will come out - the issue is too much in the public domain already.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)is officious bureaucratic bs with a limited possible REALLY BAD (which will lead to my now heard often around the house 'DAMMIT HIL, be BETTER! please!?') , but whichever way that lays this doesn't bloody well help.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Well, that's interesting... Err I Plead the Fifth in case anyone is replying to this.
ETA: I'm sick of anything Benghazi. 
Vinca
(50,255 posts)That's how I feel whenever anyone invokes it whether Hillary-related or not. This is not good for her in any way, shape or form.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)I Darned well know it's a constitutional right. And a perfectly appropriate thing to do when confronted with an inquisition such as the repukes are conducting...
But I will also admit that it is impossible for me not to assume that anyone doing so is guilty of any and every charge leveled against them. At least for the first few seconds until I think about it. I know if I were ever on a jury it would probably make me vote 'guilty' no matter how much I reasoned with myself.
Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #21)
pocoloco This message was self-deleted by its author.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)But I will also admit that it is impossible for me not to assume that anyone doing so is guilty of any and every charge leveled against them. At least for the first few seconds until I think about it. I know if I were ever on a jury it would probably make me vote 'guilty' no matter how much I reasoned with myself.
WoW, I agree that a primary emotion would be to draw an adverse inference from a person refusing to testify but my secondary emotion would be that the right against self incrimination is what separates us from totalitarian governments. It is incumbent on the govern to prove a person's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and not for the person to prove his or her innocence.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)she has to figure this one out on the fly.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)But for me, I'd lie like a dog before I ever took the 5th, and would HATE to be on a jury where someone did, I really don't think I could actually break out from the assumption that they were guilty. Actually, I would bet few people honestly could, but it's not the right thing to say that.
There's often a huge difference between what I know to be technically correct and what I feel.
Sometimes the law says one thing, but my heart/mind says another. On the surface, I obey the law (unless civil disobedience is called for) but I make no apologies for what I feel.
Response to Vinca (Reply #17)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Vinca
(50,255 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)So they could theoretically prosecute him through the "negligence" part of the espionage laws.
It would be very difficult for him to argue he did that intentionally, while also arguing he was not trying to give the information to foreign governments.
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)being convicted of perjury later on down the road if you lie about it even if its something as minor as lying about an intern giving you a blowjob.
Vinca
(50,255 posts)We tend to dissect things and know what's going on, but half the population can't name the Vice President for a million dollar prize and, sadly, they are allowed to vote.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)It was WAY off the White water story, but Ken Starr had moved to investigating whether there was a pattern related to the Paula Jones case that was then active. ( The justices that refused to agree that that case could be prosecuted in 2001 after he left office without damaging Jones' case - made a huge error.) You can question why Starr's investigation was defined in so broad a way.
cstanleytech
(26,280 posts)I think personally that it was a minor lie compared to lying about a country having WMDs to justify invading said country.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)a minor lie might be saying you liked the truly awful cookies some one made you.
Here, what Starr was trying to prove that there was a pattern that made the Paula Jones accusations not just more likely, but part of a Bill Clinton pattern. In fact, given that, Clinton could have just refused to answer or simply refused to say more than there was never anything not consensual between them. (Jones was arguing non consensual behavior - so that alone would have been enough.)
As to how minor - it was under oath. That alone makes it more than a white lie.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)in the IT industry. There have been lots of cases over the last few years of the NSA types trying to compel encryption secrets and passwords from IT people:
http://www.cnet.com/news/feds-tell-web-firms-to-turn-over-user-account-passwords/
Secret demands mark escalation in Internet surveillance by the federal government through gaining access to user passwords, which are typically stored in encrypted form.
Hillary's server was backed up by Google and McAfee, and this IT staffer worked in the WH and Clinton's home. He also works in the IT industry. It's quite possible that the committee or others want passwords or security secrets also, and that's one reason to hire someone like Paglinao!!! He likely knows where the backups are and cannot be compelled to even reveal that they exist! All these crazy NSA secret court laws can be an issue, so just not talking from the start is one way to deal with the problem.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-email-server-traced-to-home-based-service-ap/
I
Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They've already found classified information, which is why the FBI has the server and the thumb drive.
If they also left copies in the hands of Google and McAfee, that means they did not turn over all the classified information to the government. Which makes the problem worse.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)Hillary's staff did that on purpose. They also erased the server when it went out of service - again according to protocol. If the FBI wants to erase a few items in the hands of the lawyers, they are free to do so, and it doesn't matter since it will all be pubic anyway. Redaction is not necessary if its in the hands of people with clearance, part of an historical record that may have unknown legal value, and securely protected (by the Secret Service?) or whatever.
The remaining backups likely (we don't know and they won't say of course) contain the personal messages also. As you may know, the "secret courts" have tried to compel private companies to provide encryption keys, PWs, and copies with mixed success.
If he doesn't testify, it's hard to even compel him to provide something that he may or may not even know - or produce something that may or may not exist. You should understand that as good legal advice.
I believe the WH, state, and most of the administration already know what's there and don't care anymore. They also don't want scandals. They only want to finish the FOIA request and make sure all the agencies redact whatever they'd like even if it's silly stuff.
