Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:21 PM Mar 2016

Am I the last to know? RW Judicial Watch will get to depose IT specialist Bryan Pagliano in April.

snip


FBI agents aren’t the only ones getting a crack at the former Hillary Clinton aide reportedly “singing like a bird” about the unsecured, possibly illegal email server that Clinton paid him to set up in her home.

Next month, a federal judge is expected to give lawyers for a government watchdog group a whack at him, too — and his testimony could be made public just as Clinton enters the general election for president.

Washington-based Judicial Watch will get to depose former State Department IT specialist Bryan Pagliano pending approval of its witness list in April, which seems to be just a formality.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan already has OK’d the group’s motion for discovery in the civil case, which alleges that Clinton and the State Department conspired to thwart Freedom of Information Act and other public requests for her communications as secretary of state by creating an off-grid email system.


http://www.investors.com/politics/perspective/clintons-email-guru-could-soon-be-singing-publicly/



Note: Judge Sullivan is a Clinton appointee.



















182 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Am I the last to know? RW Judicial Watch will get to depose IT specialist Bryan Pagliano in April. (Original Post) snagglepuss Mar 2016 OP
Intersting timing and questions. Autumn Mar 2016 #1
WOW grasswire Mar 2016 #3
No. He did not. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #14
He has immunity. 840high Mar 2016 #66
It's darling that you think that JW is the feds. Or that immunity msanthrope Mar 2016 #71
I don't think cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #88
then perhaps you can explain to other posters how immunity in a federal investigation msanthrope Mar 2016 #97
It would be as pertinent as his 5th Amendment Right Press Virginia Mar 2016 #118
He has immunity in a Federal Criminal investigation. msanthrope Mar 2016 #128
The immunity deal would cover him in the civil deposition Press Virginia Mar 2016 #136
What? no. Have you seen said deal? nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #152
dont need to. The scope of the suit isn't as broad as the FBI investigation Press Virginia Mar 2016 #165
That reply makes no sense. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #168
broad vs narrow is confusing? Press Virginia Mar 2016 #171
Your conflation of this civil lawsuit and an FBI investigation just makes no sense. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #175
I didn't conflate anything Press Virginia Mar 2016 #177
Okay ... You took a different tact ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #154
Oh, see, that's where you are nicer than me. I've given up pointing out facts. msanthrope Mar 2016 #155
Could you kindly give up the hysterical term...evil. libdem4life Mar 2016 #158
Do you normally tell women they are being "hysterical?" nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #159
How would I know you're a woman? I use it for both genders. libdem4life Mar 2016 #162
It's in my username. And, I am offended that you used that msanthrope Mar 2016 #164
User name?? Well, I am sorry you were offended. Ii am offended by people libdem4life Mar 2016 #170
Why do people keep calling folks tone deaf? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #163
I've given up pointing out facts, as well ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #161
Yeah.....Eric Holder is the devil for not putting all of Wall Street msanthrope Mar 2016 #167
What this does is bring the issue of whether the private server was set up to avoid FOIA out into snagglepuss Mar 2016 #109
a rightwing website pimping a rightwing lawsuit with geek tragedy Mar 2016 #2
If Bernie were under investigation and oath.. grasswire Mar 2016 #5
HRC is neither. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #12
Must be Judicial Watch appreciation day. hrmjustin Mar 2016 #7
that's every day amongst a certain contingent here. nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #9
Sad but telling. hrmjustin Mar 2016 #11
but not surprising nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #15
That's all fine and good NWCorona Mar 2016 #39
That's not how litigation works. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #41
Huh? NWCorona Mar 2016 #48
this is a civil suit over evading FOIA, not mishandling classified information. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #54
I know this NWCorona Mar 2016 #58
I am not a RW operative. I do not like ANY govt official evading FOIA. nt IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #90
you're assuming she evaded FOIA. nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #94
Given the State Dept has none of her emails as they went thru a private server it snagglepuss Mar 2016 #117
The True Believers will never find fault with the Anointed One Press Virginia Mar 2016 #125
The state department has none of her emails? geek tragedy Mar 2016 #134
They had to request them because of a lawsuit Press Virginia Mar 2016 #141
they had the vast majority of her emails before geek tragedy Mar 2016 #142
Untrue Press Virginia Mar 2016 #144
okay, if you say so nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #145
The state department said so Press Virginia Mar 2016 #146
and then got reamed by the OIG report geek tragedy Mar 2016 #151
