Federal Judge Orders Clinton I.T. Official To Explain Immunity Agreement – Delays Deposition…

The Federal Judge, Sullivan, overseeing the Judicial Watch lawsuit against the State Department, has requested that former Hillary Clinton Information Technology officer, Bryan Pagliano, explain the reasoning behind his intent to invoke Fifth Amendment protections in a non-criminal inquiry/deposition the judge previously ordered.

brian pagliano

Lawyers for Bryan Pagliano previously asserted his intent to avoid answering questions in the court ordered deposition. Judge Sullivan apparently wants to know the details of the current immunity protection covering Pagliano as promised by the FBI investigators.

[From The Order]  The deposition of non-party Bryan Pagliano is hereby postponed until further order of the Court. Counsel for Mr. Pagliano shall file a Memorandum of Law addressing the legal authority upon which Mr. Pagliano relies to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in this civil proceeding, including requisite details pertaining to the scope of Mr. Pagliano’s reported immunity agreement with the Government. Mr. Pagliano’s Memorandum of Law, along with a copy of his reported immunity agreement, shall be filed no later than Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. The parties are ordered to file responsive memoranda of law no later than Friday, June 10, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. Mr. Pagliano shall file a reply memorandum no later than Monday, June 13, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 3, 2016.  (link)

Mr. Pagliano was previously given some form of immunity in exchange for his cooperation in the FBI investigation into the Clinton home-made communications system; the private email server etc.   Mr. Pagliano has already given testimony to the FBI.

The move by Pagliano attorney’s to block the civil deposition is most likely due to the FBI not wanting any Clinton aide, or entity with direct involvement with the matter, to have an understanding of the details already in evidence (as revealed by Pagliano) during a criminal investigation.  Especially if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to be interviewed.

The Sullivan order does not state the response would be under seal, meaning there is a possibility the FBI agreement with Pagliano, in exchange for his cooperation, could become a matter of public record.

clinton emails

(Via Politico) […]  Details of Pagliano’s deal with prosecutors remain unclear, but the statement from Pagliano’s lawyers suggests the arrangement doesn’t completely preclude a criminal prosecution, although the attorneys did not say directly who might be charged in such a case.

It’s unclear what criminal liability Pagliano’s attorneys are concerned about, but he was on the State Department’s payroll and being paid privately by Clinton at the same time. The payments from Clinton made after he began working at State were not included in his personal financial disclosure, investigators say.  (read more)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Election 2016, media bias, Police action, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Secretary of State, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

161 Responses to Federal Judge Orders Clinton I.T. Official To Explain Immunity Agreement – Delays Deposition…

  1. When do you sleep SD?

    Liked by 22 people

  2. citizen817 says:

    Sounds like Pagliano doesn’t want any “visual” proof of testimony. Lest it fall into the wrong hands…such as the Clintons. With their implied history surrounding their political life, and many deaths and suicides. He doesn’t want to be a suicide statistic.

    Liked by 15 people

    • LP says:

      C. Mills, also got that ‘visual protection’. Although surrounded by a gaggle of attorneys defending her.

      Liked by 3 people

      • My theory is they don’t want any agencies of government using any advanced technologies on the audio and video to figure out which parts are lies.

        Liked by 9 people

      • sayit2016 says:

        What possibly could they be hiding??? ; ) I mean this all about the search for the TRUTH right ?

        Liked by 3 people

        • Lucille says:

          The assumption can safely be made that they are hiding the worst of all possible scenarios…treason. We like to think she’s a traitor, talk about it, write about it. But likely actual proof is in those emails and that server. Something a million times greater than whatever the heck Watergate was about.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Joe says:

            Watergate was about a wiretap and cover up, kind of like the NSA thing, but 300 million times smaller.

            Liked by 3 people

            • Kroesus says:

              Watergate was NOT about a wiretap……some GOP “plumbers” broke into the DNC headquarters in the Watergate Hotel in 1972 to get files showing Dem strategies for the Presidential election….the tapes you hear about were an audio system installed IN the Oval Office so POTUS could have recordings of his dealings with staffers and visitors

              Like

          • sayit2016 says:

            I agree…her scheming and conniving is hiding something major..people with nothing to hide do not behave this way.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Don’t feel bad….When I was young we hired a new sharp cookie (picking up Trump-talk) at our security company and it was my job to train him–an Asian guy, new to the U.S….. After we finished the first day, I said, do you have any questions?

            He said just one. Is there any way you can explain this Watergate thing I keep hearing about on the news? LOL……

            Watergate was a burglary and wiretap.

