State Department staffer Bryan Pagliano to be offered immunity to testify about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal
Last week the man who set up and maintained Hillary Clinton’s homebrew email server, Bryan Pagliano, informed the Congress that he would plead the Fifth rather than testify. Today it is being reported that Charles Grassely and Ron Johnson might be about to offer him immunity in return for his testimony.
Here is more:
Two top Senate investigators offered potential immunity Tuesday to Bryan Pagliano, the staffer who set up the email server in former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s home, in exchange for testimony about her activities.
Mr. Pagliano last week said he would assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to answer questions about the matter, but Sens. Charles E. Grassley and Ron Johnson, the chairmen of two key committees investigating the situation, said they have authority to extend immunity if Mr. Pagliano is willing to talk.
They proposed a proffer session, where Mr. Pagliano would let them know what he knows in an off-the-record setting, and all sides could then decide what steps to take.
“The Committees have the authority to obtain an immunity order, to acquire the information they need, while also protecting your right against self-incrimination,” the two senators wrote in a letter to Mr. Pagliano’s lawyer.
Mr. Pagliano and Mrs. Clinton kept their little business arrangement on the down-low as he did not inform the State Department the former Secretary of State was paying him to maintain the personal email server she used for all official business; this could be why he does not want to testify but if it is the reason for his silence I wonder if Hillary Clinton persuaded him to keep their arrangement from the State Department. That is just speculation on my part so he might know even more.
There is no word yet on whether or not he is going to accept this offer but if he does it could be the break we have been waiting for. Stay tuned, this could get very interesting indeed…
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
Reblogged this on Brittius and commented:
Now, it’s getting juicy. Should the subject fail to candidly answer any and/or all questions, or do so in a deceptive manner, the subject becomes a targeted person of the investigation and can be criminally prosecuted. It’s a one-shot deal, confess everything and come clean, or, risk going down in flames. Depending on how sensitive the materials were on the email/servers, incarceration lengths vary but, in the federal system, there is no parole. If the subject is smart, he will flip, and give up everyone that is involved, in exchange for a free/safe tesimony, Voir Dire.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the reblog and this could be about to get very interesting. Surely his lawyer knows what is at stake here and if he does not want to become a target he will take this opportunity to tell all.
LikeLiked by 3 people
My understanding of immunity for him would be that it is not optional. If given he would be required to answer any and all questions. I think this is a bad move. First, why in a closed session, and why not the FBI? They should at least have a crack at offering immunity, and then the Congress. I simply do not trust the Congress at all.. They are dragging their feet big time. This is confusing to me that he “might take the offer up.” At least we are entitled to an open meeting. I never understood why Lois Lerner was never offered immunity. Case closed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I hear you about the Congress, they cannot always be trusted but in this case I don’t have a problem with the closed door meeting if it leads to open testimony. It is interesting the FBI hasn’t talked to this guy yet.
There is no doubt in my mind Lerner should have gotten immunity if the GOP was serious about getting to the bottom of that scandal but I don’t think they were because they want the Tea Party to go away as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good point.
LikeLiked by 2 people