Clinton IT aide to plead the Fifth in email case

[w4rma]

Source: The Hill

The man believed to have set up and maintained Hillary Clinton’s private email server will assert his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions as part of an open records lawsuit against the State Department.

Bryan Pagliano will decline to answer questions from Judicial Watch, the conservative legal watchdog group, during a deposition scheduled for Monday, his lawyers wrote in a court filing on Wednesday afternoon.

Developing...

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281925-clinton-it-aide-to-plead-fifth-in-email-case

[Press Virginia]

1. How does someone with immunity plead the 5th?

Unless he lied to the FBI, he's got nothing to worry about

[emulatorloo]

3. Pleading 5th in Civil case (judicial watch)

at least that's how I read it.

[Press Virginia]

7. Yes. But he already has criminal immunity

unless he lied, he's in no jeopardy

[emulatorloo]

10. I know nothing about Civil Case law so was just a wild guess

I will say thehill story is kinda maddenly useless and information free, ain't it?

[Aerows]

101. That article had enough prevaricating

to be Ronald Reagan at an Iran-contra hearing.

[magical thyme]

30. he has nothing to gain by testifying,

from his perspective it's all risk, loss of time, stress, etc.

He spilled it to the FBI; now probably just wants to get on with his life.

[Press Virginia]

36. He doesn't get to plead the 5th because he thinks it's a waste of time

if he can't be prosecuted, because the scope of the suit covers what he already told the FBI under his immunity deal, then there is no risk of self incrimination.
If the questions are outside the scope of what he told the FBI, then he might have an issue

[Pharaoh]

46. Maybe he fears the wrath of the Clinton Machine not the FBI ?

[Press Virginia]

54. That's more in line with my thinking. Or he's worried about his admissions

ruining a future job

[LaydeeBug]

47. Yes, he can. nt

It's really that simple. This is a CIVIL lawsuit. He can plead the fifth all the live long day, and to questions like, "What is your name?" It is a RIGHT, not a privilege

[Press Virginia]

52. It's a right against self incrimination

he's under a court order for a deposition.
If his immunity covers the questions, there is not a risk of self incrimination

[magical thyme]

49. tell it to his lawyers, who generally don't want any client to testify two or three times

there is a risk of contradicting yourself and ending up with perjury charges.

[Press Virginia]

53. There's no chance of a perjury charge for people telling the truth

And if his immunity covers the subject area, unless he lied to the FBI, his answers shouldn't be materially different

[magical thyme]

56. lawyers generally don't want clients to testify more than once

for fear that they'll contradict themselves and end up with perjury charges. So tell it to his fucking lawyers.

[Press Virginia]

57. It would have to be a pretty material contradiction

Like, completely at odds with what he told the FBI.

[pnwmom]

78. Oh yeah, right. And innocent people shouldn't bother with lawyers, either --

all they have to do is "tell the truth." Why would an innocent person need a lawyer? Looks awfully suspicious to me.

[Press Virginia]

79. He needs a lawyer because laws were broken

but this is a civil suit covering ground the FBI already covered with him.

Have the events surrounding his role with setting up the server changed? How about who told him to set it up?

[pnwmom]

80. No one knows what ground they'd try to cover -- we saw that in the Mills deposition

where the JW lawyers, over and over again, went outside of bounds.

He is smart to listen to his lawyer and avoid the whole thing. Why would anyone go through an ordeal like that if they didn't have to? With the lawyers trying to pick your brains about events you can hardly remember from 12 years ago? You'd have to be nuts to want to do that.

[Press Virginia]

81. The judges order is specific and he's been ordered by the judge to be deposed

If he has immunity under the scope of the deposition then there is no reasonable fear of prosecution. He can be compelled to testify, by the judge, claiming the 5th if the question is outside the scope of the inquiry or his immunity agreement.

And, if he couldn't remember setting up the server in 2009, he wouldn't have gotten immunity from the FBI

[pnwmom]

82. He's claiming the 5th so his lawyer must think his immunity agreement

doesn't cover this.

He's right to listen to his lawyer and stay out of this.

