Judge Nap: 'Inexplicable' That Clinton Staffers Were Granted Immunity by DOJ
Congress is ramping up its investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, and they're focusing on a Clinton staffer who set up the server and a computer technician who used a software program to delete backups of her emails.
The Justice Department has apparently granted immunity to those two men, Bryan Pagliano and Paul Combetta.
Now, the House Oversight Committee, led by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), wants to know what they told the FBI in exchange for their immunity.
On "America's Newsroom" today, Judge Andrew Napolitano said that Pagliano and Combetta will likely plead the Fifth Amendment at a hearing Tuesday morning, but that may not fly if they were indeed granted immunity.
He explained that there's a difference between "immunity" and a "promise not to prosecute."
"Congressman Chaffetz can dispatch lawyers to go across the street to a federal judge, who will examine what documents they say immunize them, decide if they got immunity and decide if they still have a Fifth Amendment right," Judge Napolitano said. "Because if you have immunity, then you don't have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify about the subject of the immunity ... The question is: Did they get immunity or did they just get a promise not to prosecute?"
He added that it's "inexplicable" Pagliano and Combetta would be given immunity in the first place, because immunity is only supposed to be given by a federal judge to induce testimony before a grand jury or a trial jury.
"There was no grand jury in this case," he said. "The FBI didn't present a single piece of evidence to a grand jury, they didn't get a subpoena from a grand jury, they didn't get a search warrant from a judge."
Judge Napolitano said that's why he would ask FBI Director James Comey, "What was the purpose of the so-called immunity?"
Get more insight from the judge above, and share your reaction in the comments.