            There was a Democratic headquarters located in the Watergate Hotel and guess who broke into it to steal (copy) any document they could find, and bug the place in an effort to discover any info they could get on what the Dems were planning to do to the Republicans?

            The Republicans–In fact, a very covert unit of very high ranking Republican Party members (possibly) led by the President himself–Richard Nixon.

            It was a big deal because who has ever heard of a sitting President who commits a felony as grievous as burglary and illegal wiretapping?

            Apparently, Nixon was very aware it would happen, if he did not, in fact, mastermind it. It took him all the way down……

            Like

          • platypus says:

            IIRC, it was about Nixon’s boys trying to figure out how a near-broke Democrat Party could afford to rent a suite in the Watergate.

            Like

            • WSB says:

              Nixon was a parinoid individual. He never even needed to do this. He won his re-election decidedly. What a waste.

              Like

              • JoJo says:

                Does anyone remember a brilliant Black comedian who said the break-in was one floor away from an office of the Federal Reserve Bank. If anybody could get info on the next interest rate change in advance of everybody else, this comedian said, he could make billions on the currency markets! Besides, he added, everybody knew the Dems didn’t have any money or anything else, so this makes sense. I thought he was right.
                Might have been Dick Gregory. Not long after i heard that he got into some trouble that seemed to slow down his career..
                He’s still alive though – at 83. Married to the same woman since 1959, has ten children!.

                Liked by 1 person

    • YvonneMarie says:

      Crooked Hillary.

      Like

    • 2x4x8 says:

      his testimony is probably, Hillary server was set up to get around Freedom of Information Act, fixed it so that Top Secrets can be copied from secure Government server and transmitted to Hillary’s private unsecured server, detected that Hillary’s computer was hacked and information stolen

      don’t want a video taped testimony for Trump to make a TV advertisement
      not tip off Hillary before her FBI testimony
      Pagliano did not disclose getting paid by Hillary, that is probably the proof/charges the FBI did not need his testimony to secure of which he may be held accountable
      Immunity is usually for the “little fish” to rat out the higher crimes of the “big fish” so there is “higher crimes”, Pagliano acts on orders of Hillary, his boss

      Liked by 3 people

    • auscitizenmom says:

      In other words, he doesn’t want to be “suicided.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • 1stgoblyn says:

      Pagliano doesn’t want to be “Vince-Fostered”.

      Like

    • paulgilpin says:

      citizen817, get your facts straight when you make comments like that. it is called Arkancide. /sarc

      Like

  3. BigMamaTEA says:

    Dang. There is going to be a gap in my Depo-reading! {sarc}

    Liked by 3 people

  4. wheatietoo says:

    Wow…I wonder how many other State Dept employees Clinton was “paying privately”.

    The Clintons have a history of making people keep quiet about their crimes.
    Before they had so many million$ to play with, they used thug tactics and ‘suiciding’ to silence people…so they are not above doing that again.

    Pagliano probably knows that Immunity from prosecution…and even the Witness Protection Program…will not keep him safe, if the Clintons want him gone.
    So I will be amazed if he spills everything he knows.

    If the Clintons were in jail and all their bank accounts frozen, then there would be a flood of people finally telling what they know.

    Liked by 16 people

  5. LP says:

    He has immunity deal with the FBI. No need for pleading the Fifth, with the Judicial Watch deposition. Unless, the JW by this deposition will blow the crooked one to back of beyond.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Daniel says:

      He doesn’t need to fear only the government. He also needs to fear the Clinton criminal network. He could still disappear along with anyone else he loves.

      Liked by 7 people

      • LP says:

        I always thought the ‘Clinton criminal network’ was a bit hyperbolic. Not any more. Watching their machinations overseas, calling in markers to disparage Mr Trump a case in point. Lots of dosh, lots of markers to defeat America and her people. If we need to fear, she is to be feared.

        Liked by 4 people

      • StuckinCa says:

        Judges and other ivory tower dwellers have a hard time reconciling with street reality. Sit back and grab the popcorn.

        Liked by 3 people

      • BobbiD says:

        I look at this situation this way: If we want our Country to heal itself, with a Leader like Trump, then we need to get things out in the open, all the things, We pay these peoples wages, they work for US…not themselves…so to begin to Make America Great Again, lets stop with the ‘hiding of facts, lies, crooked deals’ and that includes The House of Representatives, The Senate, and all other departments…

        This is what has gotten us in the mess we are in today, open up the files, the doors, the windows and lets start airing out America!!!

