Name:   Talullahhound - Subject:   Mum's The Word Date:   6/25/2016 6:07:36 PM

It really depends on if he was performing these functions as a private contractor to the Clintons, or if these were made part of the duties of his government job.  of course he could have been a private contractor to the state department.  Each of these situations would make me give a different answer.  If he was a private contractor to the Clintons,no matter where else he worked, he would be entitled to plead the 5th, with regard to that contract.  If he was performing those duties as a direct hire to the State Department, then I would agree he should be required to answer the questions. 

(Although, being a govt employee does not take away your personal rights; but ethicly you should be transparent and accountable in your actions as a public employee a new  good steward of the taxpayers money.)

If he was a private contractor to state department, as long as he was performing to his statement of work, there isn't much can be done about him.  But one might ask State why they signed a contract with a statement of work so broadly written, and it is against federal regulation to sign a personal services contract with public funding (I.e., that he was under a government contract, but taking his order only from Clinton for her personal use.).  

No matter how you slice it, it is a nasty piece of business.  And yes, I believe public employees should answer all questions asked of them with regard to their official duties.  But I do feel a little sorry for this young man-- he is between a rock and a hard place.