A former Hillary Clinton aide’s decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to three congressional inquiries has left lawmakers scrambling for a way to encourage his testimony.
Bryan Pagliano, the former IT analyst who reportedly set up Clinton’s private email network, walked away from a closed-door interview with the House Select Committee on Benghazi Thursday after less than 15 minutes of questioning.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the committee’s ranking Democrat, quickly raised the possibility of offering Pagliano an immunity deal.
“We would consider what Republicans on the Senate side have said. Sen. [Charles] Grassley and Sen. [Ron] Johnson were very clear that Mr. Pagliano should be given immunity to testify,” the Maryland Democrat said after the brief interview Thursday. “I want to hear what he has to say. Hillary Clinton has made it clear that she wants to hear, and wants the committee to hear, what he has to say.”
Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Johnson, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, wrote a letter to Pagliano last week raising the possibility of an immunity deal in exchange for Pagliano’s cooperation.
The former IT analyst, who told lawmakers last week through his attorney that he intended to plead the Fifth, was reluctantly drawn before the Benghazi panel Thursday to assert his rights in person, over the objections of committee Democrats.
Cummings called Pagliano’s forced appearance “pure political theater,” while Chairman Trey Gowdy argued the Fifth Amendment is a “personal right” that can’t be invoked by a third party through a letter.
“Forcing Mr. Pagliano to appear, restate the advice of his counsel, and decline to respond to questions can only be intended to intimidate our client, cause him personal embarrassment, and foster further political controversy,” Pagliano’s attorney wrote to Gowdy Wednesday, according to a report by the Washington Post.
While committee Democrats support the idea of offering Pagliano immunity, Gowdy indicated he would oppose such a move.
“I think the executive branch, with respect to this investigation, has the best investigative tools, the best access to evidence, and traditionally, that is the branch we’ve looked to to conduct investigations,” the South Carolina Republican said Thursday. “I may be a majority of one, but that’s how I feel.”
If either Grassley or Johnson were to grant Pagliano immunity, two-thirds of their respective committees would need to vote in favor of the move. The committee seeking the order would need to notify the attorney general of its intentions at least 10 days in advance.
Grassley has not yet reached out to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to begin the process of granting immunity.
Gowdy noted Thursday congressional immunity “has the potential to impact ongoing executive branch investigations, which is why you don’t see it done that often.”
One of the most famous examples of congressional immunity occurred during the investigation into the Iran-Contra scandal in the late 1980s.
Oliver North, a member of President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council during the Iran-Contra affair, was given limited immunity by the select committees investigating the scandal. North was promised that the information he told Congress could not be used against him by prosecutors.
His immunized testimony was “the most serious obstacle to North’s prosecution” and “raised serious questions as to whether North could ever be tried,” according to the Federation of American Scientists.
More recently, a Republican Justice Department official was shielded from prosecution for firing U.S. attorneys based on their political beliefs after she was given limited immunity by the House Judiciary Committee to testify in 2007.
Monica Goodling, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, admitted she “crossed the line” by hiring and firing attorneys for partisan reasons. But because she had been granted immunity, she was not prosecuted.