This is lawsuit about FOIA. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #67
And how does that change my point? NWCorona Mar 2016 #91
What is your point? There are no depositions scheduled. msanthrope Mar 2016 #95
So your point now is there isn't anything scheduled? NWCorona Mar 2016 #102
Dude....not only is nothing scheduled, JW hasn't even secured the right to depose msanthrope Mar 2016 #106
Uh ... No! ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #166
Care to explain? NWCorona Mar 2016 #169
No liable/not liable has been determined ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #172
I have please see my post #91 NWCorona Mar 2016 #173
"Intent" has a specific judicial meaning and it is not what you would have it mean ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #178
I get what you are saying NWCorona Mar 2016 #179
The meaning is the sam 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #180
Could be NWCorona Mar 2016 #181
with an enthusiastic cheering section in Sanders supporters of RW witch hunts! Bill USA Mar 2016 #46
the enemy of their enemy is their friend. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #50
I'm sorry you lost your alert privileges for 24 hours. Capt. Obvious Mar 2016 #47
Regardless of your opinion, it's going to land some body blows on the weak candidate that she is. revbones Mar 2016 #55
hey, you and Paul Sperry can hold out hope that it will. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #57
Sure. revbones Mar 2016 #61
she has been wounded by it, yet is blowing Bernie out nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #63
She hasn't been wounded yet. revbones Mar 2016 #65
lol, keep hope alive nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #76
Are you hoping she's wounded later or something? nt revbones Mar 2016 #80
all of this email bullshit has already factored in, it will be old news geek tragedy Mar 2016 #82
keep telling yourself that. revbones Mar 2016 #86
I plan to be here rooting for the Democrat to win. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #87
Since he was given immunity, he can't plead the 5th. HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #4
Um, no. That is completely incorrect. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #6
Wrong. He gives up the right to plead the 5th. HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #16
Um, no. That is completely incorrect. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #18
Only in your dreams. Nt HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #25
No....In my practice. I think it's darling that you think JW is the feds. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #26
I learned early in life never argue with a lawyer on the law. hrmjustin Mar 2016 #28
Hey there! I got reinstated! and you're right don't argue law msanthrope Mar 2016 #32
Glad you were reinstated. I was last week. hrmjustin Mar 2016 #35
Yeah...I got 4 hides in one day.....I took Gravedancing msanthrope Mar 2016 #37
I got 7. All deserved of course. hrmjustin Mar 2016 #40
I just had too much chardonnay. Je ne regrette rien...nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #42
Well we are absolved by Skinner. hrmjustin Mar 2016 #44
Yes....the mighty OZ has spoken. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #45
I didn't say JW was the Feds, you appear to have a comprehension problem. HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #98
What judge ruled? there's no deposition scheduled. msanthrope Mar 2016 #100
Judge Sullivan, the Clinton appointee. HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #116
No.....he didn't rule that BP could be deposed. That's why msanthrope Mar 2016 #126
Correct. 840high Mar 2016 #72
By the same author: "Can America Survive Obama's Pro-Muslim Bias?" geek tragedy Mar 2016 #8
Holy shit it can't get anymore RW than that garbage. giftedgirl77 Mar 2016 #69
some people have no shame, none nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #75
I just posted on another OP where the only source is Fox. giftedgirl77 Mar 2016 #78
by the same author: "Violent Inmates Part Of Obama’s Federally Sponsored Prison Break" geek tragedy Mar 2016 #10
By the same author: "Meanwhile, An Islamic Fifth Column Builds Inside America" geek tragedy Mar 2016 #13
By the same author: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Crowd Resists Truth About Resisting Arrest" geek tragedy Mar 2016 #17
By the same author: "Why Is Obama Importing Muslims Who Mutilate Little Girls?" geek tragedy Mar 2016 #19
by the same author: "Muslim Immigration Poses Serious National Security Threat" geek tragedy Mar 2016 #20
By the same author: "IRS Gave Black Nonprofits Preferential Treatment" geek tragedy Mar 2016 #21
Very interesting farleftlib Mar 2016 #22
Holy buckets. Hillary Clinton must be flop sweating CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #23
Judicial Watch has been trying to sue the clintons since the nineties. msanthrope Mar 2016 #29
I don't care who they are. It doesn't matter if Ranger Rick is spearheading this CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #73
Oh dear...perhaps you can explain to me just how msanthrope Mar 2016 #77
It is my understanding CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #103
No. No. And no, they have no deposition scheduled. msanthrope Mar 2016 #104
lol, keep hope alive nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #30
lol, you trying so hard. nt thereismore Mar 2016 #70
