• 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

Μολὼν λαβέ;1065941811 said:
Suicide by two gunshots to the head.
Click to expand...

In Fort Marcy Park?
 
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...

Yes they are, I somehow ended up on their mailing list and after ignoring them long enough they went away, but reading some of their letters was quite the comedy tour!
 
AliHajiSheik said:
To answer your questions:

No, No. He was found not guilty of murder. No murder, no murderer.
Click to expand...

Not buying it....Now I am not going to play the goose chase game, and scour the board to find quotes of you taking up with those in threads calling Z a murderer, but suffice to say, your hindsight enlightenment is only convenience to the argument at hand. Nothing wrong with that, it's human nature when one wants to conceal their own hypocrisy....just saying.

2nd question very poorly worded and I don't know how to answer.
Click to expand...

You don't know how to answer because if you look in the mirror and answer it honestly, you can NOT believe that Hillary Clinton didn't know that what she was doing with a private server was covering up her corruption concerning her post as SoS, and donations to the "Clinton fund" in a pay to play scheme from the worst of the worst people in this world. And she damned well didn't want any of that exposed to FOIA, but there was no way to separate her official business as SoS, and her graft in the foundation. This is clear to everyone being honest.

Do you really care what I believe Hillary thought
Click to expand...

Generally? No. But, I did ask you a question. A simple one at that, and you immediately obfuscated showing everyone that you really don't have much of a defense of the liberal corruption, and mess that is reality in today's political landscape.

is there a meaningful question you want to ask?
Click to expand...

Despite the snark in your loaded tripe, I will ask you something to see if you actually can put together a response, or just continue to dodge. Ready?

Do you really think that Hillary Clinton is morally fit, integrity wise, and honest enough with the people of this country to begin to heal the division that the previous administration has left in its wake to bring this country together, and tone down that division? Or will she simply continue to divide us until people are hurt in the streets more than now?
 
j-mac said:
Not buying it....Now I am not going to play the goose chase game, and scour the board to find quotes of you taking up with those in threads calling Z a murderer, but suffice to say, your hindsight enlightenment is only convenience to the argument at hand. Nothing wrong with that, it's human nature when one wants to conceal their own hypocrisy....just saying.



You don't know how to answer because if you look in the mirror and answer it honestly, you can NOT believe that Hillary Clinton didn't know that what she was doing with a private server was covering up her corruption concerning her post as SoS, and donations to the "Clinton fund" in a pay to play scheme from the worst of the worst people in this world. And she damned well didn't want any of that exposed to FOIA, but there was no way to separate her official business as SoS, and her graft in the foundation. This is clear to everyone being honest.



Generally? No. But, I did ask you a question. A simple one at that, and you immediately obfuscated showing everyone that you really don't have much of a defense of the liberal corruption, and mess that is reality in today's political landscape.



Despite the snark in your loaded tripe, I will ask you something to see if you actually can put together a response, or just continue to dodge. Ready?

Do you really think that Hillary Clinton is morally fit, integrity wise, and honest enough with the people of this country to begin to heal the division that the previous administration has left in its wake to bring this country together, and tone down that division? Or will she simply continue to divide us until people are hurt in the streets more than now?
Click to expand...

Did you really reread your questions? I tried to piece together your question from before and I tried to interpret what you wrote. I'd rather not answer stupid questions, like "do you believe that she thought". Really, that is a dumb question as bad as "have you stopped beating your wife". What I believe that she thought is irrelevant. Most of the rest of your post is you setting up your own strawman with my face on it. I never really participated in the Martin/Zimmerman thread because I didn't care for any of the participants and I lived in Florida too long to be surprised by anything that happens there.

As for your last question, I will answer the meaningful part of it because it is asking what I think. The rest is your own embellishment that I don't want to participate. Here goes, and I will quote the part that I will answer first:

"Do you really think that Hillary Clinton is morally fit, integrity wise, and honest enough with the people of this country"

My answer: "No."

Your agenda is so practiced you don't feel the need to ask an understandable question. I prefer to not answer a question I can't understand and since I'm the one being asked, I think I'm being reasonable. If you want to have a discussion, then try not to contribute for both participants. I'm not shy about my opinions but I would prefer to be the one to express them.
 
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...

images555.jpg
 
His lawyers confirmed in a new filing that his immunity is "limited".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-clint...mmunity-issue-205144370--politics.html?ref=gs

The filing from Bryan Pagliano came in response to a judge's directive to disclose details of the immunity agreement, which Pagliano said he entered into after cooperating in December with the Justice Department's ongoing investigation into Clinton's server.

Though Pagliano has spoken with the Justice Department, he has invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination in refusing to answer questions from Congress and reiterated Tuesday that he would not give testimony in an ongoing lawsuit brought by conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch.

"The DOJ has not authorized a grant of immunity for Mr. Pagliano in connection with any other matter, including this civil case," Pagliano's attorneys wrote in a court filing.

