Oh, Sure, That's Normal: Hillary's Server Guy Refuses to Talk to the FBI
ACTIVATE THE DRUDGE SIREN! The former aide to Hillary Clinton who helped set up and maintain her private email server has declined to talk to the FBI and the State Department inspector general's office, as well as a congressional committee, invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself, sources familiar with the investigation confirmed to Yahoo News. The move by Bryan Pagliano, who served on Clinton's 2008 campaign and later as a technology officer in the State Department, to decline to cooperate in two federal probes considerably raises the stakes in the Clinton email investigation, the sources said. It confronts the Justice Department with a decision about whether to grant him immunity in exchange for his testimony — a move that could be taken only were the department to escalate the probe into a full-scale criminal investigation, the sources said. Pagliano's decision this week to decline to testify before a congressional committee investigating the death of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi was first reported Wednesday night by the Washington Post. But Pagliano's earlier rebuffs to federal investigators, including the FBI, have not been previously reported. How does Hillary spin this one? "I'm sure he didn't want to cooperate with those right-wing partisan nut-cases . . . at the . . . FBI . . . and State Department Inspector General's office." For what it's worth, the guy has a really good reason to plead the Fifth. As the lowest man on the totem pole, he's the guy most likely to get thrown under the bus. It's easy to imagine claiming that her IT staffer assured her the server was completely secure, that he had obtained all of the proper clearances, that everything was in compliance with the law, etcetera. She's just a sweet old grandma, she can't be expected to know how these newfangled doohickeys work! 
"It says, 'press any key' . . . Where's the 'any' key?" The Whole World Stops to Argue About a Kentucky County Clerk I'm sorry, the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, population 23,333, is the focus of an A1 story in the New York Times? A Kentucky county clerk who has become a symbol of religious opposition to same-sex marriage was jailed Thursday after defying a federal court order to issue licenses to gay couples. The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, Ky., was ordered detained for contempt of court and later rejected a proposal to allow her deputies to process same-sex marriage licenses that could have prompted her release. Instead, on a day when one of Ms. Davis's lawyers said she would not retreat from or modify her stand despite a Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Judge David L. Bunning of United States District Court secured commitments from five of Ms. Davis's deputies to begin providing the licenses. At least two couples planned to seek marriage licenses Friday. That's David Bunning, George W. Bush appointee and son of former senator Jim Bunning, who represented Kentucky from 1999 to 2011. If you're conspiracy-minded, you could wonder if the judge's decision is so harsh it's secretly designed to trigger a backlash: Judge Bunning's decision went beyond the wishes of the couples who sued the clerk this summer; their lawyers had asked that she be fined. Some advocates for gay rights quickly expressed concern that Ms. Davis's jailing would make her a sympathetic figure to religious conservatives and prompt lawmakers in Kentucky and elsewhere to push for new laws exempting public officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But they also described Ms. Davis as an outlier. Our David French is pretty furious with this turn of events: In my initial piece about Davis, I described the unfolding drama as a case of competing revolutions — with Kim Davis defying Justice Kennedy's revolutionary act with a revolutionary act of her own. We knew from the beginning which revolutionary held more power, and we also know that the worst revolutionaries show no mercy to dissenters. There were many options short of imprisonment for Davis (how many leftist legislators are in jail for lawless "sanctuary city" policies that actually cost lives?), but the court was apparently in no mood for moderation. So off she goes to prison. Judge Bunning's decision is a means of control It is a means of maintaining order. It is the selective application of law to advance a particular radical ideology. But spare me any talk of justice. There is no justice today in Judge Bunning's court. Our Charlie Cooke, however, points out that this is a strange spot for conservatives, with our law-and-order, the-law-means-what-it-says, darn-those-sanctuary-cities, darn-those-cities-that-just-ignore-the-Second-Amendment attitudes: Until such time as the Constitution is amended, the Court's attitude changes, or the republic falls to revolution, Obergefell will remain on an equal legal footing with the other precedents that make up our contemporary legal oeuvre. Weak as its reasoning is, there is no such thing as an "almost ruling." In practice, a 5–4 decision has the same effect as a unanimous one; structurally, an iffy justification is as potent as the most solid of rationales. However much a state employee might disdain a particular judgment, it simply cannot do to have him translating that disapproval into professional action. If he wishes to privately protest a given ruling — or to refuse to abide by its consequences — that is his inalienable right. "Take what you want," the old proverb holds, "but pay for it." He cannot, however, credibly work for the government while doing so — or, at least, he cannot expect to be spared the consequences if he insists upon remaining in power. The rule of law is just that: a rule. There is no such thing as a selective revolution. Here's what I don't get: Why couldn't Davis choose to not provide the same-sex marriage licenses, but leave it to her deputies or other people in the county government to process them? I'm largely supportive of a government employee who doesn't want to be forced to commit an act that violates his conscience. But somebody else in your office committing that act is a bit different, because you're not being compelled to take that action and violate your conscience. You have to watch somebody else commit an act that you think is morally wrong. The thing is, living in a free society requires all of us to watch somebody else do something that we think is morally wrong. It sounds like most of her deputies agreed with her but are now shifting their position. Suppose her deputies were fine with gay marriage. Would she have the right and power to forbid her deputies from issuing marriage licenses? At that point, isn't this beyond the realm of individual conscience and reaching the point where she enforcing her view over the law? It's the difference between a private being a conscientious objector and choosing to refuse to fight and a general being one and refusing to let any soldier under him fight. 'I'm a Delegator. I Find Great People' Hugh Hewitt interviewed Donald Trump last night. I think it's safe to say Donald Trump didn't read The Looming Tower. HH: All right, last question, I want to go back to the beginning, because I really do disagree with you on the gotcha question thing, Donald Trump. At the debate, I may bring up Nasrallah being with Hezbollah, and al-Julani being with al-Nusra, and al-Masri being with Hamas. Do you think if I ask people to talk about those three things, and the differences, that that's a gotcha question? DT: Yes, I do. I totally do. I think it's ridiculous. HH: That's interesting. I just disagree with that. I kind of figured that . . . DT: All right, I think it's ridiculous. I'll have, I'm a delegator. I find great people. I find absolutely great people, and I'll find them in our armed services, and I find absolutely great people. And now on the bigger picture, like the fact that our Kurds are being treated so poorly, and would really is the one group that really would be out there fighting for us, I think, and fighting for themselves, maybe more importantly to them, I understand that. But when you start throwing around names of people and where they live and give me their address, I think it's ridiculous, and I think it's totally worthless. HH: Well, I wouldn't do that. That's crazy. I agree. DT: Well, and by the way, the names you just mentioned, they probably won't even be there in six months or a year. HH: I don't know. Nasrallah's got such staying power. DT: Well, let's see what happens. HH: And so I think the difference . . . DT: And you know what? In that case, first day in office, or before then, right at the day after the election, I'll know more about it than you will ever know. That I can tell you. HH: Oh, I hope so. Last question, so the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas does not matter to you yet, but it will? DT: It will when it's appropriate. I will know more about it than you know, and believe me, it won't take me long. HH: All right, that, I believe. DT: But right now, right now, I think it's just something that, and you know what, if you ask these candidates, nobody's going to be able to give you an answer. I mean, there may be one that studied it because they're expecting a fresh question from you. But believe me, it won't matter. I will know far more than you know within 24 hours after I get the job. Allahpundit: No one's going to care either way, though, right? If you dislike Trump, this is further evidence that he's not just unqualified to be president but seems to disdain having to prepare for the job. With the Middle East melting down, let's go ahead and elect a guy whose interest in the region is so meager than he can't name-check the head of Al Qaeda 14 years after 9/11. If you like Trump, the interview is meaningless because (a) nobody knows who those people are! or (b) Trump is a manager, not a details guy, and he'll find the classiest, most luxurious natsec people or (c) as a Twitter pal said, knowing who the regional players were didn't stop Obama from bungling everything he touched there, from Mubarak's ouster to raising a Syrian rebel army to putting Iran on a 15-year track to having a nuclear bomb. "Name That Jihadi" is just a game being used by the dreaded GOP establishment to try to make Trump look stupid so that less populist eggheads like Carly Fiorina look good by comparison. Besides, didn't we find out just last night that policy differences hardly matter to either Republicans or Democrats? Why would we turn around, then, and disqualify a guy for being shaky on policy? ADDENDA: No Morning Jolt Monday. Enjoy your weekend! | 
Comments
Post a Comment