Bryan Pagliano informed Judicial Watch (JD) that he would plea the 5th in his upcoming deposition to JD.

So,
Federal Judge Orders Clinton IT Witness To Produce Reported Immunity Agreement, Legal Basis for Fifth Amendment Claims


http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...th-amendment-claims/

Judicial Watch today announced that a court order was issued by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan requiring Bryan Pagliano, the Clinton State Department IT official who reportedly provided support for the Clinton email system, to produce to the court his reported immunity agreement and the legal basis for the Fifth Amendment claims he planned to assert in Judicial Watch’s discovery into the Clinton email system.

The order delays Mr. Pagliano’s deposition, which had been scheduled for Monday, June 6.

Judge Sullivan's order:

The deposition of non-party Bryan Pagliano is hereby postponed until further order of the Court. Counsel for Mr. Pagliano shall file a Memorandum of Law addressing the legal authority upon which Mr. Pagliano relies to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in this civil proceeding, including requisite details pertaining to the scope of Mr. Pagliano’s reported immunity agreement with the Government.

Mr. Pagliano’s Memorandum of Law, along with a copy of his reported immunity agreement, shall be filed no later than Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. The parties are ordered to file responsive memoranda of law no later than Friday, June 10, 2016 at 12:00 p.m.

Mr. Pagliano shall file a reply memorandum no later than Monday, June 13, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.

Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 3, 2016.

*****************

Judicial Watch is doing some great work

Could someone translate the above into "troglodyte-eze" por favor?

I get it...but I dont get it.

His immunity doesnt cover the JD stuff. I get that part. What do they hope to discover by seeing the deal? Where to dig???

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
Could someone translate the above into "troglodyte-eze" por favor?

I get it...but I dont get it.

His immunity doesnt cover the JD stuff. I get that part. What do they hope to discover by seeing the deal? Where to dig???

The judge wants to see the scope and limits, if any, there might be to his immunity deal with the DOJ to fashion any rulings in the civil case.

If one has immunity from prosecution, then one can't incriminate himself by testifying, so cannot remain silent, and has no 5th Amendment right to do so.

Gotcha. Thanks Councelor!!

quote:

Originally posted by navyshooter:

quote:

I think are only three Registered Republicans left in CA now that jallen has moved to Texas.

Mrs. Navyshooter and myself are 2 of them......I wonder who the 3rd one is.

I think there was some guy out in Mariposa County.

As far as I know, Pagliano's immunity agreement w FBI/DoJ has not been made public.

Judge Sullivan wants to see that agreement. The implication being that if the immunity agreement is broad, then Pagliano may be required to testify to JD.

I confess that I do not know what Judge Sullivan might be able to do to punish any of these actors for not testifying.

I thought the Mills transcript showed the defense attorney and State Dept attorney doing everything they could to throw off & disrupt the JD attorney. In my layman viewpoint, the JD attorney did a good job in dealing w the legal jiu jitsu.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
As far as I know, Pagliano's immunity agreement w FBI/DoJ has not been made public.

Judge Sullivan wants to see that agreement. The implication being that if the immunity agreement is broad, then Pagliano may be required to testify to JD.

I confess that I do not know what Judge Sullivan might be able to do to punish any of these actors for not testifying.

I thought the Mills transcript showed the defense attorney and State Dept attorney doing everything they could to throw off & disrupt the JD attorney. In my layman viewpoint, the JD attorney did a good job in dealing w the legal jiu jitsu.

My view was that the objections didn't throw off or disrupt the taking of the depo. I've been in many that were far worse.

Most of the objections were routine that one makes all the time, or required, the attorney client privilege ones. You have no choice to assert the privilege and refuse to reveal privileged matter, until the client consents or the court orders it specifically.

As dramatic as JW wishes to paint it, it seemed quite ordinary.

Gee, couldn't we go just a little bit to not so ordinary ?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cl...nder-oath-1464907109

Ms. Mills marched into her deposition accompanied by no fewer than seven lawyers—three representing Ms. Mills herself, and two each from the Justice and State departments.

