This is the first official confirmation that Bryan Pagliano’s immunity is part of a criminal investigation being conducted by DOJ and the FBI. Joseph DiGenova and others have assumed it was criminal and that a grand jury was hearing evidence, but that was not confirmed until this afternoon.
Judge Links Bryan Pagliano’s Immunity To ‘Criminal Investigation’
A former information technology aide to Hillary Clinton received immunity from the Justice Department in connection with a criminal investigation, a federal judge confirmed Tuesday.
Bryan Pagliano, a computer expert who worked at the State Department while Clinton was secretary of state and was also paid privately by her, was previously reported to have received immunity in connection with statements he gave to the FBI about Clinton’s private server set-up.
However, there had been no explicit confirmation that the investigation—which Clinton has repeatedly referred to as a “security review”—is actually a criminal probe.
“The privacy interests at stake are high because the government’s criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential,” U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.
In the order, Sullivan declined to make Pagliano’s immunity agreement public. The judge ordered the deal be submitted to the court so he could assess Pagliano’s plan to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a planned deposition of Pagliano in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit related to Clinton’s emails.
“In the Court’s opinion, the need for public access to Mr. Pagliano’s agreement with the government is minimal. Mr. Pagliano’s immunity agreement has not previously been disclosed. Mr. Pagliano and the government object to disclosure of the immunity agreement” Sullivan wrote. “Mr. Pagliano’s immunity agreement with the government was filed with the Court by Mr. Pagliano solely to enable the Court to assess the legitimacy of his intent to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in this civil proceeding.”
* * *