Thursday, September 3, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s IT technician will take the 5th if subpoenaed!

Hotair ^ | 09/03/2015 | Jazz Shaw 

A couple of Clinton staffers are scheduled to show up and provide testimony before Gowdy’s congressional committee investigating – among other things – Benghazi and Hillary’s private email server. But there’s one name on the invitation list who will either be a no-show or will only be coming to repeat over and over again that he is invoking his protections against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. His name is Bryan Pagliano and he was the former Secretary of State’s IT guy during her 2008 campaign and also did some work for her after she took over at State. (He was given the title of “strategic adviser and special projects manager” working for the Chief Technology Officer, but apparently worked directly for Clinton.) It seems that he’s lawyered up and his attorney thinks it might be a bad idea for him to go around answering any questions. (Washington Post)
A former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail server tried this week to fend off a subpoena to testify before Congress, saying he would assert his constitutional right not to answer questions to avoid incriminating himself.
The move by Bryan Pagliano, who had worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009, came in a Monday letter from his lawyer to the House panel investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
The letter cited the ongoing FBI inquiry into the security of Clinton’s e-mail system, and it quoted a Supreme Court ruling in which justices described the Fifth Amendment as protecting “innocent men . . . ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’ ”
As for Clinton herself, she released a statement saying that Bryan’s decision was “disappointing” and that she had “urged” him to testify. Yeah… good luck with that. But the point which her brief statement makes clear is that either Hillary herself or members of her team have been in contact with Pagliano and knew something was coming down the pike. Wouldn’t we all have loved to have been a fly on the wall for those conversations.
In some ways you really have to feel sorry for this guy. He wasn’t ever Bryan “the super spy who snooped on Putin” Pagliano. Nor was he Bryan “I get a quarter million dollars for fifteen minute speaking gigs at the Clinton Foundation” Pagliano. He was just Bryan “oh crap I got a blue screen again can somebody call Bryan” Pagliano. And with that in mind I’m fairly sure that he never signed on for this sort of imbroglio.
But in that same context I find myself wondering what it is that Bryan really had to worry about and what’s making his attorney nervous. After all… he’s the guy who installed an email server at the house when the boss asked him to do so. I can’t conceive of a set of circumstances where that would be an offense which merits prosecution. There’s no law against anyone – including the Secretary of State – just having a private server. And for that matter, if Hillary had even used the server but actually restricted it to strictly personal correspondence about her daughter’s wedding and scheduling yoga classes while dealing with all of her office business on a State Department account we wouldn’t even be having this discussion today.
Or does it go deeper than that? Having installed the server, one assumes that Bryan might also be the guy who had to maintain it for her, right? And if that’s the case then he would no doubt have had at least some level of access to the contents since he would be an administrator on the system. Odds are that he didn’t know or care what the contents of all those emails were so long as the system was performing up to par, but perhaps his attorney is warning him that if he had access to the emails or had even taken a peek at a few then suddenly he was in the middle of giant national security mess.
In any event, Bryan most certainly has the right to take the 5th. What the rest of the world makes of that decision is beyond his control but it certainly tosses another log on the fire of Hillary Clinton’s woes.

Hillary’s Campaign Has Already Begun to Derail

National Review ^ | 09/03/2015 | Victor Davis Hanson 

Hillary Clinton’s second race for the presidency is only about a quarter through, but she already seems to be causing general fatigue.
The lurid revelations about the Clinton Foundation proved that it was not so much a charity as a huge laundering operation. Quid pro quo donations from the global rich and powerful fueled the Clintons’ jet-setting networking.
In between political campaigns, the foundation provided sinecures for out-of-work Clinton politicos. This is hardly proof of Hillary’s grass-roots progressivism.
Then came Clinton’s e-mail fiasco. No one knows how the current investigation of her alleged misuse of e-mail accounts, servers, and classified information will end up. But most people accept that it was an unnecessary and self-induced scandal, brought on both by her paranoia and habitual expectation of being exempt from the law.
ABC News just disclosed that ex-president Bill Clinton sought huge speaking fees from foreign governments (well over a half-million dollars per talk), while Hillary was secretary of state. Unfortunately, some of his proposed speaking deals involved odious regimes like those of Congo and North Korea. This year, Hillary herself routinely charged universities $200,000 to $300,000 for brief talks — after decrying the cash-strapped status of indebted students. What will the Clintons not do to make money?
All these imbroglios raise more issues. Was Senator Barack Obama, largely a political unknown at the time, really all that unstoppable in 2008? Or did Hillary simply blow a 30-point lead in the polls because then as now she proved a lousy candidate?
Can’t Hillary Clinton turn voters’ attention to her recent stewardship of American foreign policy?
Most of what happened on her watch as secretary of state is better forgotten: the destruction of a self-reliant Iraq, the rise of the Islamic State, chaos in Libya, failed reset with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, disaster in Benghazi, the alienation of Israel and moderate Arab nations, and Iran’s ascendant.
Instead of hailing her foreign-policy tenure, Clinton is now attacking her critics.
Clinton just blasted her Republican opposition, some of whom want various federal agencies to cite undocumented immigrants who broke federal law, and then process them for deportation before hearing their applications for amnesty. She misleadingly equated that position with wanting to “literally pull people out of their homes and their workplaces, round them up and, I don’t know, put them in buses or boxcars, in order to take them across the border.”
#share#Is it wise to tar critics with the infamous imagery of the Holocaust, in which Jews were rounded up, put in boxcars and sent to death camps?
After all, Clinton’s own prior positions on immigration were akin to those of many of the Republicans she now attacks. Here is what then-senator Clinton asserted in 2003: “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.” Note her use of the personal “immigrants,” rather than the abstract “immigration.”
Last week, Clinton compared Republican opponents of abortion to “terrorist groups” who “don’t want to live in the modern world.”
But such ad hominem attacks on free expression are exactly what Clinton once denounced. “I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic,” she said in 2003, ironically during the George W. Bush presidency.
Clinton’s serial meltdowns may bring Vice President Joe Biden into the race. The only other serious Democratic alternative to Clinton at the moment is 73-year-old socialist Bernie Sanders. He is not registered in the party whose nomination he seeks.
Clinton’s derailment has given breathing space to Republicans. Otherwise, they would be panicking that erratic showman Donald Trump has hijacked their party and might lead it to a meltdown in 2016.
Both parties face crises — though there are more viable Republican alternatives to Trump than there are strong Democratic choices, at least for now. And whereas the upbeat Trump would probably agree with — or even welcome — charges that he is an egomaniac, Clinton would hardly accept the equally common impression that she cannot tell the truth.
Hillary’s latest troubles reflect a quarter-century of Clinton habits that transcend time and space.
Both Bill and Hillary seem to have always believed they should be exempt from the law. Both seem needlessly tawdry in their avarice. Their cover-ups often prove even more damaging than their indiscretions.
Bill was always the far better speaker and political schmoozer than Hillary. And now Hillary is proving — again — that she prefers slandering accusers rather than refuting accusations.
Are Hillary’s first four and a half months of campaigning a glimpse of the next 14?
If so, the Democratic party — and the country — are going to be utterly exhausted.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

Short Term


Poor Me!




I'm with stupid!


Ban this flag




eat what I say




Gun Laws


Stupid media questions


A Mullign


Count on me!


Just because


Then and now!


Dead police


Can there be?


down the drain


Like a rock!


Anchor Baby