The Trey committee and GOP operatives are hell bent on finding SOMETHING- and they will call witnesses down to the janitor to keep the circus going. Nothing will happen except containers of fish, and this one particular computer guy has a lawyer who gave him good advice.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But if there are other backups at Google and McAfee, that makes the problem worse.
Google and McAfee are not classified environments. Placing classified messages there is a violation of several executive orders. Regardless of whatever encryption scheme you decided to use.
They already found something. TS/SCI information on an unclassified server.
It isn't a criminal violation. It would get a "normal" government employee's clearance yanked, and they would be fired.
There's a hole in the espionage law - you can only be convicted via negligence, intentionally giving information to another country, or selling the information. Clinton and her aides can stroll through that hole by saying "I thought the IT guy was competent". So they weren't negligent, they didn't sell the information, and they didn't intentionally hand it over to a foreign government.
The IT guy can't do that. How do you argue you intentionally left the default encryption keys on the server while also claiming you didn't want anyone else to get the data? So he's pleading the 5th.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)Google and McAfee were the vendors who did the work. They likely don't have archives that far back, but if they did the FBI might ask them to delete them.
You don't know if Google or McAfee or other vendors don't have contracts with the government. They may have secure sites.
I think the IT guy has a good lawyer. There's no proof he encrypted anything, has codes, or erased anything. Of course, that's what his company does for a fee and he's one of their best (worked in the WH), but he may have done nothing except make a ham sandwich and watch the lights blink!!
If you can't ask him, then you can't know what he did or what he knows. I still think that's good lawyering.
If you want to hold the State Department guilty of negligence for past practice - good luck with that....
jeff47
(26,549 posts)because the one in the Clintons house was not in a secure site. Connecting that to a "secure" site at McAfee or Google would compromise McAfee or Google and get their contract yanked.
There is proof he left the default encryption keys on the VPN device protecting the server. Because the media connected to the server and the protocol sends the key as part of the VPN handshake.
That's negligence, and thus he runs afoul of the espionage law.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)1.) there's no difference if it was a government computer or home computer - both are unsecured and depend on all users' judgement to declare and mark as "unclassified" - post review will ALWAYS classify more for FOIA, etc.
2.) there's no single case in the record that the attorneys could find of a prosecution for the State Dept. methods for use of computers, phone, paper notes or texts in this manner - at most there are a few times an employee was warned or had a letter in their file; and those were egregious cases after individual warnings
3.) there a lots of grey areas - and communications by phone, email, on paper are still impossible to decide what will be "recorded" or "classified" unless you save EVERYTHING and have a review about EVERYTHING (which would overwhelm the government in a day
FYI
jeff47
(26,549 posts)but not being sent to jail is not the only thing going on.
This is fantastic fodder for a 30-second ad, and it isn't possible to effectively respond in her own 30-second ad.
Plus, the most important thing about president is judgement - there's no way to cover every possible situation that arises in office. This situation shows terrible judgement, and the handling of the aftermath shows abysmal judgement. For example, she interrupted the media storm around the Iran letter to remind everyone about her server.
Everything here is "bad" for Clinton. It will hurt. There's no way to tell yet if it hurts enough to make her lose.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)They interviewed a BUNCH of women and supporters on a show last night. They've seen so many "scandals" that don't really matter that NONE of the random supporters, not one, cared about email or Benghazi.
I don't think people on DU realize how little people care in the purple states where the votes matter. I was at a political lunch Tuesday with 300? people. Not ONE word about scandals - and frankly no one even mentioned Bernie. I was sitting at table with union officers, educators, and lobbyists (NEA), and a woman running for office.
After two hours of strategy and running around handshaking - everyone here thinks it's likely to be Hillary vs. Jeb, but they aren't sure about Jeb. There's talk about the platform, money for advertising, etc. Bernie is not on the radar. He would have to be in Florida for 30 rallies to even catch up.
If its the same way across the sunbelt, then I doubt anyone except for the CNN and FOX commentators talking to themselves until there's another plane crash or shooting will matter.
This is typical of what I'm hearing. I'm going to a statewide meeting in a couple weeks. We'll see if its any different:
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And it will be so trivial to exploit, we can be sure the Republicans will do so.
She's already got a big "trust" deficit. When this is deployed against her, it will smash directly into that weakness.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Not a good campaign slogan...
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Know your rights and avoid the GOP railroading you on something minor. Sucks for Clinton, though they were going to make her look bad either way.
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Kingofalldems
(38,444 posts)Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #38)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ismnotwasm
(41,975 posts)Benghazi11!
"Although multiple legal experts agree there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is certainly understandable that this witness' attorneys advised him to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, especially given the onslaught of wild and unsubstantiated accusations by Republican presidential candidates, Members of Congress, and others based on false leaks about the investigation," Cummings said in a statement. "Their insatiable desire to derail Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign at all costs has real consequences for any serious congressional effort."
Clinton's campaign spokesperson Nick Merrill released a statement saying that the campaign encouraged Pagliano to testify.
"We have been confident from the beginning that Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email was allowed and that she did not send or receive anything marked classified, facts confirmed by the State Department and the Inspector General," Merrill said. "She has made every effort to answer questions and be as helpful as possible, and has encouraged her aides, current and former, to do the same, including Bryan Pagliano. In fact, two of those aides are due to testify this week, and she is eager to testify in a public hearing in October."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-staffer-who-assisted-clinton-with-email-will-plead-the-fifth-to-congress/