Drip... 'Clintons Personally Paid State Department Staffer To Maintain Server' - WaPo

[WillyT]

Clintons personally paid State Department staffer to maintain server
Rosalind S. Helderman and Carol D. Leonnig - WaPo
September 5 at 12:07 AM

<snip>

Hillary Rodham Clinton and her family personally paid a State Department staffer to maintain the private e-mail server she used while heading the agency, according to an official from Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The unusual arrangement helped Clinton retain personal control over the system that she used for her public and private duties and that has emerged as an issue for her campaign. But, according to the campaign official, it also ensured that taxpayer dollars were not spent on a private server that was shared by Clinton, her husband and their daughter as well as aides to the former president.

That State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano, told a congressional committee this week that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination instead of testifying about the setup.

The private employment of Pagliano provides a new example of the ways that Clinton — who occupied a unique role as a Cabinet secretary who was also a former and potentially future presidential candidate — hired staff to work simultaneously for her in public and private capacities.

<snip>

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-personally-paid-state-department-staffer-to-maintain-server/2015/09/04/b13ab23e-530c-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. So the guy gets a WH salary AND private pay via Hillary???

For setting up private email servers?
After all the yelling and hullabaloo about Rove and Bush and etc. not using WH servers for 8 years, Hillary gores and does the same thing???

[MADem]

26. No. The guy did not work for the "WH." He worked for HRC. He also worked for State.

The WH has different rules than State had.

If you paid attention you would know this.

Powell used private email, too.

[Thinkingabout]

2. If the server belonged to the Clinton's, who should be responsible for paying for maintence?

My hairdresser does maintenance on my laptop, it is extra pay for this service separate and apart from the work he does as my hairdresser. Why would anyone expect anything any different? This is getting crazy.

[karynnj]

5. Well, State Department protocol requires him to tell them of any other income earned - to prevent

conflict of interest.

[CajunBlazer]

17. Where is the fricking conflict of interest?

If the technician worked for one company and was working for a competitor in his spare time, that would be a conflict of interest.

If he were working for the State Department and working for the Russians in his spare time, that would be a big conflict of interest.

The truth is that he hasn't accused of a conflict of interest, he has been accused of not reporting his extra income to the State Department so his superiors could have determined whether he had a conflict of interest or not. If he had reported his extra income I am reasonably sure they would have found no conflict of interest because he was working on the side for their boss - and they would have would have been absolutely right.

This is an easy one, just remember that in order for there to be a conflict of interest - the extra job would have had to conflict the proper running of the State department. How in the hell can there be a conflict of interest when he was working in his spare time for the Secretary of State?

If you are going to act like a Republican and try to tear down someone who might be the Democratic nominee, at least think your arguments first and see if they hold water.

[karynnj]

20. You are NOT reading what I wrote correctly

I am saying that the State Department REQUIRED employees to tell them of outside work -- and a reason was to prevent conflicts of interest. NOWHERE did I say THIS was a conflict of interest.

As to this, I deserve an apology - as I was simply disputing the poster's analogy. Her hiring her hairdresser to look at her computer iis her hiring two people to work for her. He was hired by the STATE DEPARTMENT and had to comply with its rules. He was also hired by HRC (or her PAC - though I think that was not operating when she was S0S.) More than me needing to think, you need to actually learn how to read more carefully.

So, why do you think he is taking the fifth? I would guess it has more to do with his own legal jeopardy than it does with Clinton. Is it not possible that he failed to declare this as income. My guess is that HRC treated the relationship as one of him being an independent contractor -- meaning his was his responsibility to fill out the appropriate forms to declare the income - pay BOTH halves of teh SS and Medicare taxes and declare it as income.

[CajunBlazer]

23. Sorry. you're right. I evidently misconstrued the intent behind youir post.

I guess I am sick and tired of some folks acting like Republicans making all of this into some kind of gotya game and not knowing what the heck they are talking about. So I over reacted. I will take you at your word as to your intent and apologize.

And I think you right. I read somewhere that the tech guy didn't report the income, so he may be just trying to cover his ass. If true, and I don't know that it is, I can't blame him. On the other hand if he is like most tech folks I know, he may not relish the idea of getting between a pack of hungry wolves and their intended prey. I wouldn't blame him there either.

The problem is that until the smoke clears and the truth is known, the Republicans will hold up his refusal to testify as proof that Hillary did something wrong, not that he did something wrong. But congressional committees can get around that easily enough just by offering him immunity from prosecution. Regardless, soon enough the entire truth will come out and everyone can judge for themselves, within their own set of prejudices of course.

