DOJ granted (Clinton IT)Pagliano immunity almost certainly because it knows he did something illegal

[morningfog]

The DOJ has granted immunity to the IT, Bryan Pagliano, who set up HIllary Clinton's private home server. He had been requesting immunity for months.

Prior to granting immunity, the US attorneys will usually have a proffer session with the witness. The individual is made "Queen for a day" during the proffer. They are promised that they will not be prosecuted for anything discussed and it will all be kept confidential.

If the US attorneys hear useful information to a prosecutor during the proffer session, the DOJ will then consider whether to grant the person immunity.

The DOJ knows what Pagliano has to offer. They know he could be held criminally liable for what he did.

Make no mistake, Pagliano did something illegal. He is going to testify as to what he did, and what else was done and by whom.

[morningfog]

1. kick

[NV Whino]

2. I do hope they're offering him protection as well as immunity

[randome]

17. Hilarious! To think that a mundane email matter would bring out hidden ninja assassins!

I'm sure Vince Foster, rest his soul, could have told us about that!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[tex-wyo-dem]

37. Snark away!

Hillary supporters and the Democratic Party as a whole are going to have a serious "come to Jesus" moment within the next few weeks I fear.

So enjoy that sand while you can.

[Blus4u]

3. I heard this last night

on Lawrence O'Donnell's show. It will be interesting to see what info he has to offer and the ramifications that will result.

Peace

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. Witness Protection status coming up

I hope he likes Little Hammer's weather





The FBI and Justice gave him immunity for a

A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION,............let that sink in
A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION and all of the people involved were within Hillary's inner circle at the State Department.

[amborin]

21. really! was discussing this last night and we were concluding he better have

24/7 guards

[panader0]

5. Kick--this is extremely important.

I remember the John Edwards mess. Can you imagine if he had won the nomination
and then had the news come out? Ugh. Let's get this out in the open, the sooner the better
for ALL of us.

[Punkingal]

6. The IT guy committed some sort of crime?

Who asked him to do something criminal? Was it Hillary? Others on her staff?

Is she going to use the Reagan defense of staff just doing whatever and she knew nothing about it? This is a big mess.

[morningfog]

7. That's what the FBI and DOJ will soon find out.

[Punkingal]

10. I hope it's soon, for all our sakes!

[Arazi]

64. The investigation is scheduled to be done by early May

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511403650

So any recommendations for charges will be known before the convention

[tblue37]

28. Also known as the Christie defense. In Reagan's case it might even have been true. nt

[Fairgo]

78. She will wash her hands of the whole thing

and wash and wash and wash...damn spot!

[casperthegm]

8. and yet the HRC supporters will shrug it off

I'd have to see an amazingly stark contrast between two candidates of the same party to stick with the one that is under investigation and whose subordinate has been granted immunity in that investigation. It's actually a little reminiscent of the Trump supporters- all of the baggage and nothing seems to sway them.

[Blus4u]

9. K & R

Timing is pivotal on this news snippet.
Hopefully, the investigation will proceed quickly.

Peace

[DCBob]

11. Not according to this 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.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/03/02/immunity-for-bryan-pagliano-will-help-end-the-hillary-clinton-email-inquiry/2/#506fb9e2538d

[morningfog]

12. Right, they are foregoing a case against him, which they would not have unless he spoke to them.

What happened is that the FBI is pulling a thread which runs through Pagliano. They want to interview him. He refuses because he won't incriminate himself. The FBI doesn't have the evidence against him yet. They coordinated with Pagliano's attorney to have a proffer session. The purpose of the proffer is to see whether he can help them without the risk of prosecution. Following that proffer, they DOJ granted him immunity because they now know that he is exposed to criminal liability (but they can't make the case based on the information from the proffer) and that he can help them build the case against someone else.

[DCBob]

13. You should be a thriller fiction writer.

[morningfog]

15. Thanks for the compliment on my writing.

This is how investigations and prosecutions work. I have been involved in dozens of federal prosecutions and am familiar with the process. The DOJ does not just grant immunity to anyone wanting to claim it.

[KingFlorez]

14. Don't let that get in the way of the hope of an indictment

I mean, Sanders only chance at this point is for Clinton to be indicted and end being the nominee by the default. It's a very sad situation. Unfortunately for Sanders, this was also in the article.

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.

[morningfog]

16. That entire section is based on assumptions.

Just to be clear, I hope no one is indicted for this. It would only hurt the Dems.

[KingFlorez]

19. Your OP is based on assumptions

Much of the discussion about this investigation is based on assumptions.

[morningfog]

20. My OP is based on experience.

The DOJ does not just hand out immunity. They only do so when they have knowledge that it will help their case and that the person is exposed to criminal liability. No assumptions are required.

[DCBob]

22. I think they are mainly interested in finding out more about the setup of the server.

Was it or could it have been hacked? Obviously this guy would be the best person to have knowledge about that.

[morningfog]

23. Possibly, but he would still have to have done something potentially illegal to receive immunity.

[DCBob]

24. "Potentially" sure.

I will grant you that one.

[onenote]

82. What sort of experience is it based on. Have you advised clients called to testify before a grand

jury. Because while I haven't personally, I have law firm partners that have and they would seek immunity in a heartbeat even if they are convinced their client hasn't committed any illegal act. Why leave a client exposed to a possibly overzealous prosecutor?

[andrewv1]

26. "One less thing for her to worry about?" State of denial

Fortunately I don't see it hurting the Dems, whether it will eventually be Sanders or someone like Biden...

The public perception of the Clinton Crime Family is that they are "In a League of their Own" just like the Bush Crime Family is.

[thesquanderer]

36. It can hurt the Dems, depending on timing.

If anything damning comes out after Hillary wins the nomination but before the general election, it could negatively affect the election. (And I wouldn't expect Hillary to voluntarily step aside, either.)

[andrewv1]

38. And that's why you clear it out now...This process should start moving very rapidly now.

You think all this ever came up in that meeting with Obama & Biden just before Bernie had to interrupt his campaigning in Iowa?

[Bob_Roony]

60. What is more sad

is the fact that a person like Clinton who has been involved in politics for decades and held so many public offices and been in the WH and Senate etc.. not to have the right judgment that using a private e-mail would spell trouble. Do you really believe that a person - who studied law at Yale (and spent so much time in politics and public offices and the WH, and been involved in so many legal issues) - didn't know that the usage of such a private server while being a secretary of state and while being in the president inner circle and while being a member of the National Security Council, is at least shady? if not illegal? If she didn't know that then she really has a bad judgment (and this is a key point that her opponent Sanders keeps making). If she did, this would beg the question: why did she do it then? try to hide something?

Nobody can convince me that Clinton didn't know that having a private server would spell trouble for her. Nobody can convince me that she did it for reasons way beyond "convenience". She knew that as a secretary of state and as a member of National Security Council she will definitely receive secrets via e-mail. She is not a novice. She has been in the WH and the senate and involved in many legal issues. She was a lawyer for God sake.

[Bob_Roony]

89. On MSNBC

Very interesting.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. If there is no case against Pagliano why would he accept immunity?

If he accepts and then provides nothing useful to the investigation than he has placed himself in jeopardy.

[DCBob]

90. To set the matter to rest.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. Years of stonewalling and slow-walking requests -- which they're still doing -- just so

Pagliano can cop a plea and set the matter to rest.

Sure. Okay. Whatever.

[speaktruthtopower]

18. Maybe..

the investigation is about the server being hacked, not her negligence in setting it up.

Maybe it was hacked by political operatives, not (or in addition to) foreign intelligence services.

I'm not sure we're hearing the whole story here, and it wouldn't be the first time an investigation was conducted under multiple layers of deceit.

[andrewv1]

25. I have to wonder if the Rethugs didn't push this Benghazi BS for so long...

That this FBI Investigation would of taken place sooner....

Typical overreach by them played right into Clinton's hands with her victim role she does so well.

[kgnu_fan]

27. kick

[Chicago1980]

29. "almost certainly because it knows he did something illegal"

You know what they say about those who assume...?

[morningfog]

30. This is how the DOJ works, I know from experience. They do not grant immunity

unless they know the person faces criminal liability. No assumption necessary.

[msanthrope]

58. Um, no. They grant immunity if the person holds out and they need the testimony.

Maybe you need better representation.

[99th_Monkey]

31. Investigators have bigger fish to fry, than Mr. Pagliano, or else they wouldn't do immunity.

Which leaves the question hanging ... WHO are these 'bigger fish" going to be?

[Pantagruelsmember]

32. HRC wasn't a techie

Now that he has immunity, Pagliano can reveal the private server was his idea and recco, HRC probably just asked for a reliable, safe system . HRC isn't a techie, she's going to logically seek advice on a superficial level, nothing nefarious here as she's been asserting all along.Why would she make the server decision, she'd ask experts for advice and take it.
The DOJ has a duty to explore all the evidence not just for guilt but for exculpatory purposes. Pagliano may have feared he inadvertently violated a law and now he can speak freely about the advice he gave HRC.
HRC had no reason to expose secrets, she's not an enemy of the state.

[blackspade]

33. I'm not happy about this.

An active primary is a terrible time for this to happen.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

34. Wow

Make no mistake, Pagliano did something illegal.

Way to just bypass the whole innocent until proven guilty...you know, one of the greatest elements of a modern democracy...

By the way Clinton's team has been encouraging him to testify from the get go. But let's just jump past that and go right to HE'S GUILTY.

You haven't heard what he has to say. He's guilty because you want Bernie to be president?

((Sigh)).

[morningfog]

40. He was granted immunity! lol. There will be no prosecution against him, that is the whole point.

I never said he was guilty. He will never be found guilty because he now has immunity.

If you read the OP (and if you understand the law), the DOJ knows he engaged in criminal activity (not a conviction of guilt), he told them what he did in a protected proffer session and was then granted immunity from prosecution.

He will never be found guilty, and will forever be legally innocent. That does not mean he did not do something illegal.

You clearly don't understand how immunity and plea deals work.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. What do you expect from a cabal ...

What do you expect from a cabal who are petitioning the Democratic National Committee to ignore the popular vote in the primaries and caucuses and install the Vermont independent as our nominee?


If they weren't so feckless they would actually be frightening.

[Punkingal]

75. What rot!!!!

You talk all the time about people disrespecting you, and then you call Bernie supporters a cabal. we aren't in charge of the FBI or the DOJ.

I have news for you, I don't want a problem to exist that can ruin our chances of getting a democrat in the White House. But this IS a problem, make no mistake about it. And there are MANY people who will never believe she didn't do something wrong, no matter what the FBI says, because of her high unfavorability ratings.

I'm not one of them, nor am I a member of any cabal. I have a right to support Bernie, just like you have a right to support Hillary. I'm sick of this holier than thou stuff.

[Trust Buster]

35. More Hillary Derangement Syndrome from the Bernie crowd.

Everyone knows that this man was pleading the fifth because Congressional Republicans wanted to do a Lois Lerner job on him. Everyone knows that if he had voluntarily talked to the FBI, he would have been effectively waiving his fifth amendment right in front of Congress. This would have lead to legal bills that would have financially destroyed a small fish like him. Happy to see the Bernie folks are looking out for the little guy.

[andrewv1]

42. That's really reaching...But at least you are not "MIA" like most of the Hillary group is right now.

This is good....Keep it up!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Well, they certainly can't hope their flailing candidate could beat Hillary fair and square...

That's as likely as Brett Brown hoisting the Larry O'Brien trophy this Summer.

[morningfog]

44. There is no such thing as a 5th Amendment right to protect you form annoyance and expense.

It is only for self incrimination of criminal liability.

[Trust Buster]

52. If I were an attorney, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES would I expose my client

to a Republican-lead inquisition. The staggering legal bills alone would financial ruin my client.

[morningfog]

55. The DOJ granted immunity. They don't do that unless it is to protect someone with exposure to

criminal liability.

[Trust Buster]

59. No, I would demand that to keep my client away from a Republican witch hunting committee.

[msanthrope]

72. That's incorrect. nt

[HillareeeHillaraah]

39. And another thing...

Without immunity he would be dragged before any and every kind of republican led committee before you can say "subpoena".

A romp through a republican fishing expedition can be enormously expensive. Immunity puts a cap on what this whole experience will cost him.

That has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

[morningfog]

41. It has everything to do with criminal liability. FULL FUCKING STOP.

[Trust Buster]

46. Totally unnecessary and without any basis in fact.

[morningfog]

47. The 5th Amendment only protects you against criminal liability. That is it.

That is the fact.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

51. It thwarts fishing expeditions

That can bankrupt a person and destroy their reputation even if nothing is ever proven

[morningfog]

54. Only if the person is exposed to criminal liability. You don't get immunity out of convenience.

This is basic stuff. I can only surmise that you are completely ignorant of the law.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

48. I know that you REALLY want that to be the case...

Maybe yes, maybe no.

But certainly, putting in IN ALL CAPS with an expletive in the middle doesn't eliminate other
Possible scenarios.

Have a calmer day.

[morningfog]

50. You are ignorant to the legal system and criminal liability.

Not my problem.

[msanthrope]

61. No...I think you are ignorant as to how good representation goes. nt

[morningfog]

62. The DOJ doesn't grant immunity for nothing.

[msanthrope]

66. The DOJ will grant immunity if the person holds out and refuses to testify,

and they want the testimony. You forget....the DOJ has their hands tied once it's in front of the grand jury. There, the DOJ does not get to decide criminal liability willy-nilly.

And we don't know what type of immunity he's been granted. I've had witnesses granted immunity simply because I asked for it.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

68. From the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Volume 67
immunity and how it Works in Real Life by Warren D. Wolfson

It is not intellectually safe to conclude that whenever a witness is granted immunity he must be guilty of a crime. An involuntary witness often receives immunity simply because a prosecutor wants to know what the witness knows.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Do you believe your interlocutor is arguing so strenuously...

Do you believe your interlocutor is arguing so strenuously because a mythical indictment is the only thing that stands between his flailing candidate and a humiliating defeat ?

Thank you in advance.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

69. Uh huh. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. My fervent wish is they would join us in celebrating and taking advantage of the GOP crackup...

But , alas, their moral certainty is an impediment. We shall soldier on without them.



PEACE
DSB

[Punkingal]

77. Yes, you certainly will. You don't need our votes at all, do you?

[morningfog]

79. I don't think Hillary will be indicted. I hope no one will.

I hope this all passes over as nothing, because any indictment will only hurt Dems.

[Trust Buster]

45. Hillary herself told the FBI that she will eagerly testify in front of the FBI way back in August.

She's still waiting to receive that invitation. She has nothing to hide.

[morningfog]

49. Who said anything about Hillary?

I didn't.

[Trust Buster]

56. I did. She's been waiting to talk to the FBI since August.

[morningfog]

57. Okay. But that has no relevance here.

[Trust Buster]

65. Sure it does.

As you Bernie supporters have highlighted over and over and over, Hillary has the resources to hire the best attorney's and fight the Republicans tooth and nail. And, after making Republicans look stupid in 10 hours of a dog and pony show, she has the chops to do it again.

Republicans have ruined the finances and reputations of many a small fish in the government for political gain. This guy's attorney did the right thing in achieving a way to testify in front of the FBI while maintaining his client's ability to tell Politically driven Republicans to go pound salt.

[morningfog]

67. It has to with his his exposure to criminal liability as well as others.

I am not one who thinks HIllary will be indicted.

[Trust Buster]

71. You don't know what his attorney's objectives are.

I gave you my inclination. You gave me yours. Until we know specifically, the most either of us will get out of this is a draw.

[pkdu]

70. Yes you did. The name "Clinton" appears twice in your OP. Unless you are referring to

This guy

[link:|

[morningfog]

73. I said nothing of Hillary's culpability. That is not the point.

[randys1]

76. Meanwhile, President Rubio gives the go ahead to House bill HR277B, titled

"Legal to discriminate against Gays Bill & deny Women healthcare"

coming to a town near you very soon

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. "And the moderator said we're getting off target, let's get back to discussing Trump now."

I'll bet even Hillary wishes the networks would stay focused on Trump.

[onenote]

81. You don't know that. If I was his lawyer, I'd insist on an immunity grant

whether or not I believed there was any evidence of illegal conduct on my client's part. It's the smart thing to do, just as taking the Fifth is often the smart thing to do even if the information one would give would not necessarily give rise to criminal charges.

[onenote]

84. For those pretending to be immunity experts: the statutory standard for granting immunity

18 USC 6003:

(b) A United States attorney may, with the approval of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any designated Assistant Attorney General or Deputy Assistant Attorney General, request an order under subsection (a) of this section when in his judgment—
(1) the testimony or other information from such individual may be necessary to the public interest; and

(2) such individual has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide other information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination.

In other words, there is no requirement that DOJ have a belief or suspicion the witness has committed any criminal act. It is enough that the DOJ thinks that the public interest would be served by granting immunity to a witness who, for whatever reason (and witnesses don't have to give any reason) invoke their right not to testify.

And as mentioned, any lawyer worth his salt would try to get immunity especially where they know that the DOJ really wants to question their client because they can't go anywhere without the testimony -- thus granting immunity is in the public interest because it facilitates the completion of an investigation.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

87. According to (b)(2)

(2) such individual has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide other information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination.

It's kinda hard to self incriminate unless something criminal occurred.

No one ever sought immunity for testifying they obeyed the law.

[onenote]

88. You may want to go back and revisit your constitutional law texts

For example, you might want to brush up on Ullman v. United States, 350 US 422 (1956) where Justice Frankfurter wrote:
Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege. Such a view does scant honor to the patriots who sponsored the Bill of Rights as a condition to acceptance of the Constitution by the ratifying States."

Or even more directly to the point (and more recently): Ohio v Reiner, 532 US 17 (2001) where the per curiam decision stated:
"We have never held, as the Supreme Court of Ohio did, that the privilege is unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment’s “basic functions … is to protect innocent men … ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’ ” Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 421 (1957) (quoting Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York City, 350 U.S. 551, 557—558 (1956)) (emphasis in original). In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth. 353 U.S., at 421—422.

People assert their fifth amendment rights where they believe they obeyed the law all the time.