Holy Cow! MSNBC: DOJ grants immunity to tech worker for HRC email system.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

Last edited Thu Mar 3, 2016, 12:34 AM - Edit history (1)

Lawrence O'Donnell reported this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.

The inquiry comes against a political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

[leveymg]

1. There's a Grand Jury! Sure you heard that right? I read FBI.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

3. Yes, I heard that wrong.

They said FBI, but then they started talking about a grand jury and I got confused. It seems that they must be giving this guy immunity for a reason.

[NWCorona]

8. This news is breaking fast on this

But Brian was also working the FBI separately from this deal.

[Logical]

13. Then edit your post!!!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

20. Good idea. I got sidetracked.

[napi21]

82. So he will have no reason to hide anything. I'm reasonably sure she just asked him if he could set

up the server for her to use for her emails. AFAIK, the server was already there for Bill's communications, and she wanted to use it too. I honestly believe she didn't have an ulterior motive. And WHY would you think that server wouldn't be secure? It belonged to a former President after all. I sure never heard that server was ever hacked, but we've all heard that the GOV'T servers HAVE BEEN HACKED. "I honestly don't expect to see anything damaging come out of all this brouhaha. Disappointed Pubs will be crying in their beer again.

[SunSeeker]

2. Uh no. No grand jury is involved. This is an FBI security investigation.

So far, there is no indication that prosecutors have convened a grand jury in the email investigation to subpoena testimony or documents, which would require the participation of a U.S. attorney’s office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

4. My mistake. It was the FBI.

[Punkingal]

5. Immunity from charges? What does this mean?

[HooptieWagon]

7. Immunity for his testimony leading to charges, I assume.

His testimony appears to include admission of crimes on his part. Evidently the FBI feels his testimony implicates 'higher ups' in more serious crimes, or they wouldn't be making the immunity deal.

[MrMickeysMom]

18. Thanks for that clarification...

I have difficulty with some judicial-speak

[HooptieWagon]

21. The way it works...

There had to be some off the record negotiations...the FBI will want to know exactly what his testimony will be before agreeing to the immunity. So they definately think there's some damaging testimony.

[jillan]

24. Me too! But remember during the Issa and Gowdy hearings on Benghazzzziiii - they tried to get him to

testify and he plead the 5th!

So now they are saying, talk to us and no matter what you did, you will not be charged.

Things are going to get interesting.

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. It means he can be COMPELLED to testify. In exchange for his testimony, he's given a guarantee.

That guarantees is he won't be prosecuted for crimes he may have committed.

He's basically waived his Fifth Amendment right.

[demwing]

45. "He's basically waived his Fifth Amendment right"

And in exchange, he won't be prosecuted

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. Zactly.

[marions ghost]

62. yep

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. "We promise not to prosecute you for your role if you help us nab bigger fish."

[Segami]

6. This is exactly what the Clintons invite....

Brace yourselves for another fours years of defending the Clinton's lying actions........we've been down this pot-hole infested road before.

[AgingAmerican]

9. She cant win

[Punkingal]

26. She won't win, anyway, and this won't help.

[DCBob]

10. So he talks about how he set up the server.

That should be thrilling.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

11. Keep thinking those happy thoughts!

[DCBob]

16. I guess you and the RW kooks will be watching this together desperately hoping for some dirt..

to come out. I think you and they will be very disappointed.

[MrMickeysMom]

17. Are you equating the poster with a RW kook?

If you are, I suggest you retract your offensive post.

[DCBob]

19. No... not at all.

Why would you think that?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

22. If she broke the law, yes. It will save the country from her.

[DCBob]

23. She didnt.

You read too much RW media if you believe that.

[Logical]

28. Tell the FBI, it is their deal now. Nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

40. This person is obviously smarter than the FBI. nt

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

29. Ahhh, no. I read NO RW media. Do you trust any media?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. She had to have broken the law.

As Secretary of State she received and sent classified material. By law and per her signed acknowledgement she was required to not transmit classified material through unsecure channels.

To claim she broke no law is to claim she went 4 years as Secretary of State without doing anything of any real substance.

So far the evasions have amounted to claiming everything was retroactively classified but this is absurd on its face when over 1800 documents have so far been shown to be classified. It is to claim that every one of those documents could have been published front page of the NYT with no harm to the nation but only later became classified.

And this is supposed to have happened over 1,800 times without exception.

The next excuse offered is, "RW TALKING POINTZ!!!1!!!11"

Well, the RW will be talking these points and making ads out of them and hammering it away for the general election. This weak evasion only works on DU but it can't be used to keep the independent voters in check. They'll be interested to know and they'll see any effort to shout down their learning the facts to be a sure sign of skullduggery.

"But Powell and Rice!!!"

Saying, "they did it too!" is just another way of saying you did it too. That's not an excuse it's an admission of guilt. That one person skated is not a defense in a court of law or public opinion.

On matters not email related, Hillary is poison to every principle Progressives hold dear. Frankly, we should thank the RWers for taking her off of our hands. This corporatist realpolitik crap is beyond galling.

[DCBob]

63. Not really.

To have "broken the law" I believe she would have had to have done that knowingly and willfully. Just mistakenly or accidentally sending/receiving classified email would not constituent a felony. It is my understanding that has happened quite frequently in the past with many federal employees. If they prosecute Hillary they would have to prosecute thousands. They wont go there.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. So, you're effectively saying she's doddering and clueless.

[DCBob]

66. No.. not at all.. she is a brilliant incredibly knowledgeable woman.

I would imagine as Secretary of State she had to deal with hundreds of emails per day.... many in an urgent way. She didnt have time to think about every single sentence and word to determine if it was technically classified or not. I am sure mistakes were made... but not willfully or knowingly so there is no crime. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. She had to work with the assumption she would receive and transmit classified material.

There is no reasonable way to claim she would never have had that assumption. She was briefed on it. She signed NDAs.

So how, then, did she intend to receive and transmit classified material?

[DCBob]

69. She has said she usually used a secure phone for urgent confidential matters.

If in written format she would use secure email or secure fax.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. There was no secure email, that's the point.

If she had been using secure email we could have shot this down years ago.

[DCBob]

71. State Dept has a secure email and fax system.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. Which Clinton declined to use in favor of her personal, unsecure server. Hence the current issue.

[DCBob]

73. She said she never sent classified messages on her personal server..

so she must have used some other means to send messages that did actually contain classified messages. I cant recall exactly what she said regarding that. I do remember her saying she usually called using a secure phone when classified information was involved but when it was written message I suspect she mostly used fax for that. The feds love using fax for secure messaging.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. Yet, over 1800 classified emails have been recovered from her personal server.

[DCBob]

75. Classified after the fact.

None were classified at the time they were sent/received according to everything I have read.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. You really expect people to buy that, don't you?

[DCBob]

77. So you assume she is lying?

That would be very very risky on her part and would require a massive coordinated conspiracy to cover it up.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. That would certainly explain the criminal investigation by the FBI, replete with immunity offers.

[DCBob]

80. It would require hundreds of staffers and colleagues to be in on this conspiracy.

All they would need is one person with one message that was marked classified at the time it was sent and she would be in trouble. It has not surfaced yet.. why because there isn't one.

[bushisanidiot]

81. You aren't skeptical AT ALL of why this "investigation" is happening NOW even though she left office

3 years ago? And aren't you the LEAST bit skeptical of this "investigation" knowing that somehow
TOM DELAY, known ACTUAL criminal, knew the FBI investigation was coming before anyone else
and he started the whisper campaign about it last year near when she announced her bid for
the presidency???

Some here would send Secretary Clinton to jail for 20 years based on some "gotcha" technicality.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. If there is truly nothing to hide than Hillary has only her own political

incompetence to blame for the fact this investigation has been dragging on for years.

[demosocialist]

86. Im very skeptical of why now

But what worries me is the general American electorate who don't have the luxury of being able to try and understand this stuff will not be as skeptical. This just seems like a hard sell to people.

BTW I really like your avatar

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. It would certainly be a role reversal...

Hillary supporters actually having less in common with "RW kooks" than Bernie folk for a change...

[Zambero]

36. Is Judicial Watch on this thing yet?

Start with smoke, then add the fire as needed.