[Press Virginia]

83. Unless the threat is substantive and real, meaning his immunity isn't within

the scope of the questioning, he can be compelled by the judge to answer the questions.
In a civil case he has to establish there is a reasonable cause for fear of criminal prosecution. And the judge can agree or reject his invocation of the 5th.

He can't, as was reported, refuse to answer any and all questions.

[pnwmom]

84. There is nothing to know till the judge rules. Till then, he did exactly the right thing

by following his attorney's advice.

[Press Virginia]

85. If he'd done the right thing from the start he wouldn't be needing an attorney

It's clear there was a conspiracy to thwart FOIA

[pnwmom]

86. He could have done something wrong that was all on him and not on Hillary.

We don't know.

[Press Virginia]

87. Yeaaaah...the FBI granted him immunity because he acted alone

seriously?

[pnwmom]

88. Seriously. For example,

they were asking him about his part time work for Hillary. But he didn't report income from that after the first year. The IRS doesn't look kindly on that. Not reporting is a felony.

So he wouldn't want to say anything that would acknowledge how much work he did for her if he didn't report it.

Duh.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/is-this-why-clinton-aide-bryan-pagliano-is-taking-the-5th/

Hillary Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano's attorney said last week that his client would not cooperate with the FBI and would exercise his Fifth Amendment rights. What does he have to hide?

In fact, he may have already hidden information that will get him into a pile of legal trouble if he admits it.

It was revealed today by the Washington Post that Pagliano was paid to run Hillary's private server -- out of Hillary Clinton's own pocket. She paid Pagliano an initial sum of $5,000 to set up the server. Pagliano dutifully reported the sum on his financial disclosure form in 2008.

But campaign officials now tell the WaPo that Clinton continued to pay Pagliano to maintain the server until Hillary left the State Department in 2013. The paper could find no record of Pagliano reporting any income from Clinton on his disclosure forms during the intervening years, and the State Department says they had "found no evidence" of Pagliano earning outside income.

[Press Virginia]

99. the FBI wasn't smart enough to ask him if he was paid, how much and for what?

If Clinton paid him and didn't report the payments to the IRS as 1099 payments then she broke the law as well.
If she did, then the IRS already knows about his unreported income.
The DOJ wouldn't need his admission to establish a perjury charge on his financial disclosures.

[cynzke]

94. PERHAPS...

He is pleading on the ADVICE of his lawyer, who SEES a chink in the so called "criminal immunity" ARMOR. If there is a remote chance that a DA can find that chink, then "criminal immunity" is as useless as a balloon with a pin prick.

[Press Virginia]

98. Then the lawyer would have to establish a reasonable cause for the fear of

a criminal prosecution.
In civil court, the 5th amendment plea isn't absolute.

[Rex]

113. Maybe the immunity does not cross over into civilian court.

Maybe the immunity is just for the criminal case.

[Press Virginia]

115. he can't be charged with a crime in civil court

[Rex]

116. Exactly, so the immunity doesn't cross over from criminal to civil court.

Glad you understand.

[Press Virginia]

117. soooo you're saying he's claiming the 5th because he can't be charged with a crime?

[Babel_17]

8. There has been questioning as to what type of immunity he was offered

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_immunity

[Press Virginia]

11. Yeah. But are we supposed to believe the FBI didn't already

ask about the set up?

[emulatorloo]

13. Having just read more about JudicialWatch, maybe he doesn't want to help with them

I did not know JudicialWatch was funded by Mellon Scaife money. Dumb I know, I suppose everybody knows that. But just read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512104107

[Press Virginia]

15. Not wanting to help them and being vulnerable to criminal prosecution

aren't the same thing

[LaydeeBug]

48. again, pleading the 5th is a *RIGHT*, not to your purvue

YOU don't get to decide whether or not he takes the 5th....*HE* decides that.

I am not sure why this is hard.

[Press Virginia]

55. It's a right against self incrimination. If there is not risk of criminal charges

he's compelled by the court to testify in a deposition.

