New Documents Reveal Scope of Clinton IT Aide’s Immunity Agreement

Lawyers for Bryan Pagliano, the Clintons' IT specialist who maintained their secret server while Hillary was Secretary of State, were ordered last week to produce his immunity arrangement(s) with the Justice Department before he testifies in a court approved FOIA request by Judicial Watch.

The entire document so far remains sealed, but attorneys have released an official statement.

Looks like Pagliano was granted some limited immunity.

That kind, according to his lawyers, still allows for prosecution but only on some things.

The Judge in this case will determine if the court filing will stay sealed later.

Looks like somebody is guilty of something doesn't it.

The lawyers' statement today also confirms that Pagliano does in fact have some immunity, and it confirms valuable investigative material was in fact obtained by the FBI.


New Documents Reveal Scope of Clinton IT Aide’s Immunity Agreement

Bryan Pagliano, the Clinton IT worker who is widely believed to have maintained former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s private server, filed copies of his DOJ immunity agreements, and a motion asking the court to keep those documents under seal. The documents are part of a federal FOIA case brought on by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization.

“The U.S. Government counsel responsible for the investigation that gave rise to the grant of use immunity consented to that request,” Pagliano’s attorney wrote in a newly filed document. His attorneys also reveal that Pagliano gave the testimony to the DOJ in December 2015 as part of the ongoing federal investigation into the Clinton email server. Interestingly, Pagliano’s attorneys say he was granted limited “use” and “derivative use” immunity shortly after talking with the feds. He apparently spoke with investigators on at least two separate occasions. “Derivative use” immunity does not prevent the government from prosecuting Pagliano, but just limits them from using any evidence derived from Pagliano’s testimony against him.


The potential for self-incrimination here is sufficient to justify Mr. Pagliano’s intention to assert his Fifth Amendment rights. Mr. Pagliano’s prospective deposition will inevitably cover matter that might ‘furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute.’ The Court has authorized Judicial Watch to obtain discovery relating to “the creation and operation of clintonemail.co for State Department business.” It is not “fanciful” to conclude that those matters could fall within the scope of an ongoing (or possible future) criminal investigation of the same or similar subject matter.” Indeed the mere fact that the government was willing to offer Pagliano “use” immunity here in exchange for his testimony indicates that his fear of prosecution is more than fanciful or speculative.

The Roar of the Tornado is getting Loud

At this point, if i were the Bern, I would try somehow to get an official response from the FBI on if they were on the precipice of an indictment reccommendation.

Surely at this point in the race there could be some judicial means of requiring an answer?

If not then publicly force the issue

b

to conclude that those matters could fall within the scope of an ongoing (or possible future) criminal investigation of the same or similar subject matter.”

That right there sure is interesting.

Possible future/Similar subject matter.

What else has Clinton done that we don't know about, but THEY DO.

originally posted by: Bspiracy
At this point, if i were the Bern, I would try somehow to get an official response from the FBI on if they were on the precipice of an indictment reccommendation.

Surely at this point in the race there could be some judicial means of requiring an answer?

If not then publicly force the issue

b

Not a bad idea for Sanders to try that for exposure.

But the FBI and JD will comment on anything (yet).

The leaks will come soon enough.

How does this play into the fact that Loretta Lynch decides if there is an indictment and she answers to President Obama. President Obama has already defended Clinton several times.

There will be no indictment.

a reply to: neo96

Could be that Pagliano was locked into some kind of "indentured server-tude".

The Secretary of State hold the keys.

originally posted by: 200Plus
How does this play into the fact that Loretta Lynch decides if there is an indictment and she answers to President Obama. President Obama has already defended Clinton several times.

There will be no indictment.

Hillary will be on trial with the American voters.

Voters who have just about HAD IT with all the lies and secrets.

71% of her supporters say they'll vote for her even if the FBI hands down a recommendation for indictment.
What is wrong with them?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

71% of her supporters say they'll vote for her even if the FBI hands down a recommendation for indictment.
What is wrong with them?

Too much progresive koolaid.

a reply to: xuenchen


Do you think something is going to come out that isn't spun as part of the "vast right win conspiracy" by the media?

Do you think it'll be anything other that "just another Fox story"?

The media controls what the masses are informed about and they aren't going to spin this in any way that harms Clinton.

Fox doesn't matter and Al Jazeera is gone.

Things are not working-out as many of you have hoped.

Very interesting indeed.

a reply to: introvert


Actually it's working out exactly as I expected it to from the "most transparent administration in history"

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: introvert


Actually it's working out exactly as I expected it to from the "most transparent administration in history"

My apologies. I don't speak propaganda. You will have to elaborate.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: introvert


Actually it's working out exactly as I expected it to from the "most transparent administration in history"

My apologies. I don't speak propaganda. You will have to elaborate.

Since when ?

Cause that comment was number 15.

www.uvm.edu...

a reply to: neo96

15. WEAK INFERENCE: Weak inference is when a judgment is made with insufficient evidence, or that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence given.

Insufficient evidence was not provided to substantiate the comment made by the member I responded to.

Great of you to point it out.

Thanks.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: xuenchen


Do you think something is going to come out that isn't spun as part of the "vast right win conspiracy" by the media?

Do you think it'll be anything other that "just another Fox story"?

The media controls what the masses are informed about and they aren't going to spin this in any way that harms Clinton.

Fox doesn't matter and Al Jazeera is gone.

Well the Inspector General's report last week is official, and it proved beyond speculation that Hillary has been lying like crazy to cover up the email scandal.

That report being released into the wild is a clear indication that something else "official" is coming sooner rather than later.

a reply to: introvert

Does it matter?

Any fact I type is propaganda to the left, just like your false narratives don't work with me.

Why bother?

a reply to: Bspiracy

I'm sure he knows but can't say anything.

Being a Senator does have it's privileges.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: introvert

Does it matter?

Any fact I type is propaganda to the left, just like your false narratives don't work with me.

Why bother?

Verifiable facts matter. What you posted is not verifiable fact.

You are spitting propaganda.

a reply to: IAMTAT

What is wrong with them?

Several things.

JW v. State Memorandum of Law 01363 (direct .pdf link to actual filing)



a reply to: neo96

What else has Clinton done that we don't know about, but THEY DO.

Maybe this:

"I can't tell [you] now. I can't tell because I want to talk to the FBI. It is a matter of national security. Yeah," he said. Pressed by Fox News, Lazar seemed to indicate the data was not connected to the ongoing FBI criminal probe of Clinton's server.

He was quite talkative until recently.

As for what was discussed on that plane, Lazar said he told a State Department representative on the plane about "hot" data, some of which was hidden in Google drives, and other data that was too sensitive and deleted. The hacker, who offered no proof for his claims, said cryptically that he could not say more.

Fox News

Specifically, perhaps a little bit of election rigging mayhap?

“I was not paying attention. For me, it was not like the Hillary Clinton server, it was like an email server she and others were using with political voting stuff," Guccifer said.

Fox News

Wanted to point out that if this were the case, the FBI might be waiting until after all the primaries are done to let anyone implicate themselves in the process and then they'll come in in one fell swoop and nab them all.

(One can dream...)