FBI Director Comey’s “rationalization” for his decision not to indict Hillary Rodham Clinton, as taken from his own testimony:
(1) HRC intended to receive official communications by email via a private, unsecured, unauthorized server at an unauthorized location;
(2) as Secretary of State, HRC knew she would have been receiving classified emails in her role as Secretary of State, yet:
(3) Comey did not think that he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that HRC knew she would be receiving classified emails at her unsecured, unauthorized server at the unauthorized location. (!)
Director Comey’s contention that the “gross negligence” provision of the federal statute in question had only been utilized to prosecute a defendant once in the last 100 years is a canard. Refer to the case of Brian Nishimura, the naval reservist who was prosecuted last year for a totally non-intentional removal of classified information to his home. Whether the statute in question was used against him is unknown by me at the present moment, but that begs the question. HRC could have been prosecuted based on the same statute Nishimura was, if it was different from the law cited by Comey. Nishimura’s only “crime”: his name was not Clinton!