What Pagliano’s Immunity Deal in the Clinton Email Scandal Reveals – IOTW Report

What Pagliano’s Immunity Deal in the Clinton Email Scandal Reveals

AP
AP

AmericanThinker […] Even more compelling is the fact that Pagliano’s testimony is not necessary to prove the basic case against Clinton for violating either federal record laws, or those pertaining to handling classified material.  In either case the evidence already on the record is sufficient to secure convictions on multiple counts on the basis of gross negligence.  But politically, mere negligence is perhaps not sufficient to support a prosecution — thus Clinton’s legally irrelevant and untrue but persistent statements that she never sent any emails marked classified at the time.  Pagliano’s testimony might well show conscious intent on Clinton’s part, which while not technically necessary to the case against her, makes it stronger, and thus more politically persuasive.  more

11 Comments on What Pagliano’s Immunity Deal in the Clinton Email Scandal Reveals

  1. From above: “In either case the evidence already on the record is sufficient to secure convictions on multiple counts on the basis of gross negligence.”

    Really? Get back to me when they arrest Hillary. I’ll just be over here, watching that not happen.

Comments are closed.