Federal Judge Orders Videotaping of Clinton IT Witness’ Testimony

Bryan Pagliano will be deposed on video pursuant to court order:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that a court order was issued by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan requiring the testimony of Bryan Pagliano, the Clinton State Department IT official who reportedly provided support for the Clinton email system, be videotaped during his upcoming deposition and that the transcript be made public. The court also confirmed that a Justice Department criminal investigation is underway related to the Clinton email issue.

It also looks like JW will be granted some of the source material that was used to generate the State Department OIG report regarding Cyber-security issues for the past several Secretaries of State:

“Mr. Pagliano is an important witness and we’re pleased his testimony will be videotaped,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We’re also pleased that the State Department has agreed to give us previously unreleased key documents about Mrs. Clinton’s email system and how it negatively impacted the Freedom of Information law.”

From the court order:

In the Court's opinion, the need for public access to Mr. Pagliano's agreement with the government is minimal. Mr. Pagliano's immunity agreement has not previously been disclosed. Mr. Pagliano and the government object to disclosure of the immunity agreement. Indeed, the privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential.

The following transaction was entered on 6/14/2016 at 11:12 AM and filed on 6/14/2016
Case Name: JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Case Number: 1:13-cv-01363-EGS

JW v. State Unopposed Motion 01363

Related threads:

Judicial Watch Releases Clinton Email Deposition Testimony of Karin Lang

Judicial Watch Releases Clinton Email Deposition Testimony of Amb. Stephen Mull

Judicial Watch Releases Former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills Deposition Testimony

First deposition in email scandal reveals Clinton’s computer illiteracy

Judicial Watch Announces the Schedule for Deposition Testimony in Clinton Email Lawsuit

Clinton IT aide ordered to produce immunity agreement

Regardless of other items in the news, this is still an extremely important topic of discussion as the results of this (s)election will have a great impact upon the root causes of the aforementioned other items in the news.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I don't think it will be long now. I said they would have to do something before the DNC convention and it looks like it might just happen. When is the deposition? The DNC will have to organize quickly to put Sanders in as front runner if this goes south for Clinton.

It will also be interesting to see how much information is allowed to go public. If Pagliano starts naming names outside of the scope of Hillary's circle, could be other politicians or foreign nationals/goverments, this could get dicey really fast.

Everybody got a BOB and a "safe space" in the woods? Lol

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

And the Judge ordered a release of the emails related to the IG
report that buried Hillary and exposed dozens of her lies.

A federal judge ordered the release on Tuesday of State Department records related to Hillary Clinton’s private email that were mentioned in a scathing inspector general report last month.

The documents, which will be released by June 21, include a State Department memo about Clinton’s server that was written by intel staffers on March 17, 2009, the day the server was reportedly set up. They also include staff correspondence regarding “operational issues affecting the Secretary’s email and server” ...

freebeacon.com...

a reply to: burntheships

Yep, that's what's referred to in the OP here:

“We’re also pleased that the State Department has agreed to give us previously unreleased key documents about Mrs. Clinton’s email system and how it negatively impacted the Freedom of Information law.”

JW v. State Unopposed Motion 01363



a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Yep, the timer is winding down. With all of the primaries over (they are, right?) the only thing left are the conventions before the three ring circus of the general election begins.

If only I were a fly upon some walls...wonder what sorts of conversations are going on in the strategy planning sessions of each of the candidate's camps?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thanks for all of your links, great research.

June 21 or sooner, not that long to wait...

In the Court's opinion, the need for public access to Mr. Pagliano's agreement with the government is minimal. Mr. Pagliano's immunity agreement has not previously been disclosed. Mr. Pagliano and the government object to disclosure of the immunity agreement. Indeed, the privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential.

That says a whole lot right there.....


Tick tock goes the FBI criminal investigation clock.

JW is trying to get the judge to allow the attorneys to review the agreement in order to tailor their questions so as to avoid anything which might encroach upon the immunity agreement. They argue that there ought to be at least some answers he can give beside claiming the 5th:

On Friday, Justice Department attorneys weighed in supporting Pagliano, writing the court that “releasing Mr. Pagliano’s agreements with the United States could prematurely reveal the scope and focus of the pending investigation.”

Sullivan granted his request to file the agreements under seal. Sullivan said the “privacy interests at stake are high because the government’s criminal investigation” is ongoing and confidential.

Judicial Watch had asked Sullivan to make Pagliano’s immunity agreement public like other court filings, or at least to let its lawyers review it so they could narrowly tailor questions that would avoid the risk of criminal prosecution.

Washington Post - Judge orders videotaping of deposition of Clinton IT specialist to go forward

The questions they would put forth, without knowing details of the immunity agreement are as follows:

At this time, at a minimum, Plaintiff intends to ask Mr. Pagliano questions related to:

* His education, training, and employment history from 2008 to the present, including whether he was being paid by Mrs. Clinton while he was a State Department employee;

* His involvement in the creation and the operation of the clintonemail.com system;

* In what capacity (State Department or an employee of Mrs. Clinton) was he involved in the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com
system;

* His involvement in the processing of FOIA requests to the State Department that potentially implicated emails of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin and this FOIA request;

* Discussions he had with employees within the Office of the Executive Secretariat responsible for the logistics and operations concerning Mrs. Clinton’s communications while she was Secretary of State;

* Discussions he had with employees within the Office of the Executive Secretariat responsible for records management of Mrs. Clinton’s files and records, including email, while she was Secretary of State;

* Discussions he had with employees within the Office of the Secretary about Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s use of email for State Department government business;

* Discussions he had with Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy concerning the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system as well as Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s use of email for State Department business;and

* Discussions he had with Cheryl D. Mills concerning the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system as well as Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s use of email for State Department business.

PLAINTIFF’S COMBINED OPPOSITION TO NON-PARTY DEPONENT
BRYAN PAGLIANO’S MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS EX PARTE
AND UNDER SEAL AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW(direct .pdf link)

Reminder: this is the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit in which the State Department was found to have not acted in good faith in response to the initial FOIA request and thus discovery was granted; which is rare for FOIA cases. This is not the ongoing FBI criminal investigation; though they are likely very interested in any testimony provided in regards to Hillary's server.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

why all the talk about this I am sick of it!

originally posted by: joeinorlando16
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

why all the talk about this I am sick of it!

Maybe because the woman responsible is running for the highest office in our country?

You clicked the thread. If you're so sick of it, stop clicking on thread titles obviously associated to this. That solution didn't cross your mind? You had to make this comment instead? Think.