The former Hillary Clinton aide who set up the now-infamous “home-brew” server has told at least three Congressional committees that if he is asked to testify about Clinton’s server or system of records, he will invoke the Fifth Amendment.

Magliano worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign as the IT director; after that campaign came to an end, he joined up with a Clinton-affiliated PAC, and helped set up the server in Clinton’s New York home. He worked for the State Department from 2009-2013, and is now employed by a tech firm that occasionally contracts with State. He was subpoenaed to testify before the House Benghazi Committee, as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

More coverage from NBC News:

“While we understand that Mr. Pagliano’s response to this subpoena may be controversial in the current political environment, we hope that the members of the Select Committee will respect our client’s right,” attorney Mark MacDougall wrote in a letter obtained by MSNBC to Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy.

A Clinton campaign aide said in a statement to NBC News Wednesday the candidate has encouraged aides to answer any questions.

“We have been confident from the beginning that Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email was allowed and that she did not send or receive anything marked classified, facts confirmed by the State Department and the Inspector General,” the statement said. “She has made every effort to answer questions and be as helpful as possible, and has encouraged her aides, current and former, to do the same, including Bryan Pagliano.”

There has been much discussion over whether or not Pagliano will be granted immunity in exchange for his future testimony; if it comes down to not hearing what Pagliano has to say, and granting immunity, it is likely the panel will have little trouble making sure they get his testimony:

In theory, the immunity granted extends only to the actual use of the congressional testimony, but in practice it becomes nearly impossible to prosecute the congressional witness for any crime related to the subject of that testimony. Thus, if the committee believes that the witness may truly face the possibility of prosecution, it may be reluctant to grant immunity. This is one of the primary reasons that congressional grants of immunity are fairly rare (the last one given was to Monica Goodling in 2007 by the House Judiciary Committee).

With respect to Pagliano, however, this would hardly seem to be a serious issue. Unlike Lerner, he is not a senior or central figure in the investigation. The chances of his facing any kind of criminal jeopardy for setting up a private e-mail server (which by definition had to have occurred before any classified e-mails were sent through that server) would seem extremely remote.

Where does this leave us? Right back where we started, right? This means nothing, right? It’s just procedural…oppression of our future First Female President©…right?

We’ll keep you updated on this latest piece of honesty out of the Clinton camp.