The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Aw, isn’t that special.
Some are more equal than others.
Laws are for the little people.
Is this guy helping or betraying the Clintons? What’s his deal?
The dog ate his immunity paper.
Now they can fight the issue of “I should be able to withhold details of my immunity deal” up to the SCOTUS and back a few times. That’ll be good for a two or three year delay.
This the judge who allowed Sen. Ted Stevens to be railroaded to a conviction (overturned after the election).
He’s scum.
Bull crap! Pagliano's atty filed the motion under direct order of the Clinton Crime Machine.
The effort to delay is paramount to Hillary’s chances. He wants to seal the agreement. what if it is not a real valid Immunity Agreement. It could be a DOJ covering for Hillary worthless piece of paper. Team Hillary is paying for his lawyer(s). The DOJ has a lawyer in this guys corner. He doesn’t seem to be in any danger. What could he possibly said to help Hillary? Why is the DOJ covering this up? She already knows what he did tell the FBI and doesn’t appear too concerned. I doubt anyone could be naive enough to think this is not all a scam.
The Butcher of Benghazi: “OH please, Mr. Judge, you can’t do this right now, it will hurt my chances of becoming President...you have to wait, oh please,....and if you don’t you won’t have a job or a life”
The Judge: “Go to your ‘safe space’ and shut up, this is my court room not yours’ he would never say....
Reminds me of the nursery rhyme “There was a crooked woman, who had a crooked spouse,
She has a crooked staff,
He may be worried about the Clintons learning exactly what he’s been offered.
I’d be curious to see if any Freeper lawyers can explain the rationale for this.
Excellent explanation of why the judge wants to see the actual agreement:
Judge to Pagliano: Show me the immunity
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/04/judge-to-pagliano-show-me-the-immunity/
Put simply, the Fifth Amendment can only be used when there is a risk of self-incrimination for a prosecutable criminal offense. It doesn’t apply in a civil case unless the testimony in the civil case could also result in criminal prosecution. Pagliano and his attorneys wanted to make the case that his testimony in the civil action brought by Judicial Watch could end up as evidence in a criminal trial against Pagliano … which tells us that there is something besides smoke in the e-mail scandal.
The problem for Pagliano is that the Department of Justice has already granted him a form of immunity to get his testimony on the scandal. A grant of immunity usually negates Fifth Amendment claims, depending on the scope of the immunity [see update below]. Transactional immunity is a complete Get Out of Jail Free card, which means there is no risk at all of prosecution, and so the Fifth is mooted and the witness has to testify or face contempt charges that could keep him in prison for a long time. Use and derivative use immunity is more limited, but it still keeps the testimony and any evidence derived from it from being used in a prosecution.
In some states, a court can only compel testimony in a broad application with transactional immunity. The bad news for Pagliano is that, in federal court, either type of immunity is sufficient to compel testimony, as the Supreme Court ruled in Kastigar. If the DoJ restricted the grant of immunity to specific points, then that might enter into a ruling on a Fifth Amendment claim, which is likely why the judge demanded to see the agreement rather than just ordering Pagliano to submit to the deposition. It’s still doubtful that a Fifth Amendment claim will work, however, since the lawsuit is essentially focusing on issues that are within the scope of the FBI probe.
Update:
From twitter: You also have to prove there is jeopardy in Criminal cases to assert 5th if you are witness.
HA:
I skipped over this because I was thinking in the context of Pagliano’s position, where there is clearly some criminal jeopardy in the FBI probe, but that’s true (if the invocation of the Fifth is challenged, which it is in this case). Even more, the need for Pagliano to prove criminal jeopardy means they have to argue that there are grounds for prosecution in the email scandal. That should be fun to watch, too.
Sounds like “his” lawyers are really representing someone else. Wonder who?