If pleading the 5th were a matter of just not wanting to answer questions civil lawsuits would become impossible for the plaintiff to gather evidence needed to prove civil liability

[LaydeeBug]

63. He has a RIGHT to plead the fifth. nt

[Press Virginia]

66. The court can actually compel his testimony when there is no

reasonable threat of prosecution.
If his immunity deal covers the scope of the deposition the judge can order his testimony on the basis that there is no threat of prosecution.

[LaydeeBug]

95. and he can still plead the fifth. nt

[Press Virginia]

97. But he must answer questions that establish whether his plea is reasonable. If it

is not, then he can be compelled to answer or be in contempt.

[LaydeeBug]

100. it is soooo crazy that you still think he can't. It is a *right* nt

[Press Virginia]

102. im basing my claims on actual court rulings on

The 5th in civil lawsuits.
The assertion must be based on a legitimate concern which must be established by the witness. The fact that a judge can dismiss the assertion and compel an answer should tell you something

[LaydeeBug]

104. The fact that the 5th amendment is a RIGHT, and not a privilege

should tell you something.

[Press Virginia]

106. Not in a civil lawsuit. The witness must establish

a reasonable cause of concern of prosecution.

It's established law.

[ZombieHorde]

114. The 5th isn't absolute.

There are situations where the 5th isn't allowed. This is usually up to the judge.

[tularetom]

21. Did you know this?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/bill-clinton-richard-mellon-scaife-eulogy-109670

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-clinton-eulogizes-onetime-foe-richard-mellon-scaife/

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/the-most-unlikely-eulogy-in-politics-315071555900

http://davidthompson100007208891063.newsvine.com/_news/2014/08/03/25141861-say-what-bill-clinton-eulogizes-richard-mellon-scaife-liberaland

[2banon]

26. Yeah, I wouldn't give JW the time of day, personally.

[Babel_17]

16. Good point, but his lawyer won't let him open himself to any exposure

I'm definitely not a lawyer, and afaik this is a civil suit, so who knows if there's much precedent for compelling him to testify because of his FBI deal. Though I'm sure a lot of people would like to know a lot more about that deal, and what information he supplied.

I guess if a prosecutor's office was involved, and they had the motivation and the resources, they could seek cooperation from the DOJ on borrowing Pagliano to testify on what he's already provided. But that deal was narrow in scope so there's going to be an inherent risk if he said anything beyond quoting himself. I'll guess he would want more immunity but since this is a civil case, who has the power and inclination to grant it?

Now that I think about it ... the FBI may not be done with him, and they may strike another deal with him. Or maybe not, he might be at a real risk for being prosecuted for stuff he did not covered by his deal. These are murky waters. It sure raises questions when he pleads the fifth, but that might have been inevitable, depending on what exactly his deal with the FBI does and doesn't cover.

[Travis_0004]

12. Depends on the type of immunity

If he has informal immunity, then its very limited and he can not be compelled to testify.

If he has formal immunity then he can be compelled to testify.

Also, I hate Hillary, but I will defend the right of somebody not to testify.

If the FBI spent 1 year investigating any single person, they could find laws they broke. Why open up pandoras box. Plus nobody cares about this guy. By refusing to testify he will be given full immunity.

Im very pro cop, but I think this video should be watched by every single person in the US. https://m.

my best friend is a cop, but If Im brought in for questioning, the only think Im saying is get me a lawyer.

I think the same applies to questiona by Congress. Perhaps even more so. A police officer wants the truth. Congress is more likely to have an agenda.

If there is one perception I wish we could change its that the 5th ammendment is for the guilty. The 5th ammendment is for everyone and somebody using it (whi is not a politician) should not be thought of as guilty simply for pleading the 5th.

[laserhaas]

19. Immunity agreements have terms and conditions

Chances arevthe court will devide if the tatget of inquiry is being coy...or actually asserting a civil right...necessary

[Press Virginia]

22. I would think the FBI has asked most of

what will be covered in the lawsuit.
And the lawsuit is very narrow in scope

[laserhaas]

25. And that's when cou sel objects

To assumption of facts not in evidence.
.
As famously stated

" it doesn't matter what I know...what matters is what I can prove".

