Uh-oh..... Pagliano is about to become the government's key witness. Immunity has been granted and allows him to say whatever he wants without fear of prosecution. Granting him immunity was based on liking what he has already said in closed testimony. Would anyone offer this guy life insurance today???? If his testimony leads to an indictment he will likely be judged as a greater historical figure than Richard Nixon's White House Counsel John Dean. TM
************

For all the shrill attention that it will get, Bryan Pagliano’s acceptance of an offer of immunity from the Department of Justice for his testimony will help end the Hillary Clinton email inquiry.

Pagliano, a former State Department employee, set up Clinton’s private email server in her home in New York in 2009 when she served as Secretary of State.

His testimony could be crucial to helping the FBI and the DOJ determine whether the handling of her State Department email traffic created a security violation or involved criminal offenses.

What does immunity represent? Does it mean that either Pagliano (or Clinton) are accused of offenses? Quite the opposite. Pagliano first invoked his Fifth Amendment rights because a House Republican-majority committee was hauling him in. I served as General Counsel (Acting) for the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993-94, and continue to remain informed of its practices. Confronted with one of those committees, I think a witness like Pagliano would be very well advised to invoke the Fifth Amendment, because the committees act in a blatantly and aggressively partisan way and do not behave at all fairly with witnesses. He would be well advised to do what he did, and eventually give a full account, not to such a committee, but to the FBI and DOJ.

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.

What about Clinton – does Pagliano’s immunity somehow count against her? Hardly. Again, it is only what it is. The whole country saw her on live television being questioned by a Republican-majority House Committee. They can decide about her from what they saw themselves.

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/sites/charlestiefe...y/#4d6d59bb552d