Forbes: Immunity For Bryan Pagliano Will Help End The Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry

[DCBob]

What will Pagliano’s testimony to the FBI and DOJ mean? Most likely, it will bring their inquiry nearer to an end. The emails apparently contain some kinds of information that are found “elsewhere,” although it is not clear whether “elsewhere” is in documents in agency files, the front page of the New York Times, or both. As part of its work, DOJ must figure out what the implications were of having such information on that server. Also, they must find out about the setting up of the server, which Pagliano helped with.

Clinton has said: “Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.”

In any event, for all the shrill attention that it will get, immunity for Bryan Pagliano will help move the Hillary Clinton email inquiry toward an end – and be one less thing for her to worry about.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/03/02/immunity-for-bryan-pagliano-will-help-end-the-hillary-clinton-email-inquiry/2/#307bbaa9538d

I think this is accurate. The investigation is in its last stages and nothing nefarious has been found and I am certain nothing nefarious will ever be found. As I have said many times this is much ado about nothing. Ginned up by the Republicans and RW media to take Hillary out. It wont work.

[kath]

1. But then there is the OTHER inquiry -the one about inappropriate dealings between the State Dept and

The Clinton Foundation, Abedin having three other jobs besides her State Dept one, etc.

[MaggieD]

23. That's a civil case by right wing nut Larry Klayman

Same dude has 90 lawsuits against Obama going on right now, and was able to draw one about Bill Clinton out for 14 years. No one gives a shit about that idiot or his "inquiries."

[kath]

39. You are WRONG - the IG office of the State Dept is investigating dealings of the Clinton Fdn, plus

Abedin's multiple jobs other than her one at State.
the same IG office also investigated the email situation.
A THIRD investigation is being conducted by the FBI, about whether her email server compromised national security.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html
Excerpt:

Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

The full scope and status of the inquiry, conducted by the State Department’s inspector general, were not clear from the material correspondence reviewed by The Washington Post.

<snip>

For months, Clinton has wrangled with controversy over her use of a private email server, which has sparked a separate investigation by the same State Department inspector general’s office. There is also an FBI investigation into whether her system compromised national security.

<snip>

NONE of these have anything to do with Larry Klayman, and they are NOT civil suits.

[MaggieD]

41. At the direction of the GOP Benghazi committee and their faux scandal

It's all partisan bullshit. As ever DEMOCRAT knows.

[DCBob]

2. More from the article..

Immunity means the Justice Department must forego bringing a case against him, but if the DOJ thought they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. They would prosecute that case, or else make a plea deal which could include the grant of immunity. They are granting him immunity because there is no case they are foregoing, so, this way, he can and will give them evidence.

Pagliano could not give the FBI and DOJ an account without obtaining immunity. For one thing, if he had done so, a House committee could certainly argue that he had waived his rights and must now testify before them – or face contempt of Congress. The Republican House has been very free with such charges – it held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. There is an interesting legal argument about whether waiver before DOJ amounts to waiver before Congress, but Pagliano probably feels as eager to be tormented about that legal argument, before a House Republican-majority committee, as to face the Spanish Inquisition.

This is all very good news for Hillary despite what you are reading here by some other DUers.

[mcar]

3. This is helpful

Thanks.

[tex-wyo-dem]

4. I disagree...immunity is offered...

To someone who has evidence against them regarding a crime that has been committed. Immunity is usually offered only in return of information for building a case against someone else, typically a higher up in a crime organization, employer, etc.

Granting immunity to someone who is withholding information to not incriminate themself (pleading the fifth) just to close out a wider investigation that the agency feels no wrongdoing was done makes absolutely no sense.

[DCBob]

5. I think they are simply trying to get more information about the server setup.

Like could it have been hacked. Obviously this guy would be the best person to know anything about that.

[tex-wyo-dem]

6. They don't need him to understand...

How the server was setup. It's relatively easy to reverse engineer a server and what sort of security it has, application and OS layers, etc, so I'm sure the FBI/DOJ already have that info.

This guy committed a crime, that's clear. But he was directed to commit the crime by a higher up, and that is who they are trying to nail.

[DCBob]

7. They dont have it all.

I believe much of server was wiped plus the fact they dont know what network security was implemented. That would not be apparent from the inspection of the server only. They would need the firewall configurations.

[tex-wyo-dem]

11. So the server was wiped with a cloth...

As I remember someone saying. You only do that to destroy information, period.

[DCBob]

12. Its a common best practice to wipe the data off servers when decommissioned.

[leveymg]

30. It was determined a full year ago that the server's security wasn't set up properly. Updated.

Here's that link. http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/hillary-clinton-email-unsecure/

Venafi, a Salt Lake City computer security firm, has conducted an analysis of clintonemail.com and determined that “for the first three months of Secretary Clinton’s term, access to the server was not encrypted or authenticated with a digital certificate.” In other words: For three months, Clinton’s server lay vulnerable to snooping, hacking, and spoofing.

“Without a certificate you have no assurances that a website you’re attached to or an email server you go to is the one you’re actually going to,” said Kevin Bocek, vice president of security strategy and threat intelligence at Venafi. “There could easily be a ‘man in the middle’ who could easily intercept communications because they’re not being encrypted.”

Without a proper digital certificate to stop them, bad actors can easily wedge themselves between users and the machines they’re attempting to access on a network and, in so doing, collect private information, and possibly even steal credentials such as usernames and passwords. Digital certificates—known more technically as X.509 certificates—are the foundation upon which browsers and servers set up secure and private encrypted channels to communicate. From Jan. 13 to March 29, 2009, clintonemail.com lacked one, Venafi’s analysis reveals.

[DCBob]

34. Thats only one aspect of server security.

[leveymg]

35. I know. She later moved the server to a hosting service that isn't certified for classified systems

That's another specific infosec violation. There are others.

[RiverLover]

8. Spin, spin, spin.

This way, when he incriminates Hillary et al, they can deny, deny, deny.

I mean at this point, what else can they say? What they're really thinking?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

25. You survived your alert 4-3.

(Alerter and 3 others considered what you wrote 'conspiracy theory'.)

[leveymg]

26. They need his testimony to confirm exactly what she ordered him to do. If I were HRC, I wouldn't

cheer at this news that DOJ offered him immunity. It just means that they're filling in pieces of evidence, and if they want to drop the case, they don't need such details that go to action and intent on Hillary's part.

Don't let wishful thinking that she's going to be exonerated take you outside the reality-based community.

[DCBob]

27. It will soon be over.. thank goodness.

We will see who is right.

[leveymg]

31. What makes you so sure about the timing of the AG's decision?

if the object was to minimize damage and complication, this should have been resolved six months ago.

[NWCorona]

38. Agreed!

One way or another I want this over with.

[mmonk]

9. Agreed. There is no need to grant him immunity

if there is no question of wrongdoing or impropriety. No need to even bother.

[Adrahil]

44. Yes, it does make sense. Here's how.

1) The staffer did not commit a crime, but he wisely refuses to testify because he doesn't want to the proverbial clay pot (as in the old proverb: whether a clay pot hit the hammer, or the hammer hits the clay pot, it's bad for the pot.) I guarantee you that I would lawyer up in a heartbeat and refuse to testify if I were caught in the middle of a political shit storm.

2) The Fifth protects against self-incrimination, but one does not have to be guilty of a crime to invoke it. Everyone, regarless of guilt, has the right to remain silent.

3) The FBI may not suspect him of a crime and merely wants to get the testimony. It may simply be entirely uninterested in pursuing him.

4) The FBI may believe that a serious indictment is unlikely, and simply wants a thorough record in order to close out the investigation.

[magical thyme]

10. you're certainly welcome to your interpretation. But I think immunity is offered for many reasons

and I don't think it automatically means one hasn't committed any crime.

Immunity is offered all the time when the FBI is gathering evidence from "small fry" in order to get the goods on the "bigger fry."

That doesn't mean I think Hillary will be indicted. But it seems entirely possible that somebody could have instructed Pagliano to ignore security issues in favor of speed and cost.

[DCBob]

13. I think the bottom line is did she knowingly and willfully send/receive classified emails..

on that server? If she simply mistakenly or accidentally did it then there is no felony. At least that is my understanding.

[magical thyme]

14. I doubt Pagliano would be privy to that. However, there may be emails among the restored

emails in the FBI's possession that prove she did. There is, for example, the email from Sullivan stating that he was having problem sending something over the secure system, and her response instructing him to strip the headers and send it nonsecure. There is no proof that it was classified, but if it wasn't classified was Sullivan really so stupid that he didn't know he could send it regular?

There is also the fact that she received training on "born classified," so should have recognized certain info to be classified with or without headings. The top secret info would fall into that category.

And even if she didn't, according to leaked info, somebody apparently copied data info only on the secure system, into emails that were sent to her.

The bottom line is only time will tell.

To me, offering Pagliano immunity signals the next phase of the private server/email investigation, nothing more and nothing less. We have no certainty of what the FBI has or has not found.

And it has no bearing on the Clinton Foundation branch of the investigation, which is one that, from what I've read, will drag on for a long time because of the complexity.

[DCBob]

15. I thought that one about the stripping the header was debunked.

I believe that email wasnt about anything classified.

Anyway.. I agree we shall see what comes of this. However I am quite certain nothing of substance will come out that will affect Hillary's campaign for President. You can bookmark that.

[magical thyme]

16. the last I saw they weren't able to connect it to any specific email

so they didn't know whether or not the email in question was classified.

And, again, that was just an example. My point was they may find similar emails in the erased and restored batch that the FBI has.

[magical thyme]

17. aides, possibly Hillary, likely questioned w/in weeks, FBI wrap up early May, per NYT sources

Foremost among a half-dozen inquiries and legal proceedings into whether classified information was sent through Mrs. Clinton’s server is an investigation by the F.B.I., whose agents, according to one law enforcement official, could seek to question Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides and possibly the candidate herself within weeks.

A federal law enforcement official said that barring any unforeseen changes, the F.B.I. investigation could conclude by early May. Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges and, if so, against whom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/as-presidential-campaign-unfolds-so-do-inquiries-into-hillary-clintons-emails.html?_r=0

I read elsewhere a couple days ago that the Clinton Foundation offshoot will take much, much longer due to it's complexity.

[DCBob]

18. Good. Get this nonsense over with.

Thanks for posting.

[magical thyme]

21. assuming no charges are recommended. that remains to be seen.

Other questions they likely asked Pagliano would have to do with erasing the server, when, at who's instructions, etc. Along with the handling of the classified info is the potential obstruction of justice. Certainly, Hillary's stonewalling the FBI for months and then turning over a blank server is suspicious.

[MaggieD]

24. I wish I could get you all to bet real money on this

I would make a mint off of all of you. LOL!

[lovuian]

19. Good news if everything is wrapped up by May

I'm for Good news but
Republican Congress will ask for a Special Prosecutor

I think it's very naive to think it's over in May.

[magical thyme]

22. and that's just the server part of the FBI investigation.

There is also the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play branch of the investigation.

And April will also bring interviews of aides and possibly Clinton, in the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit.

Get used to it people. 92-2000 was nothing. Bill's "aw shucks" routine was offensive enough. But Hillary's arrogant, TBTJ attitude is insufferable. And they really, really hate uppity wymenz.

[peggysue2]

20. And then, perhaps the shrill shouts and wishful thinking will end

Hillary has encouraged those who originally took the 5th to cooperate with the FBI. Not a stance from someone who's hiding damning evidence. This is merely another round from the GOP's attack machine that goes nowhere.

And Hillary Clinton is still standing, the very thing driving her opponents to the madhouse.

[Vinca]

28. Are you with the FBI?I'm curious how so many people posting here are so sure nothing has been found.

We don't know. There is no way we can know. We can hope this all goes away, but that's call optimism, not fact.

[DCBob]

29. LOL..

Its called common sense.

[NWCorona]

40. I disagree.

The FBI has only been adding agent's to this case with upwards of 150 at the moment working around the clock. That wouldn't be happening if there wasn't anything on those servers.

[DCBob]

43. Well its a high-profile FOIA case and there were tens of thousands of emails to be scrutinized..

and there were some serious deadlines. That why they needed so many agents. It says nothing about the potential of wrong doing by anyone.

[vdogg]

32. Everyone seems to be forgetting one significant fact

The FBI has no power to indict. None, period. They can only recommend indictment to the justice department. It has been stated before in previous articles that Loretta Lynch has sole discretion in deciding to proceed with charges. If you truly believe Loretta Lynch is going to indict Hillary Clinton, then I have a bridge to sell you. This whole "scandal" is a right wing wet dream (well, not totally right wing )

[leveymg]

33. 2 Federal Judges and 150 FBI agents are engaged in "a right wing wet dream"? Wow!

Just get that image out of my head. If the FBI report suggests there is probable cause to indict, and the AG doesn't, I can see Comey in front of the cameras announcing his resignation, then the Obama Administration has a Saturday Night Massacre situation on its hands.

[merbex]

37. Totally agree n/t

[Adrahil]

45. I won't say it's not a possibility....

But I am sure the AG is aware of the state of the investigation, and if an indictment were likely, that news would have filtered to Clinton.

I suspect that the FBI will find evidence of minor mishandling of classified data without intent to distribute it to unauthorized personnel by Clinton's aids, and the AG will no bill it.

[DCBob]

36. True but there will be no charges.

I am sure of that.

[randome]

42. Nooo! It's too soon!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]