I have no hope either way. I would like to see a period at the end of this sentence CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #79
lol, sure you don't. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #85
That link you posted makes me uncomfortable...it's an invasion of privacy. Punkingal Mar 2016 #130
it's publicly viewable for every member. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #131
I still think it's creepy. And I don't want to see yours, either. Punkingal Mar 2016 #160
What's that supposed to mean? CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #182
Earth Shattering indeed. I bet Fox is having a party. hrmjustin Mar 2016 #33
in case people want to know why I stopped supporting Sanders, his supporters geek tragedy Mar 2016 #36
I know how you feel. On twitter had to block several of them because they would not let up. hrmjustin Mar 2016 #38
Yeah. revbones Mar 2016 #56
you are free to believe Paul Sperry, the Daily Caller, Charlie Gasparino, Joseph DiGenova, geek tragedy Mar 2016 #60
No, you'll just believe that revbones Mar 2016 #64
she screwed up in using private email for government business. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #81
"paid a high political price for it." rofl revbones Mar 2016 #83
You and Paul Sperry will just have to keep hope alive for your cause nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #93
Your little posts are too cute. revbones Mar 2016 #111
get back to us when your prayers to the Indictment Fairy include geek tragedy Mar 2016 #112
Nice. revbones Mar 2016 #122
open to facts, yes, your crowd isn't providing facts though nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #123
Sure. revbones Mar 2016 #124
I didn't start a thread out of whole cloth. This article is from Investor's Business Daily. CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #89
"Investors Business Daily is reputable" NO, it is NOT reputable. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #99
I've worked with reporters at Investor's Business Daily CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #120
the rightwing editorials are by the author of the piece quoted in the OP. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #127
So, is this Paul Sperry making up the information in the article? CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #133
Pagliano "singing like a bird" is likely wingnut fantasia. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #135
Yeah that was a stupid qoute that leaped right NWCorona Mar 2016 #137
+1 nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #139
That reasoning was already used ad nauseum months ago. Karma13612 Mar 2016 #119
Over Judicial Watch??? Beacool Mar 2016 #138
Meet the definition of ratfucking. Nt NCTraveler Mar 2016 #24
June 7th can't get here fast enough. nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #27
I'm going to back away from this place until after the primaries. NCTraveler Mar 2016 #31
I could add to what you're saying but will not. nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #34
I thought Klayman was in charge of Judicial Watch. I wonder what happened. asjr Mar 2016 #43
Kick and Recommend just because... kristopher Mar 2016 #49
hey, having Bernie people line up behind a rancid rightwing bigot's propaganda geek tragedy Mar 2016 #52
So the rancid RW site is lying and the deposition isn't going to happen? kristopher Mar 2016 #62
Here is a suggestion to Bernie fans: read what wingnut propagandists geek tragedy Mar 2016 #74
There is no deposition scheduled. And notoriously anti-gay JW msanthrope Mar 2016 #84
Somebody's spamming the fuck out of this thread Capt. Obvious Mar 2016 #51
Right? n/t kdmorris Mar 2016 #53
Still spamming away Capt. Obvious Mar 2016 #59
Amnesty? NWCorona Mar 2016 #92
Some of us were on timeouts. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #107
Well even tho I sometimes disagree with you NWCorona Mar 2016 #108
Ah...I was only gone for a couple days. But my hides were msanthrope Mar 2016 #110
No problem! NWCorona Mar 2016 #113
Hey there! nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #105
But it's such a nice variety: beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #114
Eww Capt. Obvious Mar 2016 #156
Yet another day in which I cannot distinguish between DU and FR. LonePirate Mar 2016 #68
+1 obamanut2012 Mar 2016 #157
Well if we nominate Bernie, it won't even matter. senz Mar 2016 #96
It's great seeing Clinton STILL STANDING despite deseprate attacks by Sanders' & Trumps' supporters. Hoyt Mar 2016 #101
Isn't this site something else? Beacool Mar 2016 #140
Sure seems like it at times. Hoyt Mar 2016 #143
Clinton STILL STANDING AlbertCat Mar 2016 #148
MSM has given Sanders plenty of exposure. Maybe rather than running against Democrats in the past, Hoyt Mar 2016 #150
MSM has given Sanders plenty of exposure. AlbertCat Mar 2016 #153
If people wanted to see Sanders, he'd have been on even more. Hoyt Mar 2016 #176
Well I would love to know if this interview in April will be before or AFTER Karma13612 Mar 2016 #115
The likelihood of it happening in April would be remote IMHO NWCorona Mar 2016 #129
ohhh, OK. So, we're Karma13612 Mar 2016 #147
almost certainly after not only NY but also PA and MD, nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #132
The Revolution is highly invested in its serendipitous proxy war. LuvLoogie Mar 2016 #121
It doesn't matter who reported it.... AlbertCat Mar 2016 #149
K&R Bernie better be our nominee! amborin Mar 2016 #174