Two of the government lawyers made clear that they were not only representing their departments but also guarding Ms. Mills in her capacity as a former federal employee. This is President Obama’s assist for Mrs. Clinton.

The lawyers earned their pay. The entire 270-page transcript of the deposition, which Judicial Watch released Tuesday, has an almost eye-glazing repetition about it.

A persistent Judicial Watch attorney attempts to ask Ms. Mills a straightforward question. Before she even finishes, Ms. Mills’s army of attorneys falls all over itself to object, to insist that the query is outside the “scope” of the inquiry or too vague, and to instruct the witness not to answer.

On the rare occasions that they do allow Ms. Mills to open her mouth, it is only after coaching her on what is a permissible response. Not that they need to worry, as Ms. Mills appears to have lived on a distant planet the past several decades.

She doesn’t “know” or can’t “recall” even basic facts or conversations. “I don’t recall having such discussions.” “I can’t speak” to that. “I don’t have a recollection of doing so.” “I don’t know the answer to that question.”

Notably, the Mills team spends much of the interview suggesting she had no real knowledge of the system while on the federal payroll. Why does the timing matter? Because Ms. Mills began working as a private lawyer for Mrs. Clinton after they left government.

Anything she learned at that point is therefore protected by attorney-client privilege. Which is convenient.

Her deposition was something approaching performance art, a perfectly crafted mix of polite ignorance, purposeful misdirection and clever defense.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by navyshooter:

quote:

I think are only three Registered Republicans left in CA now that jallen has moved to Texas.

Mrs. Navyshooter and myself are 2 of them......I wonder who the 3rd one is.

I think there was some guy out in Mariposa County.

I've still got some family out there. That might push it in to the low -teens.

From the New York Post no less. I know, I know, they are barely a notch up from the a National Enquirier.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/03/t...t-laughable/?ref=yfp

n a communique to donors, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta tried to exculpate his candidate’s lawbreaking in the E-mailgate scandal. Alas for Hillary, Podesta’s attempt has more holes than a golf course.

“We know that our opponents will continue to try to distract us with attacks,” Podesta wrote. But State Department Inspector General Steve Linick is no right-wing Clinton-hater. The man behind last week’s brutal report on Clinton’s misdeeds was appointed by President Obama.

Linick also served as an assistant US attorney, starting in 1994 — during the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton.

“Secretary Clinton has said her use of a personal e-mail server was a mistake,” Podesta asserted.

A “mistake” is when one hits “reply all,” and dozens or hundreds of people unwittingly receive a sensitive e-mail meant for one person.

E-mailgate was no such casual gaffe. It was a deliberate and planned conspiracy in which Hillary evaded standard State Department procedures, installed an outlaw personal computer server in the basement of her Chappaqua mansion — 267 miles northeast of Foggy Bottom — and then reportedly paid aide Bryan Pagliano $140,000 to maintain that illicit equipment.

Pagliano’s supervisors, the IG discovered, “were unaware of his technical support of the Secretary’s e-mail system,” including “during working hours.”

After leaving State, Hillary had her server shipped to a facility in New Jersey associated with Platte River Networks, a Denver-based firm that lacked the security clearance to handle such sensitive gear. She then had the company try to wipe the server clean.

Some “mistake.”

“She believed she was following the practices of other Secretaries,” Podesta further claimed.

This “everybody does it” defense is like saying “all motorists break the law.” But a parking ticket is not a drunken-driving arrest. Indeed, Clinton’s abuse of state secrets is literally 1,000 times worse than what any of her predecessors did.

The State Department IG found that “Secretary [Madeleine] Albright did not use a department or personal e-mail account during her tenure, and . . . Secretary [Condoleezza] Rice did not use a personal e-mail account to conduct official business.” So neither of those two Clinton forerunners had any classified documents come or go via e-mail.

Former Secretary Colin Powell used both government and personal e-mail accounts, although he had no private server. Clinton used her private e-mail and server, to the exclusion of all official systems and addresses.

