Discussion for article #246810
I would have refused to testify in front of the Senate or House as well. Anyone should be able to refuse to give testimony under oath to a lynch mob.
14 Likes
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.
AlsoâŚ
This cuts out the dubious activities of certain poltically biased committeesâŚ
5 Likes
And meanwhile, John Bolton etal are pretending this MEANS somethingâŚI love how they blame Clinton for things they have done but SOMEHOW âsheâ should have been smarter and after all, âthis is the way the Clintons operateââŚwink wink nod nod and for the most part the media pretends to go along with itâŚ
3 Likes
Precisely. Youâd have to be a complete idiot to testify about anything before a Senate or House committee. Iâd take the 5th if they asked me what my address was.
8 Likes
âCNN reported that Pagliano agreed to grant an interview for the ongoing criminal investigation, also citing an anonymous law enforcement official.â
Is this correct? I have never heard it described as a criminal investigation.
2 Likes
The claim that itâs a criminal investigation has been repeatedly challenged, ever since the NYT first botched the story and had to backpedal. Given that the IG already found that both Rice and Powell did the same thing, any âchargeâ would have to be much broader in any case.
This is a tech guy who installed the server. What âbig stuffâ exactly is supposed to come out his testimony (which the Clinton camp urged him to give anyway)? âGee, Hillary came up to me while I was setting it up and said âBe sure it violates national security! Make it particularly vulnerable to Chinese hackers, and be sure itâs full of classified info!ââ
I imagine they want specs on its setup. Not really a bombshell.
4 Likes
This is the tech guy - itâs Nick Burns your companyâs computer guy! - and to hear the media and the GOP talk you would think heâs a criminal mastermind about to drop the dime on that dame.
2 Likes
âRound up the usual unnamed sources!â
2 Likes
The legal issue of mishandling classified material would only have relevance to the server if there was some evidence or speculation that someone intended to mishandle classified information and the private server was used specifically to do that. Thatâs pretty far fetched. state.gov email communications are not secure, so there would be no legal difference between sending information via a state.gov account routed to a cell phone and sending that same email to HRC via her personal account.
If Hillary is being investigated for the unintentionally risking exposure of classified information by including it in unsecure emails, virtually every high level state and defense and DOE official who monitors his/her work email on their phones should be investigated as well (private server or .gov server).
3 Likes
"This is a tech guy who installed the server. What âbig stuffâ exactly is supposed to come out his testimony (which the Clinton camp urged him to give anyway)? "
Guy gets food poisoning at a restaurant; then they interview the guy that installed the fridge.
1 Like
Maybe he installed Windows without buying a site license!
Call in the Peopleâs Grand Jury!
1 Like
Yes, as @RationalLeft says, the NYT was the original source of that bogus characterization and was notoriously forced, kicking and screaming, to take it back by their own public editor. Other than the right-wing fever swamps, nobody else has reported that itâs a criminal investigation, AFAIK.
@Josh_M, if thatâs the case, Sara really, really needs to correct her story; and a little editorâs note about it wouldnât hurt either, given how common the misperception is â relentlessly fed by the GOP and its leading candidate. (The Petraeus-contrast piece was welcome, but these things tend to have to be repeated for the point to stickâŚ)
2 Likes
Yes, I should have said âexcept for the NYT piece, this never was described as âŚâ
No grant of even full transaction immunity by the FBI (therefore binding on the US DoJ, US AG, the US administration, and all state, country and municipal, LEOs is effective against a Congressional subpoena enforceable by contempt proceedings and related charges of obstruction or perjury.
Only Congress itself, from itâs most authoritative state of acting as whole in plenary session, all the way down to having arguably acted by court-enforceable inference thru one of its duly authorized and empowered designated officials such as a staff attorney to the House oversight committee, can waive all that in a manner thatâs effective in fully immunizing whoever is receiving the grant.
You can be forgiven, because it was so thoroughly debunked so very quickly after they published. Though we should never let anyone forget that shameful, oh-so-revealing moment for the âpaper of recordââŚ
1 Like
Because as soon as you reveal your address, you waive your immunity from answering other questions.