Why Hillary Clinton Was Not Indicted

All Hillary Clinton opponents, haters and "dislikers" just KNOW that she got away with crimes that they just KNOW she is unquestionable guilty of. It's a given, because...well...it's Hillary Clinton.

They KNOW she committed a crime because they BELIEVE James Comey said so:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

Note that Comey does not suggest a criminal act nor criminal punishment here. He is talking about breaking RULES and possibly losing a security clearance and being reprimanded or fired.

Here is an article that is a classic example of HRC opponents' "proof" that Hillary Clinton committed a crime.

That article is wrong on many points.

The quote of section 793 has a number of ellipses including the part where the subject must have the intent to willfully damage the United States.Read the full section. There is no case: https://www.law.cornell.edu...

The article misconstrues section 1924. There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton REMOVED any classified information from anywhere. She received a small amount of classified information, but she didn't remove it from anywhere. Further it requires the INTENT to remove classified material, and since the FBI found no classified material that was properly marked as classified, there is no way to prove that HRC had any intent. There is no case: https://www.law.cornell.edu...

As to section 798 the article leaves out Whoever knowingly and willfullycommunicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information. There is no way it can be proved that HRC knowingly AND willingly communicated ANYTHING to an unauthorized person much less for the purpose of causing harm to the US. There is no case: https://www.law.cornell.edu...

The article claims HRC broke section 2071, but the section requires that the subject willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys classified information. There is no evidence that HRC concealed, removed,, mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed any classified information and certainly not willfully. Can't be proved. There is no case: https://www.law.cornell.edu...

There is a reason Comey believed no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Hillary Clinton. There was no way to prove that she broke the law.