Clinton server technicians decline questions from Congress

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,091
694
0
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN11J267


Two computer technicians declined to answer questions from U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday about the unauthorized private email system that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton used during her tenure as U.S. secretary of state.

Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton repeatedly invoked their constitutional right not to incriminate themselves during about 10 minutes of questioning while under oath before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. A third technician, Bryan Pagliano, declined even to appear, despite a subpoena ordering his testimony.

The investigation of Clinton's email system has become a troublesome issue for her presidential campaign, with Republican rival Donald Trump saying a recent finding by federal investigators that she mishandled classified government secrets in her email should disqualify her from office.

Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said in a statement it was up to the technicians whether to cooperate, "but we certainly are not prevailing upon anyone to cooperate with this sham of an inquiry."

Clinton has said she regrets using the system in her New York home's basement for work. Voters have said in surveys the decision contributes to a feeling she is untrustworthy.

Federal Bureau of Information director James Comey said in July there was evidence that Clinton and her staff may have broken the law with their "extremely careless" handling of classified government secrets, but concluded there were insufficient grounds to prosecute.

Combetta and Thornton work for Platte River Networks, the Denver technology firm that managed Clinton's email servers soon after she left the State Department in 2013. They repeatedly invoked their Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination to each question from lawmakers. Jason Chaffetz, the committee's Republican chairman, eventually excused them out of what he called "respect" for their rights.

Elijah Cummings, the committee's most senior Democratic member, expressed sympathy for the technicians, saying the Republicans were only trying to use them to embarrass Clinton.

Chaffetz criticized Pagliano, who was paid by Clinton to manage her server while she was the nation's top diplomat, for not complying with the subpoena and said the committee would decide after the hearing whether to punish him.

Pagliano was given a form of immunity from prosecution in 2015 for cooperating with the FBI as it looked into the mishandling of classified information over the server, but has otherwise cited the Fifth Amendment in declining to provide information to lawmakers. His attorney did not respond to questions.

A fourth witness, Justin Cooper, testified for more than two hours about his role setting up the email system in 2009 while he worked a Clinton family aide.

Clinton used an AT&T email account while a senator and a presidential candidate in 2008. Cooper said there was "a desire to change her email address because a number of people had received her email address over the course of those activities."

A summary of the FBI's findings showed Combetta saying he used software called BleachBit to delete an archive of Clinton's work emails around the same time as a conference call with Clinton's lawyers, despite lawmakers seeking the records through a subpoena.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,305
3,389
113
How long before these technicians are dead ?
Why would they kill them? They received immunity in exchange for cooperation with the FBI probe, and they are staying silent as a condition of their immunity.

You really think this wasn't well thought out?
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,605
828
113
Why would they kill them? They received immunity in exchange for cooperation with the FBI probe, and they are staying silent as a condition of their immunity.

You really think this wasn't well thought out?
Would an immunity agreement with the FBI stop congress from a subpeona?
 

Mntneer

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2001
10,192
196
0
Why would they kill them? They received immunity in exchange for cooperation with the FBI probe, and they are staying silent as a condition of their immunity.

You really think this wasn't well thought out?

I'm wondering if they wanted/needed immunity because they lack the classification that some of the emails contained, and were worried about getting in trouble for it.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,305
3,389
113
I'm wondering if they wanted/needed immunity because they lack the classification that some of the emails contained, and were worried about getting in trouble for it.
I don't think that's the case.

When it first happened, I thought the immunity deal was a means of getting the guys to roll over. It's clear now that it was to protect them from the Congressional hearings.

Clinton's team has played this about as well as anyone could to be honest given the circumstances.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,605
828
113
I don't think that's the case.

When it first happened, I thought the immunity deal was a means of getting the guys to roll over. It's clear now that it was to protect them from the Congressional hearings.