A judge can get to see the terms and conditions of the immunity agreement...to determine admissable

[Yo_Mama]

24. He may need a separate grant of immunity for these proceedings.

Immunity offers are usually very specific, and negotiated. Open-ended questioning could potentially bring up grounds for charges not included in his immunity deal. That's my guess.

The guy's lawyer is probably doing the right thing for his/her client.

[JDPriestly]

45. There are potentially two cases. One is civil and active, in which he is pleading the Fifth.

The fact that he is pleading the Fifth suggests that his lawyers think that he might be guilty of a criminal offense. He isn't guilty until found guilty in court, but he does not want to be required in a civil case to admit acts for which he could be found guilty in a criminal case.

He has been granted immunity according to news reports in the FBI investigation. There is no criminal case, at least no criminal case that has been announced publicly. I really don't think there is a criminal case yet.

Sometimes prosecutors grant immunity to a person believed to have been involved in criminal acts at some level in order to facilitate the prosecutors' investigation of acts by a suspect that is of greater importance to them.

Prosecutors have a lot of discretion in deciding whether they will prosecute someone and in some cases which of a number of suspects they will prosecute.

I don't know what they are doing in this specific case. But the criminal investigation and the civil case are two separate things.

Personally, I will be surprised if Hillary faces criminal charges. She just has too much political clout for that.

This controversy will cause Hillary and the Democratic Party great sorrow should she be our nominee in my opinion.

[ebayfool]

58. He was granted immunity by the FBI, not Judicial Watch. n/t

[Press Virginia]

59. Judicial Watch can't prosecute him.

[ebayfool]

61. Yeah, but they can sue his pants off if he testifies and incriminates himself.

FBI immunity does not gives him a free pass for other civil or criminal cases. Just the one they want him for.

[Press Virginia]

62. They don't have standing to personally sue him.

[ebayfool]

68. Okay. But if he did testify and it contradicted what he has told the FBI, all bets are off on ...

the immunity deal. Then the FBI can prosecute him for anything they find, yes?


BTW. Dayum you for invocking Ollie North up thread. Thoughts of North led to thoughts of previous GOP thugs. Which led to G. Gordon Liddy. Which led to this -





Yup. I'm sharing the pain and nausea.

[Press Virginia]

69. It would have to be a material contradiction.

Saying something was blue when your previously said it was purple or green isn't material.
Saying it was black and gold with pink flowers would be materially different.

And it really depends on the immunity he got and what it covers. But I doubt the FBI hasn't already asked similar questions in more depth and much broader in scope.

[tex-wyo-dem]

5. That was for the criminal case (FBI)...

Not the civil case (FOIA)

[Press Virginia]

9. His immunity covers him in civil cases

that's how Ollie North got off.

[ebayfool]

64. Would that not depend on the terms the FBI gave?

Good lord, I HOPE they got smarter after dealing with that little schmuck Ollie (gag) North!

[Press Virginia]

65. I'm assuming the FBI asked about the set up of the server

the lawsuit is very narrow in scope. The FBI, logically, would get into more detail on a much broader scope.

[jeff47]

70. So?

This lawsuit is the only civil enforcement mechanism of FOIA. There are no damages. The only way he could be pursued is if he violates a court order. As in the judge says "turn over these emails" and he says "nah".

But if that happened, he's not being sued under FOIA, he's in contempt of court.

[Yo_Mama]

33. Different case, different proceedings.

Immunity deals are not infinite. It could be that there are limits to the immunity granted by the FBI proceedings which could theoretically place Pagliano in some sort of legal jeopardy potentially based on his testimony here.

We all know too little for meaningful speculation.

At a minimum, this may force the questioners here to limit their questioning on certain topics.

Anyone has a right not to testify if testifying would put them in some sort of legal jeopardy.

[Cosmic Kitten]

4. Asserting the right against self-incrimination = crimes commited

Invoking the Fifth is as good as
saying he was complicit in a crime
but won't admit what is was.

[Major Nikon]

14. Nonsense

The purpose of the fifth amendment is to protect the innocent, not the guilty. Most criminal cases are based at least in part and some wholly by circumstantial evidence. I sure as hell wouldn't give any testimony that I had any inclination that it might be used in any way, shape, or form to prosecute me. Nobody in their right mind should, and no attorney worth the powder it would take to blow them to hell would advise a client to do so.

[w4rma]

18. On refusing to testify

While defendants are entitled to assert the privilege against compelled self-incrimination in a civil court case, there are consequences to the assertion of the privilege in such an action.

The Supreme Court has held that "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, "[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, 'Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'" "'Failure to contest an assertion ... is considered evidence of acquiescence ... if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.'"

In Baxter, the state was entitled to an adverse inference against Palmigiano because of the evidence against him and his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege.

Some civil cases are considered "criminal cases" for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment. In Boyd v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "A proceeding to forfeit a person's goods for an offence against the laws, though civil in form, and whether in rem or in personam, is a "criminal case" within the meaning of that part of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person "shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Refusal_to_testify_in_a_civil_case

[Major Nikon]

20. Thanks for the wiki cut and paste

Which is pretty much completely irrelevant considering there is exactly zero dollars involved in a FOIA civil case.

[w4rma]

107. Staying silent “can be used against you,” said Peter Toren, a former federal prosecutor and partner

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.

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

[Major Nikon]

108. Thanks for the right wing perspective

[w4rma]

109. It's a legal perspective and this scenario of the prosecutor will play out in court with the

attorney asking questions, Clinton's server expert answering "I plead the 5th." to each one in turn and the judge accepting each plead as implicit confirmation that answering each subsequent question would mean "guilty".

[Major Nikon]

110. Sorry, but I just don't give a shit what a right wing rag has to say. YMMV.

[w4rma]

111. "The Hill" is a "right-wing rag", now? You Clintonites are limiting your media outlets to hardly

anything, now.

[Major Nikon]

112. Namecalling directed at me, especially "Clintonite" is a fucking joke

But it does provide evidence for your penchant for smears.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/22/the-hill-uncritically-repeats-judicial-watchs-c/209471

The newspaper and its website are popular with American conservatives, and rank among the top links on many conservative websites and blogs, earning a top 10 spot in one list.

The_Hill

Please keep pretending you didn't just parrot out a right wing rag.

[csziggy]

17. Your comment is truly ironic considering your signature line

"If you believe in justice, if you believe in freedom; stand up for human rights, and a world we can believe in."

Having the right to refuse to testify is a human right.

[99th_Monkey]

27. I think you missed the point Cosmic Kitten was making

It's not that the IT should be stripped of his 5th amendment rights

Its that the nature of pleading the 5th indicates that we are dealing with CRIMES here,
i.e. criminal activity, beyond merely showing "poor judgement".

[cheapdate]

31. And I think you missed the point

that the OP concerns a civil suit brought by Judicial Watch to obtain Hillary Clinton's emails. There are no criminal charges, no criminal court, no prosecutor, and no indictments. It's a civil lawsuit.

[99th_Monkey]

37. My comment was solely in reference to Cosmic Kitten's post, not to the OP

Never-the-less, I'm certainly not arguing that it's a criminal prosecution per se, so
your post completely misses the mark, on both counts.

[cheapdate]

40. If you say so.

[JDPriestly]

72. But when the Fifth Amendment is invoked, it is because testimony could incriminate

the person invoking the Fifth Amendment right. That suggests that the person invoking the right believes that he or she MIGHT possibly be charged based on that testimony.

In my experience, in a court, a person might be questioned by a judge not involved in the case as to the grounds for invoking the Fifth Amendment so that the right is not invoked just to avoid answering questions or testifying for some reason other than self-incrimination.

That's my experience in California. May be different in other states.

[cheapdate]

73. Does he have anything to gain by testifying?

If not, why would he?

If I was asked to testify in a suit against the people I've worked for at our small company for the past 18 years, I imagine I'd tell the plaintiffs lawyers to f&^k off, you're doing this without me.