        Like

    • John Galt says:

      “He has immunity deal with the FBI. No need for pleading the Fifth”

      If he has testified pursuant to statutory immunity, how can he still plead the 5th? Probably what the judge wants to know.

      Liked by 2 people

      • benzy says:

        I suspect part of his concern (and that of his lawyer) is the possibility of his testimony for Judicial Watch not matching 100% with his already given testimony with the FBI. Or that Judicial Watch will delve into something the FBI interview overlooked and his deposition testimony will “void” his immunity as not matching will constitute a violation of the immunity terms.

        Liked by 1 person

        • WSB says:

          Or his attorneys or the FBI wanting to keep knowledge quiet for the FBI investigation upper hand not to be jeopardized.

          Like

        • Chewbarkah says:

          Conflicting testimony might indeed be their concern (though the whole thing is about shielding Hillary, who controls Pagliano’s attorneys). How they present that to a federal judge would be quite amusing. Er, your honor, my client has either already lied to the FBI or will lie under oath in a deposition, so obviously a depo puts him in criminal jeopardy.

          I bet the Hillary-protectors in the DoJ desperately want to keep Pagliano’s information from the public. I suspect the FBI would be happy for things to come out in the depo, which would save them from having to leak them in an attempt to force the DoJ to indict Hillary. The FBI could not possibly think the depo will tip off Hillary and her lawyers to anything they don’t already know. P. has not said a word without her minders present.

          Like

  6. SSI01 says:

    Now, the last I heard, you ARE allowed to have private employment while also working for the govt. However, it must be a matter of public record; you must submit a written explanation of the particulars of your employment (i.e., name of firm, who specifically you will be working for, the nature of your duties, and so on); you must certify it the employment can not influence your position or actions within the govt; and you will not bring discredit on the govt through your actions. So, for example, if I as a Federal LEO wanted to take a position as a bouncer at a private, high-end social club, I would be forbidden from doing so because, while perfectly legal, the employment could potentially bring discredit on the agency. In this case, we have (apparently, since I haven’t seen all the documentation) a govt employee who (hopefully) has gotten written permission from his management to work outside the govt. The problem I can see is his indirect supervisor in the govt is also his indirect supervisor outside the govt. I would think something like this is at least questionable if not downright unethical; it would skew his periodic written evaluations, for example, thus preventing an objective appraisal of his performance. It’s unusual, to say the least.

    Liked by 15 people

  7. Cherre says:

    Paglano knows that ” suicide ” is imminent if he talks….
    Prison may be a safer bet, but not for his family.
    Too late to undo his deal with the Devil….MS Benghazi is a very wicked woman.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Lea says:

    ‘Arkancide’

    Liked by 6 people

  9. Gracchus says:

    Could just be delaying it til after the California primary to avoid damaging Hillary by using the fifth. The judge has appeared to be fair up til this point though, so maybe it’s just a coincidence.

    Like

  10. Bull Durham says:

    This guy belongs in protective custody. Too many bad endings occur to key witnesses and insiders of the Clintons.

    Liked by 5 people

  11. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:

    This is certainly a very convoluted case; lets hope it is resolved before the election in November.

    Like

  12. booger71 says:

    Just remember Bryan…suicide is painless.

    Like

  13. Testifying will leave him literally scared to DEATH! #killary

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Josh says:

    The Judge “requested”. Can he not order?

    Like

  15. HolyLoly says:

    Oh, the tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive.

    Following the trail of the Clintons always reveals tangled webs of political incest. Hillary’s closest aides were employed by the government and Hillary personally simultaneously. Mills was also her personal attorney…Let’s see…how many conflicts of interest is that?

    Liked by 4 people

    • benzy says:

      The key question being… when was Cheryl Mills acting as Hillary’s attorney (client-attorney privilege applies) and when was she a State Department employee (Privilege does NOT apply)?

