But don't worry, you'll be fine I'm sure. You must be, if you're content to vote for the status quo.
...as required by law on financial disclosure forms. FBI had him dead to rights on that... that's probably what the immunity is for. However, immunity isn't just handed out willy-nilly on "security reviews". He had specific information that incriminates higher-ups. FBI wouldn't give immunity for anything less.
because we know about them.
But even in knowing about them, we are left with another eddy that concentrates political flotsum in an ugly looking gyre.
They wouldn't waste time with immunity if that was the only thing. This is bigger than that.
"It is not intellectually safe to conclude that whenever a witness is granted immunity he must be guilty of a crime. An involuntary witness often receives immunity simply because a prosecutor wants to know what the witness knows......
Voluntary witnesses are immunized pursuant to a strategic decision by the prosecutor. There is no statutory way to get immunity from prosecution, but friendly witnesses get it anyway when they, in person or through their lawyers, sit down and make a deal with the government. The issue in either case is not the guilt of the witness. The decisive factor is the conclusion that has been reached by the prosecutor and the way he conclusion to the witness or to the witness's lawyer. For the witness, it is the prosecutor's belief and asserted position that create the crime. After all, the witness's real fear is the indictment itself. He knows what every prosecutor should know: that the power to indict is the power to destroy. The witness knows who holds the power; he reacts to what he is told, although what he is told is not necessarily a valid legal conclusion."
Clearly it cost at least a dime.
Notwithstanding, there's an awful lot of smoke for there to be no fire.
The indictment fairy is not going to come down and reverse the outcome the primary.
I've read Paul Thompson's theory regarding the immunity and I don't really buy it. Paul has done fine work and lots of research but I think the disclosure form is a bit of a stretch for immunity. Seems like there needs to be more to it. That form is a slap on the wrist at best I think (and he very easily could have filed the form with and still hid Hillary's server). I believe the purpose of those forms is to cover conflict of interest which this really isn't.
I see a few possible other issues:
1) What I do see here is he was working at the State Dept and was essentially Hillary's 24 hour on call tech support. So the government is paying him, but while he's working if she has a problem, he fixes it. And Hillary got him said job. Seems like that's somewhat illegal and Hillary was complicit. It's kinda like Hillary got the government to pay him to work for her privately. Fraud?
2) The missing emails from Pagliano could very well be destruction of evidence. Was he told to get rid of those correspondence? I also wonder who was his go between because I don't know if he communicated much with Hillary (she couldn't even bother to respond to his Happy Birthday email)
3) Security breaches? We know at the very least hacking attempts were supposed to be reported but were not. I'm not sure the legal repercussions from not reporting. It could again be a slap on the wrist like a FOIA violation.
I see point 1) as possibly having the most legal ramifications. I'm not sure what charges would be issued against this but I'm sure a few could come into play.
have access to what was on her server.