[JDPriestly]

74. This is just my experience. I can't say what would happen in a case you might be

involved in because these matters of procedure depend on the facts of the case.

In general, a party to a lawsuit has the right to compel testimony of witnesses. That right is of course within certain limits so what I am telling you does not always apply.

If someone does not want to testify, then when appropriate, and I repeat, when the judge deems the testimony appropriate and the order to testify appropriate, the judge can order the potential witness to testify. In the case of a deposition, in my experience a judge can if he thinks it is justified, order a witness to answer questions at a deposition.

What happens if the potential witness does not comply with the judge's order? Well, in some cases, but by no means always, a judge has the authority to deem the reluctant witness to be in contempt of court. That can end in a penalty including in some cases, a jail visit.

It all depends on the facts of a case, so a potential witness relies on his/her lawyer to decide what to do.

Sometimes a party to a law suit tries to do a deposition when it isn't appropriate. Sometimes the judge doesn't order the testimony even if it is requested.

That's why lawyers don't give advice on the internet. Everything depends on the facts of a particular case.

Just in general, people don't take the Fifth without a good reason. But the rules are not cut and dry in my experience.

[cheapdate]

75. Again, back to the hypothetical case

of my being asked to testify against the small company I've worked for for the past 18 years, the only compelled testimony they'd get from me would be 'I don't recall.'

[csziggy]

43. No, the Fifth can be used if there is apprehension

About prosecution even if the witness has not committed a crime.

The Supreme Court has held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Self-incrimination

The case referenced in this Wikipedia article is this one:

Ohio v. Reiner
532 U.S. 17 (2001)

OCTOBER TERM, 2000

Syllabus

OHIO v. REINER

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

No. 00-1028. Decided March 19, 2001

Respondent was tried for involuntary manslaughter in the death of his infant son Alex, who died from "shaken baby syndrome." His defense theory was that Alex was injured while in the care of the family's babysitter, Susan Batt. Batt informed the Ohio trial court before testifying that she intended to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege, and the court granted her transactional immunity. She then testified to the jury that she had refused to testify without a grant of immunity on the advice of counsel, although she had done nothing wrong. The jury convicted respondent, and he appealed. The appeals court reversed, and the State Supreme Court affirmed the reversal on the ground that Batt had no valid Fifth Amendment privilege because she asserted innocence and that the trial court's grant of immunity was therefore unlawful. The court found that the wrongful grant of immunity prejudiced respondent, because it effectively told the jury that Batt did not cause Alex's injuries.

Held: Batt had a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. This Court has jurisdiction over the Ohio Supreme Court's judgment, which rests, as a threshold matter, on a determination of federal law. See Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U. S. 804, 816. The Fifth Amendment privilege's protection extends only to witnesses who have a reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486. That inquiry is for the court; the witness' assertion does not by itself establish the risk of incrimination. This Court has never held, however, that the privilege is unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, the Court has emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 421. Batt had "reasonable cause" to apprehend danger from her answers if questioned at respondent's trial. Thus, it was reasonable for her to fear that answers to possible questions might tend to incriminate her.

Certiorari granted; 89 Ohio St. 3d 342, 731 N. E. 2d 662, reversed and remanded.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/17/

Think of the people who were persecuted by Joe McCarthy who attempted to protect themselves by pleading the Fifth. People's lives were destroyed when they had never broken the law.

In today's Congress and in the country today irrational attempts at prosecution even if a person is completely free of wrong doing is a very real possibility.

The assumption of guilt when a a refusal to answer and use of the Fifth Amendment is inherently a denial of a right under our Constitution and a denial of a human right.

[2banon]

28. I agree.n/t

[cheapdate]

29. Really? So, do you think the Fifth Amendment should maybe be phased out?

[Yo_Mama]

34. No it isn't. It really does not.

There are a lot of laws and a lot of ways to legally pressure a person.

Making a statement under oath that might tend to expose one to legal suspicion is a long, long way from having committed an actual crime, and just the threat of being prosecuted (even if ultimately acquitted) is dire.

