La inmunidad para Bryan Pagliano el asesor privado de Hillary Clinton en tecnología ayudara a terminar la investigacion sobre los email o correos electronicos de Hillary Clinton
Tweet
By Charles Tiefer ,
Contributor
I cover government contracting, the Pentagon and Congress.
Mar 2, 2016
For all the shrill attention that it will get, immunity for Bryan Pagliano will help end the Hillary Clinton email inquiry.
Pagliano, a former State Department employee, set up Secretary of State Clinton’s email server. He has just been granted immunity by the government as the necessary step to obtain his testimony on
the subject.
http://www.forbes.com
Tomado de
Immunity For Bryan Pagliano Will Help End The Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry
Tomado de
Immunity For Bryan Pagliano Will Help End The Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry
By Charles Tiefer ,Contributor
I cover government contracting, the Pentagon and Congress.
Mar 2, 2016
For all the shrill attention that it will get, immunity for Bryan Pagliano will help end the Hillary Clinton email inquiry.
Pagliano, a former State Department employee, set up Secretary of State Clinton’s email server. He has just been granted immunity by the government as the necessary step to obtain his testimony on
the subject.
(Bryan Pagliano, a former U.S. State Department employee,after leaving a
House Benghazi Committee closed interview on Capitol Hill, Sept. 10,
2015. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)
To do a full job, the FBI and the Justice Department (DOJ) have to get the facts about Clinton’s private server. Those agencies must do an investigation into whether her State Department email traffic created a security violation or involved offenses. Email is said to have gone to that server. So information is needed from Pagliano, who set up that server.
What does immunity represent? Does it mean that either Pagliano (or Clinton) are accused of offenses? Quite the opposite. Pagliano first invoked his Fifth Amendment rights because a House Republican-majority committee was hauling him in. I was General Counsel (Acting) for the U.S. House of Representatives, and continue to remain informed of its practices. Confronted with one of those committees, I think a witness like Pagliano would be very well advised to invoke the Fifth Amendment, because the committees act in a blatantly and aggressively partisan way and do not behave at all fairly with witnesses. He would be well advised to do what he did, and eventually give a full account, not to such a committee, but to the FBI and DOJ.
But, doesn’t the fact that he received immunity mean that he is involved in offenses? Hardly. It is only what it is, no more. Immunity just means the Justice Department must forego bringing a case against him. If the Justice Department thought they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. They would prosecute that case, or else make a plea deal which could include the grant of immunity. They are granting him immunity because there is no case they are foregoing, so, this way, he can and will give them evidence.
What about Clinton – does the Pagliano immunity somehow count against her? Hardly. Again, it is only what it is. The whole country saw her on live television being questioned by a Republican-majority House Committee. It can decide about her from what it saw itself. Of course, the committee would say the subject of its investigation was Benghazi. Anyway, the country did get to watch her being grilled all day, it could decide for itself what the House was after, and it could make its own judgments about her.
Pagliano could not just give the FBI and DOJ an account without obtaining immunity. For one thing, if he had done so, a House committee could certainly argue that he had waived his rights and must now testify before them – or face contempt of Congress. The Republican House has been very free with such charges – it held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. There is an interesting legal argument about whether waiver before DOJ amounts to waiver before Congress, but Pagliano probably feels as eager to be tormented about that legal argument, before a House Republican-majority committee, as to face the Spanish Inquisition.
**********
Tomado de http://www.vivelohoy.com
Software del servidor de Clinton aumentó riesgo de ataque
Por AP en Últimas Noticias
10/13/15
WASHINGTON (AP) — El servidor del correo electrónico privado que Hillary Rodham Clinton tenía en el sótano de su casa y que utilizó cuando era secretaria de Estado estaba conectado a internet en formas que aumentaban su vulnerabilidad frente a los hackers y usó software que pudo haber sido manipulado fácilmente, de acuerdo con documentos revisados por The Associated Press.
El servidor de Clinton —que administraba correspondencia personal y del Departamento de Estado—
al parecer permitía a los usuarios conectarse abiertamente por internet para controlarlo de forma remota, de acuerdo con datos compilados en 2012.
To do a full job, the FBI and the Justice Department (DOJ) have to get the facts about Clinton’s private server. Those agencies must do an investigation into whether her State Department email traffic created a security violation or involved offenses. Email is said to have gone to that server. So information is needed from Pagliano, who set up that server.
What does immunity represent? Does it mean that either Pagliano (or Clinton) are accused of offenses? Quite the opposite. Pagliano first invoked his Fifth Amendment rights because a House Republican-majority committee was hauling him in. I was General Counsel (Acting) for the U.S. House of Representatives, and continue to remain informed of its practices. Confronted with one of those committees, I think a witness like Pagliano would be very well advised to invoke the Fifth Amendment, because the committees act in a blatantly and aggressively partisan way and do not behave at all fairly with witnesses. He would be well advised to do what he did, and eventually give a full account, not to such a committee, but to the FBI and DOJ.
But, doesn’t the fact that he received immunity mean that he is involved in offenses? Hardly. It is only what it is, no more. Immunity just means the Justice Department must forego bringing a case against him. If the Justice Department thought they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. They would prosecute that case, or else make a plea deal which could include the grant of immunity. They are granting him immunity because there is no case they are foregoing, so, this way, he can and will give them evidence.
What about Clinton – does the Pagliano immunity somehow count against her? Hardly. Again, it is only what it is. The whole country saw her on live television being questioned by a Republican-majority House Committee. It can decide about her from what it saw itself. Of course, the committee would say the subject of its investigation was Benghazi. Anyway, the country did get to watch her being grilled all day, it could decide for itself what the House was after, and it could make its own judgments about her.
Pagliano could not just give the FBI and DOJ an account without obtaining immunity. For one thing, if he had done so, a House committee could certainly argue that he had waived his rights and must now testify before them – or face contempt of Congress. The Republican House has been very free with such charges – it held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. There is an interesting legal argument about whether waiver before DOJ amounts to waiver before Congress, but Pagliano probably feels as eager to be tormented about that legal argument, before a House Republican-majority committee, as to face the Spanish Inquisition.
**********
Tomado de http://www.vivelohoy.com
Software del servidor de Clinton aumentó riesgo de ataque
Por AP en Últimas Noticias
10/13/15
WASHINGTON (AP) — El servidor del correo electrónico privado que Hillary Rodham Clinton tenía en el sótano de su casa y que utilizó cuando era secretaria de Estado estaba conectado a internet en formas que aumentaban su vulnerabilidad frente a los hackers y usó software que pudo haber sido manipulado fácilmente, de acuerdo con documentos revisados por The Associated Press.
El servidor de Clinton —que administraba correspondencia personal y del Departamento de Estado—
al parecer permitía a los usuarios conectarse abiertamente por internet para controlarlo de forma remota, de acuerdo con datos compilados en 2012.
(Hillary Clinton, foto de archivo)
Los expertos dicen que el servicio de escritorio remoto de Microsoft no fue pensado para este uso —sin medidas de protección adicional— y que en esos momentos estuvo sujeto a advertencias del gobierno estadounidense y de la industria sobre posibles ataques, incluso de ciberintrusos con pocas habilidades.
Los registros muestran que Clinton manejaba además otros dos dispositivos en la red de su casa en Chappaqua, Nueva York, a los que también se podía acceder directamente desde internet. Uno contenía un software de control remoto similar que también sufrió vulnerabilidades y el otro al parecer estaba configurado para operar páginas en internet.
Los nuevos detalles ofrecen las primeras pistas de cómo la computadora de Clinton, operando con un servidor de Microsoft, fue instalado y protegido cuando ella lo usó exclusivamente durante cuatro años como secretaria de Estado para todos los mensajes de trabajo. El asesor privado de Clinton en tecnología, Bryan Pagliano, no ha querido responder a las preguntas de los investigadores legislativos sobre su trabajo, citando la Quinta Enmienda constitucional que protege contra la autoincriminación.
Algunos de los emails en el servidor de Clinton después resultaron ser ultrasecretos y cientos más contenían información confidencial o delicada. La exfuncionaria ha dicho que su servidor tenía “numerosas salvaguardas”, pero todavía tiene que explicar qué tan bien estaba asegurado el sistema y si, o qué tan frecuentemente, recibió actualizaciones el software de seguridad.
Desde el inicio de la polémica, Clinton ha pedido disculpas por haber empleado un servidor privado. El domingo el presidente Barack Obama dijo en una entrevista en “60 Minutes” que “fue un error”. El mandatario informó que la seguridad nacional no se vio en riesgo, aunque el FBI todavía debe completar la revisión al servidor de Clinton para buscar rastros de intrusos.
El lunes Brian Fallon, portavoz de la aspirante presidencial demócrata, dijo que “este reporte, igual que los anteriores, carece de evidencia de que en realidad existiera una fuga, dejen de apuntar específicamente a Hillary Clinton. El Departamento de Justicia está revisando la seguridad del servidor y estamos cooperando por completo”.
Los expertos dicen que el servicio de escritorio remoto de Microsoft no fue pensado para este uso —sin medidas de protección adicional— y que en esos momentos estuvo sujeto a advertencias del gobierno estadounidense y de la industria sobre posibles ataques, incluso de ciberintrusos con pocas habilidades.
Los registros muestran que Clinton manejaba además otros dos dispositivos en la red de su casa en Chappaqua, Nueva York, a los que también se podía acceder directamente desde internet. Uno contenía un software de control remoto similar que también sufrió vulnerabilidades y el otro al parecer estaba configurado para operar páginas en internet.
Los nuevos detalles ofrecen las primeras pistas de cómo la computadora de Clinton, operando con un servidor de Microsoft, fue instalado y protegido cuando ella lo usó exclusivamente durante cuatro años como secretaria de Estado para todos los mensajes de trabajo. El asesor privado de Clinton en tecnología, Bryan Pagliano, no ha querido responder a las preguntas de los investigadores legislativos sobre su trabajo, citando la Quinta Enmienda constitucional que protege contra la autoincriminación.
Algunos de los emails en el servidor de Clinton después resultaron ser ultrasecretos y cientos más contenían información confidencial o delicada. La exfuncionaria ha dicho que su servidor tenía “numerosas salvaguardas”, pero todavía tiene que explicar qué tan bien estaba asegurado el sistema y si, o qué tan frecuentemente, recibió actualizaciones el software de seguridad.
Desde el inicio de la polémica, Clinton ha pedido disculpas por haber empleado un servidor privado. El domingo el presidente Barack Obama dijo en una entrevista en “60 Minutes” que “fue un error”. El mandatario informó que la seguridad nacional no se vio en riesgo, aunque el FBI todavía debe completar la revisión al servidor de Clinton para buscar rastros de intrusos.
El lunes Brian Fallon, portavoz de la aspirante presidencial demócrata, dijo que “este reporte, igual que los anteriores, carece de evidencia de que en realidad existiera una fuga, dejen de apuntar específicamente a Hillary Clinton. El Departamento de Justicia está revisando la seguridad del servidor y estamos cooperando por completo”.
posted by PPAC @ 3/03/2016 07:44:00 a. m.
0 comments
0 Comments:
Publicar un comentario
<< Home