Hillary's E-Mail Investigation

UPDATE from Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley below.

The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

  WaPo

In my mind, the granting of immunity implies that there is criminal (or actionable) activity and the person being granted immunity is culpable, but will rat on somebody else.

Is that just in my mind, or is that in fact what happened here?

Clinton has since apologized for what happened: “Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.”

No, you don't. Otherwise your staffer wouldn't be in the position he's in.

The State Department has said that, at the request of intelligence agencies, it has classified 22 Clinton emails as “top secret” and will not release those emails, even in redacted form. “Top secret” is the highest level of classification, reserved for material whose release could cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”

I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, has indicated that some of the material intelligence officials have reviewed contained information that was classified at the time it was sent; the State Department has indicated that it has not analyzed whether the material should have been marked classified when it was sent, only whether it requires classification before being released now.

Of course. Any hacker in any country could get to it through Clinton's unsecured personal server (while she was Secretary of State, mind you, sending and receiving emails regarding national defense and security), but YOU can't see it.

Current and former officials said the conviction of retired four-star general and CIA director David H. Petraeus for mishandling classified information is casting a shadow over the email investigation.

[...]

He was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years of probation. FBI officials were angered by the deal and predicted it would affect the outcome of other cases involving classified information.

Petraeus “was handled so lightly for his offense there isn’t a whole lot you can do,” said a former U.S. law enforcement official who oversaw counterintelligence investigations and described the email controversy as “a lesser set of circumstances.”

It was never a question. They'll make a big show, and then let it go.

I have another question: if Hillary Clinton somehow did not get the Democratic nomination, would her politically powerful backers/supporters choose Trump over Sanders?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

In a move that can only be viewed as ominous by the Clinton legal team, the Justice Department has granted immunity to former State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Pagliano had refused to cooperate after invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He was an obvious target of potential criminal charges if he knew that the server was meant to circumvent federal laws, including the mishandling of classified information.

[...]

The move to use a private server is widely viewed as an effort by Clinton to retain total control over her communications – a move that obviously increased the likelihood of foreign interception considerably.

[...]

It was a highly reckless act.

[...]

Clinton has insisted that “I never sent classified material on my email, and I never received any that was marked classified.” The key of this spin is again the word “marked.” [...] As I discussed earlier, virtually anything coming out of the office of the Secretary of State would be considered classified as a matter of course. I have had a TS/SCI clearance since Reagan due to my national security work and have lived under the restrictions imposed on email and other systems. The defense is that this material was not technically classified at the time that it was sent. Thus it was not “classified” information. The problem is that it was not reviewed and classified because it was kept out of the State Department system.[Emphasis added]

[...]

Indeed that understanding was formally agreed to by Clinton when she signed the “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” or SF-312, which states that “classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications.” [...] Classified oral communications are not “marked” nor would classified information removed from secure systems and sent via a personal server. Likewise, classified oral communications that are followed up with emails would not be “marked.” This is the whole reason that Clinton and others were told to use the protected email system run by the State Department. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to secure such systems.

[...]

As someone who has worked with classified information for decades, I remain flabbergasted by both the decision to use the private server and the spin following the controversy. As president, Clinton could never maintain this position in allowing subordinates to use unsecure private servers. Indeed, one of the emails has her expressing surprise at the use of an unsecure system by a subordinate. By last count, some 2050 emails are considered classified and some 22 contain top secret information. By any objective measure, that is a serious concern.

[...]

Pagliano is in a position to do considerable damage if he can discuss the intent and knowledge behind the move to circumvent the State Department email system.

  Jonathan Turley