Clinton Ex-Aide Is Likely To Invoke 5th Amendment (he set up her email server)

[thoughtomator]

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.

cont. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/02/former-clinton-aide-to-invoke-fifth-amendment-in-response-to-congressional-questions-over-private-email-server/



Things just took a significant step for the worse for Hillary. This is a desperate move - the guy probably knows where the evidence is.

[Brian4Liberty]

Considering how our legal system works, a person would be foolish not to invoke the 5th every chance they get.

[thoughtomator]

Considering how our legal system works, a person would be foolish not to invoke the 5th every chance they get.

The main reason people don't is that prosecutors usually respond by escalating charges to the point where failing to make a plea deal risks a massive sentence.

[thoughtomator]

Also this is a House Committee and Pagliano wasn't (previously) being suspected of having committed a crime. Now he must necessarily be suspected of committing a crime, as the claim of the Fifth is only valid if his testimony would incriminate him.

[specsaregood]

Now he must necessarily be suspected of committing a crime, as the claim of the Fifth is only valid if his testimony would incriminate him.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that isn't true.

[jj-]

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that isn't true.

Even if true, being 'suspected' of a crime is not enough for a conviction.

[thoughtomator]

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that isn't true.


nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

That's the relevant passage of the 5th. There was no criminal case against Pagliano. By invoking it he is claiming there is a criminal case that may be made against him.

There is no right to refuse to testify in a criminal case against another person - the 6th Amendment actually demands the means to compel witnesses to testify in a defendant's favor, and the absence of addressing the issue of whether a witness against a third-party defendant may be compelled is left up to Congress, which has provided the means to subpoena witnesses.

[specsaregood]

That's the relevant passage of the 5th. There was no criminal case against Pagliano. By invoking it he is claiming there is a criminal case that may be made against him.

But it doesn't mean there is a criminal case against them. check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Pleading the Fifth" is a colloquial term for invoking the privilege that allows a witness to decline to answer questions that might incriminate him or her, without penalty or it counting against him or her.

[thoughtomator]

But it doesn't mean there is a criminal case against them. check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"the privilege that allows a witness to decline to answer questions that might incriminate him or her"

Conditional. Not a blanket privilege to decline to answer any and all questions, only questions to which the answer may self-incriminate.

For a defendant at trial it makes perfect sense to invoke the Fifth. For a person not previously suspected of a crime being called not before a court but a House committee, it only makes sense in the context of a person who believes that answering questions will reveal information that can be used to prosecute him for a crime.

Invoking the Fifth in this context makes no sense whatsoever unless Pagliano believes he has committed a crime.

He can't be penalized for invoking the Fifth and refusal to answer questions in and of itself can't be used as a basis on which to convict him of one. However, invoking it in this context automatically makes him a suspect in a crime because that is the very [i]basis[i] of the invocation of the Fifth.

[specsaregood]

"the privilege that allows a witness to decline to answer questions that might incriminate him or her"

Conditional. Not a blanket privilege to decline to answer any and all questions, only questions to which the answer may self-incriminate.

For a defendant at trial it makes perfect sense to invoke the Fifth. For a person not previously suspected of a crime being called not before a court but a House committee, it only makes sense in the context of a person who believes that answering questions will reveal information that can be used to prosecute him for a crime.

Invoking the Fifth in this context makes no sense whatsoever unless Pagliano believes he has committed a crime.

He can't be penalized for invoking the Fifth and refusal to answer questions in and of itself can't be used as a basis on which to convict him of one. However, invoking it in this context automatically makes him a suspect in a crime because that is the very [i]basis[i] of the invocation of the Fifth.

seeing as it is near impossible for somebody to know of all laws, especially when dealing with matters of national security; then I would argue that declining to answer any question is a reasonable use of the privilege because one would never know what MIGHT incriminate them.

remember, people commit 3 felonies a day and don't even know it.

[thoughtomator]

seeing as it is near impossible for somebody to know of all laws, especially when dealing with matters of national security; then I would argue that declining to answer any question is a reasonable use of the privilege because one would never know what MIGHT incriminate them.

remember, people commit 3 felonies a day and don't even know it.

True, but most people, especially those working inside the system, don't perceive it that way. Only libertarians really understand that. Even Hillary didn't invoke the Fifth even though she is suspected of committing serious crimes.

People testify on such matters all the time. Invocations of the Fifth are extremely rare. While they can't legally be used against a person, to do so in this context is a de facto confession that a crime has been committed.