Former Clinton IT Staffer To Lawmakers:  No Testimony Without Immunity

Former Clinton IT Staffer To Lawmakers: No Testimony Without Immunity

On Wednesday, in a letter obtained by POLITICO, Bryan Pagliano’s lawyer Mark MacDougall told Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right and not answer any self-incriminating questions that were requested by the two Senate chairmen, seeking a ‘sneak peak’ at what he’d say if given immunity.

gettyimages-485282716-1

Tiger Droppings Reports:

Hillary Clinton’s former IT staffer who is asserting his Fifth Amendment right not to answer self-incriminating questions rejected two Senate chairmen’s request for sneak peak at what he’d say if given immunity.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Truth Uncensored updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In a Wednesday letter obtained by POLITICO, Bryan Pagliano’s lawyer Mark MacDougall told Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that he would give no such preliminary overview, known in legal terms as a proffer. Both chairmen hoped to get a better sense of what Pagliano knew about Clinton’s homebrew server — which he set up in 2009 before she headed to the State Department.

But MacDougall, an attorney at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, said such an exploratory discussion of what Pagliano knew had no basis in law and could open up his client to accusations that he “waived his right” to avoid self incrimination.

“Members of congressional committees and their lawyers have lately taken an expansive view of what constitutes a waiver by an individual citizen of his or her right under the Fifth Amendment,” he wrote. “Any ‘proffer session’ or other disclosure by Mr. Pagliano — or his lawyers acting on his behalf — of the contents of his possible testimony creates the very practical risk that our client will later be said to have waived his constitutional protections.”

The downside of giving Pagliano immunity without a proffer session?

He’s not acting in good faith to throw off the investigation. You give him immunity and gives you nothing in return and you have egg on your face. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP is billing out at God knows how much an hour? Who is paying for their fees?

On the other end, how can you pass up the opportunity to question the only professional to work on the setup and intentions of the server? This guy could bring the case to Congress’s feet. Tough Call

Photo:  Bing

 


 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.