Screen Shot 2016-06-20 at 1.13.55 PM

In most criminal investigations and court cases when someone invokes the fifth amendment and refuses to answer pointed questions directed at them from either the defense, the prosecution, or the bench, it means they are somewhat protected from any possible backlash.

The fifth amendment allows for people to escape self incrimination, and that’s why it was built into the Bill of Rights…to help keep people from saying something that ends up getting them locked up in jail.

However there’s a big difference between exercising the fifth amendment in a criminal trial and a civil trial.

In a civil case when a person pleads the fifth the judge is allowed to make inferred judgements about what their refusal to answer a question might mean.

And this alone could provoke further investigations as well as severe consequences for the accused.

This is ultimately bad news for Hillary as her former aide, an IT professional who is believed to have helped set up her home brew server, is refusing to answer questions in an upcoming testimony he’s supposed to give about the illegal server.

The aide in question, a man by the name of Bryan Pagliano, was originally supposed to testify a little over 2 weeks ago. However when the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch had requested he give testimony they found it very difficult to force him to appear.

2 weeks later he’s finally agreed to testify…even though he refuses to answer questions.

The good new in all of this is even if he refuses to answer questions it doesn’t necessarily protect Hillary.

The Hill reports:

Even though Pagliano is planning not to answer questions, the session could still be incriminating for Clinton.

In civil cases such as the open records one launched by Judicial Watch, judges are allowed to draw inferences from someone’s decision not to answer questions. And Pagliano’s refusal to detail the system used to set up Clinton’s email server will leave the machine shrouded in mystery, dragging out an issue that has dogged her presidential campaign for more than a year.

The judge in the case, Emmet Sullivan, has said Clinton herself might be deposed as part of the case, and the odds of that order being handed down are believed to increase — if only slightly — with Pagliano’s decision not to talk.

This is one of those few instances where those who are concerned about getting to the bottom of Clinton’s misdeeds can actually be thankful a lack of information is being provided.

Better news yet is Pagliano isn’t the only person to be forced to give testimony in the future.

In addition to the alleged mastermind behind longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin and State Department Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy will also be asked to provide testimony.

If they also decide to do what Pagliano does and refuse to testify it will give the judge all the more reason to invite Clinton into the courtroom and force her to give a deposition.

Here’s to them spilling the beans or remaining silent…it’s a win-win it seems!