Bryan Pagliano is the former State Department staffer who has now reportedly been granted immunity in the Clinton email investigation. This past September Pagliano asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before a congressional committee seeking his testimony. Below is what I wrote about Pagliano at the time of his appearance before Congress. I thought it would help readers refresh their recollection on pertinent facts in a critically important story.
The Washington Post has reported on Clinton’s private arrangement with Pagliano. The Post reported that Clinton personally paid Pagliano for his services maintaining the private e-mail server she used for her official correspondence as Secretary of State. The Post reporters confirmed the story directly with an unnamed Clinton campaign official.
The Post added this intriguing detail: “Pagliano did not list the outside income in the required personal financial disclosures he filed each year.” Pagliano’s attorney declined to comment to the Post.
The arrangement rather obviously illustrated the rationale for the unprecedented setup in the first place. As the Post reporters put it: “The unusual arrangement helped Clinton retain personal control over the system that she used for her public and private duties and that has emerged as an issue for her campaign.”
That of course was not the rationale advanced by the mysterious campaign official to whom the Post turned. According to the campaign official, the arrangement “ensured that taxpayer dollars were not spent on a private server that was shared by Clinton, her husband and their daughter as well as aides to the former president.” The arrangement was thus held out as an application of Clintonian ethics for the public good.
Who is the mysterious unnamed Clinton campaign official? The Post reported: “The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. A campaign spokesman declined to provide a statement.”
Anonymity has its uses, which the Post kindly respected even though the reporters struggle to articulate them in this case. Let’s put it this way. No one likes to be a laughingstock.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.