Senate Republicans want immunity for Clinton's former IT staffer

[magical thyme]

Source: Politico

Two Senate chairmen want to give immunity to Hillary Clinton’s former top IT staffer who’s planning to invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to answer incriminating questions from congressional investigators.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) hope an immunity agreement would allow Bryan Pagliano to testify about Clinton’s unusual email server setup. They sent a letter to Pagliano and his lawyer this week asking him to “make yourself available to provide information.”

The two senators also asked Pagliano’s attorney to “meet with the committees' staff to explore how to obtain the unique information you possess while respecting your constitutional rights, such as the possibility of a proffer session so that we can better understand what your testimony would be without any waiver of your rights.”

But immunity could change all that and make it easier for him to answer the panels' questions. But it would also prevent any federal charges related to the email matter from being brought against him the future.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/bryan-pagliano-senate-republicans-clinton-staffer-immunity-213420#ixzz3lBshVTKd



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/bryan-pagliano-senate-republicans-clinton-staffer-immunity-213420

[Roy Rolling]

1. That's interesting

What a novel way of threatening someone with jail if they haven't done anything wrong.

[christx30]

9. More like,

"You're a small fish. We don't care about you. We would rather let you off the hook for your crimes so you can get us the Clinton fish."

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

33. Yup, that's the way it works, alright!

[peacebird]

2. That could get interesting.... Very glad I am not her IT guy....

[karynnj]

15. why would he need that?

It seems at worse that he set up a server the way his boss asked. In addition, it's possible he did not declare the money on tax forms and he did not report to the State Department that he did any other work. Certainly not heinous crimes.

This is not testifying against the MAFIA. in fact, notice that Monica Lewinsky did not need witness protection. I doubt there are more than 1 percent of Americans who even know of an IT person in this story and even fewer know his name.

[Yupster]

31. My guess is

he either didn't report the income on his income taxes, or he didn't tell the government that he was moonlighting which might not be allowed by the government without filling out some forms he didn't fill out.

[karynnj]

32. True, but as it is now clear that HRC herself says that she paid him - his own comments are not

required to prove that he moonlighted. The IRS could open an investigation to see if he declared that income. That could become a problem with or without testifying to the committee. As to the State Department forms, I would guess that the penalty for that is you can be fired. He left in 2013 when Clinton left. (There is some ambiguity there as he since then has worked as a contractor since then.) Here, the State Department likely should have -as soon as he refused to cooperate with the FBI - dropped his contract. I would assume that failing to cooperate with the SD IG, the Intelligence IG and FBI would be suitable cause. (If he wasn't dropped, I can't believe he won't be soon. )

So, what questions does he want to avoid so much he is refusing to cooperate?

What is clear is that he was a highly paid State Department worker, hired for a job that may have been created for him by Clinton. (Not necessarily a problem, if the job and him holding it can be defended.) Given that many jobs at that level - in government and in corporations are de facto more than 40 hours, how much time did he spend on work dealing with Clinton's server? Did he do this remotely? Did he use his State Department or work during the regular work day - without taking vacation? ( If the SoS's system is down - as appeared to happen regularly per the published emails - don't you think they asked for IMMEDIATE help? Did he have anyone assisting him with regards to the server?)

What I suspect is that we know that he came from the HRC 2008 campaign - which means he is very likely politically partisan and both his 2008 job or the State Department one were something he saw as working for his political beliefs. Whether it is real or not, he may perceive cooperating here as helping destroy HRC and he may be willing to take the consequences to protect her.

At any rate, he is likely very unhappy to be where he is now.

[geek tragedy]

16. Witness protection? This is not Free Republic. nt

[geek tragedy]

19. 1995 Free Republic called. They want their crazy talk back.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

[Hortensis]

4. Fine if okay with him. He's trying to stay out of the political fray, and who can blame him.

[still_one]

5. The rebukes won't go for that. They don't want to know the truth, because there is nothing there

[silenttigersong]

6. magical thyme

be prepared to be called a republican and have your loyalties questioned.

[840high]

12. That used to upset me. Now I don't

give a hoot what they call me.

