Pagliano sought immunity from republicans' "onslaught of reckless accusations of criminal conduct"

[bigtree]

...not because he was withholding some incriminating evidence against Hillary Clinton.


from Think Progress Sept. 2015:

____ Bryan Pagliano, who also worked as the IT director on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, will not testify in order to avoid unsubstantiated attacks from Republicans, who have been frequently accusing Clinton of criminality for using a personal email server while serving as Secretary of State.

Considering there has so far been no evidence of criminal conduct, the memo asserted, it made sense for Pagliano to avoid risking erroneous coverage of his testimony.

“It is understandable that attorneys for Mr. Pagliano have advised him to assert his constitutional right not to testify given the onslaught of reckless accusations of criminal conduct that continue to be made by many Republicans — including several running for President — without evidence to support their claims,” read the memo, sent on Wednesday to the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack. The memo, sent from the House Benghazi Committee Democrats, cited a letter received on Monday from Pagliano’s attorneys.

According to the Washington Post, that letter also cited the current FBI investigation into Clinton’s email as a reason for Pagliano to plead the Fifth. The FBI is investigating Clinton’s use of a personal email server while serving as Secretary of State, specifically whether the use of that server jeopardized national security information.

The FBI investigation is not criminal and does not accuse Clinton of wrongdoing. No accusations of criminality have been made from the Justice Department, State Department, or FBI.

Despite this, the political environment has indeed been fraught with questionable attacks. The memo itself pointed to several “reckless accusations” by Republican candidates for president, including Donald Trump (“The fact is, what she’s done is criminal”), Mike Huckabee (“This is about her violation of the law”), and Scott Walker (“A complete and thorough criminal investigation is the only way to get to the bottom of this serious matter”).


read: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/09/02/3698234/clinton-server-fbi-bryan-pagliano/

Brian Fallon ‏@brianefallon 13h13 hours ago
We disagreed w/ his decision not to answer questions from Benghazi Committee so are pleased he is cooperating now

[tularetom]

1. Think Progress?

Project of the American Progress Action Fund, a “sister advocacy organization” of the Center for American Progress (CAP) run by former Clinton adviser John Podesta.

Think Progress is a "project" of the American Progress Action Fund (APAF), a "sister advocacy organization" of the John Podesta-led Center for American Progress (CAP) and CAP's entities such as Campus Progress. It also draws freely on the resources of the George Soros-funded Media Matters website edited by David Brock.

An unbiased source? John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton 2016 campaign, and master slimester David Brock.

[bigtree]

3. that's not much of a dodge

...you can run around with your arms flailing in the wind mimicking republicans (Trump, Huckleberry, Walker), or you can read what Pagliano had to say.

[DCBob]

2. Yes, that's make total sense.

Its unfortunate so many Bernie die-hards are attempting to make more out of this than it really is.

[bigtree]

6. right

...the idea that he's asserting criminality in seeking immunity is a ludicrous conclusion.

One has but to listen to the accusations coming from the Benghazi committee to understand this. Anything else is a mimic of the republican demagoguery in this matter.

[BlueMTexpat]

4. This is too factual and logical

to stop the mob mentality running rampant in GD-P about this.

The thing I look forward to most is when those who are gleeful now FINALLY realize that there is no "there" in Emailgate, just as there has never been any "there" in any previous HRC-related "scandals." It may even allow HRC another 11-hour or so hearing that will serve as a free campaign ad televised nationally.

They should be VERY careful what they wish for.

But until then, I suppose that we'll just have to grin and bear it.

[HooptieWagon]

5. He could merely continue to take the Fifth, w/o FBI immunity.

The immunity was given because he can give testimony to greater crimes than what he's potentially on the hook for. If he had no incriminating testimony, there'd be no reason to give him immunity.

[bigtree]

7. the immunity is there to get him to answer FBI questions

...there's nothing so far which should cause any reasonable observer to take the leap to suggest criminality.

[HooptieWagon]

9. No. the FBI doesn't give immunity to everyone they question.

Only to 'small fish' who can incriminate 'big fish'.

[bigtree]

13. no one. NO ONE other than republicans and Sanders supporters with a sad

...has provided ANYTHING which indicates criminality, much, much, less evidence of any of that regarding Hillary Clinton.

The reports all state the reason for the immunity right up front. No need at all for speculation. They want to wrap this investigation up. This is actually far sooner than anyone would expect if there was some criminality involved.

Enjoy this vacuum of time before this republican-inspired, Sanders supporter adopted wedge against Hillary evaporates into thin air.

[Press Virginia]

61. Or they had evidence he'd committed a crime and offered immunity

to get more information from him.

Immunity from prosecution isn't given out like candy at a parade....

[Stallion]

8. Legally, "No evidence" supports your Speculation

that's all you got speculation.

