UnitedHealth Accused of Overcharging for Drugs

     (CN) — A class-action lawsuit claims insurance giant UnitedHealth Group caused customers to pay higher prices for prescription drugs to the point where it would have been cheaper to buy the drugs without insurance.     The federal lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Minnesota federal court, labels the alleged illegal charges as “clawbacks” and defines them as excessive charges that UnitedHealth Group required pharmacies to charge insured patients.     The class, headed up by lead plaintiff Anna Mohr, claims that after these charges were collected by pharmacies, they were “clawed back” and given to the insurance company.     In an example from the lawsuit, one class member was allegedly charged a $50 co-payment for the drug Sprintec, and the pharmacy was only paid $11.65 of the payment, with the rest being given to UnitedHealth.     The class alleges that the scheme is based on deals with pharmacy benefits managers, or PBMs, that do not allow the disclosure of these extra charges.     “Insurer/PBMs contractually bind pharmacies to keep the clawback scheme secret and they prevent pharmacies from informing patients that their drugs could cost less if the pharmacy were permitted to process the purchase outside of the patients’ insurance plans,” the 72-page complaint states.     The class claims that these kinds of charges were not authorized under the insurance policies, as they go above and beyond the actual cost of the drug and violate RICO laws the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA.     In addition to Mohr, Samantha Sohmer and Charles Wiltsie are also named as plaintiffs. They seek class-action status and unspecified damages for the alleged overcharging, and are represented by Daniel Shulman of Gray Plant Mooty in Minneapolis.     This is not the first time UnitedHealth has been accused of an overcharging scheme. In 2000, a case titled Smith v. United Healthcare Services was filed in the same court against the company and sought damages for a similar alleged scheme involving co-payment overcharges.     In Smith, the lawsuit claimed that the insurance company played fast and loose with definitions contained within its policies, as the plans specified that the patients should pay the lesser of the plan’s co-payment or the actual cost of the drug, referred to in the complaint as the “contracted reimbursement rate.”     That rate, according to court records, should be the amount the insurance company repays the pharmacy for filling a given prescription drug, and plaintiffs in Smith claimed they were overcharged.     The court granted the Smith plaintiffs summary judgment in 2003, and in 2004 the case was settled through a court-approved agreement that totaled $9.95 million and an additional $1.2 million for administration costs.     The proposed class in Tuesday’s lawsuit claims that UnitedHealth is violating the court’s decision in the Smith case “by charging plaintiffs and the class members here co-payments that were and are higher than the amount that they repay the pharmacy for filling a given prescription drug.”     Tyler Mason, a representative of UnitedHealth Group, declined Courthouse News’ request to fully comment on the lawsuit, instead saying, “We have not been officially served with the complaint, and pharmacy benefits are administered in line with the coverage described in the plan documents.”