Clinton's team has played this about as well as anyone could to be honest given the circumstances.
If congress subpeonas them and then offers them immunity they cant hide behind the 5th.
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,863
285
83
If congress subpeonas them and then offers them immunity they cant hide behind the 5th.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,305
3,389
113
If congress subpeonas them and then offers them immunity they cant hide behind the 5th.
Congress has no power to do anything other than hold you in contempt to try and compel you to testify, I don't think that holds true with invoking the 5th though. They can't hold you in contempt for that. They can berate you, grand stand, and pontificate but they are a paper tiger when it comes to actual repercussions.

The immunity deal was with the Justice Dept. so essentially these guys are off the hook. What makes sense now though is why they were offered immunity. In general, someone who has immunity could testify before congress at will and it wouldn't matter, they have immunity from prosecution. They shouldn't need to invoke the 5th. That's why I say, the Justice Dept. likely made their absolute silence a condition of their immunity deal.

The whole thing has been gamed for 6 months. It's not hard to put together when you understand how pieces interconnect.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,605
828
113
Congress has no power to do anything other than hold you in contempt to try and compel you to testify, I don't think that holds true with invoking the 5th though. They can't hold you in contempt for that. They can berate you, grand stand, and pontificate but they are a paper tiger when it comes to actual repercussions.

The immunity deal was with the Justice Dept. so essentially these guys are off the hook. What makes sense now though is why they were offered immunity. In general, someone who has immunity could testify before congress at will and it wouldn't matter, they have immunity from prosecution. They shouldn't need to invoke the 5th. That's why I say, the Justice Dept. likely made their absolute silence a condition of their immunity deal.

The whole thing has been gamed for 6 months. It's not hard to put together when you understand how pieces interconnect.
That was my point. The 5th really wouldn't apply. Congress can subpoena them and they can't incriminate themselves. I was not sure what Congress can do if you are in contempt other than consider you in contempt of congress.
 

eerdoc

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
24,014
26
48
That was my point. The 5th really wouldn't apply. Congress can subpoena them and they can't incriminate themselves. I was not sure what Congress can do if you are in contempt other than consider you in contempt of congress.
There is a lengthy procedure involving House and Senayte and then Federal Judges, etc. The procedure sounds totally un-workable and would require years, if not decades, to get through all the hurdles. So, in short, the Government has set up another set of rules that works to keeping the rules from ever working.
 

Popeer

Freshman
Sep 8, 2003
21,466
81
0
Why would they kill them? They received immunity in exchange for cooperation with the FBI probe, and they are staying silent as a condition of their immunity.
Only one has immunity - Pagliano, and he ignored the subpoena. The rest have to rely on the Fifth Amendment, which of course frustrates the hell out of Chaffetz on his fishing expeditions - pesky things, those Constitutional rights.
 
Dec 7, 2010
20,602
120
0
Only one has immunity - Pagliano, and he ignored the subpoena. The rest have to rely on the Fifth Amendment, which of course frustrates the hell out of Chaffetz on his fishing expeditions - pesky things, those Constitutional rights.
So the posters above were wrong in their speculation? Color me shocked!
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,305
3,389
113
Only one has immunity - Pagliano, and he ignored the subpoena. The rest have to rely on the Fifth Amendment, which of course frustrates the hell out of Chaffetz on his fishing expeditions - pesky things, those Constitutional rights.
Awwwww, ok, that makes sense. I was wrong. I thought all three had been given immunity.
 

mneilmont

Sophomore
Jan 23, 2008
20,883
166
0
There is a lengthy procedure involving House and Senayte and then Federal Judges, etc. The procedure sounds totally un-workable and would require years, if not decades, to get through all the hurdles. So, in short, the Government has set up another set of rules that works to keeping the rules from ever working.
This is the obvious answer. Unless you can get the system to mainstream to be in compliance. No one will ever live long enough to go thru the process. Start with house sub committee, Rules Committee. Full house vote, full Senate vote, Justices, appeal and start the process again with one political party objecting to the other, and the process will not change when leadership changes.

You could probably impeach the whole Supreme Court quicker. This sees no conclusion unless rules are changed. With the rules the same, would Hoffa and mafia members ever have been broken up and time served. Al may have been different since he was charged under tax code.

