I'm always leery of people who are quick to accuse others of lying, stealing, etc.. It is usually the accusers who are he real transgressors.How can a habitual liar call a liar, a liar?
I guess it's easy if you are a politician.
I'm always leery of people who are quick to accuse others of lying, stealing, etc.. It is usually the accusers who are he real transgressors.How can a habitual liar call a liar, a liar?
I guess it's easy if you are a politician.
Ain't that the truth? Seen it all the time. (In a related story, the most militant anti-gay folks back when I was in high school in the 80s.....are all out of the closet nowadays. I'm NOT making that up).I'm always leery of people who are quick to accuse others of lying, stealing, etc.. It is usually the accusers who are he real transgressors.
The news out of last week’s Cheryl Mills deposition was that the Clinton confidante didn’t say much about Hillary’s email server. Which only goes to show that Mrs. Clinton has a serious problem—and she knows it.
Her performance is all anyone needs to know about Mrs. Clinton’s guilt in the server scandal. Someone who set up a home-brew email system for “convenience” wouldn’t need people like Cheryl Mills.
Legal question for someone:
Brian Pagliano was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony about Hillary's home based server. Now he is pleading his Fifth Amendment rights. Can he have it both ways?
I am sure there's a legal term for this but not sure if there is precedent. If he refuses to testify does he lose immunity and thereby open himself up to prosecution? It seems he's really rolling the dice here.
This should answer your questions:Legal question for someone:
Brian Pagliano was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony about Hillary's home based server. Now he is pleading his Fifth Amendment rights. Can he have it both ways?
I am sure there's a legal term for this but not sure if there is precedent. If he refuses to testify does he lose immunity and thereby open himself up to prosecution? It seems he's really rolling the dice here.
Pagliano planned to assert his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refuse to answers questions over an open records lawsuit, according to court documents obtained Wednesday by Fox News. His lawyers also asked a federal judge to block Judicial Watch from recording his deposition, stating that a written transcription should be enough.
However, Judge Emmet Sullivan declared that his lawyers need to file a legal memorandum to outline the legality for him to plead the Fifth “including requisite details pertaining to the scope of Mr. Pagliano's reported immunity agreement with the government,” The Hill reported.
Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, called Sullivan’s order “an important step to getting more answers from Mr. Pagliano about Hillary Clinton's email system.”
Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before helping install the so-called “homebrew” server system in her Chappaqua, N.Y. home, cut an immunity deal last fall with the Justice Department amid the FBI probe. He was recently described to Fox News by an intelligence source as a “devastating witness.”
Jmho, but it seems to me that the immunity would have been granted in exchange for full and truthful testimony. When the witness took the 5th, that in itself would be enough to nullify the immunity. That said, the witness loses the immunity and opens himself up to prosecution.Legal question for someone:
Brian Pagliano was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony about Hillary's home based server. Now he is pleading his Fifth Amendment rights. Can he have it both ways?
I am sure there's a legal term for this but not sure if there is precedent. If he refuses to testify does he lose immunity and thereby open himself up to prosecution? It seems he's really rolling the dice here.
That would be my thinking as well. But I don't know if there's a precedent on something like this.Jmho, but it seems to me that the immunity would have been granted in exchange for full and truthful testimony. When the witness took the 5th, that in itself would be enough to nullify the immunity. That said, the witness loses the immunity and opens himself up to prosecution.
Ordered mine this morningIt's being reported "Crisis of Character" is already #1 on Amazon. Not that anything in there will sway her legions of followers.
That would be my thinking as well. But I don't know if there's a precedent on something like this.
Who the hell wears a suit to a golf course ?Another one of Hugh and Bubba. Hugh looks like Bobby from the Sopranos standing there.