Because Hillary’s private server was completely legal.
A staffer who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of State is expected to plead the Fifth rather than testify before Congress.
Lawyers for Bryan Pagliano indicated the former IT employee will assert his constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment not to answer questions from the House Select Committee on Benghazi, citing the “current political environment.”
Pagliano is scheduled to appear before the House Benghazi Committee on Sept. 10.
Hmm…
It would appear the fall guys are now beginning to pop up, preparatory to taking a bullet for Hillary.
Looks like hillary and her hired goons have quite a few skeletons in their closets their trying to hide just like with slick willy
It will only take one to sing. Immunity should do the trick.
Hillary’s private server is the smoking gun. If Pagliano worked on that server without appropriate security clearance then charge him for violating the security statues.
No testimony necessary.
Same goes for Hillary for using the server.
Claiming the e-mails weren’t stamped with classified markings but being in possession of them is the same as being in possession of a firearm with the serial numbers filed off. It’s a felony.
Hillary will never be (cannot be) convicted – she wiped the emails off the server and will claim those emails as her defense – no case – they know it . But Obama will keep her from the crown by having the prosecutor go through the motions – Watch uncle Joe – Dem fortune is pinned to him.
Bingo!
“Hillary’s private server is the smoking gun. If Pagliano worked on that server without appropriate security clearance then charge him for violating the security statues.”
Except Pagliano didn’t need a security clearance to work on a private server since there’s not supposed to be anything classified on it.
The issue here is how apparently classified material came to be on a private server and how it got there.
Even if it turns out someone like Pagliano “air-gapped” classified material from a secure system in State to the Clinton server, Hillary can still proclaim her putative innocence, allowing the Paglianos of this world to take the hit.
“Except Pagliano didn’t need a security clearance to work on a private server since there’s not supposed to be anything classified on it.”
The law doesn’t read that way.
To work on it was to be in possession of/exposed-to classified material.
What is or is not supposed to be on a private server is irrelevant.
As I stated, you don’t need a security clearance to work on a private server.
The issue is whether Pagliano – or someone – knowingly placed classified materials on that server.
INTENT
“The issue is whether Pagliano – or someone – knowingly placed classified materials on that server.”
No it isn’t. The issue is the handling of classified material and it being a crime to handle it improperly, knowingly or not.
Isn’t “pleading the 5th” basically the same as pleading “guilty as charged?”
So does he automatically go to jail?
No, it means he’s not going to give evidence against himself, he’s going to make the government prove a case against him without his help. That is his right and can’t be used against him. OTOH maybe he might be trying to protect Clinton. We can’t be sure. But, yes he’s trying to hide something, that’s a reasonable assumption. Gotta love the mental gymnastics of the Dems:
‘Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the panel, said in a statement that the panel’s investigation of Clinton’s private email server while at State is politically motivated, given her presidential candidacy.
“Their insatiable desire to derail Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign at all costs has real consequences for any serious congressional effort,” said Cummings, ranking member on the Benghazi Committee.’
“Although multiple legal experts agree that there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is certainly understandable that this witness’ attorneys advise him to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, especially given the onslaught of wild and unsubstantiated accusations by Republican presidential candidates, members of Congress and others based on false leaks about the investigation,” he added.’
She done a fine job herself of derailing her campaign. No she hasn’t been indicted – yet; that’s true. I take a different tack at this time and wonder if she’ll be the next one “taking the fifth.”
“She done a fine job herself of derailing her campaign.”
She certainly has.
It’s a ‘wonder of the political world’ that she hasn’t been indicted yet.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group ‘True North’
It’s a ‘wonder of the political world’ that she hasn’t been indicted yet.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group ‘True North’
“That is his right and can’t be used against him.”
I don’t think he can testify, at Trial, in opposition to evidence against him. The Jury is allowed to take said evidence as proven if the defense can’t refute it through other means.. He is silent.. In a he said… she said… she wins
IANAL,
Pagliano can testify at his trial. That is waiving his 5th Amendment rights, which he can do at any time. I think (but consult your own lawyer) he cannot begin testifying and then invoke the 5th. And the House Select Committee on Benghazi can grant immunity and require him to testify under oath.
The 5th Amendment is to prevent you from being forced to incriminate yourself. If you cannot be prosecuted because you are offered immunity, then you MUST testify. If you lie, then you are liable for perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
The 5th is why there are many US trials where the defendant does not testify. The state cannot compel him to testify against himself, and his own lawyers do not need his testimony.
I can’t blame Pagliano for taking The Fifth, as he has probably realized by now that whether he knew it at the time or not, he was aiding and abetting a serious felony. If there is any possibility that he might incriminate himself in an answer to any question from a Congressional Committee, he must assert that defense in lieu of answering any question, incriminating or not.
At a congressional hearing, you do not get to pick and choose the questions you want to answer, then take the Fifth for the others. It’s all or nothing. Once you start answering questions, you must answer them all or face contempt of Congress and the consequences that go with it. The insidious thing about testimony to Congress is that you must answer ANY question asked of you unless you invoked 5th Amendment protections from the very beginning.
in this case maybe one needs to think chess, Pagliano pleads 5th so that it takes to focus off the Shilery, the Hil camp is stating that it wants Pag to testify because there is NO reason not to. Now all Shilleries supporters can say GOP witch hunt. And the stupid party will probably not grant immunity and so to force Pag to testify, they are the stupid party!!!!
“And the stupid party will probably not grant immunity”
The hearing doesn’t really need his testimony, but the FBI will sort him out… He just might know some critical information of how data was distributed… He may be stupid enough to get nailed for “obstruction of Justice”. Hillary attracted incompetency
The old Canadian Official Secrets Act believed in reverse onus, i.e. guilty unless proved innocent. Certainly, there was an obligation to report anything suspicious immediately to authorities. If this wasn’t done, one was guilty.
The present Act is not quite so draconian. Not quite. I don’t know about the US legislation. But remember, infractions of security regulations can, in the US, draw down capital punishment. Years of imprisonment is often the lighter option.
For the incumbent of one of the “great offices of state” to be caught up in this – words fail. But the Democrats who attempt to support H.C. in this show that to be a Democrat is not only to be a racist and an antiSemite but to be a traitor as well.
“It was cash. It come in an envelope. That’s all O know.”