Hillary's Server Guy To Plead The 5TH

Well, this is an interesting development....One that is bound to have some serious negative repercussions on Hillary's campaign.
Knowing the FBI is investigating this only makes it look ever more suspicious that the former aide to Hillary Clinton, who set up her secret server... is going to avoid answering questions on the grounds that it might incriminate him.

What could he possibly have to be worried about...if, as Hillary says...everything she did was legal and above board?

Clinton Ex-Aide Is Likely To Invoke 5th Amendment in Response to Congressional Questions Over Private Email Server

A former aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton who helped set up the server that housed Mrs. Clinton’s private email account plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment right in response to congressional questions about the email practices, according to two people who have been briefed on the matter.

The former aide, Bryan Pagliano, was subpoenaed to testify before a House committee, but a lawyer for Mr. Pagliano has told the panel that Mr. Pagliano will decline to answer their questions and will assert his Fifth Amendment right.

The subpoena was issued by the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. As part of its inquiry, the panel is examining Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email account while she was secretary of state, which shielded her correspondences from congressional inquiries.

Mr. Pagliano was the information technology director for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and then worked at the State Department as an adviser and special projects manager for its chief technology officer, according to his LinkedIn page. He left the State Department in February 2013, the same month Mrs. Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.

It is not clear why Mr. Pagliano is refusing to answer questions about the server. The F.B.I. is investigating how classified information was handled in connection with the account, but no evidence has surfaced that Mr. Pagliano had anything to do with those materials.

Mr. Pagliano’s lawyer, Mark MacDougall, declined to comment.

The Republican-controlled committee had planned to call Mr. Pagliano to testify behind closed doors, similar to the way it has interviewed some top aides to Mrs. Clinton and Americans who were in Benghazi.

Even if Mr. Pagliano does not back down, the panel will probably still call him to testify and force him to invoke the Fifth Amendment in person, in response to questions.

Mr. Pagliano’s response to the subpoena was first reported by The Washington Post

www.nytimes.com... te-email-server/

Again her response will be...

a reply to: IAMTAT

Yeaa!
Exercising rights should be looked at as hiding something!!!

I mean he very well could be, but should we really go the route of criticizing something we all have the right to do?

Would you incriminate your self?

a reply to: IAMTAT

LOL - it won't incriminate him, he's protecting her - it is more likely that he fears for his life if he were to answer the investigators questions truthfully.

Suicide by gunshot wound to the back of the head during a car crash type fear.

These people have obfuscation down to a fine science. Hey! It worked for Lois Lerner and others. Don't say anything, destroy the hard drive, delete the data, implicate others, dance around terminology ("it depends on what "is" is), then deny deny deny. Make it virtually impossible to get any answers.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT

Yeaa!
Exercising rights should be looked at as hiding something!!!

I mean he very well could be, but should we really go the route of criticizing something we all have the right to do?

Would you incriminate your self?

If I had nothing to hide...and nobody to protect...I would have no problem answering questions to congress or an FBI investigation. Wouldn't you?

The whole email scandal is very pregnant and getting overdue for grand jury, special prosecutor.

Taking the 5th is right not to self incriminate, not one taken out of complete innocence.

Guns are smoking here!

a reply to: IAMTAT

Well.

He is screwed.

If he cooperates, he may end up "suicided" and if he doesn't he may end up in jail for obstruction.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT

Yeaa!
Exercising rights should be looked at as hiding something!!!

I mean he very well could be, but should we really go the route of criticizing something we all have the right to do?

Would you incriminate your self?

That's a tangent.

Obviously somebody is guilty if they "plead" the 5th.

The object of the game is for prosecutors to prove it without any admission by the guilty.

In this case, the plea bargains will be used to avoid longer and severe sentences.

The "5th" is only step 1.

The sweat will be filling drums soon enough.

Hillary clinton, is the closest thing to nixon, in 2015 in politics...

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: IAMTAT

LOL - it won't incriminate him, he's protecting her - it is more likely that he fears for his life if he were to answer the investigators questions truthfully.

Suicide by gunshot wound to the back of the head during a car crash type fear.

^^^ What he said. There's a long trail of former associates/employees behind Hillary & Bill who will never speak again... and I don't mean they've exercised their fifth amendment rights.

a reply to: xuenchen

Obviously somebody is guilty if they "plead" the 5th.

Wow that is a new one.
Should we just change the 5th then?

a reply to: IAMTAT

That isn't what I asked.
I asked that if the answers could possibly incriminate you, would you answer them?

I would listen to my lawyer, if he told me to plead the fifth I would do it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT

Yeaa!
Exercising rights should be looked at as hiding something!!!

I mean he very well could be, but should we really go the route of criticizing something we all have the right to do?

Would you incriminate your self?

If it's incriminating then by default they did something illegal.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

Wow that is a new one.
Should we just change the 5th then?

NO !!

How else would be able to see the light !!

Let 'em plead all they want

tangents.deflections@hillaryjail

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Could be.
Don't think it should be so black and white as that.

You think that was the point of putting it in?

Why don't we just take it out then if its only use is to protect people who are guilty.

Lois Learner pleaded the 5th and nothing has happened to her. Sounds like a good strategy if you are in fear of SOMETHING.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
If I had nothing to hide...and nobody to protect...I would have no problem answering questions to congress or an FBI investigation. Wouldn't you?

I would not. They're looking for a scapegoat, and it's something you worked on. Your testimony could lead them to put the blame on you, which in this case carries a rather serious charge. Protecting Hillary or not, the best move for him is to not testify. Remember, when you testify everything you say can and will be used against you. All you do is help the state build a case against you.

Lets put this in a table form (hopefully it comes across through the formatting)

........might be convicted might not be convicted
5th.........false........................true
testify.....true........................true

As you can see, there's only one path that guarantees you won't be convicted. Thus in self interest it's the only reasonable choice.

a reply to: IAMTAT

He should plea bargain for full immunity and government protection then give a sworn deposition before he is permanently neutralized.

originally posted by: liveandlearn
Lois Learner pleaded the 5th and nothing has happened to her.

So far.

The pendulum swings.