      Liked by 3 people

  16. Sherlock says:

    Lots of twists and turns, lots of possibilities as to how this plays out over the next weeks. “Quick and dirty” analysis of SOME of the possibilities:

    Pag. files immunity agreement, which sets out some limited form of “use immunity” saying only that his statements to FBI can’t be used against him in a criminal case, i.e. fairly narrow terms- in which case Pag. won’t have to testify in the civil case involving JW and State Dept; or
    Pag files immunity agreement, and it sets out complete “transactional immunity” immunizing him from prosecution for any and all crimes relating to the setting up, maintenance of, handling of emails–i.e, some form of very broad immunity. In that case, he’ll probably have to testify in JW civil case; or
    FBI immediately intervenes in civil matter and says the public filing of the immunity agreement would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation, because the agreement sets forth the areas of FBI interest, as well as (possibly) a “proffer” from Pag. setting forth his anticipated testimony in any criminal case. FBI argues that public revelation of the agreement would therefore alert potential targets (including HRC) and taint her expected interview. FBI also objects to filing under seal unless state dept.can be precluded from seeing the agreement due to fear of collusion between state and HRC. (Tough sell, because absent very unusual circumstances, matters filed under seal are still seen by both sides to the lawsuit, just not the public. (I think 3 is fairly likely possibility).
    Possibility 3 occurs, AND Court is persuaded to allow the very unusual situation of ex parte (only only one side of suit present) communication between Pag.+FBI and the court (on record, in chambers, seals transcript for later revelation to other side) where Pag. and FBI are allowed to try to unilaterally convince court not to allow public OR State Dept. to see the agreement;
    Possibility 3/4 occur and court rejects FBI request and requires public revelation of the immunity agreement. We’ll all see it and then 1 or 2 results, but the down side is HRC camp gains some information that can potentially hurt FBI investigatory efforts; or
    5a. Ex parte, and court rules immunity agreement stays secret, and court then rules
    1 or 2, depending upon courts assessment of terms/scope of agreement.
    FBI does not intervene, and instead tries to interview HRC in advance of the filing schedule set by the civil judge, thereby ameliorating to some degree the potential damage to the criminal investigation caused by the order, and Pag. is thereafter deposed or not in civil case depending upon scope of the agreement as set forth in 1 and 2;
    If FBI approach is 6, HRC suddenly gets sick or very busy, and does everything she can to push back her FBI interview, because she wants to see the agreement and Pag.’s civil deep. testimony before she is interviewed; or
    Any other possibility you can think of to make this an even bigger FUBAR, including HRC refusing to be interviewed by FBI, Pag. reneging, etc. etc. etc.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Sherlock says:

      I just learned that WordPress does not allow numbered paragraphs, and when you try to post them, it sort of smashes everything together and removes the number. Sorry, don’t know how to fix it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sherlock says:

      Since the WP computer turned the long post into mush, here’s the summary:
      If Pag. files agreement, its terms will determine whether he has to testify in the JW lawsuit.

      FBI may intervene and try through several possible maneuvers to keep the agreement secret from the public AND from the State dept. because its revelation, as well as the testimony of Pag. in the civil case might harm the criminal investigation.

      FBI may in any event try to move up the interview of HRC to minimize any damage done by the revelation of the agreement and/or Pag’s civil deposition testimony should it be ordered.

      Liked by 4 people

      • ssupsky says:

        Nice summery.

        Due to all of the possibilities, Pag might end up being suicided no matter what he does and what the FBI does.

        1 Spill the beans.

        2 Found in a suitcase somewhere.

        3 A little note saying how life is unlivable.

        4 Pags is toast either way.

        Liked by 1 person

      • maiingankwe says:

        It’s all good Sherlock, I was able to follow it just fine, and that is not always the case for me. To be honest, I thoroughly enjoyed your first post. It made me stop and think a few times. It’s what I like about your comments, they are thought provoking.

        No matter what happens, I do not want HC and her lawyers learning anything that can help them when she finally has to sit down with the FBI. I am sure they are well aware of this and act accordingly. The only problem is as you mentioned, HC may come up with numerous excuses to not sit with the FBI until they get all the juicy details of what Pag has to say.

        I am crossing my fingers all goes well and in the favor of the majority of Americans who are demanding not only the truth, but consequences as well. Hilary needs to be held accountable for all the damage she has done.

        Thank you Sherlock for laying it out for us. You always do a great job.
        Ma’iingankwe

        Liked by 5 people

        • JoJo says:

          Sherlock – did your TCTH name used to be “czaro…” something? You sound a lot like him and he hasn’t been around for a long time.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Sherlock says:

            No, just came on board when Trump ran. Before that just used to read the threads. Your guy is still among the missing. LOL

            Like

    • Jett Black says:

      This is what I anticipated in the earlier thread, but probably didn’t articulate too well. Excellent analysis. Scope of immunity and how protective FBI/DOJ want to be of Pag’s role will tell the tale. Thanks to SD and Sherlock for keeping us in the know! May the Lord guard and guide you!