Pagliano received limited "use" and "derivative use" immunity from the Justice Department, his lawyers wrote. That type of immunity generally protects witnesses from having statements they make to investigators being used against them in any criminal case — with the exception of lies or false statements — while still enabling the government to prosecute using evidence it obtains independent of that testimony.
Click to expand...

He's pretty much screwed. He can't repeat his statements to the FBI, because repeating them, even word for word, would allow them to be used as evidence against him.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Did you really reread your questions? I tried to piece together your question from before and I tried to interpret what you wrote. I'd rather not answer stupid questions, like "do you believe that she thought". Really, that is a dumb question as bad as "have you stopped beating your wife". What I believe that she thought is irrelevant. Most of the rest of your post is you setting up your own strawman with my face on it. I never really participated in the Martin/Zimmerman thread because I didn't care for any of the participants and I lived in Florida too long to be surprised by anything that happens there.

As for your last question, I will answer the meaningful part of it because it is asking what I think. The rest is your own embellishment that I don't want to participate. Here goes, and I will quote the part that I will answer first:

"Do you really think that Hillary Clinton is morally fit, integrity wise, and honest enough with the people of this country"

My answer: "No."

Your agenda is so practiced you don't feel the need to ask an understandable question. I prefer to not answer a question I can't understand and since I'm the one being asked, I think I'm being reasonable. If you want to have a discussion, then try not to contribute for both participants. I'm not shy about my opinions but I would prefer to be the one to express them.
Click to expand...

Then do so....No one is stopping you, but you. You have stated that you don't think that Hillary is morally fit to heal, and or run this country, but will you still cast your vote for her, either directly, or indirectly? Me thinks so....In any case, calling my post to you irrelevant may make you feel better, but in the end, it only shows that you may only be able to respond to posts you tee up yourself...In that end, it is not then a conversation, and I would bid you good day.
 
j-mac said:
Then do so....No one is stopping you, but you. You have stated that you don't think that Hillary is morally fit to heal, and or run this country, but will you still cast your vote for her, either directly, or indirectly? Me thinks so....In any case, calling my post to you irrelevant may make you feel better, but in the end, it only shows that you may only be able to respond to posts you tee up yourself...In that end, it is not then a conversation, and I would bid you good day.
Click to expand...

I never called your post irrelevant, you just made that up. If it were irrelevant, I would not have replied. That is how irrelevancy works.

I will not be voting for Mrs. Clinton under any circumstance.

"Me thinks so". Do you really talk like that in SC? If so, then bless your heart.
 
Erod said:
A opposed to someone on your side - like YOU - that will make every excuse known to man to defend who we all know is guilty as hell.
Click to expand...

I have no idea who this Clinton Aid "Pagliano" is. You must sure know him well if you know he is guilty as hell....

:doh




Since you think you are entitled to speak on behalf of "everbody", tell me: what would "everybody" say if Hillary took office, and the moment she did so she ordered the arrest/prosecution of a Republican politician who had opposed or criticized her in the past. Would everybody just know that the Republican was guilty because that's what politician slimeballs are..guilty? Or would they call it a political witch hunt.

Uhuh. Thought so.

Of course, if Trump takes office and orders the same with regards to a Democrat, I'm sure that your "everybody" would be certain it was the right thing to do.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I never called your post irrelevant, you just made that up. If it were irrelevant, I would not have replied. That is how irrelevancy works.

I will not be voting for Mrs. Clinton under any circumstance.

"Me thinks so". Do you really talk like that in SC? If so, then bless your heart.
Click to expand...

Again, cherry picking one word in a post only shows how absolutely vapid your argument is....Work on that and get back to me.
 
Mr Person said:
I have no idea who this Clinton Aid "Pagliano" is. You must sure know him well if you know he is guilty as hell....

:doh




Since you think you are entitled to speak on behalf of "everbody", tell me: what would "everybody" say if Hillary took office, and the moment she did so she ordered the arrest/prosecution of a Republican politician who had opposed or criticized her in the past. Would everybody just know that the Republican was guilty because that's what politician slimeballs are..guilty? Or would they call it a political witch hunt.

Uhuh. Thought so.

Of course, if Trump takes office and orders the same with regards to a Democrat, I'm sure that your "everybody" would be certain it was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

So you think Hillary did nothing wrong? stunning....If Hillary had an 'R' behind her name, I'd bet you'd think differently.
 
j-mac said:
Again, cherry picking one word in a post only shows how absolutely vapid your argument is....Work on that and get back to me.
Click to expand...

I've made no argument, maybe that is why you aren't stimulated. I'll leave you to your own arguments and you can stimulate yourself.
 
Where are those liberals now? Apparently even they are now beginning to understand that this guy is indeed guilty of something. I wouldn't be surprised if they give him full immunity and he rats on someone. Wonder who that would be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom