Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2Quote
Originally posted by: Roulette Man
The first time around, the FBI said there WAS evidence, but they didn't believe it was enough to secure a conviction. You have a very selective memory.
You have no grasp of the legal system and what it takes to get evidence admitted in a trial, and what it takes for the prosecution to prove a case. What was said after the first FBI is that there was no evidence of any intent. Intent is a required element of the of offense. The words Comey used were that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” and it wasn’t a not a “cliff-hanger.”
Evidence that has been destroyed, or was attempted to be destroyed, AFTER it was subpoenaed can be a bit difficult to get "admitted in a trial". That's what she did. The only reason she set up her personal server for ALL of her email communications as SoS was to be able to control everything on it, and hide or destroy anything she wanted from FOIA inquiries or possible criminal investigations.
If she did nothing illegal, there would not have been any reason for granting immunity to ANYONE connected to her, and there would be no reason for pleading the 5th by ANYONE connected to her.
I could agree with granting a pardon, but not until the full extent of her criminal behavior is admitted and acknowledged. Granting a pardon while not identifying the actual crimes committed would make no sense. It would be a symbolic measure made to appease a certain segment of the population, and give, at the very least, tacit approval to the same criminal behavior in the future.