      Liked by 3 people

  17. joshua says:

    waiting for a DNA test for Chelsea, Hilliary, and William Jefferson to determine paternity origin.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Paul Killinger says:

    We may slowly be getting to the bottom of all this. My own thinking is the FBI is overwhelmed by the evidence they are discovering from multiple sources, and needs more time to develop cases on both influence peddling and obstruction.

    This corruption has been going on for at least a decade now, and during that time became a vast global enterprise. To give you an idea of its scope, read about Bill Clinton’s role in an international school scam named “Laureate University.”

    And as the FBI briefs the DOJ about what they are uncovering, and in turn they apprise the President, their growing concern must be its potential impact on the future of their party. After all, it would hardly take 150 FBI Agents simply to find a few thousand missing emails, now would it? Stay tuned….

    Liked by 7 people

  19. ed357 says:

    What kind of prosecutorial idiot would allow a “plea bargain” that would let the defendant invoke the 5th to depositions in the case that defendant accepted a plea bargain in?

    Liked by 1 person

  20. roberto says:

    We all know the Clinton’s. This guy is dead man walking and he damn well knows it. His latest attempt at dodging testimony might be him trying to save a family member(s).

    Liked by 2 people

  21. thurmrob says:

    When I read these comments I have a hard time believing that this is America we are talking about. No wonder the world views us with such disdain. The most corrupt crime family in the nation is running for President and the position has been treated like a lottery by the pseudo political parties.

    Pagliano should be resting in jail until he decides he wants to talk. If he sets there for the rest of his life. Our legal system has nothing to do with justice any more.

    Liked by 5 people

  22. Howie says:

    If he took the 5th it is prolly because he is guilty of crimes. This makes her guilty as hell. She is a criminal.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. golfmann says:

    How delusional or GREEDY do you have to be to work for the Clintons?
    How many so-workers and “associates” have gone under while those two have walked away unscathed in luxury?

    Liked by 1 person

  24. daughnworks247 says:

    The immunity deal does depend on the “type” of immunity offered.
    A.) Immunity offered for a specific offense (which is known). For instance, immunity for a robbery. Yet, while being deposed for the robbery, the defendent committed a murder = no immunity for murder. I’ve known a lot of prosecutors who successfully charge/convict guys who had immunity deals.
    B.) “Blanket” immunity (not a legal term but the best layman description) – very rarely given because the deal could be embarrassing and career ending for a prosecutor. For instance, Pagliano could be a serial killer, which would be unconnected to his work for Sec of State Clinton, however “blanket” immunity would render Pagliano untouchable for the offense.
    Obviously, this is why the Judge wants to see the immunity deal asap.
    It is worth pointing out however, Pagliano has already admitted breaking the law, thus the deal for immunity. There simply cannot be an immunity deal without a guilty defendent.
    Think about that for a minute.
    If Pagliano is therefore “guilty”, then what is Clinton?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Sherlock says:

      You are discussing “transactional” immunity, the example being your robbery case. “If you cooperate with us on X, we will guarantee you are never prosecuted for that robbery you committed last June 4th at the 7-11.”
      The other type is also transactional immunity, i.e. it is also immunity against PROSECUTION. “Cooperate and we will not prosecute you for any crimes you touch upon during your testimony, or which we uncover as a result of your testimony.”

      In addition to the types of “transactional” immunity you discuss, there is another sort that you have not touched upon, called “use” immunity, which simply involves an agreement that a statement made to investigators, or during testimony, will not be USED against the speaker in any future prosecution, while not barring a prosecution. This type, recognized in the federal system, and most state systems, still provides for the possibility of prosecution, but bars the use of the statement.

      The immunity agreement sets the terms, just like a contract. So, when people just say “he has immunity” they need to inquire further: What sort–use or transactional? If transactional, for one crime on a specific date, or any crimes revealed during interview and/or testimony. If “use” immunity, pretty clear cut–can’t be used, but prosecution not precluded.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sherlock says:

        Here is the federal statute which relates to the above:

        “Use” vs. “Transactional” immunity:

        Title 18 U.S.C. § 6002 provides use immunity instead of transactional immunity. The difference between transactional and use immunity is that transactional immunity protects the witness from prosecution for the offense or offenses involved, whereas use immunity only protects the witness against the government’s use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness — except in a subsequent prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement.

        Like

        • Sherlock says:

          If anybody wants to get into the weeds on this, go here
          http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2011/title-18/part-v/chapter-601

          to read the 5 federal statutes defining the various sorts of immunity. Sections 6001-6005.
          This will give anyone a firm footing when discussing the topic.

