‘Immunity’ should make Democrats very nervous

[RiverLover]

by Chris Cillizza
3/5/2016

‘Immunity’ should make Democrats very nervous

....Here's the thing: The Democratic establishment, a long while back, put all of its eggs in the Clinton basket. No one of considerable stature in the party challenged her for the nomination (Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, I am looking at you), and virtually every member of the party's power structure got on board with her very early on.

That bandwagoning around Clinton has been overshadowed over the past few months as Sanders' surprisingly strong challenge to Clinton (and his amazing small-dollar fundraising) has drawn much of the focus. But the truth of the matter was and is that the Democratic Party made a massive bet on Clinton about two years ago. That bet was that she was the strongest possible candidate they could field and so it only made sense to push everyone else to the side for her.

But it was a bet. And, like all bets, there was - and is - risk involved. That risk was that sometime before the 2016 general election something might happen that would make it more difficult - or even impossible - for Clinton to win. This is the Clintons we are talking about, after all. For all of their smarts and deep résumés, there does tend to be some serious baggage that trails them wherever they go.

No one - or at least no one outside Clinton's inner circle - would have known way back when that the "Hillary or bust" gamble was made that she had exclusively used a private email server while secretary of state and that a number of pieces of classified material had passed through that server. (There is no debate that classified information was on Clinton's server; the debate is whether it was classified at the time or whether it was classified at a later date.)

That news didn't break until March 2015, when the lining up behind Clinton was already very much under way.

.....But it's my strong impression that the Justice Department doesn't go around granting immunity to people unless the person getting the immunity may be able to shed light on an important part of the investigation. After all, if Pagliano a) knew nothing or b) did nothing wrong, why would he need immunity to talk to the FBI?

That's the question skittish Democrats have to be asking themselves today. The granting of immunity to someone at the center of the email controversy will be taken as a sign that things may get worse for Clinton when it comes to the email server before they get better.............

Read in full~
http://www.commercialappeal.com/opinion/national/chris-cillizza-immunity-should-make-democrats-very-nervous-2d2bca54-b782-51b2-e053-0100007f6976-371133781.html

[onehandle]

1. Immunity is often granted to close a winding down investigation.

Sorry!

[RiverLover]

2. Talk about denial.

[RoccoR5955]

14. To some of us denial

is a river in Africa.

[RiverLover]

16. ;)

[Fairgo]

3. Winding down, as in

closing the net around the kingpin

[onecaliberal]

4. The power structure is illegitimate, I hope it all falls down!

We will do our best to make it happen. They are corporate owned assholes.

[DCBob]

5. Chris doesnt understand the workings of the investigation.

Pagliano asked for immunity to protect himself from the GOP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1404500

[RiverLover]

7. The GOP can arrest him?

impressive

[DCBob]

8. Did you read the information in the link?

If not here..

Bryan Pagliano, who also worked as the IT director on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, will not testify in order to avoid unsubstantiated attacks from Republicans, who have been frequently accusing Clinton of criminality for using a personal email server while serving as Secretary of State.

Considering there has so far been no evidence of criminal conduct, the memo asserted, it made sense for Pagliano to avoid risking erroneous coverage of his testimony.

“It is understandable that attorneys for Mr. Pagliano have advised him to assert his constitutional right not to testify given the onslaught of reckless accusations of criminal conduct that continue to be made by many Republicans — including several running for President — without evidence to support their claims,” read the memo, sent on Wednesday to the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack. The memo, sent from the House Benghazi Committee Democrats, cited a letter received on Monday from Pagliano’s attorneys.

[randome]

10. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[RiverLover]

11. You mean the Clinton Spin in the link?

He is testifying now on the condition he isn't arrested for the information he provides. Not on the condition the GOP won't say bad things about him.

I don't think at this point, what the GOP says about him matters much to the poor fool. He just doesn't want to go to prison.

[DCBob]

12. Where on earth do you get that??

He has not been accused of anything and no plea deal.

[RiverLover]

13. Do you even know what 'immunity' means?

I don't think you do.

[RoccoR5955]

15. To some folks immunity is

a hot drink you take when you are sick.

[DCBob]

17. I said he has not yet been accused of anything.. has he?

Immunity protects one from being charged for something given during the testimony... unless you have a new definition of immunity.

[DCBob]

18. Here's more to chew on..

Immunity means the Justice Department must forego bringing a case against him, but if the DOJ thought they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. They would prosecute that case, or else make a plea deal which could include the grant of immunity. They are granting him immunity because there is no case they are foregoing, so, this way, he can and will give them evidence.

Pagliano could not give the FBI and DOJ an account without obtaining immunity. For one thing, if he had done so, a House committee could certainly argue that he had waived his rights and must now testify before them – or face contempt of Congress. The Republican House has been very free with such charges – it held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. There is an interesting legal argument about whether waiver before DOJ amounts to waiver before Congress, but Pagliano probably feels as eager to be tormented about that legal argument, before a House Republican-majority committee, as to face the Spanish Inquisition.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/#307bbaa9538d

[RiverLover]

21. CNN: 3 hours ago

What does immunity for Clinton email staffer signal?


.....The big question is whether there is a grand jury convened. The smart bet is yes. After all, the fact that there are immunity agreements logically means there's a grand jury investigation in some district. The grand jury is typically the genesis of the government's subpoena power. The next, bigger question, is whether anyone will be indicted.

The mere fact that the DOJ wants to talk to Pagliano does not mean anyone will be indicted. But if the DOJ is investigating criminal activity, they tend to find criminal activity.

n general, when the government wants to talk to someone, the person falls into one of three categories: target, subject, or witness.

If Pagliano was a "target," that generally means the prosecutor or grand jury has significant evidence connecting the person to a crime. Targets routinely become defendants. A "subject" is a midrange status; this person is part of the investigation but not quite a target; a precarious position to be in. A "witness" is a person who has valuable information, but is not (currently) believed to have committed a crime. However, "witnesses" matriculate up to "targets" very quickly, often because of the very information they provide.

For witnesses and defense attorneys alike, the decision whether or not to talk to the government is a difficult one. For the most part, there's a lot of risk, without a lot of upside.

........snip....info clearly needed here....please read for definitions & such.............


.......Talking to the government, or giving a "proffer," relinquishes the few advantages a defendant has: He gives up his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and more, he gives the government the defense's version of the case up front.

While Pagliano is surely in an unenviable, nail-biting position, we can draw some inferences from recent events. Whether he had zero potential liability, or some liability, he's probably not a "target." Why? Because if he were, his attorney would probably not let him talk to the government, and the government would probably not give him immunity. Remember, the government is parsimonious with immunity deals. Another, less reliable inference may be drawn not about Pagliano, but others who are not Pagliano.

The person who often has to worry the most during this process is the person who hasn't been approached at all by the government.

That's a chilling indicator that you may be the target.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/05/opinions/clinton-staffer-email-immunity-cevallos/index.html

Clinton is the target. Just in case you couldn't figure that out.

[DCBob]

23. Just his opinion.

He doesnt know more than anyone else.

[RiverLover]

24. So

You really have never heard of someone being "granted immunity" from prosecution on their testimony in exchange for incriminating information on a Person of Interest who has committed a more serious crime?

Going after the bigger fish? The reason for granting immunity from prosecution?

There were 30000 emails permanently scrubbed. The FBI wants to know why. They're talking to the guy who did the scrubbing. He plead the 5th at first because his testimony could also incriminate himself. So now he's promised no prosecution for his crimes if he spills and they can collar the more serious criminal offender with his testimony.

Any of this ringing a bell? Its how the system works, it isn't "opinion."

[DCBob]

25. I know you and the GOP desperately want this to turn into a criminal proceeding..

sorry but you and the GOP will be very disappointed once this is all over.

Ciao.

[RiverLover]

26. It IS a criminal investigation. Democrats are about TRUTH & TRANSPARENCY.

Don't compare me to the GOP when its Clinton who is acting like them.

She is an embarrassment & is contrary to everything good about the Democratic Party.

[DCBob]

27. Dont worry this will all soon be over.

The truth will then come out.

[Glamrock]

28. Your post is about him claiming the fifth in regard to Benghazi

The FBI investigation is about her server and whether or not her email was classified. Not the same. Immunity doesn't protect you from Republicans accusing you of criminality.

[truedelphi]

6. My spouse believes that Hillary cannot even win the Dem convention.

I think she main well gain the WH, but her Presidency will resemble the Second Administration of Dick Nixon, complete with helicopter or plane to fly her away.

Immunity is a tactic taken when many other things won't line up. Will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

[Punkingal]

9. It makes this democrat very nervous.

[sadoldgirl]

19. It seems that the HRC supporters see no problem

with the whole FBI investigation.

Mind you, the rich and powerful never get indicted,

but giving testimony to the FBI is enough to give

a very unfavorable image of her, and perception

is important. Only 30% of voters are dems, which

is not enough in the GE to win; this is why I hoped that

the whole issue could have been settled by now.

[aspirant]

20. Immunity isn't given unless he tells them

what he has and they deem it essential to their case.

No Fed Judge grants immunity to protect someone from Repubs>

[RiverLover]

22. Its so sad you have to spell that out.

wow

But thanks, its obviously called for. I can't believe how far in the sand the heads are going.