Former Clinton Aide to Invoke Fifth Amendment

nytimes ^ | 9/2/2015 | Michael S. Schmidt

[Chode]

A former aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton who helped set up the server that housed Mrs. Clinton’s private email account plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to congressional questions about the email practices, according to two people briefed on the matter. The former aide, Bryan Pagliano, was subpoenaed to testify before the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But a lawyer for Mr. Pagliano, Mark MacDougall, has told the committee that Mr. Pagliano will decline to answer their questions and assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. ​Mr. ​Pagliano was the information technology director for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and then worked at the State Department as an adviser and special projects manager for its chief technology officer, according to his LinkedIn page. He left the State Department in February 2013, the same month Mrs. Clinton stepped down as secretary of state. It’s not clear why Mr. Pagliano is refusing to answer questions about the server. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating how classified information was handled in connection with the account, but no evidence has surfaced that Mr. Pagliano had anything to do with how those materials were handled. ​Mr. ​MacDougall declined to comment. The Republican-controlled committee had planned to call Mr. Pagliano to testify behind closed doors, similar to how it has interviewed ​some top aides to Mrs. Clinton​,​ and Americans who were on the ground in Benghazi.​ ​Even if Mr. Pagliano does not back down from his refusal to testify, the panel will most likely still call him to testify and force him to invoke the Fifth Amendment rights in ​person, in ​response to questions.​ Mr. Pagliano’s response to the subpoena was first reported by The Washington Post Mrs. Clinton’s longtime lawyer and adviser, Cheryl Mills, is scheduled to testify

[Nep Nep]

As the Constitution is the law, then it is clear that the Bill of Rights is not suspended for charges of treason, or any other charge.

The Founders were particularly suspicious of the charge of treason due to it being abused by the King of England. Thus they specified the definition as strictly as possible and did not include any provision for the suspension of rights for those thus charged.

[tinyowl]

Thanks Nep for answers. Makes sense.

AND, I think all this 'was marked', 'was not marked' is a distraction. It's like me walking out of a store with a TV and saying 'Well! There was no price tag on it, I didn't know I had to purchase it'

It's a purposeful distraction. She broke the law whether or not there were markings. This is typical Clinton 'muddy the water with an argument about non-pertinent details.'

For example, If Merkel tells Hillary on the phone "we're invading Iran tomorrow" and Hillary emails that to Huma ... that information was never marked classified. The whole thing is complete BS -> give the people something to argue about that has nothing to do with anything.

And ... thanks for answering :-)

[bestintxas]

YOu did not read the article did you?

You also did not read what I said, that IF treason is committed, they get nothing to hide behind. Not charged, but committed.

I stand by what I said.

[Nep Nep]

By what process is it determined if treason is committed?

[bestintxas]

Now you are changing the argument.

Go back and read again what I said.

You say charged, I said committed.

I’ll let you answer your own question.

[radu]

They’re all going to be closed hearings, apparently. At least for now. My guess is there are questions they need to ask that can’t be asked in open hearings due to their classified nature. Makes sense, any way, but it sure is aggravating.