The Daily Caller’s, Chuck Ross reports in this article:
Bryan Pagliano’s Lawyers Provide New Details About Immunity
Agreement With Justice Department
Lawyers for Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department information technology specialist who managed Hillary Clinton’s email system, provided new details in a federal lawsuit on Tuesday about an immunity agreement he has with the Justice Department. They also argued that Pagliano should be allowed to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in a pending deposition with the watchdog group Judicial Watch because he has information that could “furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute” in the Clinton email investigation. In papers filed with U.S. District Court judge Emmet Sullivan, Pagliano’s lawyers wrote that he entered limited “use”
I’ll be interested to read the informed analyses of this latest(?) Obama team caper. After watching this criminally corrupt outfit for the last 7 years as they lie, obfuscate, slow walk, defy, ignore the law, flip the bird to the judiciary, trample the Constitution, ignore Congress, and laugh at the “stupidity” of American voters, I still marvel at how they come up with new ways to publicly demonstrate their contempt for everything this Republic stands for and the values which have made America the greatest nation in world history.
As the legal experts who understand their arcane world prepare to give us their assessment of the nature and extent of the damage the Justice Department has done with their “immunity” stratagem for a key figure in Hillary’s criminal reign as Secretary of State, I hope they answer a few questions, like…
1) By “limiting” the immunity General Lynch has provided for Mr. Pagliano, does this mean that he is free to “take the 5th” in response to all meaningful questions Judicial Watch or Congressional committees might have? At the same time, has he been given “immunity” to respond to questions which will not reflect negatively on either Hillary or Obama?
2) Are the other members of Hillary’s “inner circle” (or coven) been given similar “limited immunity”? (Or, do they even need it given their extraordinarily bad memories and inability to answer any questions of substance, as Cheryl Mills recently demonstrated.?)
3) Does the “immunity action” by the DOJ thus make it virtually impossible to get meaningful answers to key questions regarding all aspects of the “e mail matter”?
Jus’ askin’.
DLH