Autumn

(44,762 posts)
1. Intersting timing and questions.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:27 PM
Mar 2016
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton confirms that it will grill the longtime Clinton loyalist under oath, along with aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and other officials who handled email records requests. Pagliano was key to helping ensure that Clinton was able to communicate and conduct official, often classified, government business outside secure channels and records-management systems.

Specifically, Judicial Watch lawyers will want to find out the facts and circumstances surrounding Pagliano’s hiring. Other lines of questioning for this star witness include:

* When was the parallel email system created? Before Clinton was sworn in as secretary?

* What government resources were used? Who else knew about it?

* Why didn’t Foggy Bottom provide the secretary with an official email address or personal computing devices?

* Who besides Abedin used an email address on “clintonemail.com” to conduct official government business? Did anyone from the Clinton Foundation have access?

Lawyers also want to know if Pagliano was ever told to keep quiet about the off-grid system, or keep the National Archives in the dark. Or if he or other employers were reprimanded for questioning the use of it to conduct government business. Or if they were told not to fully respond to FOIA requests.
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
71. It's darling that you think that JW is the feds. Or that immunity
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:12 PM
Mar 2016

In a federal investigation has anything to do with a civil lawsuit.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
97. then perhaps you can explain to other posters how immunity in a federal investigation
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:28 PM
Mar 2016

Has anything to do whatsoever with the civil lawsuit.

 

Press Virginia

(2,329 posts)
118. It would be as pertinent as his 5th Amendment Right
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:59 PM
Mar 2016

He can't be compelled to admit to criminal acts in a civil lawsuit for fear of prosecution....since he has immunity, he no longer has to fear prosecution for issues surrounding Clinton's server.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
128. He has immunity in a Federal Criminal investigation.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:07 PM
Mar 2016

This is a civil lawsuit. His immunity deal has nothing to do with it.

 

Press Virginia

(2,329 posts)
136. The immunity deal would cover him in the civil deposition
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:29 PM
Mar 2016

The Feds couldn't use his testimony to bring charges

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
154. Okay ... You took a different tact ...
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:13 PM
Mar 2016

I was going to go down a path of: "What is the civil lawsuit about?" And lead them to the conclusion, though I doubt they would ever arrive at the obvious ... this FOIA suit will produce nothing of import.

Do they think the DoJ investigation hasn't explored and discarded JW's theory of the case?

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
155. Oh, see, that's where you are nicer than me. I've given up pointing out facts.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:17 PM
Mar 2016

I am daily amused at what gets posted here as "proof" that Hillary Clinton is evil.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
158. Could you kindly give up the hysterical term...evil.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:36 PM
Mar 2016

Perhaps more appropriate terms would be shady, behind the scenes, subverting, acting illegally...less charged terms. There are more, but surely you get the picture.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
162. How would I know you're a woman? I use it for both genders.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:47 PM
Mar 2016

I also laugh hysterically, as do many I know...men and women.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
170. User name?? Well, I am sorry you were offended. Ii am offended by people
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:55 PM
Mar 2016

being called Evil, too. So, there's that.

Peace.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
161. I've given up pointing out facts, as well ...
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:46 PM
Mar 2016

especially, facts about the law that I was taught while in law school, and the facts I learned about the legal process that I learned working cases.

I stopped because the internet attorney are so much more informed.

My favorite: "Jail the Bankers!!!!"

"Okay ... Jail which bankers and for what!"

"For fraud ... they wrecked the economy!!!!"

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
167. Yeah.....Eric Holder is the devil for not putting all of Wall Street
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:51 PM
Mar 2016

in jail. And Eliot Spitzer was railroaded because he took on the crooks.

The site sometimes, this site.

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
109. What this does is bring the issue of whether the private server was set up to avoid FOIA out into
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:42 PM
Mar 2016

the open.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
2. a rightwing website pimping a rightwing lawsuit with
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:29 PM
Mar 2016

a rightwing attack on Clinton.

Par for the course from a certain contingent here.

Note that this is re: FOIA, so won't lead to the Indictment Fairy from appearing.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
39. That's all fine and good
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:51 PM
Mar 2016

But why are you passing over the fact that a Clinton appointed federal judge has allowed discovery in this case? If it was nothing that motion would have been squashed.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
41. That's not how litigation works.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:53 PM
Mar 2016

Letting discovery go forward does not mean that one party has been found to be in the wrong.

Discovery is limited to FOIA issues, not the disclosure of classified information.

Sorry to disappoint, but Judicial Watch will not be getting Hillary Clinton thrown in jail.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
48. Huh?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:59 PM
Mar 2016

"Letting discovery go forward does not mean that one party has been found to be in the wrong. "

Obviously! That's why it's called discovery.

"Discovery is limited to FOIA issues, not the disclosure of classified information. "

Wrong. This is to discover intent and the judge has clearly said so. It's also obvious that they can't go into classified information other than to go over the handling SOP.

I'm not expecting Hillary to go to jail.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
54. this is a civil suit over evading FOIA, not mishandling classified information.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:03 PM
Mar 2016

completely different legal action

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
58. I know this
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:06 PM
Mar 2016

But that doesn't change my point.

I know it can be hard to follow with I think 6 official investigations into Hillary and her server but I'm pretty confident that I have these facts right.

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
117. Given the State Dept has none of her emails as they went thru a private server it
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:58 PM
Mar 2016

seems clear that FOIA was evaded. Then there is the issue of her deleting so-called "personal" emails, no proof they were personal.

 

Press Virginia

(2,329 posts)
125. The True Believers will never find fault with the Anointed One
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:06 PM
Mar 2016

Sure the State Department didn't have any of her E-mails for 3 years.....because she ran it through her own server that was kept in her basement with her own IT guy....that doesn't mean she was trying to avoid FOIA or Congressional Oversight....noooo, she was actually just trying to make sure they could all be found....except the ones that got "deleted" or "lost"

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
134. The state department has none of her emails?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:26 PM
Mar 2016

Funny, how is the state department producing her emails then?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
142. they had the vast majority of her emails before
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:38 PM
Mar 2016

she turned over the hard drive.

Why?

Because the vast majority of her work-related correspondence as secretary of state was with other governmental employees, on their governmental email accounts.

the only time there would be no record on government computers is if the email was strictly between non-governmental email accounts.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
91. And how does that change my point?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:23 PM
Mar 2016

"In granting Judicial Watch’s request, Sullivan said that months of piecemeal revelations about Clinton and the State Department’s handling of the email controversy created “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion’ ” that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined."

" The court-ordered discovery will help determine why the State Department and Mrs. Clinton, even despite receiving numerous FOIA requests, kept the record system secret for years,” Fitton said. “While Mrs. Clinton’s testimony may not be required initially, it may happen that her testimony is necessary for the Court to resolve the legal issues about her unprecedented email practices.”

Like I said intent. The discovery motion is to see if Hillary and or the state department intended to thwart FOIA


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-weighs-deeper-probe-into-clintons-private-email-system/2016/02/23/9c27412a-d997-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
102. So your point now is there isn't anything scheduled?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:31 PM
Mar 2016

If you read the link supplied you'd understand why. They aren't put on the schedule instantly.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
166. Uh ... No! ...
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:50 PM
Mar 2016
"Letting discovery go forward does not mean that one party has been found to be in the wrong. "

Obviously! That's why it's called discovery.


And no

"Discovery is limited to FOIA issues, not the disclosure of classified information. "

Wrong. This is to discover intent and the judge has clearly said so. It's also obvious that they can't go into classified information other than to go over the handling SOP.


You are incorrect on both counts.
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
172. No liable/not liable has been determined ...
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:59 PM
Mar 2016

for discovery (another name could be "a look around for what might be there&quot to go forward. Would you believe more cases are dismissed at the request of the plaintiff, than pursed ... right after discovery?

"Discovery is limited to FOIA issues, not the disclosure of classified information. "

Wrong. This is to discover intent and the judge has clearly said so. It's also obvious that they can't go into classified information other than to go over the handling SOP.


Re-read what the judge clearly said.
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
178. "Intent" has a specific judicial meaning and it is not what you would have it mean ...
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:34 PM
Mar 2016

here.

A better way to express what you are seeing is, going forward with discovery might provide evidence for whether, and if not, why the FOIA attempts were not fully responded to. Neither has been established.

And, again, do you really think the DoJ didn't consider, and discard that theory of the case?

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
179. I get what you are saying
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:02 PM
Mar 2016

But I also understand the definition of intent in regards to tort law.

Also the judge was clear that it wasn't just a simple case of the request not being responded to. This is why discovery was allowed.

I'm sure that the DOJ has looked at that but I'm not sure it was discarded.

I'm not saying I'm 100% right but I haven't seen that I'm wrong.... Yet

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
180. The meaning is the sam
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:12 PM
Mar 2016
Also the judge was clear that it wasn't just a simple case of the request not being responded to. This is why discovery was allowed.


I suspect that this a colicky judge that is just trying to get whatever is there, or not there, resolved.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
181. Could be
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:20 PM
Mar 2016

My thoughts on this are known but I've always said this could go either way.

Colicky! I like that and you are probably right. When this news hit I researched the judge and he seems like one not to be trifled with. I respect that actually

Anyway nice talk!

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
55. Regardless of your opinion, it's going to land some body blows on the weak candidate that she is.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:04 PM
Mar 2016

It's always just rightwing smears right?

Sheesh. You don't even know what it is yet and you're screaming that it's bogus. Real intellectualism there that is.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
57. hey, you and Paul Sperry can hold out hope that it will.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:06 PM
Mar 2016

The primary contest will be OVER by the time they take a single deposition in this case.

Clinton is going to CRUSH Sanders in New York, and that will be the end of anyone taking Sanders seriously as a candidate.

Enjoy your little fantasies for the next 4 weeks. You'll have until June 7th to figure out which side you're on.



 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
61. Sure.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:07 PM
Mar 2016

Believe what you want. Regardless though she is a flawed candidate who will be wounded by the email scandal in the general if she is the nominee.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
65. She hasn't been wounded yet.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:09 PM
Mar 2016

If she's the nominee, it's going to cripple her.

Whether or not she beats Bernie is irrelevant. If you're using that as some weird rationalization that she didn't do anything, then you probably have other issues you should examine. I didn't mention Bernie. I mentioned her scandal and her candidacy.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
87. I plan to be here rooting for the Democrat to win.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:21 PM
Mar 2016

You plan on returning after the general election?

