Posted on 06/06/2016 9:08:50 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
That’s not true. If he has transactional immunity then his immunity applies anytime. If it’s use immunity, then it only applies to the criminal case.
Either way, you don’t have unlimited rights to refuse to testify in a civil case. The judge is absolutely correct in making him produce the immunity agreement, and to force him to state the basis of asserting the 5th. There has to be real reason to believe his testimony exposes criminal wrongdoing on his part.
Also, you CANNOT take the fifth if you fear you might commit perjury—so if his deposition testimony is different than his FBI testimony he’s screwed.
I'm really getting tired of posting this, but again:
This is a civil FOIA case brought by Judicial Watch. It is completely separate from the criminal case being investigated by the FBI.
The FBI's immunity in the criminal case doesn't force Pagliano to testify in the civil case. In fact, there are very good reasons for him to NOT testify.
See the link in post #18, and search for comments by "Sherlock". He explains it much better than I can, and he appears to have personal experience in the matter.
Most of what Sherlock said in that thread is inaccurate. He doesn’t know what the immunity deal with Pagliano was, so he can’t say for sure how it affects the JW case.
And regardless, 5th amendment protections are very limited in civil cases. There’s no blanket 5th amendment protection where you just say “I take the 5th” and walk out.
People still keep looking for justice and equal treatment before the law in spite of there being abundant evidence to the contrary. In our country accountability is rare indeed, with politics, power and money trumping all. Its good to be among the protected class of political elites.
The Conservative Treehouse also have a more recent article discussing Sullivan’s requirement for an explanation of the immunity agreement:
And again FReepers can avoid a lot of good-natured noise in the comments by just searching for “Sherlock”.
Yes that’s right: for instance Sherlock didn’t expect that Sullivan would ask for an explanation of the deal.
We can’t blame him for not knowing what the immunity deal is though, as that’s kind of the point behind Sullivan’s action - very few people know what the deal is. Indeed the FBI may fight to stop it becoming public.
Sherlock does go into ‘use’ vs ‘transactional’ immunity in the new Treehouse thread.
Thank you for the explanation. I had not seen it.
Thank you.
Just to enlarge on Velvet’s point: in civil actions there is no prosecutor.
The 5th Amendment issue then becomes whether or not the person claiming the protection is facing substantial, real hazards of self-incrimination if he gives testimony.
BUT—even if he only has use immunity, or some other informal immunity agreement, he could still be forced to testify and answer questions that would not put him in jeopardy. The 5th only applies to questions that could lead to a criminal prosecution, and that’s why Sullivan is also asking for the basis for his 5th amendment claims.
Why not just pull a Cheryl Mills and repeat over and over “I forgot or I can’t remember”?
If he’s asked the same questions as he was asked in the FBI investigation, but gives different answers or claims he can’t remember he can be prosecuted for perjury.
There are no 5th amendment protections against perjury.
Yes, that’s true. Sullivan is acting completely properly, even if it is discomfiting the FBI’s case.
If I’ve understood all this correctly: the broader Pagliano’s immunity deal is, the wider the scope of testimony that could be compelled from him.
Also: Pagliano’s lawyer will have to show why Pagliano has a substantial fear of self-incrimination.
Why are these stories coming from Canada and not the MSM?
Regardless of the type of Immunity, I believe there is a bigger question in the Judge’s mind. The Agreement is with the DOJ not the FBI. The DOJ are lawyers. They have been running interference for Hillary against the FBI. What if the Immunity Agreement is a sham and the FBI doesn’t grasp the consequences and/or know the DOJ is playing them. This Judge may be assuring there really is a legitimate deal in place.
I wouldn’t put anything past the DOJ.
You are incorrect, as were many of the people responding to Sherlock in that thread. You can assert your privilege in a civil case, and refuse to testify. However, if you do, the other side can use that against you, and there can be inferences drawn against you. For that reason, Judges will often grant a stay of a civil case to let a criminal case be concluded, and allow the civil case to be decided on the merits. They don’t have to grant the stay, though, and I have often argued against it.
If his testimony to the FBI ever becomes public, then he risks a perjury charge for contradicting it.
“...we all want him - to plead the 5th in the civil case so that Hillary doesn’t get wind of what he knows for the criminal case.”
To stay on HRC’s “good side”, what’s stopping him from telling her what he has spilled to the Feds?
I do believe he's using Hillary's lawyers. She knows everything he's going to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.