[NWCorona]

12. Very! And that wasn't sarcastic at all

[Arazi]

14. I love Obama and will be pissed if HRC brings any scandal to his admin

This sucks

[Logical]

15. Lol, keep laughing.

[Marr]

79. They do not care. It's Hillary's TurnŠ, and fuck everything else.

The same people who were haranguing everyone about 'electability' a few short months ago are now in the position of supporting the candidate who *already* loses to Republicans in national polls, and may very well be indicted during the election season.

[jeff47]

27. Yes, the DOJ regularly grants immunity for nothing.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

30. I know - cognitive dissonance isn't just for repubs anymore!

[chillfactor]

32. you are correct...

media frenzy over nothiing

[DCBob]

33. For sure they are interested in the server setup and whether the system might have been compromised.

But they are not targeting Hillary personally for any failures in the server security setup... and they are also not going to blame the IT guy either which is why they are granting him immunity. They just want to know if there was problem and if further investigations are needed.

[jeff47]

34. You don't need him for that.

They have the server. The configuration is on it. They don't need him to testify about how he configured it. They can just read the configuration files.

Your claim is a little like saying the DOJ needs to give immunity to a reporter so he can testify about the verbatim text in the newspaper.

What they would grant immunity for is his testimony about other people.

[bettyellen]

37. So everyone he would testify to is such an IT expert that they can "just read the configuration

files" all by themselves and easily judge the technical aspects? Interesting theory you have there.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

41. The FBI has experts that documented the configure and what insecurities

There may be in the system. Generally, if a person is given immunity, it's because he did something illegal, but they agree not to prosecute him for whatever crime he committed in exchange for the person that put them up to it.

[DCBob]

43. There is more to server security than the server configuration.

I suspect they are mostly interested in what network security they had in place such as a firewall with IP restrictions. That would not be apparent from just inspecting the server itself.

[jeff47]

47. That is readily available via subpoena.

You can subpoena the configuration files of the firewall, VPN appliance, and everything else on the network.

They only need immunity if he's going to testify about things that are not saved on a disk.

[DCBob]

48. What if all those things are gone and he is the only one who knows the original setup?

I suspect that is the situation.

[jeff47]

49. Look, I understand you're desperately searching for a reason why he isn't a problem.

But fact is, he is a problem.

Immunity makes absolutely no sense if they're just asking about configuration. The end they'd be looking for in your scenario is "was this compromised?". Well, you'd find the compromise software on the server. It isn't ephemeral. At that point the configuration does not matter, they've found the compromise.

You're desperately trying to bog down into minutia, forgetting that there's an end-goal in mind. There is no end-goal that only involves "how'd you set this up?" as the only reason for immunity.

[DCBob]

50. You seem to be the one who is desperate.

I'm just stating the obvious... at least obvious to someone who doesn't have a profound bias against a particular candidate.

[jeff47]

53. Then what is the obvious end-goal in your scenario, oh not-desperate one?

What does the DOJ gain from only finding out how he configured the server and related devices? And when you provide your answer, remember immunity is not granted just for curiosity.

[DCBob]

55. Their main concern is the integrity of the data that passed through that server.

Was it or could it have been hacked? Secondarily whether individuals followed proper data security protocol.

[jeff47]

57. And as mentioned above, that doesn't require his testimony

The software that uploaded all her email would still be on the server, where the FBI forensics team can find it. It isn't ephemeral because the people hacking the server want it to continue uploading after it is rebooted.

So what's the reason they need his testimony?

[Autumn]

31. Yeah all IT guys invoke the Fifth Amendment and decline to talk to congressional investigators

like Pagliano did last fall.

[DCBob]

44. I am sure he was freaking out and saw the safest path was to plead the fifth.

Not surprising at all even if he had nothing to hide.

[Babel_17]

60. That's the crux of it, people don't get cute with the FBI for long

In a situation like this they could have just arrested him for blatantly breaking the law, and btw, wave farewell to your career. It's a dance, he feels that there's exculpatory evidence, and what he did was part of a larger situation. The FBI understands that, but for total immunity he has to be totally honest, and have evidence that's useful.