[HooptieWagon]

11. Keep whistling past the graveyard.

It'll just make the ending more painful. FBI already has the testimony in way of a proffer. The immunity is just to get it under oath. If the testimony was no big deal, no immunity would be given.

[jeff47]

10. There's a problem with this theory.

Immunity means he can no longer plead the 5th. So now he faces that very onslaught you were claiming he wanted to avoid.

[HooptieWagon]

12. They have a problem with logic.

[bigtree]

14. giving FBI testimony is far superior to the witch trial in Congress

...I don't know why that's not obvious to you.

[jeff47]

16. Immunity means he can not avoid the witch trial in Congress.

He's no longer in legal jeopardy for his testimony before Congress, thanks to the immunity deal.

Therefore, he can no longer take the 5th to avoid testifying to Congress. He gets to go before that same witch trial you claim he wants to avoid. And he has to answer their questions.

Testimony is not an either-or thing between Congress and the FBI.

[bigtree]

17. that's all the more reason he won't be revealing anything incriminating to the FBI

...the argument that he's going to reveal criminality fails on basic 'logic.'

[jeff47]

18. He wouldn't need immunity if he was not going to reveal criminality.

And there's no reason for the DoJ to extend immunity unless 1) They think they have a case against him, and 2) his testimony can help them get a "bigger fish".

So why'd the DoJ grant him immunity if he wasn't going to reveal any crime? What do they get out of it that they could not get from any other source?

[bigtree]

19. that's patently false

...immunity can be granted to assuage witness concerns about unjust prosecutions.

Investigators obviously have questions that only Pagliano can answer. Those questions are important enough for them to agree to immunity. The most likely reason would be that they don't suspect criminality.

If they did actually suspect Pagliano of culpability in a crime, they'd just prosecute him and get the immunity agreement in a plea.

[jeff47]

21. So...have you finally accepted that your theory about Congress in the OP is wrong?

Investigators obviously have questions that only Pagliano can answer.

And what could those questions possibly be? They have the server. If they want to find out "how it was set up", they can just read the files on it.

The only way immunity makes any sense whatsoever is if he could tell them something about someone else.

[bigtree]

22. I'm done with your circular argument

...you're assuming his issue with Congress was merely embarrassment, not entrapment. I'm surprised to find such an authoritarian interpretation of the fifth with regard to Congress on a progressive board.

[jeff47]

25. I'm not the one who kept spinning 'round and 'round.

you're assuming his issue with Congress was merely embarrassment, not entrapment.

How, specifically, can they entrap him when the DoJ has granted him immunity?

He can't be prosecuted. So entrapment is no longer possible.

I'm surprised to find such an authoritarian interpretation of the fifth with regard to Congress on a progressive board.

And I'm surprised there's so many people on a progressive board who can't grasp that self-incrimination can't happen when you can't be prosecuted.

[bigtree]

29. no risk of charges, no need to fear of appearing before Congress

...you've come full circle and answered your own 'logic'

[jeff47]

40. My position has not changed. You keep wandering off track and now into attacks on me.

My position, which you can still read up there, is you are wrong when you claim the immunity keeps him from testifying before Congress.

He can't invoke the 5th amendment to avoid testifying to Congress now, because the immunity deal removes self-incrimination.

[Darb]

42. You are going to be disappointed, I can tell,

when Hillary is cleared.

[NCTraveler]

27. Seems to be a group who truly have no clue what happened with Benghazi.

That is what it appears this person is trying to avoid. The shifty and shady Benghazi style witch hunt. Interesting so many are now cheering actions like that on. Well. Not interesting. More disgusting.

[bigtree]

30. all republicans have managed to do is clip statements and make ridiculous conclusions

...which have zero basis in prosecutable law.

It's embarrassing to watch self-professed progressives twist around like committee republicans trying find something in this trumped-up nonsense they can flail around in this election.

[onenote]

23. So now the Fifth amendment privilege gets tossed under the bus

Basic Constitutional law, going back a long long time: you don't have to think you're guilty of anything to claim the fifth amendment privilege. And if your testimony is essential to concluding an investigation (not merely to determining whether someone committed a crime but also whether someone didn't commit a crime), then it is in the public interest to offer immunity to someone who otherwise would claim the Fifth. Which is exactly what happened here. The statutory standard for granting immunity is based on whether the testimony will serve the public interest (clearly it would here since he has information no one else has, regardless of whether it shows criminality or shows no criminality). And the witness is going to claim privilege (which this witness has and would).


Here is what the Supreme Court has had to say about the Fifth Amendment privilege - an important civil liberty right that we should not be so quick to misrepresent or throw under the bus:

"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."

Or as Justice Frankfurter wrote (and his words could well apply to some here): "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."

[jeff47]

24. That's a whole lot of words to be completely wrong.

The 5th amendment no longer applies, because he has immunity. There can be no self-incrimination when you can not be prosecuted.

[bigtree]

31. no shit

..that's the whole point of accepting immunity; to remove himself from any jeopardy over testimony. Congress never offered it to him. When it was offered, he agreed to answer questions; not testify against anyone, just answer questions which he was refusing to do.

If the FBI had any notion that he committed or culpable in some crime, they would have just moved ahead with a prosecution. They'd be OBLIGATED to.

[onenote]

36. Wow. Let me try again.

The reason he has immunity is to overcome his past and future plans to assert his fifth amendment privilege not to testify unless he gets such immunty. The fact that he would invoke that privilege, as a matter of black letter constitutional law, does not depend on or imply that he actually is guilty of anything.

So, faced with a witness who can give testimony essential to completing an investigation into whether any criminal acts have been committed by that witness or anyone else but who has and will continue to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege, the DOJ turns to the statutory standard for giving immunity (and thus obtaining the testimony it needs): a witness whose testimony will serve the public interest and who is invoking Fifth Amendment privilege.

In other words, there is no implication that because he won't testify he believes that he has criminal liability or that the DOJ thinks he has criminal liability. They want his testimony. He won't give it. So they give him immunity and he provides the testimony.

Really not that complicated.

[jeff47]

39. Take a look at the OP.

The OP's entire point was that the immunity deal would keep him out of Congressional hearings. That isn't true. Testifying "for the FBI" does not prevent him from testifying to Congress.

With the immunity deal, he can't incriminate himself before Congress (at least in regards to the server). That means the 5th amendment can no longer block his testimony before Congress in regards to the server.

He does not avoid the witch hunt the OP claims he can avoid via the immunity deal. That was the entirety of my point.

[bigtree]

44. you completely blew past the point

...which is that immunity isn't about anything criminal, it's about his fear of an unjust prosecution springing out of his congressional testimony; not because there's some criminality, but because of the unbalanced and hostile nature of the inquiry.

It's his fricking right to protect himself against the republican mob. He's solved that by obtaining immunity.

What you've done is make up your own premise and argue with it.

[PoliticAverse]

66. You think the Obama administration would have engaged in an "unjust prosecution" of him

had he testified in front of Congress without immunity?

[JaneyVee]

48. Because they said it will be wrapped up by May.

[HooptieWagon]

28. He can no longer plead the 5th before Congress.

So they can supoena him and he has to testify. He's also subject to perjury charges if he lies.
If he wanted to avoid being questioned by Congress, he wouldn't have taken immunity, and would have continued to plead the 5th.

[bigtree]

32. that completely ignores his reason for not testifying

...which will now be moot.

He should have no problem testifying since he's not subject to any jeopardy.

[HooptieWagon]

33. Exactly. Testifying w/o immunity exposes himself to possible criminal charges.

And the FBI is investigating possible criminal actions. The only reason to grant immunity to a person facing possible criminal charges is to implicate someone(s) higher up the chain on greater charges.

[bigtree]

34. more circular arguments

...the ONLY fact in evidence is that he was granted immunity.

It doesn't have to (and almost certainly does not) mean what you say it does. I'm getting off of your merry-go-round ...here.

[onenote]

37. Wrong.

The express statutory standard for giving immunity is whether (a) it would serve the public interest to obtain the witnesses testimony and (b) the witness has indicated that he/she won't testify. It is fundamental Constitutional law that a witnesses decision to refuse to testify does not depend on the witness or the government thinking the witness is guilty of anything. A witness that believes he or she is innocent can refuse to testify. The government can then decide to offer immunity to get the testimony if getting that testimony will serve the public interest. Serving the public interest doesn't mean that the DOJ necessarily has evidence of a crime. It means that the DOJ cannot fully complete its investigation into whether a crime has or has not been committed without the witnesses testimony.

[Arazi]

15. Oh and the FBI investigation too..

conveniently left that part out of your bold font I see.

According to the Washington Post, that letter also cited the current FBI investigation into Clinton’s email as a reason for Pagliano to plead the Fifth. The FBI is investigating Clinton’s use of a personal email server while serving as Secretary of State, specifically whether the use of that server jeopardized national security information.

So hmmm, which reason might be the most compelling?

1. Meanies in Congress?

2. FBI investigation?

Besides, this deal doesn't mean he won't still have to go before Congress. In fact, now that he has immunity he can testify honestly

[Sivart]

20. this just doesnt follow....

presidential candidates cannot charge him with anything.

He is asking for immunity from the FBI.

[NCTraveler]

26. Please don't take away the fun of DU law experts.

You are pissing in my cheerios!!!

[bigtree]

35. I hate to see grown people flailing around in mud

...

[Warren DeMontague]

38. "as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information"

That's the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_clintonemail830p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory


The FBI is a law enforcement agency. There's no such thing as a "not criminal" FBI investigation.

