• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton IT aide Pagliano to plead Fifth in email case

Paperview said:
The Supreme Court ::: "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."
Click to expand...

Yes, I know exactly what the law says. That's why every innocent person pleads the 5th instead of just being honest.

lol WOW
 
11Bravo said:
People plead the 5th to avoid criminalizing themselves.

Innocent people tell the truth
Click to expand...

Amen. I was trying to figure out a way of saying that but what you said will do.
 
11Bravo said:
Yes, I know exactly what the law says. That's why every innocent person pleads the 5th instead of just being honest.

lol WOW
Click to expand...

Wow yourself.

Not everyone who pleads the fifth is guilty.

Why do you think our founders thought it so important to include it in the Bill of Rights?

You think they're purpose was to protect criminals?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
He should have a right to plead the 5th. He also should be removed from any contact with the State Department since he doesn't want to talk about his job while there. I believe he works for a contractor that does work for the State Department.
Click to expand...
So, basically, you are Ok with punishing people for exercising their Constitutional rights.
He may not want to talk about his job for any number of reasons:
• His company takes short cuts that while not criminal could cost them business if coming to light
• His boss told him to plead the 5th
• His or the company's attorney told him to plead the 5th and waiting to see where the case goes before commenting.

etc etc ad nauseum

Its not really the public's duty to decide whether he is guilty of something or not based on his actions in court either but that has never stopped us before.
 
Paperview said:
It was reported earlier he didn't claim some of the money he got for his IT work on his federal disclosure forms.

It's possible there could be some of the issue he may rightfully be concerned about getting in trouble about -- having nothing to do with Clinton.
Click to expand...

If true, then in fact, he IS pleading the 5th due to fear of providing evidence of a crime. Which reveals him to be a criminal. I think there is enough other evidence to show both Clintons to be criminals, so we are left with a group of people who exploit legal loopholes to protect each other and avoid paying for their crimes.

Not sure that this invalidates the OP.
 
Paperview said:
Wow yourself.

Not everyone who pleads the fifth is guilty.

Why do you think our founders thought it so important to include it in the Bill of Rights?

You think they're purpose was to protect criminals?
Click to expand...

Lol it's 100% you're right. But why, especially in this case, would someone so innocent, plead the fifth? Instead of blindly saying "it's his right", and whining about that over and over, offer reasons that outweigh the obvious, that he's hiding something.

Be productive. Because the way it looks, is that he's hiding something. We all know it, the blind Hillary sheep don't, but then again, they think she's a good candidate lol
 
fmw said:
My understanding is that he accepted immunity. If so he can't take the fifth. Perhaps my understanding is wrong.
Click to expand...

On different charges. There is no such thing as blanket immunity. He may simply have concerns about unreported income - which is another matter entirely.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
On different charges. There is no such thing as blanket immunity. He may simply have concerns about unreported income - which is another matter entirely.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder about the hiring decisions they make in government, particularly since they can't fire anybody.
 
BrewerBob said:
Possibly. But I am sure he is also doing it for himself. At the time he worked for the State Department's IRM (Information Resource Management) office. I worked closely with those folks during my embassy days. Clinton may be able to claim she was ignorant. Pagliano can't. There is a zero percent chance that a member of State's IRM wouldn't know that setting up a private server like that was against regulations. No chance at all.
Click to expand...

Umm, I don't think Clinton can claim she was ignorant either.

On day one of her tenure as SoS, it is my understanding that she had a 2 hour orientation about being SoS which I believe included of the proper handling of classified information and also government email communications. This followed by a signed statement acknowledging her compliance, which she clearly didn't.
 
From Wikpedia:


The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case. "Pleading the Fifth" is a colloquial term for invoking the privilege that allows a witness to decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate him, and generally without having to suffer a penalty for asserting the privilege.

There aren't many reasons why an innocent person would need to do this.
 
fmw said:
Makes you wonder about the hiring decisions they make in government, particularly since they can't fire anybody.
Click to expand...

Was he hired by the government or simply granted a government contract? There is a major difference - rest assured that contractors can be fired. It is highly unlikely that the State Department hired him to place a "private" server in HRC's home.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
It could be fairly substantial if the free thinkers are members of the jury at his trial.
Click to expand...

Nobody here is any of that; not to mention - it would still be unsubstantiated.
 
Moderate Right said:
From Wikpedia:


The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case. "Pleading the Fifth" is a colloquial term for invoking the privilege that allows a witness to decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate him, and generally without having to suffer a penalty for asserting the privilege.

There aren't many reasons why an innocent person would need to do this.
Click to expand...

There is a very big one; to remain innocent, especially of perjury.
 
Ntharotep said:
So, basically, you are Ok with punishing people for exercising their Constitutional rights.
He may not want to talk about his job for any number of reasons:
• His company takes short cuts that while not criminal could cost them business if coming to light
• His boss told him to plead the 5th
• His or the company's attorney told him to plead the 5th and waiting to see where the case goes before commenting.

etc etc ad nauseum

Its not really the public's duty to decide whether he is guilty of something or not based on his actions in court either but that has never stopped us before.
Click to expand...

He doesn't want to answer questions about his job which is his Constitutional right and I support that. He was also an employee of the State Department. If he doesn't want to answer questions, then yes, he should have no contact with the State Department. He isn't prevented from working for any other employer. Are you implying that working for the State Department is a Constitutional right?

This is about the right of an employer to decide who they want as a vendor (in this case, since he is no longer an employee).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There is a very big one; to remain innocent, especially of perjury.
Click to expand...

But what does perjury mean? Does that mean if you are guilty and you lie about it in a trial and are found innocent (but you were actually really guilty), then you could be found guilty of perjury instead of the crime you were found innocent of, even though you were guilty in the first place? Did I get that right?
 
Moderate Right said:
But what does perjury mean? Does that mean if you are guilty and you lie about it in a trial and are found innocent (but you were actually really guilty), then you could be found guilty of perjury instead of the crime you were found innocent of, even though you were guilty in the first place? Did I get that right?
Click to expand...

It means lying under oath, like saying "I did not have sex with that woman" when you, in fact, did. ;)

While having (consentual) sex with a woman is not illegal it may, none the less, be wiser simply not to answer that question at all.
 
Back in the olden days of Jolly old England, they would often browbeat a confession out of a suspect.

Rather than Justice being a "search for truth" it was a "search for a conviction". What easier way to convict than with a confession by the perpetrator himself?

To prevent the "The Big Boot" of government stepping on citizens throats and inviting them to divulge their transgressions, we now have the "Fifth", a non predudicial way of telling the government "I'd prefer not to talk about that."
 
Shouldn't this guy be the 48th person killed by the Clintons?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
And...so? What? Lots of unsubstantiated stuff we still have to make decisions on... and we do.
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm glad you agree that taking the 5th is not indicative of guilt or innocence.
 
Paperview said:
You just made up that question. lol

Judicial Watch is a rabid, disgusting, Right Wing junkdog that has been abusing the system and making **** up out of whole cloth or telling halftruths for over 20 years now.

They can go pound sand.
Click to expand...

Lol !!

Keep it up Judicial watch, you know you're making progress when you drive Libs stark raving
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom