Despite Immunity, Former Clinton Staffer Again Says No To Testifying To Congress

[Purveyor]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

By The Associated Press , Herald-Tribune / Friday, April 22, 2016
WASHINGTON

A lawyer for the former Hillary Clinton staffer who helped maintain her private email server has told Congress that his client still will not appear before Senate committees investigating the matter.

The Senate committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees had renewed their request to question Bryan Pagliano about the server after news broke that the Justice Department, which is also investigating the server, had offered him immunity.

In this Sept. 10, 2015m file photo, Bryan Pagliano, center,a former State Department employee who helped set up and maintain a private email server used by Hillary Clinton, departs Capitol Hill in Washington. A lawyer for Pagliano has told Congress that his client still will not appear before Senate committees investigating the matter. AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

Committee leaders had told Pagliano that the immunity grant should relieve any concerns he had about being prosecuted if he testified and they requested that he appear before them. He had refused to speak with lawmakers last year, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in declining to answer questions about the server and email setup.

But Pagliano’s attorney, Mark MacDougall, said in a March 11 letter obtained by The Associated Press on Friday that Pagliano would continue to “respectfully decline” their invitation.

Read more: http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2016/04/22/despite-immunity-former-clinton-staffer-again-says-no-to-testifying-to-congress/

[JonLeibowitz]

1. This is almost expected. What will be interesting is whether they seek a subpoena or not

[certainot]

15. why would the republicans do that? they want him to testify

this clinton trolling is idiotic

[nashville_brook]

18. who said anything about Rs?

[certainot]

24. because that's what they do

see samantha smith, wellstone, the guy who was going to rat on rove for e-vote hacking, etc.

there used to be a webpage full of egs.

so really? suggesting the clintons would do that? it's either R trolling or some really idiotic reading of recent history and crap on the many victims of that method.

oh, wait, what about vince foster!

[nashville_brook]

34. just saying, as above, no one said anything about Rs

[certainot]

41. they're suggesting hillary!

how absurd is that, considering history

then again, i've seen a hell of a lot of rw radio repetition on liberal blogs lately

[certainot]

103. you are naive

perhaps not 'republicans' but in their interests

plane crashes are perfect for it because most or all the evidence is usually destroyed and sceptics and the benefitted can always insist on 100% certainty

here's an eg of stuff that's out there on wellstone -http://www.oilempire.us/wellstone.html - not considering the possibility allows it to happen again and again - ex KGB guy said samantha smith, reagans trillion dollar anti-nuke anti star wars PR nightmare was such, and a plane crash investigator writer suggested same

cheryl seal used to have a long list of plane crashes online and it's gone - the cia used to do stuff like that when they didn't like some progressive leader.

the long list was mostly 'liberals' 'leftists' etc.

[certainot]

105. discounting the possibility because

you think those with billion and trillion dollar interests wouldn't hire people to do shit like that is naive

a lot of americans are naive

[-none]

57. Hillary's people do not want him to testify.

And conjecture is not necessarily trolling. I was conjecturing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. When you suggest on DU that Democrats might murder people, you're trolling

Admit your behaviour. You might as well be honest about your anti-Democrat purpose in this thread.

[-none]

75. "Democrats" are not monolithic.

There are real liberal Democrats that want peace, and then there are the DINO's. DINO's that think war is the proper way to go. So you are barking at the wrong people. I am not alone in my assessment.

[840high]

19. Well - he has a family.

[-none]

58. That could be in play too.

Hillary's server problem is big people territory after all.

[Major Hogwash]

3. This news will make a great political ad.

For Trump or Cruz.

[silvershadow]

4. Won't it? She will get eviscerated in a general election. nt

[7962]

12. I dont know, she likely has a trove of crap on Trump.

Its going to come down to whoever the people feel less revolted by.
For the first time in history, we'll have an election between the least liked candidate from each party!!

[silvershadow]

14. She doesn't inspire me to vote. At all. In fact, if the party embarrasses me by nominating her,

I will have to distance myself until it is over. And with the Clintons, it is never over.

[azureblue]

22. and here's a vote fro Trump

you don't vote Democratic, you tacitly vote for Trump. Proud of yourself?

[silvershadow]

25. I am. Fact is, right now he is to the left of her on many issues. MANY. nt

[tabasco]

30. List the many issues here, please. n/t

[silvershadow]

31. Not going there.

[tabasco]

32. Ya' got nothing.

FWIW, I support Sanders.

[silvershadow]

33. No these people are just gnashing at the teeth to alert on me, and the ridiculous

re-entry of masses of Hillary supporters during the Great Prison Break has me from 100% to 60% and I keep getting them. Fuck em. It is on.

[tabasco]

36. No, fuck Trump

and any imbeciles who think he's liberal in any fucking way. Fucking morons.

[silvershadow]

40. I can't vote for her. Period. End of story. Some of us won't. She will lose it on her own accord.

Don't lay it at my feet. We have been over that. You can't make me vote against my conscience. It will be nothing short of a betrayal by my own party. She is TAINTED. Doesn't matter who or how or even why...They tainted her and she is now CURRENTLY under investigation. It is a completely ABSURD position to ignore it. It is embarrassing. It is a betrayal. She is the WRONG candidate. PERIOD>

[anigbrowl]

37. Ah, you think Trump is a desirable left alternative to Clinton?

Forgive me if I don't take you even slightly seriously after that. As one of the people Trump would like to round up and send into camps I have just a bit of a problem with idiocy of the sort you display here.

[silvershadow]

62. No. I think he is to the left of her, not that he is desirable. nt

[silvershadow]

63. I think she turned her back on Labor with a big L. I owe her nothing. Nor a party that would

go so far off its' foundations to nominate her (never mind the Justice Investigation ongoing). The party is like a freaking mad hatter house.

[AlbertCat]

46. and here's a vote (for) Trump

Voting for Trump can only be accomplished by.... actually voting for Trump.

Not voting for Clinton is NOT a vote for Trump. It is not voting for Clinton.... unless of course he actually votes for Trump.

[dchill]

51. Logical fallacy.

Only a vote FOR anyone is a vote for anyone.

[coyote]

76. That's what happens

When you nominate a shitty candidate. I wish Clnton and her team all the best.

[greiner3]

94. When first I heard Susan Sarandon

Say she'd rather have Trump than Hillary my immediate response was that's not a good idea but the more time passes, and shit flies, maybe she's right. But I'm not advocating it cause I'd rather this post gets hid

[certainot]

27. bernie is extremely brave. most other good dems are afraid

to stick their necks out because the dumbass left/liberal/dems let 1200 coordinated radio stations take free potshots at them all day, then whine about how they won't stick their necks out.

fuck that. if dems want warrrens and sanders in the white house its a major lazy ass move to sit around and ignore rw radio.

here's some simple math, since people are so pissed off about money in politics:

at a cheap $1000/hr x 15hrs/day x 1200 stations, rw talk radio is worth 4.68 BIL$/ year or 390MIL$ /month FREE for coordinated pro republican wall st think tank propaganda, hate, and swiftboating

and that's been getting a free speech free ride for 30 years because liberals turned the dial for the music

[silvershadow]

28. It would take a George Soros to fund left wing radio. It has been tried and tried.

RW radio has corporate whores pumping endless money into it. Well, they did until recently, but that's another story.

[certainot]

39. no. you are playing into their bullshit - that talk radio is a reflection

of the 'market' for it. that’s free speech market forces garbage. that’s the usual rw talking point when someone like me calls it a well protested media monopoly operated like a classic military psyops.

it's a well subsidized. well protected monopoly. like mom and pop vs wall mart.

all the left has to do to get supermajorities in congress is stop ignoring it - protest the 90 universities that rent their logos to 268 limbaugh stations to help them keep their monopoly power going, bring in advertisers, and enjoy community credibility - while they deny global warming and try to defund public ed.

it’s really an insult to americans to suggest a 95% — 5% con to liberal radio ratio is market driven — that 19 out of 20 americans would rather listen to the lies and hate of limbaugh hannity savage levin over hartmann miller schultz rhodes goldman etc.

that’s been a major cause of the destruction of this democracy — the left can’t find liberal talk so they ignore rw radio while it trashes them and their interests, assuming somehow that the asshole on the soapbox across the st insulting you and lying about you and your family all day is okay to ignore.

here’s the problem - in most parts of the US there are no free easy alternatives to that AM radio for politics and current events. rw radio is it — on the loudest stations in the country.

rw talk radio is a well coordinated and protected and subsidized fascist/wall st propaganda operation on radio stations licensed to operate in the public interest and we do not have a real democracy as long as keep ignoring it.

[silvershadow]

42. Sounds good. Get skippy then. nt

[certainot]

43. skippy the bush kangaroo? i think he's dead

[silvershadow]

44. no, skippy the left wing radio baron. nt

[greiner3]

95. You rang!

[7962]

64. Then why do most Liberal attempts fail to get decent ratings?

I understand your corporate opinion, but ratings are what they are, and Air America could never get good ones. They were even on XM; where I listened.
Soros funded AA, and paid for them to be run on stations. It failed. Seems to me the left would like to listen to like-minded people just like the right does. But apparently not.
A Saturday football game does nothing for limbuagh mon thru fri; those people tume in for HIS crap, not because the game is on. And the universities are GOING to run their games on the largest stations they can find & nothing will change that because SPORTS is KING for whatever reason

[certainot]

67. u r troll

[7962]

82. BRILLIANT response. When you've got nothing, go with that.

[snort]

84. Most Liberals aren't authoritarians?

They don't need a radio voice barking at them to feel real.

[7962]

85. Good point.

[7962]

61. you're certainly right about that! nt

[Purveyor]

23. If there is a 'trove of crap' on Trump, the pukes would have used it already unless of course hill

still has access to the FBI files. Lest we forget...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy

[creeksneakers2]

56. Of all the garbage thrown at the Clintons

the FBI files one was the most ridiculous, even more ridiculous than Vince Foster. The wrong files were sent over to the White House pass office. That's all that happened. How can somebody on a left wing message board bring up something like that?

[Purveyor]

89. Yeah. The FBI spends months and months on a criminal investigation because there is

absolutely nothing to see.

[Major Hogwash]

102. Over a year now.

But, if you add up months and months and months and months . . . eventually it becomes a year.

So, technically, you're correct.

[7962]

65. I dont know, I'm thinking they're afraid to hurt his chances now

They know Cruz cant win the GE either
And I dont know that the Right machine is better at opposition research than the Clinton crew; they're pros

[Purveyor]

88. Now perhaps but if there really is something on Trump, the Bush cabal would have fired both barrels

to get the word out there while Jeb is still in the race.

[7962]

90. Heck, was Jeb! ever really IN the race!?

I never expected him to win, but i sure expected him to do better. I dont think he was really into it & it showed. "Low energy" and all that......

[bvf]

29. Trouble is, neither Trump nor his supporters

will give a shit.

[certainot]

45. one will use lack of ice to get a trophy polar bear and

the other acknowledges the validity of climate science

they may be the least liked for some, but after decades of political activism i won't have a moment's hesitation choosing hillary

[JoeyT]

68. Trump will be able to counter most of what she can throw at him though.

Imagine how much of a shitshow the debates will be. "I know you can be bought, I saved my receipts.".

[MrMickeysMom]

79. Great choice... VOTE FOR THE LESS REVOLTING!

Doesn't that make you want to spit up, when you wouldn't be able to vote for the ONLY candidate who has tirelessly and consistently worked for the working class and oppressed who have lost so many of their options and civil rights for the last 30 years?

What an alternative - to have Drumpf and Clinton for a less revolting outcome!

[7962]

83. Thats what it boils down to; who is disliked the least. Odd cycle.....

[certainot]

21. when benghazi happened i immediately turned on rw radio

and they were all over the place with the clinton and obama shit. they knew it was a great opportunity to use 1200 unchallenged radio stations to attack hillary because they were already anticipating her presidential run. they also made a big case that benghazi could not have been a reaction to that republican think tank provocatuer's 'film' that got embassies all over the world protested. no, benghazi was different, they said.

that whole thing should be a case study in republican propaganda ops and now there are so called liberals all over the country sucking on that same BS.

one of their memes was to yell all over 1200 radio stations that clinton obama ordered that embassy marines couldn't have live ammo.

so hundreds of dumbfuck traitors on the radio kept broadcasting that our embassy guards were basically unarmed! and the head of marine PR had to come out and say it was bullshit. but my local blowhard kept repeating it so i had to call him and tell him and his audience he was encouraging terrorist attacks on our embassies. eventually the republicans cut that story off, but for a while until they got the memo traitors like limbaugh and hannity were repeating it.

emails? what a load of republican troll crap.

[Sunlei]

78. Thank you, excellent points on the influence & dominance RW radio has on America.

[TxGrandpa]

5. Would this indicate that there is something incriminating?

[elleng]

7. Something(s) that someone(s) don't want disclosed,

I'd say. Adds to the delay, which apparently serves someone(s.)

[Tempest]

35. Not necessarily

It could, and most likely is, Pagliano knows Republicans will twist and distort what he would testify to.

[Scuba]

70. Yeah, and they'll never be able to twist or distort his refusal to testify!

[HDSam]

6. Could they

retract the offer of immunity and compel him to testify?

[rpannier]

8. I think they can retract the immunity

Pretty sure they can force him to show
Then he can plead the 5th to every question

[7962]

11. Maybe the opposite? Compel him to testify & emphasize the immunity?

If you're not going to get in trouble, why wouldnt you tell what you know?
Its not like he worked for El Chapo

[Travis_0004]

38. Its the exact Opposite

You have a right to refuse to testify in court (or in front of congress). 5th amendment.

If you are granted immunity, then you can be forced to testify. If you are issued a subpoena, and do not show up, or refuse to testify, then you can be arrested for contempt of court (or contempt of congress).

Basically right now, all they have done is requested him to testify. As long as it is a request, he has the right to refuse. I imagine he will be getting a subpoena very soon. Obviously nobody is really interested in going after him, so the offer off immunity will almost certainly stand along with the subpoena.

[sofa king]

93. It was Justice that granted immunity.

The person in question reached a deal with the Department of Justice. Now a couple of a-hole Republicans are trying to leverage that deal to make the person publicly testify before the Senate witch-hunt committee.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/272171-senators-want-clinton-aide-to-talk-after-receiving-immunity-deal

The reason why the employee is refusing to testify is obvious. This is, after all, ostensibly an investigation into classified material being misused. So we can safely guess that some of the details of the immunity deal, the testimony, and that sector of the investigation is also classified.

Note how it's the Republicans in the Senate who are rapaciously trying to push that classified testimony into the public eye. Doing so would be a security breach on the exact same level as the breach being investigated, because it involves the same information. But if the classified information is used to defame Mrs. Clinton, then it's A-OK to Republicans in the Senate.

Which give us a big, fat hint about how sensitive the original information really is: not very. This whole thing is a sham and that is why Mrs. Clinton is impatiently shrugging it off.

[SCVDem]

9. I think he has an allergy!

He's allergic to kangaroos.

[AlbertCat]

48. He's allergic to kangaroos.

How is any of this a kangaroo court?

Did he not "help maintain" a private Email account for her?

[SCVDem]

49. It's the same principle

They just want him to twist and get tripped up by bullshit questions and stupid speculation.

This hearing serves no purpose, other than an attempt to yet again, get a Clinton. Thus the Kangaroo.

He is exercising his rights.

[AlbertCat]

50. This hearing serves no purpose, other than an attempt to yet again, get a Clinton.

I don't think so. You act like she didn't have a personal email account and it's not being investigated.

Every accession toward the Clintons is not RW smear stuff, y'know.

[creeksneakers2]

59. Its being investigated by the FBI

The GOP committees are just witch hunts. They'll call him up just to get him taking the 5th on the news.

[me b zola]

10. Wait. MacDougall? Is this the husband of the woman who went to prison for the Clintons?

Is this what is going on here? Someone willing to go to prison to protect the Clintons in exchange for a promise of a pardon?




On edit, I was wrong, this is not the same MacDougall. But the larger point still stands.

[jalan48]

13. Secret speeches, secret servers. I can see what we will get with Hillary as President.

Secret government. Just trust her.

[thesquanderer]

16. Drip, drip, drip.

It doesn't matter that he may be protecting himself and not Hillary. Every time a story about this comes up, even if it doesn't directly implicate Hillary, it is more distracting bad PR for her. Not so much for the primaries, because the base doesn't care. But if this stuff is still going on between the convention and the general election, it will be a real gift to the Republican nominee.

[leveymg]

17. No subpoena, no show.

He already was granted immunity by, apparently, a US Attorney. The only question is whether there's already a Grand Jury. We should be discussing who gets her delegates.

[CoffeeCat]

52. Does the fact that Pagliano was granted immunity

signify that a grand jury has all ready been convened?

Also, this article specifically mentioned the Justice Department twice. I thought the FBI granted Pagliano immunity, not the DOJ? I also thought the FBI was investigating independently of the DOJ and that the FBI would make their recommendation to the DOJ? If they are collaborating, that certainly conveys a broader investigation; and a more serious situation. A grand jury convening would indicate the same.

"The Senate committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees had renewed their request to question Bryan Pagliano about the server after news broke that the Justice Department, which is also investigating the server, had offered him immunity.

Whatever agreement Mr. Pagliano may have reached with the Department of Justice in no way constitutes a waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights.”

[IdaBriggs]

97. FBI is working with Justice. Usually a grand jury has to be convened before

an immunity deal is granted but nobody knows for sure because the Attorney General doesn't discuss that stuff. FBI says they are "done" with the majority of the investigation, and now Comey is going to schedule the remaining interviews and Hillary already has her criminal attorney hired.

Meanwhile, a FOIA lawsuit is getting "secret briefs" because FBI/Justice don't want to share the "deleted" emails that were recovered in October because "it would harm their investigation" but that Judge smacked them around and said April 26 to either release or appeal his decision.

[red dog 1]

20. K&R

Isn't the FBI still investigating HRC regarding her private e-mail server while she was Secretary of State?

I've tried to research this using Google searches, but have been unable to find out.

If HRC IS still under investigation by the FBI, then isn't it possible that they might possibly indict her at some point?

Anyone know anything about this?

[CoffeeCat]

55. Yes, I caught the same thing

See my previous post.

The FBI has been investigating this. In all articles, it has been the FBI that is heading the investigation and providing source quotes from Comey. Remember the consternation about how many FBI agents were working this case? The DOJ was supposed to be the next step.

If the DOJ is working with the FBI, this may signal that the FBI has all ready laid their cards on the table, communicated their findings and made their recommendations to the DOJ--and now they're working jointly.

I wonder if the reporter got it wrong?

Or is this an indication that this investigation has leveled up?

[IdaBriggs]

98. In answer to your question, YES.

Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511643968

and

Hillary People - Trash this Thread; Others - Consider it FYI
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511810912

I did both threads, and there are enough links in the comments (including some that pretty much dismiss the whole thing) to make your head explode.

Enjoy!

[LS_Editor]

26. Subpoena time.

Great presidential nominee.

[laserhaas]

47. He's betting she'll be Queen

No talkie

No free walkie

Revolk his immunity NOW

and see how closed lipped he is...when charged

[Yo_Mama]

66. No one can be forced to testify without immunity.

It's in the Constitution.

I think you have it backwards.

But one reason he may not want to testify is that immunity offers are specific. The FBI immunity offer will cover certain things only, and it may not cover issues that Congress may wish to question him about.

Further, if Congress questions him and something damaging or potentially damaging emerges, Pagliano could still be prosecuted by the DOJ for that problem.

I doubt the FBI wants Congress to get in the middle of this.

[laserhaas]

69. He only gets immunity for testifying and must lose it

If he refuses to speak

5th Amendment only applies if incrimination will result in

[Yo_Mama]

74. The immunity offer comes from the FBI, not Congress. Testifying or not

testifying in front of a Congressional panel won't change that.

[ripcord]

77. The offer of immunity comes from the US AG

It covers federal crimes.

[laserhaas]

87. Matters not were it arose....its contempt to refuse

Congressional subpoena...but you can plead 5th

If you have to worry

He's relieved of worry...unless immune is partial

[reddread]

53. stuff happens

[ViseGrip]

54. Just wow...remember this is a tax payer funded job, and we have a right to know what happened,

as we paid for it. How arrogant of him. How in the bag if they don't haul him in they are in this whole investigation. He worked directly with Hillary, but indirectly with the citizens of the u.s., as we were the ones funding his paycheck, and benefits.

[creeksneakers2]

60. I think he was paid privately

[Scuba]

71. Source, please.

[creeksneakers2]

72. here

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-bryan-pagliano/index.html

[Deuce]

81. Thanks...that just about covers it.

[IdaBriggs]

99. He was a government employee also. nt

[winter is coming]

80. Does anyone here know the actual terms of Pagliano's immunity?

Could it be that he's agreed not to testify elsewhere or speak about the matter before the FBI/DOJ are finished with him? State has been told to cool their jets until the FBI has finished for the sake of not messing up their investigation; perhaps this is something similar.

[laserhaas]

86. They weren't published

Assuming...they didnt want anyone to know the intent

[Peace Patriot]

91. Oh boy! My 1st thought: I hope he doesn't get anywhere near Congress.

The FBI investigation is the only hope we have of an objective investigation of Clinton's private email server, its security issues and its purposes. They could be protecting Clinton from the moronic beasts in our 8%-approval-rating Congress. She is, after all, one of the rich and powerful, of whom it has been said that, "we must look forward not backward," when their crimes are somewhere back in time and not in the future.

But we don't know that that is what the FBI is doing--protecting her--while we DO know that Congress is whacko, went way screwy on "Benghazi!" and actually loves "regime change" especially when the target gets raped with a bayonet and murdered, and the whole country descends into chaos, i.e., war profiteer heaven. Clinton is with them on this. "We came, we saw, he died! ha-ha-ha." So what is their beef against Clinton?

Screwballs. But dangerous and very, very power-hungry screwballs. Not really screwballs at all. They have the purpose of wresting all the awesome powers of the U.S. government away from the other "military-industrial-prison complex" faction that Clinton aspires to be the leader of. It could all be kabuki theater. Clinton shares their blood-lust and will certainly satisfy it if she gets another chance, while protecting her own and their financial investments, and those of all donors to the War Party. But I don't think it's kabuki. I think there is an honest-go-God power struggle going between factions of the "MIPC." (And there may be more than two factions--hard to tell with our very, very, very secretive government.)

But, what little I know of FBI Director Comey is that he has a rep as a "straight-shooter," an old-fashioned belief in "law and order," and is protective of that and of the FBI's reputation and integrity. So it's possible that he is an "honest broker" in this extremely unusual situation of a frontrunner presidential candidate under investigation in the middle of an election. By "honest broker," I mean someone who will tell us what the fuck she was using her private, insecure email server FOR, whether she was doing pay-to-play with the Saudis and other woman-hating ME governments on arms deals, what Libya "regime change" was really all about, whether she endangered national security, whether she broke laws, why she deleted work emails with classified information on them, and so forth.

We have a RIGHT TO KNOW these things. We have a NEED to know them. And our only hope of learning what we need to know--however tenuous that hope may be--is the FBI. Certainly not Congress (ludicrous) nor anyone with a political motive, including President Obama, that might mess up their judgement. I'm not saying the FBI can't have political motives. I'm saying there's a chance that they don't. So I hope that their immunized witness stays clear of Congress, which would most certainly interfere with the FBI investigation if they saw profit in it for their particular set of investors.

Re: Obama. God knows what he's thinking. He's a hard man to read. It appears to me that he has both political and personal motives that could go either way. For instance, his legacy has so far not been tainted with scandal. Scandal now threatens that legacy. Would he act to cover it up for that reason? Dunno. On the other hand, if he tangles with Comey about a cover up, couldn't that bring greater scandal? Yeah, it could (precedent, Watergate). Clinton defied Obama on at least one presidential order: continuing to use Sydney Blumenthal as an advisor to State, by hiring Blumenthal at the Clinton Foundation and using her private email server to communicate with him--Obama had banned Blumenthal at State. Obama could be very pissed off about this. Also, Clinton left behind several major clusterfucks that Obama and Kerry appear to be trying to mitigate (Honduras and Libya, as well as various aspects of Iran, Iraq and Syria). On the other hand, Obama is with Clinton on the TPP (talk about clusterfucks!). Sanders totally opposes TPP. Would Obama take action (or fail to prevent action) re Clinton that would put Sanders in the White House? Dunno.

We have never had an FBI investigation hanging like a dark cloud over a presidential campaign before, with no end in sight! It is an unprecedented situation. What the hell is going to happen if (by some miracle, in my opinion) Clinton wins the GE and the FBI has not yet issued a recommendation? Are they going to keep their investigation going throughout her tenure? Are they going to exonerate her on her inauguration day? Will Comey issue a rec for indictment that day and then resign? This situation is BIZARRE. That is the only word for it. We have no idea what may happen with this, and we also have no idea what is going on in the deep, deep layers of our government (CIA, NSA, Pentagon, et al).

A lot of big reasons to vote for Sanders here if you are a voter in any of the remaining states, and I'm a Sanders supporter (in CA). Also, a lot of big reasons to fight for your Sanders vote if it has been taken away. (Hello NY, AZ and others!) But I have to say that I DON'T LIKE this situation AT ALL. (And I'll bet Sanders doesn't like it either.)

I want this election to be determined on the issues and not on dark, impenetrable clouds emitted by various factions of the "military-industrial-prison complex" that is our government. I want openness and honesty and a clear decision by the American people on the future of our country. Personally, I'm sure they would choose a thorough house-cleaning inside the Beltway and a return to New Deal democracy with Sanders as president, in a clean election. But this election is anything but clean. And this FBI investigation is part of the murk.

What the hell is going on, Director Comey? Please tell us! We do pay your salary, you know. Or are you among those for whom that doesn't matter at all?

[Bradical79]

92. Congress needs to let the FBI do its job

We know it probably won't happen though. They think they smell blood and are desperate. They'll probably just embarass themselves again and muck everything up.

[Major Hogwash]

96. The FBI is already finished talking to Pagliano.

This week a federal judge ruled that Judicial Watch should be allowed the opportunity to question Pagliano.

You'd think that Congress should have as much right to question Pagliano as Judicial Watch.

[Bradical79]

100. I stand corrected then

Also, totally forgot about Judicial Watch