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
4. Since he was given immunity, he can't plead the 5th.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:30 PM
Mar 2016

He will be required to answer all their questions in the deposition. The deposition will give the GOP every bit of evidence they need to press forward in the event that Obama and/or Lynch stonewalls an FBI recommendation for indictment. Burying head in the sand or whistling past the graveyard isn't going to make it go away.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
16. Wrong. He gives up the right to plead the 5th.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:37 PM
Mar 2016

That's the whole point of granting immunity. FBI and judge aren't going to give him immunity so he can stay silent. It's so they can get him to talk.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
32. Hey there! I got reinstated! and you're right don't argue law
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:47 PM
Mar 2016

With lawyers unless you have the money and the time.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
40. I got 7. All deserved of course.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:52 PM
Mar 2016

I had an epic meltdown but the gentleman graciously forgave me of my moment.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
98. I didn't say JW was the Feds, you appear to have a comprehension problem.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:29 PM
Mar 2016

As part of the FBI investigation, BP was given statutory immunity. Since he has immunity from prosecution the judge ruled he has to answer questions in the separate JW FOIA case. He can't refuse to testify.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
100. What judge ruled? there's no deposition scheduled.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:30 PM
Mar 2016

Read the op.

And yes, he can refuse to testify.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
116. Judge Sullivan, the Clinton appointee.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:57 PM
Mar 2016

The JW attorneys are seeking to depose BP as a material witness in their FOIA suit.. The judge ruled that permissible, since BP apparently has information to provide, and has statutory immunity thus cannot clam up and claim the 5th. You can't get immunity and then refuse to testify. Testimony is part of the immunity deal. If he refuses to testify, he will be judged in breach of his immunity deal, and faces prosecution for any crimes he's committed. Apparently he's concerned about that, since he pled the 5th before getting immunity.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
126. No.....he didn't rule that BP could be deposed. That's why
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:06 PM
Mar 2016

Judicial Watch is asking for a deposition. The judge is expected to rule in April. He apparently has immunity in a criminal investigation. That has nothing whatsoever to do with this civil lawsuit..... and refusing to testify in a civil lawsuit does not put you in breach of a federal immunity deal. As someone who's actually seen a federal immunity deal I can tell you that it does not.

 

giftedgirl77

(4,713 posts)
69. Holy shit it can't get anymore RW than that garbage.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:11 PM
Mar 2016

People should be embarrassed to even post this shit here.

 

giftedgirl77

(4,713 posts)
78. I just posted on another OP where the only source is Fox.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:17 PM
Mar 2016

I will not click on those links ever. The comments give me rage.

 

farleftlib

(2,125 posts)
22. Very interesting
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:40 PM
Mar 2016
Fitton said Clinton’s hubris could trip her. “Mrs. Clinton thinks she is above the law,” he told me. “Her dismissal of federal court orders is a prime example of the arrogance that has resulted in an FBI criminal investigation.”

Even Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, is scandalized by the secretary’s gall. “Here you have Mrs. Clinton and Abedin deciding, after neither Mrs. Clinton nor Ms. Abedin were government employees, what e-mails are federal records and what e-mails are not,” he said.

“It just boggles the mind that the State Department allowed this circumstance to arise in the first place,” the judge added. “It’s just very, very troubling.”


Couldn't have said it better myself.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
23. Holy buckets. Hillary Clinton must be flop sweating
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:40 PM
Mar 2016

This is earth-shattering news.

The questions that they will ask Clinton's IT guru could be a bomb dropped on her campaign. He'll be under oath.

Shit just got real. When in April could this happen?

Jesus!!!!

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
29. Judicial Watch has been trying to sue the clintons since the nineties.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:45 PM
Mar 2016

They were unimpressive then... And pretty f****** unimpressive now.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
73. I don't care who they are. It doesn't matter if Ranger Rick is spearheading this
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:13 PM
Mar 2016

The whole point is that this organization will be allowed to depose these witnesses, including Clinton.

They'll be under oath.

So, they'll have to tell the truth. And her IT guy was granted immunity.

I would think that Clinton supporters would find this to be good news. The truth will finally come out. If there is nothing there, then this entire situation will be put to bed.

If there is no "there" there, then the answers provided will be innocuous to Clinton.

Why would you be so against this?

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
77. Oh dear...perhaps you can explain to me just how
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:17 PM
Mar 2016

Immunity granted in a federal investigation has anything to do with a civil lawsuit regarding FOIA. I think I missed that day in law school.

As for the notoriously anti-gay Judicial Watch...... they are scum.







CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
103. It is my understanding
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:31 PM
Mar 2016

that anything Pagliano says going forward, is not subject to prosecution.

Is that correct?

I understand that this is a civil lawsuit and a different situation than the federal investigation. However, I assumed that whatever he said regarding this matter (regardless to whom he was communicating) left him free from legal consequences.

Is this correct?

And Judicial Watch does sound like a horrible, right-wing outlet. If they're anti-guy then, they are "scum" as you said. However, they are being allowed to depose her IT pro. He has to answer these questions truthfully. That's the takeaway. It doesn't matter if he's being interviewed by Cookie Monster. Pagliano is going to be deposed and interrogated and he will be under oath.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
79. I have no hope either way. I would like to see a period at the end of this sentence
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:17 PM
Mar 2016

The worst part is having an FBI investigation hanging over a Democratic Presidential candidate. She's currently the front runner.