          Liked by 2 people

          • WSB says:

            And what would be your opinion on either as they relate to the FBI case?

            Like

            • Sherlock says:

              There is no way to tell given what has been publicly released. Again, not to get too far into the weeds, but there are other lesser-used immunity grants, sometimes called “informal immunity.” We’ll all just have to wait and see what shakes out. Could be “use immunity”, could be “transactional”, could be some less formalized situation recognized in case law.

              Liked by 1 person

              • WSB says:

                So then I have to ask you a fundamental question.

                I lost a friend who was a top attorney about 15 years ago, the head of the Harvard debating at one point, and never got the chance to ask him about case law versus strict Constitutional law. Where do you stand?

                Like

                • Sherlock says:

                  It’s a false dichotomy, I think. There are a myriad of fact situations that present constitutional issues in a wide variety of contexts. Party A sues party B on a constitutional issue, the dispute must be resolved by courts–no other way practically to do this that I know of.

                  That is not a problem. The problem is that the judiciary became a political tool, and the left has for the most part won that power game. Good judges interpret the constitution faithfully and correctly, to the best of their ability. Leftists twist, turn, and torture it to their ends, leading to opinions that are simply political declarations, not TRULY reasoned legal opinions. Think of the judge being a ref. in an NFL game–simple rules, usually simple calls. Put a result oriented liar in there and they might just determine that on this play, it is sufficient that the favored team gets 6 points if they only get to the 5 yard line rather than having to actually cross the goal line–“living rule”.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • WSB says:

                  That somewhat makes the case against ‘case’ law, because your analogy describes what case law has done to our system. It waters down the strength of the original constitutional provisions. Each case adds nuance from which attorneys use to seek future outcome.

                  It just seems that prior to case law being instituted, our legal system was clearer and we didn’t have the high concentration of litigation we have today.

                  Like

  25. Ramco1984 says:

    Everyone.. this San Jose Mayor needs to resign ASAP!

    So help: https://www.change.org/p/the-citizens-of-san-jose-san-jose-mayor-sam-liccado-should-resign

    Liked by 2 people

    • waltherppk says:

      Dereliction of duty and criminal conspiracy / complicity / culpable negligence is the name of that tune

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jett Black says:

        If every official who did this kind of crap were prosecuted for malfeasance in office, as they should be, there would be very few incumbents. That would be a good thing!

        Like

  26. Suzy Kiprien says:

    The Fifth covers a few issues, more than protection against self-incrimination.
    The Double Jeopardy issue is also included in the Fifth.

    Like

  27. Dommy says:

    Judge: “What have you got to say for yourself, Mr. Pagliano?”
    B.P.: “Hey, I’d like to keep breathing! This is the Clinton Crime Family here.”

    Liked by 3 people

  28. Suzy Kiprien says:

    I was reading the comments on link source. This seems to explain what is happening as per one of the comments:
    ”There are 2 types of immunity. There is conditional and full immunity. Once he is given immunity, he cannot plead the 5th for any topics covered under his conditional immunity deal. Therefore, his claim of pleading the 5th will not work….generally. It is rather clear that he has conditional immunity. The Judge is looking at the extent of that agreement, and then he will be forced to testify on ONLY those topics covered by his immunity deal. Once counsel tries to ask questions outside of the immunity deal, then he can plead the 5th.”

    Like

    • aichawallaby says:

      But this is a different trial. I’m pretty sure he’s already given testimony (with no 5th amendment pleading) in exchange for immunity to the FBI.

      You can plead the 5th in a civil case (like this one). Seems the judge wants to find out what Pagliano feels might incriminate him.

      Like

  29. aichawallaby says:

    Hey, give Pagliano a break. He doesn’t want to be “Vince Fostered.”

    Like

  30. Sherlock says:

    FOX finally reporting what we’ve been discussing here for weeks: Several of the Clinton assistants (not Magliano) have the same lawyer(s), presenting obvious conflicts of interest, and allowing the sharing of interview information among the assistants. FBI normally asks each interview subject
    “Have you spoken to any of the other people we have interviewed, etc.” but this commonality of attorneys allows a “No” answer, but further inquiry runs into the attorney client privilege. I.e., FBI cannot ask “What has your attorney told you about what other interviewees have said?”
    Also, conflicts exist because it may be impossible for same attorney to honestly represent interests of each client. This is obvious–it may be advantageous for one to “roll”, but the attorney could not advise that because that would hurt the OTHER clients. It stinks, but typical tactic.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s