Tom reports that when asked if she would drop out of the race if indicted, Hillary Clinton replied “Oh, for goodness sake, that’s not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question.”

Besides the arrogance of the answer, it’s at odds with what many are saying about the outcome of the e-mail drama. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal had a piece explaining the possible consequences of the Justice Department granting immunity to Bryan Pagliano, a staffer with close political ties to the Clintons who set up Hillary’s private e-mail server. For one, he may have to appear before Congress again.

Messrs. Johnson and Grassley point out that Congress has a unique interest in this testimony. The FBI is presumably not investigating whether Mrs. Clinton or her aides deliberately attempted to evade federal record-keeping or freedom-of-information laws because those statutes don’t include criminal enforcement. Yet the country has a right to know if its top officials engaged in an organized effort to evade disclosure laws. Congress has an interest in that kind of oversight.
As a Clinton loyalist, Mr. Pagliano will no doubt resist appearing before Congress, but the Senators have the option of a subpoena. The public deserves to know the kind of government Mrs. Clinton would deliver if she becomes our next President.

Whether Pagliano will agree to talk or not is another question, I suppose. However, I wonder why Mrs. Clinton is so flip about this. The stakes are high for both our country and her future as you can see in this interview of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey by the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Kissel.

Here is Mukasey’s Journal op-ed making the case Clinton could be indicted.