Flynn

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Am I missing something? Was there a special independent consul leading an investigation of her use of a private server? And didn't Comey say there was evidence of a crime being committed or that a crime was committed but that, in his opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would charge her. And wasn't his assumption vehemently protested as false, that he actually laid out a more than reasonable case for prosecution.

I believe he stated there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe he stated there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." - James Comey

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe he stated there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime.

He said "“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

There was no special prosecutor to investigate this "evidence," there was no congressional investigation. There is no comparison of it to what is happening in the Trump/collusion investigation. Clinton did violate statutes on handling classified information. There was not only evidence that she did, there was proof that she did. It simply wasn't prosecuted on the opinion of Comey that no reasonable person would prosecute if because no proof of intent, even though the statute did not allow lack of intent as an excuse.

In the meantime, Trump is being investigated in order to find evidence, and even to find if a crime was even committed--no known crime, no evidence, yet there is an investigation.

How is there even a minute comparison in how the Clinton and Trump matters were/are being handled?