This needs to be put to bed. My contention all along is--why is this hanging? The country, and our party, needs closure on this.

I can't imagine that she would be held accountable, if she did anything wrong.

So, let's clear the air.

Witnesses will be deposed and will be under oath.

Whatever this IT guy has said to the FBI, will surely be repeated in this setting in this deposition.

I think we deserve to know what this guy is saying.

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)
130. That link you posted makes me uncomfortable...it's an invasion of privacy.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:14 PM
Mar 2016

Kind of like stalking or being a peeping tom.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
131. it's publicly viewable for every member.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:16 PM
Mar 2016

here's mine:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=144296&sub=recs

It is not private for any member of DU.

Just like people can see every person who recommends a given thread.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
182. What's that supposed to mean?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:26 PM
Mar 2016

Did you even read the post I read?

Never claimed to be a fan of Clinton.

My number one issue with this whole email debacle is that it needs to be put to bed. One way or the other.

I actually think the FBI is playing games with the drip, drip, drip. The general public doesn't need to do know that her IT geek was granted immunity. That info is part of an FBI investigation. Why do we know this information? Because someone wants us to know.

Frankly, I think it's torturous. Wrap up this investigation. Either recommend that she be indicted or end the investigation.

We're at critical mass in this election. This should not be hanging over our party.



 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
36. in case people want to know why I stopped supporting Sanders, his supporters
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:49 PM
Mar 2016

pimping stuff like this caused me to become a lot more skeptical about where his 'revolution' was going

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
38. I know how you feel. On twitter had to block several of them because they would not let up.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:51 PM
Mar 2016

I thought purity tests were right wing.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
56. Yeah.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:05 PM
Mar 2016

Because Hillary couldn't have possibly done anything wrong. It's always just a right-wing smear. Sheesh.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
60. you are free to believe Paul Sperry, the Daily Caller, Charlie Gasparino, Joseph DiGenova,
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:07 PM
Mar 2016

Fox News, the New York Post, and Judicial Watch.

I will not join you.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
64. No, you'll just believe that
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:08 PM
Mar 2016

Hillary is a magical fairy incapable of any wrongdoing and how dare anyone question anything she does. Enjoy.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
81. she screwed up in using private email for government business.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:18 PM
Mar 2016

she's certainly paid a high political price for it.

is it the crime of the century like Bernie fans and the Republicans are claiming it is? no

not even a crime

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
83. "paid a high political price for it." rofl
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:20 PM
Mar 2016

That's hilarious. She hasn't even been bitten by it yet.

The fact that someone would ignore the criminality of mishandling classified information is excusable given the lack of intellect displayed elsewhere. Ignoring the corruption uncovered in the emails with the Clinton Foundation is just willful ignorance.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
111. Your little posts are too cute.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:47 PM
Mar 2016

No facts, just try to discredit everything. the indignation is awesomely funny.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
124. Sure.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:05 PM
Mar 2016

That's why you ignore and deflect everything with the emails - because you're so open to facts. Nice.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
89. I didn't start a thread out of whole cloth. This article is from Investor's Business Daily.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:22 PM
Mar 2016

Investor's Business Daily wrote an article. Investor's Business Daily is reputable. The guy who wrote this article looks like he has an agenda, but so do many people who wrote editorials for similar outlets such as Forbes, Fortune and the WSJ.

This is news.

The guy who set up Hillary Clinton's email server will be deposed in less than a month, and he'll be under oath---and he's been granted immunity.

I'm not "pimping" anything. This is very big news.

I also think it's important, because this is an editorial-style article that other outlets back up what is being said here.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
99. "Investors Business Daily is reputable" NO, it is NOT reputable.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:30 PM
Mar 2016

It has always been a rightwing shitstain propaganda outlet.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/27/investors-business-daily-has-a/


And, NO, the guy who set up the server will NOT be testifying in a month. The judge will make her ruling within a month.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
120. I've worked with reporters at Investor's Business Daily
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:00 PM
Mar 2016

and I've landed a few interviews for CEOs with IBD.

It is a reputable publication for news and information about investing and business.

Sure, they have editorial articles. Some are from lefty sources, some are very right-wing.

Same can be said of Fortune, Forbes and the WSJ.

If they've written anti-gay or climate-change denier articles--that does suck. However, the main thrust of their publication, at least according to my experience, is business news and information.

I agree that the right-wing editorials that have been posted in this thread are unconscionable. However, one could also cherry pick right-wing editorials from from Forbes or Fortune--and position the entire publication as bunk. That's simply not true.

As stated earlier, I think what this IBD editorialist has written needs to be corroborated by other sources. If this is indeed happening, it is newsworthy and other sources should pick it up.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
127. the rightwing editorials are by the author of the piece quoted in the OP.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:06 PM
Mar 2016

Paul Sperry wrote the article in the OP, as well as every one of the others I posted.

