At 8:20 PM last night
The
Washington Post broke the story that the Justice Department is granting
immunity from prosecution to Bryan Pagliano.
Pagliano isn’t a nobody. He was a Clinton staffer during her 2008
presidential campaign, installed
and maintained her now-infamous private email server and, who a scant
six months ago, pled
the Fifth while appearing before Chairman Trey Gowdy’s House Select Committee on Benghazi.
He has just been
granted immunity by the government as the necessary step to obtain his
testimony on the subject of whether Clinton’s State Department email traffic
created a security violation or involved offenses.
WaPo reported that Clinton personally paid Pagliano to
maintain her private email server, but he failed to list the outside income in
the required personal financial disclosures he filed each year. The attorney for Pagliano declined to
comment.
With the advent of this revelation, a spokesman for the Clinton
campaign said they were “pleased” to learn of Pagliano’s involvement. Sure they are. That statement might be convincing to the
lemmings on the left, but anyone else sees the irony in that statement.
It was Clinton herself who called the FBI investigation a “security
review” when, in fact, it was a full-on criminal investigation of “wrongdoing”. FBI agents have poured over electronic
timestamps on classified sources to clarify whether Clinton aides reviewed the
sources and then retyped the information
into emails that were sent or forwarded to the former Secretary of State’s
private server.
Clinton is likely to be asked to be interviewed directly by the
FBI in the coming months.
The falloff in
Democratic primary turnout—which often reveals whether a candidate is exciting
voters and attracting them to the polls—reached deep into some of the core groups
of voters Clinton must not only win in November, but turn out in large numbers.
It stands in sharp contrast to the flood of energized new voters showing up at
the polls to vote for the GOP’s front-runner.
Judge Andrew
Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and constitutional law
professor at Brooklyn Law School, opined in The
Washington Times:
“The
relentless barrage of bad legal news for Mrs.
Clinton, which has been relegated to below-the-fold stories because of the
primary news position of the presidential primary contests, must keep her and
her lawyers up late at night. While her husband has been arguing with military
veterans at her political rallies and while Marco Rubio and Donald Trump have
been mocking each other’s body parts, a series of curious developments has occurred
in the Clinton email scandal.”
“It is fair to call this a scandal
because it consists of the public revelation of the private and probably
criminal misdeeds of the nation’s chief diplomat during President Obama’s first
term in office. Mrs. Clinton’s
job as secretary of state was to keep secrets. Instead, she exposed them to
friend and foe. The exposure of state secrets, either intentionally or
negligently, constitutes the crime of espionage. For the Secretary of State to
have committed espionage is, quite simply, scandalous.”