2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAm I the last to know? RW Judicial Watch will get to depose IT specialist Bryan Pagliano in April.
snip
FBI agents arent 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 OKd the groups 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.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)Specifically, Judicial Watch lawyers will want to find out the facts and circumstances surrounding Paglianos 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 didnt 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.
Maybe we will get some answers.
Didn't Pagliano give up the 5th de facto?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)In a federal investigation has anything to do with a civil lawsuit.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)anyone said JW are the Feds. The FBI are the Feds.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Has anything to do whatsoever with the civil lawsuit.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)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)This is a civil lawsuit. His immunity deal has nothing to do with it.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)The Feds couldn't use his testimony to bring charges
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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)I am daily amused at what gets posted here as "proof" that Hillary Clinton is evil.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)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.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)I also laugh hysterically, as do many I know...men and women.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)word with me.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)being called Evil, too. So, there's that.
Peace.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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)in jail. And Eliot Spitzer was railroaded because he took on the crooks.
The site sometimes, this site.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)the open.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)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.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...wouldn't you be reporting it here?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)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)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)"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)completely different legal action
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)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.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)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)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)Funny, how is the state department producing her emails then?
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)they did not have them during her tenure
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)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.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for not bothering to look for the emails
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)"In granting Judicial Watchs request, Sullivan said that months of piecemeal revelations about Clinton and the State Departments 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. Clintons 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
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Judicial Watch has been filing b******* for years....like this...
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-doj-for-lgbt-bar-associations-2012-lavender-law-conference-career-fair-documents/
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)If you read the link supplied you'd understand why. They aren't put on the schedule instantly.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)anyone.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Obviously! That's why it's called discovery.
And no
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.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)for discovery (another name could be "a look around for what might be there" to go forward. Would you believe more cases are dismissed at the request of the plaintiff, than pursed ... right after discovery?
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.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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)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)I suspect that this a colicky judge that is just trying to get whatever is there, or not there, resolved.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)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!
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and their only enemy is Hillary Clinton.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)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)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)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.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)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)revbones
(3,660 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)by November.
revbones
(3,660 posts)We'll see in Nov I guess.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)You plan on returning after the general election?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)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.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)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)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)With lawyers unless you have the money and the time.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to a whole new level.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I had an epic meltdown but the gentleman graciously forgave me of my moment.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)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)Read the op.
And yes, he can refuse to testify.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)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)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.
840high
(17,196 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)People should be embarrassed to even post this shit here.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)I will not click on those links ever. The comments give me rage.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Even Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, is scandalized by the secretarys 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. Its just very, very troubling.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)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)They were unimpressive then... And pretty f****** unimpressive now.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)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)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)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.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)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.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Kind of like stalking or being a peeping tom.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)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.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)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.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)pimping stuff like this caused me to become a lot more skeptical about where his 'revolution' was going
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I thought purity tests were right wing.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Because Hillary couldn't have possibly done anything wrong. It's always just a right-wing smear. Sheesh.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Fox News, the New York Post, and Judicial Watch.
I will not join you.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Hillary is a magical fairy incapable of any wrongdoing and how dare anyone question anything she does. Enjoy.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)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)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.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)No facts, just try to discredit everything. the indignation is awesomely funny.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)relevant facts
revbones
(3,660 posts)Very mature way to be open to facts.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)That's why you ignore and deflect everything with the emails - because you're so open to facts. Nice.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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."
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Off my screen.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Karma13612
(4,527 posts)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.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Please........
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That was my first post today. This op and a number of the comments would be welcomed with open arms at free republic.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)asjr
(10,479 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)...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)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)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)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.
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 OKd the groups 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)Has been filing nuisance suits since the 90s.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Must be an effort to increase post count since the majority of the posts could be contained in one post.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)went incognito to see what else I was missing - just the people granted amnesty.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I'm glad you're back!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)spectacular Gravedancing. Thank you!
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)That's tragic
LonePirate
(13,386 posts)It is unconscionable to me that people here on DU are actually cheering and supporting Judicial Watch.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)I don't care who they are attacking, for real, they are a disgusting organization.
senz
(11,945 posts)So let's get with it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)We might as well be on Free Republic.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)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)calling for primarying Obama, etc., he should have acted like a good Democrat. And the conspiracy junk and whining really gets old.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)That's funny!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Karma13612
(4,527 posts)the closed primary in Delegate-rich NY state
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)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)not going to know much until after most of the states have had a chance to vote.
thanks for the timeline.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)LuvLoogie
(6,855 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)..... 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?