IBD is not credible on anything having to do with anything that is politically controversial. It's 100% pure wingnut.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
133. So, is this Paul Sperry making up the information in the article?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:25 PM
Mar 2016

The guy sounds like a complete slimeball. I didn't read the articles posted. I didn't have to. The headlines were bad enough.

So, we know the guy is a right-wing slimeball.

Is the content of this article true?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
135. Pagliano "singing like a bird" is likely wingnut fantasia.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:28 PM
Mar 2016

his article treats everything Judicial Watch says as true, saying the judge will give judicial watch everything it's asking for, etc.

not to mention describing it as a "watchdog group."

Karma13612

(4,527 posts)
119. That reasoning was already used ad nauseum months ago.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:00 PM
Mar 2016

Nobody buys the logic that someone will support or not support a candidate based on that candidate's supporters.

If you base your decision to support a candidate on the antics or behaviour of that candidate's supporters, then you aren't using logic to make your decision of support.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
31. I'm going to back away from this place until after the primaries.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:47 PM
Mar 2016

That was my first post today. This op and a number of the comments would be welcomed with open arms at free republic.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
49. Kick and Recommend just because...
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:00 PM
Mar 2016

...the HRC camp is swarming and bumping it.

I would have otherwise just let it sink, but I felt that since they feel so oppressed and persecuted, and since they seem to want this thread bumped so badly, I lend a hand.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
52. hey, having Bernie people line up behind a rancid rightwing bigot's propaganda
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:02 PM
Mar 2016

is GREAT for promoting Sanders.

GREAT!

Totally makes reasonable people who are undecided think "I want to be with the people who get their news from Paul Sperry, Charlie Gasparino, and Rupert Murdoch!"




kristopher

(29,798 posts)
62. So the rancid RW site is lying and the deposition isn't going to happen?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:07 PM
Mar 2016

You assert that the information in the story is false and a lie?

Is that what you are saying? Or are you just shooting another poor, pitiable little old messenger?

Please be clear.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
74. Here is a suggestion to Bernie fans: read what wingnut propagandists
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:15 PM
Mar 2016

write closely and carefully.

I will bold the language you all are missing, because it's designed to be overlooked, in the original text of your buddy Paul Sperry's article.

FBI agents aren’t the only ones getting a crack at the former Hillary Clinton aide reportedly “singing like a bird” about the unsecured, possibly illegal email server that Clinton paid him to set up in her home.

Next month, a federal judge is expected to give lawyers for a government watchdog group a whack at him, too — and his testimony could be made public just as Clinton enters the general election for president.

Washington-based Judicial Watch will get to depose former State Department IT specialist Bryan Pagliano pending approval of its witness list in April, which seems to be just a formality.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan already has OK’d the group’s motion for discovery in the civil case, which alleges that Clinton and the State Department conspired to thwart Freedom of Information Act and other public requests for her communications as secretary of state by creating an off-grid email system.


So, no, the judge hasn't ordered these to happen yet. The filing deadline for Judicial Watch's plan was last week, and the Obama administration will file responsive pleadings. A decision as to the scope of depositions will happen by around mid-April.



 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
84. There is no deposition scheduled. And notoriously anti-gay JW
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:20 PM
Mar 2016

Has been filing nuisance suits since the 90s.

Capt. Obvious

(9,002 posts)
51. Somebody's spamming the fuck out of this thread
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:01 PM
Mar 2016

Must be an effort to increase post count since the majority of the posts could be contained in one post.

LonePirate

(13,386 posts)
68. Yet another day in which I cannot distinguish between DU and FR.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:10 PM
Mar 2016

It is unconscionable to me that people here on DU are actually cheering and supporting Judicial Watch.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
101. It's great seeing Clinton STILL STANDING despite deseprate attacks by Sanders' & Trumps' supporters.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:31 PM
Mar 2016
 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
148. Clinton STILL STANDING
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:52 PM
Mar 2016

Well, she does have the entire DNC and MSM propping her up and pushing Sanders aside. You'd think she'd be standing taller.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
150. MSM has given Sanders plenty of exposure. Maybe rather than running against Democrats in the past,
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:02 PM
Mar 2016

calling for primarying Obama, etc., he should have acted like a good Democrat. And the conspiracy junk and whining really gets old.

Karma13612

(4,527 posts)
115. Well I would love to know if this interview in April will be before or AFTER
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:56 PM
Mar 2016

the closed primary in Delegate-rich NY state

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
129. The likelihood of it happening in April would be remote IMHO
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:08 PM
Mar 2016

Both sides are scheduled to litigate the investigative plan April 12th and once the court approves of the plan I'd imagine that's when the scheduling will take place.

Karma13612

(4,527 posts)
147. ohhh, OK. So, we're
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:48 PM
Mar 2016

not going to know much until after most of the states have had a chance to vote.

thanks for the timeline.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
149. It doesn't matter who reported it....
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:57 PM
Mar 2016

..... so much baggage. It's awful heavy. Really weighs a candidate down. We can't find someone just as ...er... good, or better who doesn't have so much baggage to juggle?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Am I the last to know? RW...