As for classified material, a March 2 memo from Inspector General Linick identified 12 documents that “contain national security information classified at the Secret or Confidential levels.” Among them, “Two of these documents were e-mails sent to Secretary Powell’s personal e-mail account; the remaining were documents transmitted to personal or unclassified accounts belonging to a member of Secretary Rice’s immediate staff and another senior Department official.”

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal calculates that the total number of classified e-mails on Clinton’s server totaled 2,115. So, among “other Secretaries,” the final score is: Albright 0; Powell 2; Rice 0; Clinton 2,115.

Yes, Hillary. Whatever you say. “Everybody does it.”

The IG knows about these secretaries’ e-mail habits, or lack thereof, because they spoke with him. Conversely, as the report explains, “Secretary Clinton declined OIG’s request for an interview.”

Most disturbingly, Podesta writes that “there is no evidence of a breach of her e-mail server.”

Wrong! “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.,” Clinton Foundation alumnus and technical aide Justin Cooper wrote Hillary’s then-deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, in January 2011.

Abedin warned colleagues the next day not to send Hillary “anything sensitive.”

That May 13, two of Clinton’s staffers discussed Hillary’s concerns that someone was “hacking into her e-mail.” The report adds, “OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the department.”

Try as he might, John Podesta cannot defend the indefensible.

quote:

Abedin warned colleagues the next day not to send Hillary “anything sensitive.”

And precisely how do you...ah, never mind.

quote:

Originally posted by navyshooter:

quote:

I think are only three Registered Republicans left in CA now that jallen has moved to Texas.

Mrs. Navyshooter and myself are 2 of them......I wonder who the 3rd one is.

My wife and I are Republicans, but don't know for how much longer given their behavior in the last few months. Depends if the party grabs a clue in the next 6 months.

Our son recently turned 18 and will register as a Republican.

quote:

She doesn’t “know” or can’t “recall” even basic facts or conversations. “I don’t recall having such discussions.” “I can’t speak” to that. “I don’t have a recollection of doing so.” “I don’t know the answer to that question.”

This is just so "90s", doesn't it bring back your memories of the Clinton White House?
Of course for good reason, all of the same people would be back in the same place, although Mills might be AG or perhaps our next Supreme Court Justice.
Huma for Secretary of State anyone?

Hillary Clinton Posted Names of Hidden Intelligence Officials On Her Email...

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-...ames-private-server/

Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system.

Federal records reveal that Clinton swapped these highly classified names on an email account that was vulnerable to attack and was breached repeatedly by Russia-linked hacker attempts. These new revelations — reminiscent of the Valerie Plame scandal during George W. Bush’s tenure — could give FBI investigators the evidence they need to make a case that Clinton violated the Espionage Act by mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence.”

Numerous names cited in Clinton’s emails have been redacted in State Department email releases with the classification code “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949.

The State Department produced a document to Judicial Watch in April 2014 that identifies different types of “(b)(3)” redactions, including “CIA PERS/ORG,” which it defines as information “Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute … Central Intelligence Act of 1949.”

“That’s what it suggests,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News, referring to the indication that Clinton disclosed the names of CIA-protected intelligence sources, based on the B3 redactions.

The CIA justifies “(b)(3)” redactions with this description: “(b)(3) Applies to the Director’s statutory obligations to protect from disclosure intelligence sources and methods, as well as the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency, in accord with the National Security Act of 1947 and the CIA Act of 1949, respectively.”

The State Department declined to comment. “Per the colleague who handles this issue, we are not speaking to the content of emails,” State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson told Breitbart News.

Here are some examples of (b)(3) redactions;

Naming the defense attaché in Malta

On October 16, 2011, recent U.S. Ambassador to Malta Douglas Kmiec sent an email to Cheryl Mills with the subject line “TIME SENSITIVE AND CONFIDENTIAL – Malta Trip Backgrounder for the Secretary – Confidential.”

