It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton IT staffer refuses to testify after immunity deal

page: 1
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Even with immunity granted to him by the U.S. Department of Justice, it seems Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department IT staffer, talking through his mouthpiece lawyer, is indicating he will still take the 5th if brought in front of Congressional Committees.

His lawyer says the agreements with the FBI does not waive his 5th Amendment rights.

Wow, this guy must really know something and I bet the FBI is behind this latest "5th".

I would say Pagliano's info is so juicy, the FBI is worried anything he tells Congress would either be public or would leak out somehow.

Hillary granted Pagliano a special political appointment at the State Department that was highly unusal.

Pagliano was the guy who initially "set up" Hillary's private email system in her own home that she used for official communications.

The whole debacle is under multiple investigations.

Clinton IT staffer refuses to testify after immunity deal


The former State Department staffer who set up a private server in Hillary Clinton's basement is refusing to testify before Congress in spite of his immunity deal.

An attorney for Bryan Pagliano said that he would "respectfully decline" a request to testify before two Senate committees, according to a letter provided to the Associated Press on Friday. Pagliano received an immunity deal from the Justice Department in early March in exchange for cooperating with the FBI's investigation into the issue.

Pagliano had previously refused to testify based on his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. After the immunity deal was announced, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., demanded that Pagliano testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Homeland Security Committee, respectively, writing that there was "no longer reasonable cause" to believe his testimony could result in prosecution.


This guy has people sweating bullets





posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I'm sure he's been threatened.

One has to wonder...

Why did she feel the need to communicate through private means in the first place?

When I Was in the military I didn't need to route my communications through private email serves... Why would I go through all that trouble in the first place?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
He is smart, he knows he will end up dead from "natural causes, accident, or suicide" if he opens his mouth about Clinton. After all, Benghazi was all about her tying up loose ends to make sure the man involved with weapons transfers from Libya to Syria did not have a change of heart about what he was doing.

It would be another body for the Clinton hit list.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination


is that like...right against revealing one's guilt ? Sounds like it.




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I wonder if it has so much to do with his guilt.... or another person's guilt?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I wonder if it has so much to do with his guilt.... or another person's guilt?


Both I would say.

He was getting paid to "follow Ordazz".




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
He is smart, he knows he will end up dead from "natural causes, accident, or suicide" if he opens his mouth about Clinton. After all, Benghazi was all about her tying up loose ends to make sure the man involved with weapons transfers from Libya to Syria did not have a change of heart about what he was doing.

It would be another body for the Clinton hit list.


If he spilled the beans on anything significant, then his testimony is on the record. What good would it do to silence him after he's already talked?

I'd say it would be smart to say he's planning on pleading the 5th, then going in and spilling the beans.

Will he do that? I doubt it.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

When I Was in the military I didn't need to route my communications through private email serves... Why would I go through all that trouble in the first place?


The reason behind the move was to shield her communications from the FOIA. She had just been briefed on e-mail requirements, including security issues, prior to the server being set up. She apparently felt the requirements were so onerous that she was better off with a private server.

Of course her email was much more vulnerable on a private server, and her feelings about the subject ought to lead one to question her decision making process, nevertheless, that's how that server came to be: an effort to circumvent her own state department and "protect" herself from inquisitive people.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Just because this man may have immunity from prosecution doesn't mean he has immunity from 10 nailgun shots to the back of his head..


iTruthSeeker



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
a reply to: xuenchen

Just because this man may have immunity from prosecution doesn't mean he has immunity from 10 nailgun shots to the back of his head..


iTruthSeeker

A clear case of suicide. That's what the medical examiner would say, anyway.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, the Clinton's do have a history of offing their political opponents and whistle blowers. Maybe he is afraid the Clinton Crime Family will take him out. I know I would be concerned if I were him.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Indeed.

With these questions about her decision making looming, I question the decision making ability of those who want this woman as President...

IMHO, she shouldn't be in govt in any fashion, at all, much less as President.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I am seriously befuddled that Hillary is a legitimate candidate for the POTUS...