I myself suspect that Pagliano never committed a clear crime. He is, however, a person in deep waters and he is the smallest fish in those waters.

Legal shit does tend to flow downhill.

[JonLeibowitz]

51. No, this is a fairly silly post.

I am a Sanders supporter, but this is very far from incorrect. The 5th amendment is a right that implies nothing about the person invoking it.

However, I am suspicious of what he doesn't want to talk about.

[pnwmom]

23. He is smart to follow his attorney's advice. And Judicial Watch is the modern day

Ken Starr/Inspector Javert, without the prosecutorial powers.

[Midnight Writer]

77. Exactly. Why the hell would he cooperate in any way with a right wing witch hunt?

[OnyxCollie]

32. OP's like this will soon be banned

for not helping Hillary Clinton succeed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=5833

If you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to help her succeed, then you'll be fine. But if you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to tear her down, then you won't be fine.

[w4rma]

38. Legitimate news, such as this, won't be banned. (nt)

[Reter]

67. So is hoping for an indictment now a ban-able offense?

I hadn't heard that.

[OnyxCollie]

71. Are you worried or excited?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

91. Not yet, but maybe starting 6/16.

However, the OP does not seem to hope for an indictment of Clinton. It's a comment on some IT guy. I doubt if Clinton even knows his name.

[B2G]

96. "I doubt if Clinton even knows his name"

[jwirr]

35. Hey Hillary don't you understand that right or wrong when

someone refuses to testify people assume they are guilty.

[LiberalElite]

39. But this is just a big Nothingburger!!! eom

[SusanLarson]

42. LOL

Last month, the State Department said that it had lost the backup archive of Pagliano’s emails from his time at the department. However, it had been able to cobble together some emails through the accounts of other officials.

Ya your honor we accidentally lost it, and all the server backups, that would have contained them. Not.

[zentrum]

44. Have no idea what this means.

Usually pleading means the testifier knows they did something that broke the law. So maybe participated in a cover-up (that she asked for) at some point?

I keep reading and hearing that pleading the fifth in situations like this is very rare.

[mr clean]

50. I hope he doesn't have any plans flying anywhere,

and he needs to watch his back, too many people want him to remain silent.

[ebayfool]

60. Pagliano is worried about a potential breach at the court reporting company? This guy?

He really ought not to worry so much about that, it's not like they are keeping the servers in the basement of somebody's house.




http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bryan-pagliano-fifth-amendment-223796

"Judicial Watch may move to unseal the materials at any time. Furthermore, in the event of a leak or data breach at the court reporting company, Mr. Pagliano would be hard-pressed to prevent further dissemination and republication of the video. Given that there is no proper purpose for videotaping the deposition in the first place, Judicial Watch’s preference should yield to the significant constitutional interests at stake," Pagliano's attorneys added.

[KeepItReal]

76. Once again...Clinton Email Testimony Video:

&feature=youtu.be

[Major Hogwash]

89. Bernie just became the next President of the United States.

Pagliano has something to hide.

[beachbum bob]

90. "conservative" legal watchdog group is an understatement and they are a total rightwing attack

dog....not worth commenting on

might as post glenn beck or sean hannity as sources

[TipTok]

92. That's the point though...

It's like putting a chunk of steak in front of a dog and being shocked when he eats it.

If Hillary had made better and more ethical choices they wouldn't have anything to attack.

There's never a denial just an overall theme of 'let this one go for the greater good'.

[maxrandb]

93. Good for him and I don't "effing" blame him at all

Hell, if Judicial Watch wanted to put me under oath to ask if the "sky was blue"? I'd claim the 5TH too.

Fuck KKKLAYman and his asshat organization. The fact that Judicial Watch is given any fucking credibility by The Hill or anyone in the Media, helps explain why an orange colored Neanderthal is the Repuke Presidential nominee.

and I'm sorry, but that's an insult to Neanderthals

[tularetom]

103. He's in no legal jeopardy so he must be afraid of something

Wonder what it might be?

I'd stay off of small airplanes if I were him.

[Sunlei]

105. as is his right to do.