Kmiec wrote to Mills, “I know from current events that your life must be a whirlwind. I know that if there ever was someone who could tame the whirlwind, it would be you. Just read the news report of the Secretary’s stop in Malta next week. Thank you for arranging this. This letter and the accompanying clips I believe will help make the Secretary’s visit a highly successful and well received one.”

In the memo, Kmiec revealed the name of a top defense attaché in the country. That name was later classified by the State Department with three different classifications: 1.4 (D) to connote “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources,” B1 to connote “Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy,” and “B3 CIA PERS/ORG.”

“The largest part of our US team in the embassy is the navy/coast guard/ ncis contingent that has established a Maritime training program with the AFM to good success. The defense attaché there now is new [REDACTED] beloved and hardworking – and to good effect, patrolling the waters and the ports for [illegible] traffickers and terror related figures,” Kmiec wrote.

Mills forwarded the memo directly to Clinton’s private email account at clintonemail.com with the note “Fyi background.”

Clinton replied to Mills and CC’ed Huma Abedin with the confidential information, writing, “I need enough time there to meet. Hague is there today and doing all the right meetings. So, I’m copying Huma to reinforce my desire to squeeze more out of a too quick trip.”

When he sent the memo to Mills, Douglas Kmiec had been out of his Ambassador to Malta job for several months. Kmiec was a big supporter of President Obama. He garnered criticism in a 2011 inspector general report for ignoring directives from Washington and for spending too much time writing articles about religion.

Naming the guest in her office

On December 15, 2011, Clinton’s office manager Claire Coleman sent out Clinton’s daily schedule to Clinton’s private email account and to Abedin and others.

The schedule included a five-minute Presidential Daily Briefing in the Secretary’s office between 8:35 AM and 8:40 AM.

“Note: Official Photo following w/ [Redacted]” the schedule read, blanking out the name of the person who Clinton was taking a photo with. That redaction was marked “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” in addition to other redactions.

Clinton’s public schedule released for that day begins at 9 AM, after the classified photo op.

Petraeus’ chief of staff

On March 14, 2012, a redacted name sent Cheryl Mills an email with the subject line “URGENT — From Dave Petraeus’s Chief of Staff…”

The sender’s name was marked with a “B3” redaction to connote violation of the CIA statute.

“Dear Cheryl,” the email began, followed by a vast section of redacted material. Those paragraphs were marked with several classifications including “B3 CIA PERS/ORG.”

The email’s closing paragraphs were also marked with B3 redactions.

“Does all of that sound ok to you?” the message continued. “If so, may I please ask you to get word around immediately [B3 Redaction] only in those circumstances where he deems that to be appropriate and the best way forward? Thanks much and cheers, [B3 Redaction].”

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

On September 15, 2012, a B3 redacted name sent an email to Jake Sullivan numerous redacted names with a redacted subject line, most of text redacted, “Per the discussion at Deputies, here are the revised TPs for HPSCI [The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence].”

The email was later forwarded to Clinton, who told an aide, “PLs print.”

“Iran Insights”

On September 2, 2009, Jackie Newmyer of Long Term Strategy Group in Cambridge, Massachusetts sent an email directly to Clinton’s private account with the subject line “Iran Insights From [Redacted]” that included the B3 redaction code:

Secretary Clinton,

Last week I traveled to Israel [REDACTED] in an Iran-related seminar and simulation exercise with the IDF general who is likely to become Israel’s next chief of military intelligence and his team and, separately, [REDACTED]. Yesterday, [REDACTED] Iran workshop in Washington involving DoD and think tank experts. Despite the fact that the meetings were with defense [REDACTED] personnel, there was universal sentiment that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be counterproductive, on the one hand, and that incremental measures would be perceived by Iran as an indication of weakness, on the other.

The email included sensitive information including the following:

If Iran acquires a nuclear capability, no single American/allied countermeasure will be adequate. Something like the “flexible response” posture from the Cold War will be required, necessitating a range of actions from enhancing the US deterrent presence — nuclear submarines carrying ballistic missiles in the Arabian Sea — to bolstering regional actors’ defenses.