Seriously, do Democrats really like her? If so, how can one rationalize supporting a megalomaniacal narcissist clearly in the pocket of her donors and hostile foreign governments who have historically paid millions into the clintons syndicate accounts....

Anyhow, if anyone on here supports her over Bernie or Trump please elaborate on why you or anybody could support a habitual liar who clearly believes herself to be above the law...

-Christosterone



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone




If so, how can one rationalize supporting a megalomaniacal narcissist clearly in the pocket of her donors and hostile foreign governments who have historically paid millions into the clintons syndicate accounts....


Low information voters, who only listen to sound bites. And..... Never underestimate the stupidity of the average person. They hear what they want to hear and see only what they want to see.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Why can't people just leave America's first Queen alone???




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
he can plead the 5th and he will never see the light of day again, rotting in a jail for the rest of his life. If they gave him immunity then they already have him by the "balls" but dont actually want him to take the fall. Also it could be a ploy for releasing false info in the hopes the clintons wont actually be able to sheild themselves from his statements. I know its a bad thing to want hilary to go down but the government knows its an ants hair away from a total revolt by many of its IT staff and they are not the people you want to p@$% off.

i hope the congress doesnt need to find the deepest darkest jail to throw this turd in and he sings like a song bird.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
It's going to be interesting to see how the conservative side of the country reacts when she's elected POTUS.

First we have a black POTUS, then marriage equality, SCOTUS upholding the ACA, Iran nuclear deal, opening ties with Cuba...

And then when Hillary comes in, a woman POTUS and a Clinton to boot?

I predict cups of poisoned Kool-aid to be passed around, people's heads literally exploding, people lighting themselves on fire and running down streets, higher rates of involuntary psychiatric ward admittance....and a broken GOP political party that's gone so far off the deep end -- they're the laughing stock of the world.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

We know you'll keep your fingers crossed.




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
It's going to be interesting to see how the conservative side of the country reacts when she's elected POTUS.

First we have a black POTUS, then marriage equality, SCOTUS upholding the ACA, Iran nuclear deal, opening ties with Cuba...

And then when Hillary comes in, a woman POTUS and a Clinton to boot?

I predict cups of poisoned Kool-aid to be passed around, people's heads literally exploding, people lighting themselves on fire and running down streets, higher rates of involuntary psychiatric ward admittance....and a broken GOP political party that's gone so far off the deep end -- they're the laughing stock of the world.


I don't think the fact that Hillary is a woman is much of a factor in why people don't want her elected. I did believe that, in 2008, democrat voters chose breaking down racial barriers over breaking down gender barriers. I resented that, I admit, because I didn't see any substantive difference between Hillary and Obama.

Still don't. Had Hillary been elected, instead of Obama, I cannot image her administration would have been substantively different than Obama's.

Democrats voted. And they rallied behind breaking down racial barriers. That's how I saw it and still see it. I think racial issues are easier to exploit for partisan political points.

JMHO.
edit on 23-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

you really still living that dream land arent you?? She will be president of nothing but her very profitable foundation. Why would you support a candidate who's President husband signed the Iraq liberation act into law in 1998, and then started the precedent of waging war in modern times without a UN mandate by getting NATO involved with that fiasco? He also could made it possible for the 2008 crash to happen when he did this:


Before 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act made it illegal for a bank holding FDIC-insured deposits to invest in anything other than government bonds and similarly low-risk vehicles. With his signature, however, President Clinton allowed largely unregulated super large banks and large insurance companies to engage in risky financial practices, as they are known to have done historically and as it should have been expected. The banks and insurance companies’ new financial products collapsed, and that led to the devastating 2008 financial crisis.

While Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has said that he would fully reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, his opponent, former Secretary Hillary Clinton, has said that she would not reinstate the banking law, preferring instead to rely on measures to better control so-called shadow banking.


No, sorry, shes not going nowhere, unless you actually enjoy the idea of making the Middle East an even bigger mess and begin the spread to Africa.



new topics




 
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join