(July 7, 2016 at 9:19 pm)dyresand Wrote:(July 7, 2016 at 9:17 pm)Losty Wrote: No, it is not. You have to prove intent. Meaning you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew what she was doing was illegal. According to the FBI, there isn't evidence to prove that. Destroying evidence doesn't prove it because her lawyers did that and there is no evidence that she told them to. Signing a paper that said she wouldn't do it is also not evidence but I'm not actually sure why...
I think likely the FBI did their part right mostly at least and Clinton is maybe just really good at loopholes.
I checked BBC the FBI is redoing the whole probe all over again
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36742095
There is the other case for election fraud and public corruption even if this one doesn't stick
there is more than enough evidence for the other case.
Pretty sure the article says State Dept.
