So, why would a low-level State department IT technician, Bryan Pagliano, plead the 5th in order to avoid testimony in Congress and to the FBI on the Hillary Clinton email issue?

I am no expert on these matters, but people that do have general knowledge of email security systems in classified environments tell me that there is simply no way that Clinton’s personal email server could have been connected to the intranet (note – not internet) that hosts the Department of State and, to a large extent, the government’s classified, secure, email system.

In order to connect any email address to such a secure intranet that hosts the classified email system, one needs to get approval from the Data Security team at the relevant department – in this case, the department of State.

So, two options:

  • Either Hillary was never connected to the classified email system of the department of State and the government in general. But if this is the answer it begs the question: How could she be effective in her job? How did President Obama or his Chief of Staff—or ANYONE in the senior echelons of the administration—connect with the Secretary of State, the person who is the 4th in line, for the presidency? It makes no sense whatsoever.
  • Or, which makes much more sense— Hillary Clinton’s email address (and, thus, server) was connected to the classified system. But if that were the case, how? How did she manage to connect such an unsecure e-mail to the secure email system without the Data Security department looking at it? Surly they would NOT approve it to begin with.

Which brings us back to the question at the beginning of this blog:

Why did Bryan Pagliano, a low level State department IT technician, plead the 5th in order to avoid testimony in Congress—and, thus, to the FBI—on the Clinton email issue?

I think the answer is becoming clear.

I suspect that Mr. Pagliano was told—pressured, convinced—to connect the Clinton server to the classified system without going through the normal procedures.
That is the only logical explanation as to why an IT person would plead the 5th in this case.

At the end, it may just turn out to be the straw that will break the camel’s back.