May have to introduce RICO to charge them. But that would have to be law enforcement under the Obama. And that ain't happening either. Doesn't happen, but may have to change administrations and historically they look at that as time has expired on infractions under prior group.

Take hush money and run the clock and they are home free.
 

Airport

All-American
Dec 12, 2001
86,525
7,329
113
Congress has no power to do anything other than hold you in contempt to try and compel you to testify, I don't think that holds true with invoking the 5th though. They can't hold you in contempt for that. They can berate you, grand stand, and pontificate but they are a paper tiger when it comes to actual repercussions.

The immunity deal was with the Justice Dept. so essentially these guys are off the hook. What makes sense now though is why they were offered immunity. In general, someone who has immunity could testify before congress at will and it wouldn't matter, they have immunity from prosecution. They shouldn't need to invoke the 5th. That's why I say, the Justice Dept. likely made their absolute silence a condition of their immunity deal.

The whole thing has been gamed for 6 months. It's not hard to put together when you understand how pieces interconnect.

Pretty astute, criminals running the executive branch have gamed the system. Brilliant. The greatest satisfaction would be that Trump wins, has Christy as AG and tells him to go indict all the people involved in this. Lynch, Hildabeast and anybody having anything to do with this and stain their reputation.
 

Airport

All-American
Dec 12, 2001
86,525
7,329
113
Only one has immunity - Pagliano, and he ignored the subpoena. The rest have to rely on the Fifth Amendment, which of course frustrates the hell out of Chaffetz on his fishing expeditions - pesky things, those Constitutional rights.

Criminals running the Executive branch have gamed the system, brilliant.
 

Popeer

Freshman
Sep 8, 2003
21,466
81
0
There is a lengthy procedure involving House and Senayte and then Federal Judges, etc. The procedure sounds totally un-workable and would require years, if not decades, to get through all the hurdles. So, in short, the Government has set up another set of rules that works to keeping the rules from ever working.
Really? The "rules" worked exactly as intended, unless you think Congress should be able to suspend the Constitution or ignore the rights of individuals when it suits their political purposes? I've just re-read Article I and damned if I could see any language that gives Congress any investigative or punitive powers.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
Really? The "rules" worked exactly as intended, unless you think Congress should be able to suspend the Constitution or ignore the rights of individuals when it suits their political purposes? I've just re-read Article I and damned if I could see any language that gives Congress any investigative or punitive powers.

And Teddy Boy loves to accuse Obama of disregarding the Constitution.
 

mneilmont

Sophomore
Jan 23, 2008
20,883
166
0
Really? The "rules" worked exactly as intended, unless you think Congress should be able to suspend the Constitution or ignore the rights of individuals when it suits their political purposes? I've just re-read Article I and damned if I could see any language that gives Congress any investigative or punitive powers.
What does 5th - self incrimination do? Amature;, A person may not be compelled to testify against himself where doing so could receive punishment.

The two can be given limited immunity and be compelled to testify to anything that does not expose him to punishment. They can testify about the records and have no exposure to punishment. At that point, they talk or get subpoena and they will be compelled to talk and have limited immunity from prosecution.

The one who failed to show can be arrested/subpoenaed for failure to appear.

Pretty damned simple, huh. The subpoena is filed thru AG or an assistant AG. Not very easy unless there are ways to go thru a different court that was not readily located in Title 18. The process is going to take someone dedicated to seeing asses swing. I still think they can run the clock, and I don't think that was ever intended to be a factor in the legal process.
 
Last edited:

Popeer

Freshman
Sep 8, 2003
21,466
81
0
This Congress is not going to grant anyone immunity. They also cannot find anyone in contempt for invoking their rights under the Fifth Amendment. That said, Pagliano could find himself in hot water for failing to show up. And somebody needs to tell Issa and Chaffetz about this Supreme Court ruling from 1957:

No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to “punish” those investigated are indefensible.