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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