[geek tragedy]

17. Given that you are pushing the "Clinton Body Count"

talking points, it seems you've been talking about her this way since 1992.

And those things they say about you are probably right.

[840high]

20. Hate to disappoint u - i'm fairly new

to DU.

Go Bernie.

[geek tragedy]

21. Free Republic was around during the 1990's.

And that's where your talking points come from.

You're not fooling anyone.

Bernie Sanders supporters don't push the CBC talking point. It's Freeper trash.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027152187

[840high]

22. I don't give a hoot - now go away. Are

you one of the "nasty" Bernie supporters? Seems that way.

[geek tragedy]

23. I am an actual Sanders supporter.

Actual Sanders supporters don't recycle talking points from Matt Drudge's toilet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027152187

[840high]

25. You're nasty. 'bye

[bettyellen]

29. funniest alert ever on this: "This needs hidden. Nast Bernie supporters? WTF?" HA HA HA DU.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This needs hidden. Nast Bernie supporters? WTF?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 8, 2015, 11:29 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter has misread the post- no one is saying "Nast Bernie supporters", they are calling out shitty RW sourcing.
Get over it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[geek tragedy]

30. Seems like spoken verse. nt

[RufusTFirefly]

7. Definitely saw THAT coming!

Can't blame him. He seemed destined to be collateral damage in this whole deal.

[magical thyme]

8. collateral damage or the scapegoat

destined to take the fall.

[Babel_17]

10. Possibility of more theatrics

He might get offered use immunity regarding every question he'd be asked.

http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-717-transactional-immunity-distinguished

Then everybody can "gasp" if his lawyer turns that down, with the lawyer saying they're holding out for full immunity.

Because that would make it sound like the committee has hit paydirt. On the other hand, even use immunity can be helpful for dissuading future prosecution. Especially in a case wherein prosecutorial discretion will play a huge role. If he's basically innocent and just wants the government off his back, his lawyer might OK that.

On the other, other, hand, if he can offer a profer that whets the committee's appetite, they'll likely be tempted to offer full immunity. The caveat being that he couldn't have been the prime mover for anything shady, and with the dirt he has to offer being much less serious in nature.

Going down that road always risks looking questionable, and it raises questions of suborning perjury.

His lawyer might not want to negotiate, "give us full immunity or do your worst", if the judgement is that the government is just fishing and there's no actual criminality at the heart of things. The lawyer might think, "I have nothing to offer in exchange, and by engaging in discussion I'll be giving them clues as to where my client might be vulnerable*, if the deal falls through and they decide they want to look badass". Plus, merely engaging with the committees lawyers could make the public think that there's a there there.

Sadly, whether or not the public will tolerate raking this guy over the coals is a factor that could be worth considering. IANAL, but I'd like to play one on TV. lol

*IIRC there are rules about how those conversations can later be used. But, again, IANAL.

[progree]

11. " He’s refusing to answer the committee’s and FBI’s questions "

( ^--from the article linked to in the OP)

Interesting. Stonewalling the FBI too. Optics not good. He's not just stonewalling the Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Committee.

[840high]

13. If I was him I'd take the

deal and eventually leave the country for safety sake.

[geek tragedy]

18. Freeper trash.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

[840high]

24. You are really getting on my

nerves. Where did I mention Clinton?

[geek tragedy]

26. Not fooling anyone.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

Claim: Bill Clinton has quietly done away with several dozen people who possessed incriminating evidence about him.

[840high]

27. So you thought it! I thought

safety from CIA and FBI. Shame on you. Now go amuse yourself elsewhere.

[geek tragedy]

28. Yeah, the FBI is going to assassinate a guy because

he testifies against Hillary Clinton.

Not even coherent by conspiracy theory standards.

Not fooling anyone.

[rurallib]

14. like anyone should trust a deal any Republican makes

a long line of backstabbers in that party.

[stevenleser]

34. Lots of repeating of RW talking points here. Particularly the Clinton Body Count hoax...

as geek tragedy notes, as does Snopes.

That is complete B.S. and anyone posting that here should be ashamed of themselves at the very least.

I think it is near 100% proof positive of someone being a rw troll.