[onenote]

41. But there is such a thing as an FBI investigation that concludes nothing criminal has occurred.

And they need his testimony to ascertain not just whether a criminal act has occurred, but also to ascertain whether a criminal act has not occurred. They need all the facts and he has facts no one else has. So its in the public interest to give him immunity since otherwise he would frustrate their ability to get those facts by claiming his fifth amendment privilege (which he is entitled to do even if he doesn't believe he has committed any criminal acts).

[Warren DeMontague]

43. I'm responding to the OP's statement, quote, "the FBI investigation is not criminal"

That's like saying "the zoo is not full of animals". Of course it is, that's why it's a zoo - by definition.

[bigtree]

45. it's an inquiry to determine if there is criminality

...they don't necessarily begin one assuming a crime has been committed.

Your analogy is an amazing description of a system which is supposed to assume innocence until obtaining evidence otherwise.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Your quote: "The FBI investigation is not criminal"

The washington post: (emphasis added)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_clintonemail830p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

Now, I understand that "criminal investigation" sounds bad, just as "it is NOT a criminal investigation" might sound reassuring, and no, the fact that there is an investigation does not mean that there WERE crimes- that is what an investigation is, after all.

But it is ludicrous to say "the FBI investigation is not criminal". Its right there in the WaPo, those words, "criminal investigation"... if you dont like it, take it up with them.

[bigtree]

47. it's a minor point which is silly to highlight

...quibbling over something which is really inconsequential, and actually misleading to much of the finger-pointing going on here.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Look, man, just admit you were wrong.

You wont melt. It happens to all of us.

[bigtree]

51. no

...you made a silly point.

More like it, you made an inference of criminality which isn't in evidence.

Carry it around like a trophy. I don't give a shit. This entire pursuit is republican bullshit and it's a damn shame to have to spend a second defending against it here.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. You made a patently false statement in your op and got corrected on it.

Rather than simply fix the error, if you want to double down and continue the conversation, or somehow try to attack me for pointing out your false statement and backing up my correction with objective evidence, i can do that.

[bigtree]

55. blah, blah, fucking blah

...watch who fucking cares.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Well I guess you win this round, mr gopher

[bigtree]

64. I win everyday avoiding associating myself with republican bullshit

...we're done here.

Welcome to ignoreland.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I LOVE THAT SONG!

[noamnety]

50. It's the Clintons. Follow the Money.

When someone with deep ties to the Clintons explains that a person under investigation for helping the Clintons do something illegal is asking for immunity because of the evil republicans, not because the Clintons did anything wrong, I'm inclined to disregard their comments.

How naive do you have to be to think there's no connection? My initial hunch: check out where the quote is from. 30 seconds of googling confirmed what anyone could have guessed.

The law firm representing IT dude is Akin Gump.

"Clinton’s campaign treasurer is Jose Villarreal, a senior consultant at Akin Gump. One of the firm’s highest profile attorneys is Vernon Jordan, Jr., a longtime Clinton insider who was on Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential transition committee. The former first couple, along with President Obama and Michelle Obama, recently attended Jordan’s 80th birthday, which was held at Martha’s Vineyard.

Clinton’s financial ties to Akin Gump also run deep. Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show that five Akin Gump attorneys have bundled $129,850 for Clinton’s campaign through June 30.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/05/law-firm-representing-hillarys-it-guy-has-donated-heavily-to-her-campaign/#ixzz41tYuGOR6

A good question to ask: how come I am sitting in my bedroom with no investigative reporting experience, and my first thought is something's up with the attorney, what's there connection to the Clintons - yet neither Think Progress nor the Washington Post article name the law firm? Why can't the media just do its job?

[bigtree]

52. it's the republicans

...don't mirror their petty, cynical politics here.

[noamnety]

53. My apologies for stating the obvious. nt

[bigtree]

57. reads like free republic

[panader0]

56. Let's not forget about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

That's out there too, dripping......

[bigtree]

59. you go with that

...reminds me of Ken Starr's Whitewater canard.

That fishing expedition of the Clintons worked out so well for republicans. We'll see how well that works out for fans here of their handiwork in that case.

[panader0]

63. Seriously, bigtree, have you read of the deals

that Hillary set up as SoS with countries/corps that donated hugely to the Clinton Foundation?
There have been many posts here about this. Can you just ignore that kinda stuff?

[bigtree]

65. yep, I have

...I treat them like I do almost all of the bullshit anti-Hillary folks here use as political cudgels against the Clintons.

It's a damn shame for this forum to spend a second validating any of that nonsense.

[Press Virginia]

58. Oh yeah, the FBI doles out immunity deals for which they get nothing of value

to their investigation, like 7-11 does slurpies on Free Slurpie day.

If he got immunity it's because he had information that was more valuable to the FBI than going after him

[bigtree]

62. DU law splainin'

...as false as the other responses to that effect in this thread.