Thursday, September 3, 2015

Hillary Tech Aide Pleading 5th Amendment

Shades of Lois Lerner. An aide to Hillary Clinton who set up her private email server is now pleading the 5th amendment to avoid testifying before Congress.

As usual, Elijah Cummings (D-MD), who is the leading obstructionist in the investigation (at least as far as Congress is concerned), comes out with this laffer:

"Although multiple legal experts agree there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is certainly understandable that this witness’s attorneys advised him to assert his Fifth Amendment rights," Cummings told the Post, "especially given the onslaught of wild and unsubstantiated accusations by Republican presidential candidates, members of Congress and others based on false leaks about the investigation."

As to Mr. Pagliano, Congress should bring him in and then  let him take the 5th.


elwood p suggins said...

Interestingly enough, neither Cheryl Mills nor Jake Sullivan have any apparent Fifth Amendment problem when called testify about the Benghazi caper.

Howsomever, Bryan Pagliano, Hillary's campaign AND State IT dude, has invoked his right against "self-incrimination" to requests from the FBI, the State IG's, and Congressional committee(s) for documents and testimony relative to HIllary's server, of which I understand him to have been the principal installer/maintainer/fixer.

I would just again note that we have no Constitutional protection against ignorance or embarrassment. Unless this is a frivolous, improper, and illegitimate invocation of the right, looks like he has something to worry about. By extension, if he has a problem, she (and probably others as well) almost certainly does too, no??

Gary Fouse said...

Pagliano may be wangling for immunity.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Good point elwood. Apparently nothing illegal or disreputable in the handling of the Benghazi matter, but perhaps there is something fishy about the server.

elwood p suggins said...

Siarlys--your conclusion may be both premature and a little bit of a stretch/reach at this early stage of the game. And it may not be. Just to nick at pits, might have been a little better for you to have said "possibly" rather than "apparently". I probably should have said "perceived" rather than "apparent". It may be that neither of these two actually engaged in any criminal conduct. Or it may be that they BELIEVE they did not. They could be wrong.

There is reporting out there with particular regard to Mills that her memory relative to this boondoggle/debacle was not especially keen, but that it did improve somewhat when she was confronted with documents. Of course she is a lawyer, but fairly typical for a ducker/dodger.

It would be quite interesting to know how many times Mills answered "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" in the nine (9) or so hours of testimony. After all, this is not exactly ancient history we are talking about.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Why elwood, I was merely taking you at your word. If mature consideration leads you to believe your first remarks were a trifle hasty, then say so.