Israeli leaders should be able to contain the damage to the Israeli population’s morale from an Iranian bomb, but this will require careful management of public statements. There is a tension between building up support for action against the Iranian nuclear program now and delivering the kind of reassurance that will be necessary once the capability has been acquired.

Clinton replied that she would like to discuss the matter with Jackie.

Jackie replied:

I will be in Washington for a day-long meeting on Thursday this week [B3 REDACTED] and my travel plans are flexible, so I could meet you any time on Wednesday afternoon, after 5 pm on Thursday, or any time on Friday morning. If those times do not work, I would be happy to come down at your convenience.

Clinton and Jake Sullivan then set up a meeting with Jackie.

Naming someone at the ‘Pre-Brief’

On November 11, 2011, Clinton’s special assistant Lona J. Valmoro sent an email directly to Clinton’s private email address with the subject line “Pre-Brief.”

Valmoro wrote:

“MS — Kurt said that he has no reservations about Toria joining the pre-brief so I will confirm.

The manifest for the meeting will be:

Kurt Campbell

Jake Sullivan

Evan Mederios, NSS

Admiral Willard

Kin Moy

Toria Nuland

[REDACTED] per Kurt’s request”

That last name on the list was redacted with “B6” and also “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” classifications.

‘See Traffic’

On March 14, 2012, Mills sent an email to then-U.S. Ambassador to Algeria Henry Ensher with the subject line “Connecting.”

“I hope your visit to DC is going well,” Mills said before writing a chunk of text that is redacted with 1.4 (D), B1, and also “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.

Mills’ redacted text clearly included a name because she then wrote, “B/f I could respond w/our protocol he advised that the matter had been resolved. Can you advise as to what accommodation was worked out?”

Ensher replied, “Sorry. Had not seen this until en route back to post. Accommodation was to have elizabeth go to a dinner meeting, but not the next day session with senior counterpart. Bare objectives of visit were achieved but we blew an opportunity to make the larger point about civ control of mil, which is critical in dealing with algerian leaders.”

Ensher’s next paragraph is redacted with 1.4 (D), B1, and also the “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.

“Good work on com conf. Thx,” Ensher concluded.

After sending another email to Ensher, Mills forwarded the chain to Clinton’s private email account and said “See traffic.”

The departing diplomat

On December 12, 2011, Mills sent an email to Clinton’s private email account with the subject line “FW: Thank you for your time today.”

“[REDACTED] last day is Thursday,” Mills wrote, adding that “Lona” would arrange a photograph for the man with Clinton and his daughter and asking Clinton for feedback on the employee. The redacted portion had a B6 and a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction.

“He did a good job,” Clinton replied.

The Taliban

On March 25, 2012, Jake Sullivan forwarded to Clinton’s private email address a chain involving a meeting involving Pakistan and the Taliban that had a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction in it. The subject line was “Fw: MG-Z in Dushanbe.”

Hill testimony

On January 23, 2013, Mills forwarded to Clinton’s private email address a transcript of Clinton’s testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the subject line “Fw: Testimony as Prepared for Delivery to SFRC & HFAC.”

The chain included an email that a person with a redacted name sent to Mills saying, “You know, she’s pretty damned good.”

The chain also included an email that Mills sent with the transcript to various people including White House adviser Ben Rhodes and various individuals with redacted names, including two people whose names are blotted out with “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.

CC’s

On July 25, 2010, Jake Sullivan forwarded Clinton a long email chain with the subject line “Fw: Digest from NyTimes and Guardian [Full E-Mail List].”

The highly redacted email chain was at one point forwarded to “[Full E-Mail List]” and includes on multiple occasions an individual whose name is blotted out with a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction.

And now, from the herding cats file, Susan Sarandon weighs in: not only is Hill more dangerous than Trump, but Hillary will be indicted!

quote:

Susan Sarandon: Clinton 'More Dangerous' Than Trump
Mark Hensch, The Hill, June 3, 2016

Actress (!) Susan Sarandon says Hillary Clinton's foreign policy makes her a greater national security risk than Donald Trump, adding that it's "inevitable" the White House hopeful will be indicted.

"I beleive in a way she's more dangerous, except they're both talking to Henry Kissinger apparently lately," Sarandon told The Young Turks on Thursday. "Her record - I mean, she did not learn a thing from Iraq. She is an interventionist. She's done horrible things, horrible things, and very callously," she added. "I don't know if she's overcompensating or what her trip is. I think we'll (note: Sarandon's Canadian, unless she switched and I missed it - IC) be in Iran in two seconds. That scares me. That frightens me."

Sarandon, who supports Bernie Sanders for president, said Trump's ideas are too implausible to be dangerous. "This is what we're fed - 'he's so dangerous, he's so dangerous,'" she said. "Seriously, I'm not worried about a wall being built and Mexico paying for it. He's not going to get rid of every Muslim living in this country. Has he made it the norm to be racist and vent these kinds of things? Yes. But seriously, I don't know what his policies are."

On the other hand, Sarandon said, Clinton's record on foreign policy is cause for alarm. "I do know what her policies are. I do know where she's taking money from. And I do know that she's not transparent and I know that nobody calls her on it."

Sarandon predicted in a separate interview that Clinton will ultimately face indictment for her use of a private email server while secretary of State. "Nobody's even talking about this indictment," she told MSNBC. "What happens with that besides the trust issue of catching her in so many lies?"

"Well, there has been no indictment," Chris Jansing reported.

"No, but there's going to be," responded Sarandon. "I mean, it's inevitable."

Some compression of sentences into paragraphs for space. Original text at http://thehill.com/blogs/in-th...dangerous-than-trump

Sanders took way too long to push this, but at least he is using it now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...m_dictatorships.html

"If you ask me about the Clinton Foundation, do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, many governments which are dictatorships… yeah I do," Sanders said in an interview Sunday morning with Jake Tapper on CNN’s 'State of the Union.'

Sanders replied: "Yes, I do," when asked if he thinks the Clinton Foundation's activities represented a potential "conflict of interest."

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
Could someone translate the above into "troglodyte-eze" por favor?

I get it...but I dont get it.

His immunity doesnt cover the JD stuff. I get that part. What do they hope to discover by seeing the deal? Where to dig???

The judge wants to see the scope and limits, if any, there might be to his immunity deal with the DOJ to fashion any rulings in the civil case.

If one has immunity from prosecution, then one can't incriminate himself by testifying, so cannot remain silent, and has no 5th Amendment right to do so.

I wondered about the basis of his taking the 5th as well.

Seems a lawyerly dodge.

RMD

quote:

Originally posted by rduckwor:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
Could someone translate the above into "troglodyte-eze" por favor?

I get it...but I dont get it.

His immunity doesnt cover the JD stuff. I get that part. What do they hope to discover by seeing the deal? Where to dig???

The judge wants to see the scope and limits, if any, there might be to his immunity deal with the DOJ to fashion any rulings in the civil case.

If one has immunity from prosecution, then one can't incriminate himself by testifying, so cannot remain silent, and has no 5th Amendment right to do so.

I wondered about the basis of his taking the 5th as well.

Seems a lawyerly dodge.

RMD

It's a legal maxim. "There's no harm in asking."

You claim it, the judge disallows it, maybe. If you don't, it is waived, and if you testify and your immunity deal doesn't cover it, you might be screwed.

http://hotair.com/archives/201...how-me-the-immunity/

From the link:

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

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

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

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.

******************

I wonder if Judge Sullivan's demand to see Pagliano's immunity agreement will result in that agreement being made public. The article linked above says it will. But the FBI/DoJ may not want the agreement to be public.

When Loretta Lynch appeared before a Senate committee in March, she said she was unable to confirm that an immunity offer had been made to Pagliano. She said she can't discuss specifics of any ongoing investigation, but there are different levels of immunity from prosecution.