Read more

Judge Says She Faced Retaliatory Investigation

     (CN) – A Michigan judge has brought a federal complaint against the sheriff of Ingham County and his deputy, saying they subjected her to an illegal investigation to get back at her for letting a reporter see footage of an attempted courtroom shanking.     The melee occurred just over a month ago in the state’s 30th Circuit Court.     On Aug. 2, Joshua Harding, 35, wielded a metal shank moments before the jury was to announce Harding’s conviction for abusing a 10-year-old girl.     As captured by the court’s closed-circuit recording system, Harding lunged at the state prosecutor, but his attack was thwarted by a police officer.     Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina brought her lawsuit on Sept. 23 in U.S. District Court. Just a day earlier, the Michigan attorney general announced charges against Harding related to the attempted stabbing.     Also on Sept. 22, Ingham County Sheriff Gene “Wriggelsworth released or authorized the release of the fact that he had been investigating [Aquilina] for obstruction of justice,” the complaint says.     Aquilina says she first learned about the investigation on Aug. 14 — just over a week after she let a reporter with the Lansing State Journal view the court’s footage of the attempted stabbing in her chambers, and record the video using his own device.     The complaint says Charles Buckland, a deputy sheriff in Ingham County, told Aquilina he was investigating her release of the recording, but that he declined “to identify what crime he was investigating.”     “Granting permission of the media to record a recording of an event that occurred in a room that is open to the public by law cannot support any valid criminal charge,” the complaint also states.     Aquilina says Buckland ignored ensuing calls and a letter from her attorney about the investigation, but that Buckland interviewed her judicial assistant and her law clerk.     “Between August 17, 2016 and September 22, 2013, defendants Buckland and Wriggelsworth submitted a warrant request to Ingham County Prosecutor Gretchen Whitmer seeking criminal charges against plaintiff for the common law offense of obstructing justice,” the complaint states.     Clinton County Prosecutor Charles Sherman took over the possible case against Aquilina. The local NBC affiliate reported Tuesday that Sherman officially declined to charge Aquilina with obstruction.     The judge says she has a few ideas why she has been targeted.     Such conduct by Buckland and Wriggelsworth “is motivated out of embarrassment for the shank attack, retaliation for First Amendment protected activity, and to improperly cause recusal of a properly assigned judge presiding over a case in which defendant Wriggelsworth is a defendant,” the complaint states.     Aquilina notes that she randomly caught a case earlier this month in which Wriggelsworth is accused of discriminating and retaliating against corrections officer Meko Moore.     “There is only one jail facility and the inmate that tried to stab the assistant prosecutor would have been housed in the jail where Mr. Moore works,” Aquilina’s complaint states.     Soon afterward, an attorney for Wriggelsworth requested a meeting with Aquilina and Moore’s counsel, the judge says.     The complaint says this attorney wanted to discuss recusing Aquilina “because the sheriff’s office ‘was or may be’ investigating ‘certain circumstances’ that occurred recently.”     “Wriggelsworth incorrectly or falsely informed his attorney that the incident happened in [Aquilina’s] courtroom when the August 2, 2016 incident happened in the courtroom of the Hon. James Jamo,” the complaint states.     “The attorney stated that ‘the sheriff requested’ that the attorney seek recusal of plaintiff from the case where he was a defendant.”     Aquilina wants damages for First Amendment retaliation and false-light invasion of privacy. She says news of the investigation against her has been humiliating and stress-inducing, and that “anger” over it interferes with her judicial duties.     The judge is represented by Lansing-based attorney Nicholas Bostic.     Sheriff Wriggelsworth has not returned a request for comment.

Read more

Notre Dame Fights to Lock Up Campus Police Records

     INDIANAPOLIS (CN) — The Indiana Supreme Court skewered attorneys Tuesday on ESPN’s claim that campus police files on Notre Dame athletes are public records.     “Explain to me how Notre Dame falls into an agency of any level of government,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush said at one point during this morning’s hearing.     The case stems from a physical fight that broke out at Notre Dame on Sept. 6, 2014, about an hour before a football game between the Fighting Irish and the University of Michigan. A band had been holding a concert in the main building, and witnesses reported that a man fell down, or possibly through a stairwell, with blood pouring from his head.     ESPN reporter Paula Lavigne sought access to a campus police report on the incident, plus access to school logs related to 275 Norte Dame Student athletes, regardless if they were named as victims, suspects or witnesses in any incidents.     The St. Joseph Superior Court ultimately ruled against ESPN, saying Notre Dame was not subject to public-records law as a private university.     Notre Dame is appealing to the Indiana Supreme Court, however, after the Court of Appeals reversed against it in March, saying Norte Dame police force qualified as a public agency.     At a 45-minute hearing Monday, ESPN’s lawyer Maggie Smith told the five-justice court that university police are “are engaging in a governmental function” and should be subject to public-records laws.     Notre Dame’s attorney Peter Rusthoven argued that Indiana’s laws do not allow for a broad interpretation. Since Notre Dame is not a government agency, it is not subject to such police-record requirements, he said.     “And whatever else Notre Dame may be, it is not the elected representatives of government,” Rusthoven said.     ESPN’s attorney Smith meanwhile argued that other Indiana laws have described private police forces as “an agency” and as “a law enforcement agency.” This language allows for a private police department to be treated as any other similar police force, she said.     This distinction is a contentious point of the case, as Notre Dame’s police force can perform law-enforcement actions off its own campus, and yet may be treated differently then local law enforcement would be.     When asked if state laws purposefully treat private and public police forces differently,     Rusthoven answered, “Yes, absolutely.”     “This is part of the policy choices that inform the lines the legislature draws,” Rusthoven added.     Notre Dame’s own website likens its security to a fully fledged police force.     “Notre Dame police officers complete state mandated training requirements established for law enforcement officers and have the same legal authority as any other police officer in Indiana,” according to the “about” page on Notre Dame’s website.     Smith closed his argument with an emphasis on transparency in all law enforcement.     “We’ve got to get back to the fact here that we are talking about the core power of the state, the opportunity to deprive an individual of a liberty interest,” Smith said.     Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has echoed such a sentiment in the past.     “The public has the right to transparency and accountability when police power is being exercised, and we look forward to further judicial clarifications on the scope of the public’s right to know in future decisions by our courts,” Zoeller said after the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of ESPN.     Justices Robert Rucker, Steven David, Mark Massa and Geoffrey Slaughter joined the court’s chief for today’s hearing. A ruling is expected in the coming weeks.     Indiana Gov. Mike Pence vetoed a bill in March that would have allowed private universities to keep their police records private. Since then, the Republican has joined Donald Trump on the presidential campaign route. Pence made headlines this week for refusing to say that Trump’s supporters in the Ku Klux Klan belong in what Hillary Clinton called “a bag of deplorables.”

Read more

Religious-Freedom Law Spotlights Pence

     INDIANAPOLIS (CN) — The religious-freedom law in Indiana backed by Donald Trump’s running mate is at a crossroads in the Hoosier State after a woman charged with child abuse has invoked it for her defense.     Khin Thaing, 30, was charged after a teacher at Abraham Lincoln Elementary School in Indianapolis discovered severe bruises on Thiang’s 7-year-old son.     That teacher discovered the injuries after the child flinched from being patted on his back, detectives said in charging documents.     The affidavit for probable cause quotes Burmese-speaking Thaing as saying she hit the 7-year-old with a plastic clothes hanger after seeing him with his penis out standing behind his sister, who was bent over wearing a dress and no panties.     A member of the Indiana Lautu Evangelical Church, Thaing says in her affidavit that she believed her “son was about to behave very badly,” so she disciplined him.     “I was worried for my son’s salvation with God after he dies, and I did not want him ever again to commit a serious sin,” the affidavit says. “I decided to punish my son to prevent him from hurting my daughter and to help him learn how to behave as God would want him to.”     Thaing said she fully believed in biblical teachings that taught that a parent who “spares the rod, spoils the child.”     Her invocation of the Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act poses another wrinkle for the 2015 law seen as one of the biggest and most divisive accomplishments of Gov. Mike Pence.     Originally written more broadly then the federal version of the law, the legislation promoted criticism that it could be used to discriminate against the LGBT community.     The timing of the law also raised some red flags as it passed soon after same-sex couples won the right to marry.     Outrage from local businesses and community members promoted lawmakers to amend the act with language to prevent the feared discrimination.     Since its signing in March of 2015, the law has been used in a variety of different legal cases.     The legally recognized “First Church of Cannabis” still has a pending lawsuit in Indiana regarding the group’s right to use marijuana as its sacrament during religious services.     In addition, the Indiana branch of the ACLU, which opposed the original draft of the law, has used it to defend a Muslim inmate who was being served food that violated his religious diet, and against a law that prevented sex offenders from attending religious worship services that were near schools.     Whatever Pence thought the law would or should be used for, he’s stayed silent on the recent scuttlebutt surrounding it, as his attention has turned toward the White House.     According to an average of polls on Real Clear Politics, Trump’s pick for vice president sits at a 36.4 percent favorability rating. With two months to go before Election, he may need to convince people that he is the most stable part of the Trump-Pence ticket.     Pence’s lukewarm polling numbers mirror the mixed but and generally unhappy result of the RFRA law.     Mat Staver, founder and Chairman of the Liberty Council, a pro-religious freedom advocacy group, said in an interview that he doubted the religious-freedom law would help Thiang.     Staver agreed that “spanking could be motivated by a religious conviction,” but after viewing a photograph from Thaing’s case, he wasn’t confident such protections would apply.     “The photograph doesn’t look like reasonable corporal punishment,” Staver said.     He added that “the law doesn’t need amendment.”

Read more

KY Judicial Candidates Can Declare Parties

     (CN) — Kentucky judges and judicial candidates are free to identify with a political party, the Sixth Circuit ruled, noting the fine line between nonpartisan elections and free-speech rights.     The Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission used to enforce rules that prevented judges and judicial candidates from identifying with political parties in the state’s “nonpartisan” elections.     Kentucky’s judicial elections process begins with a single nonparty affiliated primary and ends with the two candidates with the highest votes advancing to the general election.     The challenge to state law originated from a 2014 lawsuit brought by three judicial candidates, including Robert Winter Jr., who had been told by the judicial commission that his campaign materials violated the law by identifying him as a “lifelong Republican.”     In May of this year, U.S. District Judge Amul Thapar ruled against the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission, finding that it cannot prevent judges or judicial candidates from campaigning with or against political parties and issues.     A unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit mostly agreed Wednesday with Thapar’s ruling that such restrictions violated free-speech rights.     The Cincinnati-based appeals court found that a clause banning a candidate’s intent to campaign as a member of political party was “too vague” and gave “judicial candidates little confidence about when they exercise their right to affiliate with a party.”     Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who authored the 16-page opinion, also wrote that a “speeches clause” in Kentucky law wrongfully infringed upon free-speech rights by preventing the expression of simple views, such as a candidate saying they are “for the Republican party.”     In addition, the Sixth Circuit disposed of a clause regarding the use of “misleading statements,” finding that it was too ambiguous and did not help to prevent statements that were knowingly false, as truly false statements by judges and judicial candidates are already prohibited by another clause.     “Regulating campaign speech is not easy. It’s not supposed to be. But treating elections for the courts just like elections for the political branches does not make sense either,” Sutton wrote.     A few provisions of state law survived the ruling. The Sixth Circuit found that clauses preventing judges from making political campaign donations and endorsing political candidates helped in “preventing the appearance that judicial candidates are no different from other elected officials when it comes to quid pro quo politics.”     In addition, a provision preventing a judge from acting as a leader or holding an office in a political organization was upheld, as the panel ruled that allowing such activities would undermine Kentucky’s policy choice to hold nonpartisan elections for judges.     With some of the law still intact, Sutton offered the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission some guidance.     “Navigating these cross-currents is no simple task—and for that we have considerable sympathy for the efforts of the commission,” the judge wrote. “At the same time Kentucky has the right to elect its judges on a nonpartisan basis, however, it has no right to suspend the First Amendment in the process. If the commission wishes to impose mandatory sanctions on the speech of judicial candidates for office, as opposed to nonenforceable guidelines or best practices, it must satisfy the rigors of the First Amendment in doing so.”

Read more

Michigan Must Allow Straight-Ticket Voting

     (CN) — The Sixth Circuit denied Michigan’s request to implement a ban on straight-party voting, allowing voters to easily select all Democrat or all Republican candidates on their November ballots.      The state’s emergency motion to place the law into effect follows a district court ruling that granted a preliminary injunction against the ban, finding it would increase voting times and disproportionately affect black voters.     Voters had sued over the law, known as PA 268, in May.     The law was championed by Republicans and passed last year, eliminating the longstanding Michigan practice of being able to vote entirely for one party with a single mark on a ballot, a practice known as straight-party voting.     A unanimous Sixth Circuit panel agreed with the district court’s decision and ruled Wednesday to keep the law from affecting the general election in November.     Judge Karen Moore authored the 15-page opinion and found that the district court’s ruling properly relied on evidence showing that “PA 268 will increase the time that it takes to vote, particularly in African-American communities where straight-party voting is prominent and where lines are often already long.”     According to the ruling, the most likely voters to use straight-party voting were black Democrats, and the law would likely increase voting times for a state that ranks as the sixth-worst in terms of voting wait times.     Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, appealed the lower court’s ruling and argued to the Sixth Circuit that eliminating the practice would only require voters to make multiple selections instead of one.     Johnson also claimed that ending the 125-year voting practice would not place an unconstitutional burden on voters because most other states do not allow it, and it would decrease the likelihood that voters will skip the nonpartisan section of the ballot.     However, the three-judge panel was not swayed.     “The state has offered only vague and largely unsupported justifications of fostering voter knowledge and engagement,” Moore wrote.     Wednesday’s opinion also said Johnson failed to present expert reports or testimony that would rebut the district court’s findings.     The Sixth Circuit’s ruling comes only weeks after the Fourth Circuit struck down a restrictive voter ID law in North Carolina.     In that case, the federal judges found that the Republican-backed law, much like Michigan’s PA 268, unfairly targeted black voters with restrictive ID requirements and limits on same-day voter registration.     Both rulings echo the Fifth Circuit’s July decision to strike down a Texas voter ID law, which was found to have targeted minorities and would have restricted the forms of ID that were required to vote.     Texans are now allowed to vote with a paycheck or utility bill in the upcoming presidential election, after a federal judge approved an interim plan last week.     While Wednesday’s Sixth Circuit ruling is a blow to supporters of PA 268, the fight is not over. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette is expected to file a new emergency appeal in the wake of the decision.     Judges Ronald Gilman and Jane Stranch joined Moore on the three-judge panel.     “Our ruling today is not the end of the case. We are simply deciding that the Michigan Secretary of State has not met her burden of demonstrating that a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction is warranted,” Gilman wrote in a three-page concurrence. “Just because the present record supports the district court’s preliminary injunction maintaining the option of straight-party voting for this November’s general election does not mean that the state must always permit straight-party voting.”

Read more

Insurer Must Defend W.Va. Pill-Mill Lawsuit

     CHICAGO (CN) – An insurance company must defend a pharmaceutical distributor accused of contributing to prescription drug abuse in West Virginia, the Seventh Circuit ruled.     The Cincinnati Insurance Company asked the Chicago-based appeals court to uphold a lower court’s ruling that its insurance policy with Illinois based company H.D. Smith did not extend to a lawsuit brought by the state of West Virginia.     In the 2012 complaint, West Virginia claimed that several pharmaceutical distributors were liable for the state’s prescription drug abuse problem, an issue it labeled as an “epidemic.”     West Virginia, a state with a population of about 1.8 million, received combined distributions of over 220 million oxycodone and hydrocodone pills from pharmaceutical companies between 2007 and 2012, according to the Charleston Gazette-Mail.     A seven-page opinion authored by Seventh Circuit Judge Ann Claire Williams states that West Virginia “alleged that certain pharmacies—pejoratively called ‘pill mills’—knowingly provided citizens with hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, and other prescription drugs, not for legitimate medical uses but to fuel and profit from the citizens’ addictions.”     H.D. Smith LLC, insured under Cincinnati’s policy, appealed to the Seventh Circuit after the lower court determined the policy did not provide coverage against West Virginia’s lawsuit.     H.D. Smith argued that the policy was valid, as it covered “damages claimed by any person or organization for care…resulting… from the bodily injury.”     In its lawsuit, West Virginia sought damages for the cost of care and treatment for drug addicts who could not afford the treatment themselves.     Cincinnati Insurance used a technicality to argue the opposite, claiming that there was no coverage because West Virginia sought damages for itself and not for citizens.     However, the Seventh Circuit disagreed Tuesday, finding that the damages sought by West Virginia included those caused by “bodily injury” and “the plain language of the policy requires Cincinnati to defend” H.D. Smith.     “Cincinnati agreed to cover damages that H.D. Smith became legally obligated to pay ‘because of bodily injury,’” Williams wrote for a three-judge panel. “The duty to defend arises ‘even if only one of several theories is within the potential coverage of the policy.’”     A spokeswoman for Cincinnati Insurance declined to comment on the ruling Thursday.     H.D. Smith also declined to comment.

Read more

Officer Who Took Racially Charged Photo Loses Appeal

     CHICAGO (CN) – A former Chicago Police detective should not get his job bac after being fired for posing in a photograph kneeling over a black man as though he were a hunting trophy, an Illinois appeals court ruled.     Timothy McDermott appealed a ruling from Cook County Judge Thomas Allen, who upheld the Chicago Police Board’s decision to fire him in 2015.     The bizarre and unsettling photo depicts McDermott and another officer, Jerome Finnigan, standing over a black man brandishing rifles and holding deer antlers over the man’s head.     The man in the picture is unidentified in court documents. He is shown in the photograph sticking out his tongue while McDermott’s hand is on his throat.     The picture’s origins are not clear, other than being taken sometime between October 1999 and July 2003.     The U.S. Attorney’s Office gave the photo to the Chicago Police Department in 2013, while investigating Finnigan and other officers who were accused of robberies and home invasions.     Finnigan is serving 12 years in federal prison for corruption.     McDermott claimed in his appeal that the Chicago Police Board did not allow him to present relevant evidence, and that the decision to fire him was overkill.     Illinois Appellate Justice Eileen O’Neill Burke strongly disagreed in the unanimous 17-page ruling on July 8, and found the Police Board’s decision well-founded.     Burke agreed with the board’s finding that the picture was “disgraceful and shock[ed] the conscience,” as it showed the man “not as a human being but as a hunted animal.”     “We respect the court’s decision,” McDermott’s attorney Daniel Herbert told the Chicago Sun-Times. “This is a chilling example of how a dedicated and accomplished career can be brought down by a 10-second decision made more than a decade earlier.”     McDermott had been a police officer for 17 years, and according to court documents had received 74 awards and 11 department commendations for his work.     But the picture was too much for the Chicago PD.     “In this case, the Board found that plaintiff violated three of the Department’s rules, which it determined was sufficient basis to discharge him from his employment,” Burke wrote. “This court has found that an officer’s violation of a single rule has long been held to be a sufficient basis for termination.”     Justices Jesse Reyes and Bertina Lampkin concurred.

Read more

Trump Rallies in Indiana With Possible VP Pick

     WESTFIELD, Ind. (CN) – In what may have amounted to a public audition to be Donald Trump’s pick for vice president, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence introduced the presumptive Republican presidential nominee at a rally on Tuesday night.     The event held at Westfield’s Grand Park started around 8:30, almost an hour late, with Pence taking the stage first to endorse and offer support for Trump.     “We are ready for a change in this state,” Pence said to loud applause. “We are ready to put a fighter, a builder and a patriot in the Oval Office of the United States of America. We are ready for Donald Trump to be our next president.”     Trump echoed back support for the Republican Indiana governor, but stopped short of endorsing him as his pick for a running mate, only alluding to his status as a finalist.     “I don’t know if he’s going to be your governor or your vice president, who the hell knows?” Trump said grinning.     Despite the night’s late start, most stayed throughout Trump’s near-hour speech, where the New Yorker touched on issues such as foreign trade, boosting the strength of the military, and building a wall along the county’s southern border with Mexico.     “We will build the wall, that I can tell you,” Trump said.     The real estate mogul then prompted the crowd to shout “Mexico” in response to his question of “who is going to pay for the wall?”     Trump voiced support for police offers but otherwise had little comment on the the series of high-profile shootings across the nation that has underscored tensions over race relations, gun control and police autonomy.     Last week a sniper formerly with the Army Reserve killed five Dallas police officers at a protest over the recent killings of two black men by police.     “I am the law-and-order candidate,” Trump said. “We have to take care of our police and our law enforcement officials.”     Pence is a staunch social conservative and, despite being locked in a heated governor’s race with Democratic candidate John Gregg, he is on the short list of Trump’s pick for vice president. A decision Trump has said he would make in the next few days.     This timetable is crucial for Pence who has a Friday deadline to decide if he will bow out of the governor’s race so that his party can replace him with another candidate.     One rally attendee said she would support Pence as Trump’s VP pick, but only so Pence would “get out of the state.”     Other names in the mix to be Trump’s running mate are New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.     During his warm-up speech, Pence slammed presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on the death of Americans in Benghazi. “As a proud father of a United States Marine,” Pence opened, “let me say from my heart, we don’t need a president who took 13 hours to send help to Americans under fire.”     “Anyone who did that should be disqualified from ever being commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States of America,” Pence regarding Clinton.     Pence was also keen to take jabs Sen. Bernie Sanders, who earlier in the day officially endorsed Clinton.     “He’s the nicest socialist I have ever served with in Washington D.C.,” Pence said with regard to a past time when they both served in U.S. House of Representatives.     Trump’s jabs at Clinton focused on her handling of classified emails during her time as secretary of the State Department.     “The greatest single thing, in my opinion, that she has ever done is to get out of the email problem,” Trump said. “I think it’s incredible, she did a great job on that. She was so guilty.”     FBI Director James Comey told Congress last week that he recommended no charges for Clinton because her actions, though “extremely careless,” did not evince criminal intent. Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified earlier Tuesday in the House about closing the investigation, saying she was determined to accept [Comey’s] recommendation.”     The State Department meanwhile is still investigating the matter.     Trump concluded his speech by reminding the Hoosier crowd of his campaign slogan.     “We’re going to win at every level, and we are going to make America so great again,” Trump said. “We’re going to make America greater than ever before.”     Barring a strange turn of events, Trump should become the official presidential nominee of the Republican Party during their National Convention in Cleveland, which runs from July 18 to 21.

Read more