Judicial Watch Loses: Judge Keeps Clinton IT Expert's Immunity Agreement Under Seal

[WhiteTara]

Source: crooks and liars

Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order today related to dueling motions filed by Judicial Watch, Bryan Pagliano, and the DOJ.

Pagliano's attorneys asked that his deposition not be videotaped, and also asked that the letter granting him immunity by the DOJ be kept under seal. Judicial Watch not only wanted to videotape the deposition, but also wanted Sullivan to compel Pagliano's testimony, and publish the immunity letter.

The DOJ and Pagliano's lawyers correctly replied that Pagliano's right to assert the Fifth can't be denied, his testimony can't be compelled before it's even heard, and that there's an ongoing investigation that could be harmed if the immunity agreement was made public.

snip

As for Judicial Watch's attempt to deny Pagliano his right to plead the Fifth, in effect, compelling him to answer whatever Judicial Watch wants, well, that's hogwash. Judge Sullivan rightfully ignored it, because that was never one of the requests made of the Judge.

Read more: http://crooksandliars.com/2016/06/judge-sullivan-keeps-immunity-agreement

[w4rma]

1. Court will keep Clinton IT aide’s immunity deals secret

The Justice Department has said that releasing the agreements “could prematurely reveal the scope and focus of the pending investigation.”

Sullivan’s use of the phase “criminal investigation” also confirms the stakes of the probe, which Clinton’s presidential campaign has repeatedly downplayed as a “security review.”

The agreements were granted as part of the federal government’s probe of the email setup Clinton used throughout her time as secretary of State. Officials could determine whether classified information was mishandled by Clinton moving all of her messages through a private server and personal email address.

Pagliano set up and maintained the server in the basement of Clinton’s New York home but has said he plans to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition with the conservative watchdog organization Judicial Watch. The group has sued the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act and begun interviewing former Clinton aides about her email setup and the department’s federal record-keeping responsibilities.
…
His decision not to answer Judicial Watch’s questions could still bode poorly for Clinton, because the law allows judges to view someone’s unwillingness to respond in a civil case as incriminating.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/283409-court-will-keep-secret-clinton-it-aides-immunity-deals
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1488736

[still_one]

5. Judges do not infer someone's unwillingness to respond as incriminating. If there

is corroborating testimony that is fine, but to assume a persons failure to testify is an admission of guilt throws the Constitution and Miranda out the door

[Jim Lane]

11. In most jurisdictions, such an inference IS permitted in a civil case.

Your blanket statement is true only as to criminal cases. In a civil case, such as this one, the trier of fact (the jury or, if it's a bench trial, the judge) is permitted to draw an inference from a witness's invocation of the Fifth.

I've heard that California has a statute precluding such inferences even in civil cases but that's not the general rule. The excerpt quoted in the OP leads me to think that the inference will be permitted here.

[sharp_stick]

2. That's really going to make some people here sad

We've got a lot of recent converts to Judicial Watch.

[geek tragedy]

3. those saddened by Judicial Watch's misfortune have begun self-deporting

to other sites

[leftofcool]

4. Awwww! Trey and his band of thuggish brothers lose again

[ellennelle]

6. interesting interpretations here

no fan of judicial watch, by any stretch of the imagination, to be perfectly clear.

but the fact that two different judges have allowed their case to get this far is cause for pause, seems to me.

more importantly, even tho it's true pleading the 5th does not assume guilt, the fact that immunity was granted for testimony strongly suggests (lawyers most often assume) this person has not only important incriminating evidence, but is involved deeply enough that they would jump at the immunity offer.

do you folks not recognize just how dangerous this case is for the party going forward? and therefore, for the country?

we now can claim the dubious honor of putting forward the first candidate in our nation's history with an FBI investigation hanging over her/his head. if this explodes at any point, she'll either have to withdraw from the campaign, or she'll be impeached.

if it does not explode, it will always remain this nagging, perpetual conspiracy, or shoe about to drop, with leaks of testimony and accusation galore.

as chuck todd pointed out after the state IG report came out, she could not even pass muster for an AG nomination.

why the party would put everything in this high risk candidate is so far beyond my comprehension, i can hardly breathe. not trying to litigate the primary here; i'm just stepping back and reflecting, aghast at what we're facing.

[cstanleytech]

8. Actually the only danger would be if Clinton wins and is the one

under investigation and they had proof that she committed a criminal act which I doubt is the case here.
I am actually leaning towards this case being about someone being granted access to the server or being provided with copies of her emails since they have done nothing to indicate that she is the target but they have granted immunity to the IT guy.

[LenaBaby61]

7. Great news.....

[Cryptoad]

9. Ohhhh NO,,, EMAILS,,,,, Oh the horror of it all!,,Drink!

[findrskeep]

10. K & R nt

[Monk06]

12. If you want to lose a motion in court just get Judicial Watch on it They have an almost perfect

loss rate

They either make motions without proper standing or compelling reason and always without precedent

Purists without case law behind them always get a straight arm from any competent judge