The Washington Post is reporting this morning that the FBI has given immunity to Bryan Pagliano, the staffer for Hillary Clinton who set up her private unsecured email system at her home. This is bigger news than the results of Super Tuesday or the GOP debate tonight or some speech by Mitt Romney today about Donald Trump. Here's why.
1. Pagliano was questioned previously by the FBI and congressional committees. On each occasion, Pagliano refused to answer while citing his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. Now that Pagliano has immunity from prosecution, he has to answer the questions.
2. The FBI does not usually grant immunity to someone unless the criminal investigation is very serious and the agency is looking to bring matters to a conclusion. In other words, if this were a "security review" as Hillary Clinton likes to call the FBI criminal investigation, no one would get immunity. Also, unless the FBI had major evidence of criminal activity, no one would have gotten immunity.
3. Granting immunity to a relatively low-level participant in the criminal activity is a classic method used by the FBI to get the people at the top (like Hillary). The grant in this case means that Hillary and her chief aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin are in the crosshairs.
4. There is no way that Hillary can spin the testimony of her own staffer, the reporting of the Washington Post or the actions of Obama's FBI as some Republican conspiracy. It's much closer to Watergate than anything else.
5. If the FBI recommends an indictment of Hillary, her chance of winning the White House ends. There will still be people ready to vote for her, but the average American is not going to send a known criminal to the White House.
My only comment on the story is this: wow! It's about time.
1. Pagliano was questioned previously by the FBI and congressional committees. On each occasion, Pagliano refused to answer while citing his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. Now that Pagliano has immunity from prosecution, he has to answer the questions.
2. The FBI does not usually grant immunity to someone unless the criminal investigation is very serious and the agency is looking to bring matters to a conclusion. In other words, if this were a "security review" as Hillary Clinton likes to call the FBI criminal investigation, no one would get immunity. Also, unless the FBI had major evidence of criminal activity, no one would have gotten immunity.
3. Granting immunity to a relatively low-level participant in the criminal activity is a classic method used by the FBI to get the people at the top (like Hillary). The grant in this case means that Hillary and her chief aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin are in the crosshairs.
4. There is no way that Hillary can spin the testimony of her own staffer, the reporting of the Washington Post or the actions of Obama's FBI as some Republican conspiracy. It's much closer to Watergate than anything else.
5. If the FBI recommends an indictment of Hillary, her chance of winning the White House ends. There will still be people ready to vote for her, but the average American is not going to send a known criminal to the White House.
My only comment on the story is this: wow! It's about time.
No comments:
Post a Comment