Though if he was truly just a bewildered tool then the FBI might give him immunity just for being honest. But nobody at his level in government, who also worked privately in IT, is likely all that confused about the ramifications of what he got himself up to.

As I've previously said, I think it likely he figured it was somehow cleared by people at the very top in government. Like that scene in Goodfellas where the young Henry Hill, selling bootleg cigarettes, is telling the cops "it's OK". They, like the FBI, had the attitude, "it's not OK".

The details will be interesting, imo.

[malokvale77]

35. I'm going to pretend for a moment that you are a Hillary supporter...

and not stupid.

Times up: which is it?

[Oilwellian]

38. drip drip drip n/t

[Kentonio]

42. This part pissed me off..

Former federal prosecutor Glen Kopp said it is not surprising that agents want to interview Clinton and her aides.

“They are within the zone of interest of the investigation,” he said.

A request to interview her would have to be reviewed by top level officials at both the FBI and the Justice Department, a former official said.

It really is one law for the connected and one law for everyone else. If law enforcement have reason to question someone it shouldn't damn well matter who they are or who their friends are.

[randome]

51. She deals with classified information, in case you've forgotten. Of course it's a little different.

For instance, you can't have FBI or DOJ asking about top secret negotiations about Iran or anything like that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Kentonio]

52. Why would they? They can only ask her about things they already know details of.

No-one would expect them to go on a fishing expedition.

[randome]

56. Maybe that's why it needs to be cleared, first. So that no fishing expeditions are undertaken.

Whatever the reason, it sounds like SOP. To make Clinton seem like some sort of privileged elite because of it seems off the mark to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Kentonio]

65. I wasn't just singling out Clinton to be fair

I just hate the special treatment routinely doled out to politicians and celebrities by organizations intended to serve the public good.

[LonePirate]

54. Hillary's bipartisanship is on display here. She has united the right and the far left.

Both groups want her indicted.

[Babel_17]

59. Who did he answer to, what directions did he receive?

And what can be verified? Though if he was aware of his surroundings, and was chatty at the water cooler, he might be able to give a great sense of things, even if it's not testimony worthy.

When the FBI talks to other people, they'll know that the FBI knows what he knows. Which might be one reason to release this info. Rather than let people perjure themselves, foster an environment that makes them want to tell all.

Depending on what the situation actually is, we then might see a hurry to be next to get immunity. The people who worked directly with Pagliano come to mind. And we have to wonder what records Pagliano preserved. People might be searching their memory to recall what they've emailed to him.

If there were conversations with Pagliano, the person over him, and a third party; that could be very interesting if they openly discussed the level of importance of the material on the server. These are the nerds, they knew what the regulations demanded. That's what put Pagliano in a bind. I'm guessing he figured everything was OK because the people at the highest level knew what he was doing.

Now, lo and behold, the FBI takes issue with that. The question could then become, can Pagliano prove any of what he knows, and are there any other witnesses to what he directly heard? Things can be very compartmentalized, so he might not have much to offer that directly implicates anyone else.

Color me extremely interested. I doubt anyone outside the investigation knows exactly what he gave to the FBI.

[Arazi]

67. The investigation is scheduled to be done by early May

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511403650

So if any charges are recommended, we'll know before the convention

[wyldwolf]

84. "should not be read as a sign Hillary Clinton is facing charges."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/what-does-a-former-staffers-immunity-deal-mean-for-hillary-clinton/2016/03/03/0fbb6ab2-e15e-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

[John Poet]

85. Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick....

Will the bomb go off soon enough to save the party
and more importantly, the country?

[silenttigersong]

87. Hope this adds to the discourse .....

According to one official that spoke with The Post, the immunity agreement was used so the FBI could secure the cooperation of former Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano, who originally set up the private server in her New York home in 2009.

Last year, Magliano invoked his 5th Amendment right in refusing to testify before a congressional committee panel and he also invoked a less well-known 5th Amendment “non-production privilege” that protects a witness from being compelled to disclose the existence of incriminating documents. However, if the witness produces such documents, pursuant to a grant of immunity, the government may not use them to prepare criminal charges against him.

As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley mentioned in a series of tweets tonight, this is not good news for Hillary Clinton.
(snip)

Read more at. lawnewz.com