[840high]

28. I read he reported one year but then just

plain forgot to report the other years.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Running the Clinton Family Server on the side presents a potential problem

Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 12:58 PM - Edit history (1)

in terms of who was paying him at any given time, and in terms of what his side work with the Clintons entailed. Until we know more about the nature of his side gig, and the full scope of exactly WHAT he was doing simultaneously with his State duties, WHO he was working for (Hillary? Clinton Foundation? Bill?) and whether or not the State Dept. IT staff understood it all and gave the arrangement a blessing, I wouldn't be so quick to say "there's nothing to see here". Hillary and this guy would have to pony up the paperwork, job description, work logs, pay info, etc. to show there was no conflict of interest. The lack of apparent disclosure is a big red flag. BTW, you really need to stop running all over DU accusing everyone that doesn't love Hillary Clinton of being Republicans.

[jeff47]

7. Well, if State department business is running over that server

the State department is supposed to be the one paying.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. This is really bizarre

[Warren DeMontague]

4. ah, um

hmmmmm.

[SonderWoman]

6. BENGHAZI!!!!

[HappyPlace]

9. Actually...

Thanks for kicking.

[cali]

11. your unending attempts to delegitimize any criticism of Hillary

is as transparent as it is lame.

[Segami]

14. Pfft!...+1

[CajunBlazer]

18. Unending attemts to tear down potential Democratic nominees on UD is counterproductive to our cause

and not very bright.

[840high]

29. Hillary is and never will be

my cause.

[CajunBlazer]

31. If Clinton gets the nomination, maybe you will find a better candidate...

on there Republican side of ballot. Donald , Ted, Jeb or Ben may be more to your liking.

[840high]

32. That old line again. I would

write in Berni e's name.

[CajunBlazer]

13. Are you a Republican? Just wondering. (n/t)

[MADem]

27. That poster supports Clinton. You failed to note sarcasm, which that post obviously was.

You should probably delete.

[jeff47]

8. I wonder if this runs afoul of government contracting laws?

She effectively awarded a no-bid contract to her staffer to maintain a server used for State Department business.

I have no idea if it does or does not, since I know virtually nothing about those laws.

[CajunBlazer]

15. Contracting Laws?!?! Give us a break

It was her server and her money. Her family's emails also ran on that server. If you wanted to hire a contractor to build a new home, would you be required to put the project up for bid.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. Bullshit on the bid stuff.

If I wanted to build a home, I could pick the contractor of my choice and bids be damned.

[CajunBlazer]

19. Exactly! (n/t)

[jeff47]

33. It was State Department business. Thus it was not personal and those laws may come into play.

It's just another reason why this was a really bad idea.

[AtomicKitten]

10. Drip, drip, f*cking drip.

[CajunBlazer]

21. It is 16 months before the election. Not to worry.

If we are still talking about this two months before the election, except for in some stale Republican ads, then we can start worrying - but we won't be. Either Hillary will not be the nominee or the voting public will be concentrating on a comparison of Hillary's experience and that of her Republican opponent. That won't be pretty for the Republicans because, if nominated, Hillary will the best prepared to be President of any candidate in recent memory.

[AtomicKitten]

22. Are you kidding?

This is how it is under the Clintons: Constant blowback because of their lack of ethical standards.

With the debates delayed due to the DNC protecting their preferred candidate, the GOP is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. Without discussion of substantive issues, we are left with this focus on the continuing saga of more Clinton blowback. The Democratic Party is destined for a head-on collision into a brick wall.

[CajunBlazer]

24. This will be old news in three month'. I assume you are supporting another candidate...

.....and if so I would advise you to follow the lead of all of the Democratic candidates and quit acting like a Republican. Alll of our candidates understand that it is not helpful to the cause of ensuring that we keep the White House in Democratic hands to be trying to tear down any of the Democratic candidates.

God help us if a Republican wins the Presidency and they maintain their control of both the House and Senate. Also keep in mind the the next President will probably be able to name at last two, maybe as many as four Justices of the Supreme Court. Why in the world would you want to make that the least bit more likely by tearing down Democratic candidates, one of which might be nominee.

[AtomicKitten]

25. I'd rather be informed than have my head in the sand.

There is no love lost in the party. Not since Hillary's ugly race-baiting campaign in 2007/08. She's starting the same bullshit again sending out her surrogate drones to trash-talk Bernie (Luis Gutierrez, Claire McCaskill, Anthony Weiner, Joaquin Castro, Andrew Cuomo, etc.). You might want to have a word with her campaign if you smell something nasty.

And, for the record, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Republican ideas on pro-corporate economic policy and neoliberal foreign policy/perpetual war. The necessary airing of these issues is NOW, not after the fact. So maybe you should quit acting like a chump with your rah-rah bullshit, do your homework, and open up your mind.

[840high]

30. You are fooling yourself - her bagge will

follow her into debates and beyond.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Conflict of Interest? Naw...perish the thought...just business...absolutely above board.

Stupid? Well..........