Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 03/03/2016 8:33:42 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3404417/posts



Skip to comments.

Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server
Washington Compost ^ | 3/2/16 | Adam Goldman

Posted on 03/03/2016 7:37:20 AM PST by zek157

The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: blueunicorn6

agree, I’m very optimistic today.


41 posted on 03/03/2016 8:05:40 AM PST by zek157
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

Well, he COULD lie under immunity, but it’s now terribly unlikely. The reason is, he was granted a “freebie” closed door session of deposition before he was granted the immunity! They evaluated the goodies that he gave up to them, under the auspices that the info never leave the room under any circumstances. The investigators determine whether the goodies will be helpful to the case against targeted parties. If agreed so, THEN he is granted immunity for that very testimony. He is not immune from purjory. That charge would be leveled if testimony changed and facts supported the same. Conversely, he can’t lie to the feds in his freebie closed door session. He’s only immune from facts that can incriminate; not lies. Anyway, this is all good news that things are moving swiftly now.


42 posted on 03/03/2016 8:06:25 AM PST by LittleBillyInfidel (This tagline has been formatted to fit the screen. Some content has been edited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: zek157

An attorney should NEVER grant immunity unless he knows pretty much exactly what to expect from the testimony.


43 posted on 03/03/2016 8:06:47 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

He loses his immunity.


44 posted on 03/03/2016 8:08:19 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

I agree, but I do not put it past this DOJ to deliberately screw up that codicil in the agreement.


45 posted on 03/03/2016 8:09:36 AM PST by MortMan (Let's call the push for amnesty what it is: Pedrophilia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

But impeachment is still available.


46 posted on 03/03/2016 8:11:21 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: zek157

He’s gong to need a new identity and witness protection as well.


47 posted on 03/03/2016 8:13:51 AM PST by austingirl (Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkansas Tider
"a Grand Jury has been convened and he expects an indictment for someone in May. Who might that be, that’s the million dollar question???"

I bet Anthony Weiner had no idea he was responsible for all email communications for Hillary & Co? That solves problems for the Clintons on sooooo many levels.

48 posted on 03/03/2016 8:22:17 AM PST by blackdog (There is no such thing as healing, only a balance between destructive and constructive forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
“The Democrat leaders are scared to death of what [HRC’s]done.”

Scared and ticked off. A few months ago, Donna Brazille, on one of the morning shows, described the server scandal as a “self-inflicted injury” on HRC’s part. Her tone and words made it clear she resented that the Dems have to deal with this mess. (And Brazille, who was Al Gore's campaign manager, could hardly be considered a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy.)

49 posted on 03/03/2016 8:23:19 AM PST by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: zek157

Breaking News. Hillary granted immunity to testify.


50 posted on 03/03/2016 8:25:57 AM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toespi
If the fix is in for HRC, why did Justice bother to give the IT guy immunity?

What the Clintons have got away with over the past thirty years is mind-boggling, and I understand why many are pessimistic. However, I don't get the freepers who, no matter what the developments are in these two server investigations, respond with, “HRC will get way with it.” If you believe the fix is in to such a degree that it doesn't matter what happens, why do you even bother to follow the case?

51 posted on 03/03/2016 8:26:52 AM PST by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: advertising guy

Yep.


52 posted on 03/03/2016 8:28:58 AM PST by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

I will be surprised if he is still alive in six months from the time this was made public.


53 posted on 03/03/2016 8:29:12 AM PST by hsmomx3 (GO STEELERS!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

Not sure what you just asked. After the FBI heard what the witness proposed to testify to, Justice granted him immunity for any involvement on his part in the shenanigans to which he was going to testify. If the witness’s lawyer says, “If the witness were to say — we’re speaking hypothetically here, of course — ABC...”; and Justice likes the hypothetical and grants immunity; and the witness then testifies XYZ (instead of ABC); the immunity deal would be off. That would leave the witness at the mercy of prosecutors who could go after him for perjury, as well as for his involvement in the crimes to which he alluded in his hypothetical testimony. The hypothetical testimony wouldn’t be direct evidence against him, but you can bet the prosecutors already had evidence of the crimes alluded to in the hypothetical, which means now they would go after the witness...who no longer would have immunity.


54 posted on 03/03/2016 8:33:03 AM PST by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson