Bryan Pagliano pleads the Fifth over 125 times during Judicial Watch’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s email scandal
After a brief delay the man who set up and maintained Hillary Clinton’s personal email server, Bryan Pagliano, “testified” during the Judicial Watch inquiry into the email scandal today. I put the word testified in scare quotes because it was not much of a testimony at all, in fact he plead the Fifth more than 125 times while his lawyers blocked several other questions from even being asked even though he had previously been granted immunity.
Here is more:
A former computer technology aide to Hillary Clinton repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment Wednesday during a court-ordered deposition in a lawsuit related to Clinton’s private email set-up, according a conservative group pressing the legal case.
Tech specialist Bryan Pagliano asserted his constitutional right against self-incrimination “more than 125 times” during the testimony, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in an interview.
In addition to refusing to answer questions based on the Fifth Amendment, Pagliano’s attorneys repeatedly stepped in to block answers to other queries they said went beyond the scope of topics allowed by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, Fitton said.
“On many of the key issues, he took the Fifth,” Fitton said. “He took the Fifth even on questions about his resume. They had a very narrow definition of what discovery” was permitted, the Judicial Watch official said.
Asked what questions Pagliano did answer, Fitton said he believed the tech aide acknowledged that he had read documents shown him by attorneys at the deposition.
Pagliano’s lead attorney, Mark MacDougall, declined to comment Wednesday.
Did you notice how the Politico article downplayed Bryan Pagliano’s role by calling him a former technology aide when his role was actually much bigger than that? But I digress…
Bryan Pagliano has the Constitutionally protected right under the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions which might incriminate him and that is what he is claiming he did. However, having been granted immunity by the Department of Injustice it would seem to me as if the issue of self-incrimination was not on the table. Unless he was protecting himself from bodily harm (because we all know what happens to people who cross the Clinton’s) Bryan Pagliano was not protecting himself by pleading the Fifth, but rather he was protecting Hillary Clinton.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
Now there’s a guy who really wants to live
LikeLiked by 4 people
That is the conclusion I have come to as well!
LikeLiked by 2 people
That was my question. Why plead the 5th when you immunity? I figured he really was loyal to Hill-a-beans. But you’re probably right Peter. Can you say Vince Foster? I knew you could.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Either scenario is plausible!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha, guess if WE were in position we would be doing the same. The Clintons are not ones to be messed with….IF that is true what I just said, why do people want to put them back in the White House? They are messing with people and it needs to stop. Don’t you think there is something they can do to them to make them start spilling the beans? I cannot believe they are going to be allowed to get away with it….look at Lois Lerner….she should be in jail, as well. I so dislike ALL of them!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lou, “people” don’t “want to put them back in the White House”, the drones in the collective do. And sadly the drones outnumber those who haven’t been “assimilated” yet. Well, that and the fact that we can’t seem to get our heads out of our a$$e$
LikeLiked by 3 people
True, that, Bruce! A big country full of “drones”!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s right Lou, but we would probably be too smart to get in that position in the first place. He must have been given quite the paycheck to jump on board with this, but he is probably regretting it right now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Drones” is a great way to describe these people!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This whole email server story is very strange to say the least. There has never been a clear explanation or diagram of Hilary’s computer system. For example there needs to be a computer, printer, scanner at the DOS that belonged to Team Hillary. There had to be one member that had security clearance to access the DOS secure system and copy the info. The server for the TH Washington computer is in NY and Justin Copper (Bill Clinton’s aid) turned off the server when Bryan ? called him.
Then there is this.
“WASHINGTON (AP) [6/22] — State Department staffers wrestled for weeks in December 2010 [and Jan 2011] over a serious technical problem that affected emails from then-Secretary Hillary Clinton’s home email server, causing them to temporarily disable security features on the government’s own systems, according to emails released Wednesday.” ,lll.??
