Offline
The constitution gives us the important right of protection against self-incrimination. He decided to use it in this
deposition. Mr. Pagliano is the IT specialist who installed the e-mail server in Clinton's home.
Clinton IT specialist invokes 5th more than 125 times in deposition
Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano invoked the Fifth more than 125 times during a 90-minute, closed-door deposition Wednesday with the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, a source with the group told Fox News.
The official said Pagliano was working off an index card and read the same crafted statement each time.“It was a sad day for government transparency,” the Judicial Watch official said, adding they asked all their questions and Pagliano invoked the Fifth Amendment right not to answer them.Pagliano was a central figure in the set-up and management of Clinton’s personal server she used exclusively for government business while secretary of state.
The State Department inspector general found Clinton violated government rules with that arrangement. He was deposed as part of Judicial Watch's lawsuit seeking Clinton emails and other records. A federal judge granted discovery, in turn allowing the depositions, which is highly unusual in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The judge cited "reasonable suspicion" Clinton and her aides were trying to avoid federal records law. Pagliano’s deposition before Judicial Watch is one of several interviews with high-profile Clinton aides, taking place as the FBI separately is continuing its federal criminal investigation.A federal court agreed to keep sealed Pagliano’s immunity deal struck with the Justice Department in December, citing the sensitivity of the FBI probe and calling it a “criminal” matter.
The next Clinton aide to testify is Huma Abedin. In an earlier deposition, lawyers for senior Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, during a nearly five-hour deposition in Washington, repeatedly objected to questions about Pagliano’s role in setting up the former secretary of state’s private server.According to a transcript of that deposition which Judicial Watch released, Mills attorney Beth Wilkinson – as well as Obama administration lawyers – objected to the line of questioning about Pagliano. “I'm going to instruct her not to answer. It's a legal question,” Wilkinson responded, when asked by Judicial Watch whether Pagliano was an “agent of the Clintons” when the server was set up.A transcript of the Pagliano deposition will be reviewed and is expected to be released next week.
Offline
What is that favorite term?
Nothing burger
Last edited by Goose (6/23/2016 9:54 am)
Offline
So . . . As long as the constitution and it's amendments are articulated to your personal interpretation, they are OK. Whereas, if the circumstances conflict with your personal point of view, they are not OK?
Offline
That is what Hillary is hoping that Obama can keep it a nothing burger.
Offline
Damn that Obama White House !
Offline
Rongone wrote:
So . . . As long as the constitution and it's amendments are articulated to your personal interpretation, they are OK. Whereas, if the circumstances conflict with your personal point of view, they are not OK?
What are you talking about? He used his 5th amendment protection.
He is entitled to that under our constitution. Exactly as I stated!
Offline
Common Sense wrote:
Rongone wrote:
So . . . As long as the constitution and it's amendments are articulated to your personal interpretation, they are OK. Whereas, if the circumstances conflict with your personal point of view, they are not OK?
What are you talking about? He used his 5th amendment protection.
He is entitled to that under our constitution. Exactly as I stated!
Oh . . . So you, the news source you cited, and the story you posted condemning the IT guy for invoking his fifth amendment rights 125 times has nothing to do with speculating about the veracity of his testimony or questioning the motives of Clinton as Secretary of State ?
Excuse me . . . I misunderstood your motivation and purpose for posting this story. Especially since you neglected to state your personal point of view along with the story.
Offline
Rongone wrote:
Damn that Obama White House !
I'm not voting for him again!
Offline
Rongone wrote:
So . . . As long as the constitution and it's amendments are articulated to your personal interpretation, they are OK. Whereas, if the circumstances conflict with your personal point of view, they are not OK?
Seems to happen more and more in politics.