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a154/emails-key-security-features-disabled-clintons-server
http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/25/how-hillary-got-classified-information-onto-her-private-email/
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is allot more to this story than we know about right now. I believe she was using the State Department to funnel money into the Foundation and that was why she needed a personal server.
I read about the security issues yesterday and who knows who actually might have gotten into the system at that point. She needs to be held accountable for this but I think we know she will not be.
LikeLike
Here is all you need to know about the story.
http://ijr.com/2016/06/640709-unbelievable-bill-clintons-private-meeting-with-attorney-general-sets-off-wildfire-of-reaction/?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=afternoon-newsletter&utm_medium=owned
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fix is in now!
LikeLike
Not a peep aout this much of anywhere. Oh well. Paging vincent foster
LikeLiked by 2 people
Vince could not be reached for comment…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Arlin Report.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the reblog.
LikeLike
I don’t blame him. Immunity from prosecution is only a part of the consideration. He’s being deposed by a group that’s obviously hostile to Secretary Clinton. Even if he’s immune from prosecution, he’s got to be concerned that JW would find ways to use his answers against him, his family, and his friends.
I know there are some here who insist that the promise of immunity means his deposition would remain absolutely secret. If that’s the case, why is one of the most famous political punchlines “It depends on the meaning of the word ‘is’.”? (Technically speaking, it wasn’t a lie, but it was definitely a weaselly answer.)
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
TGY, as you know, “Immunity” isn’t a “thing’ this is given like you would give someone a book. It is a negotiated contract worked out with lawyers over a period of time. We have no idea what was in that contract. If his lawyer told Pagliano the deal wasn’t good enough, they sure, take the 5th and let the government prosecute him separately for his role. But I don’t believe for a second that the ” JW would find ways to use his answers against him, his family, and his friends” because he just isn’t important, only his information about the extreme breach of security by the Secretary of State is. But we will never know the truth, because unlike Nixon, Hillary has every level of the Justice Department and the mainstream media on her side.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Presented as fact:
“But we will never know the truth, because unlike Nixon, Hillary has every level of the Justice Department and the mainstream media on her side.”
Part 1 is a prediction and cannot be proven today. Twenty years hence, perhaps, someone might dust this statement off and by the evidence of history proclaim it valid. Or not.
Part 2, beginning with the word “because,” begs the question — that is, it assumes as truth a proposition not proven.
This happens frequently when ideologues and demagogues discuss issues. Opinions as to they “why” of a particular event or idea are cloaked in the camouflage of fact and presented as such.
Whenever I hear the word “because” in a political statement from someone who’s highly partisan, I can be fairly confident that I’d better roll up my trouser legs . . .
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Ah TGY, seems like old times. Your “Part 1” is a statement of the obvious. As for your “Part 2”, don’t worry about your trousers. While you were careful to only make a tangential connection between me using the word “because” and a connection to “Ideologues and demagogues”, the connection was clear, Personally, I avoid throwing stones in glass houses. So, let’s look at the proposition. “because unlike Nixon, Hillary has every level of the Justice Department…on her side”. Obama came out last week with a complete unqualified endorsement of Clinton. Fact. Obama has said how important his legacy is to him. Fact. Obama would never do something to hurt that legacy. Fact. Loretta is his hand-picked AG.Fact. It is up to Loretta to bring any charges against Clinton. Fact. The AG is obligated to keep the President informed on what the AG department is doing. Fact. So I am as satisfied with that connection as I am to take shelter if I see a funnel cloud. Scientific proof, no, but sufficient for me.
As for “because unlike Nixon, Hillary has …the mainstream media on her side”. I accept the well-documented facts Bernard Goldberg lays out in his books,
A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media …
Arrogance: Rescuing America From The Media Elite
and Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the New
I expect your rapier reply, but never your agreement. Call this one a win for you if you like, but no more tit-for-tat from me on this one.
LikeLike
“Ideologues and demagogues” was harsh. “Partisans like me” would have been better.
Take good care, and may God bless us all
TGY
LikeLike