One guess (via Twitchy)
1. Hillary was unbelievably reckless.
2. Scrubbing the reference to Obama was an enormously consequential change. pic.twitter.com/n56lQhgaVQ
— David French (@DavidAFrench) June 14, 2018
Hillary “used her private email extensively while outside the United States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries”. One of the people she was conversing with was U.S. President Barack Obama. That was scrubbed, and replaced with “another senior government official,” before being totally removed from James Comey’s missive laying out that she broke the law which ended with “never mind.”
https://twitter.com/JamesHasson20/status/1007411019495411712
As NoFilterNetwork tweeted “Been pretty obvious why the FBI beat around the bush with Hillary: Obama White House was implicated.” Many others are saying this was a coverup, which would have succeeded because they all thought Hillary would win easily. What we do know is that POTUS knew Hillary was improperly, and even illegally, using a homebrew server instead of her official, government sanctioned email account to perform government business which included confidential conversations as well as the transmittal of classified material.
Not only did Loose Shoes willfully lie to the American people about his knowledge of Hillary’s private server, he and his minions are destroying the federal records from his reign of corruption.
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/nat-archives-stumble-onto-new-obama-scandal-wholesale-destruction-of-govt-records/
Destruction of evidence is just one way to be above the law. Another is having all the prosecutors and investigators on your side. Comey was right when he said no prosecutors would take the case. If you destroy evidence well enough, you can’t even be charged with destroying evidence.
In the efforts to find classified material in Mrs Clinton’s emails, we’re still ignoring the overarching question: why did she set the system up in the first place? The State Department had a state-of-the-art secure email system already in place, and people there to familiarize the Secretary with it. Why would an infamous grifter like Mrs Clinton then choose to spend a lot of her own money to set up her own private one?
The only reason of which I can think is that it was an attempt to evade public records laws. Nothing else even remotely makes sense.
The higher-ranking people at State knew that she had this back-channel system. How is it that a federal department filled with highly-edumacated people had no one in it who said, ‘Wait a minute, this is the kind of thing that can get the Secretary in trouble?’ How is it that the security people at State didn’t object?
Mrs Clinton spent some time as a lower-level staff attorney for the Senate Watergate Committee, where she surely should have learned that the law applies even to the President of the United States, yet she has acted, for her entire career, as though the law doesn’t apply to her. Of course, she’s been protected and gotten away with so much — $100,000 profit in cattle futures, anyone? — for so long, I suppose that she would think that she is untouchable.
And even now, she is, at least as far as being touched by the law is concerned. Fortunately for us, the voters of the United States are somewhat less concerned with the fine points of what she did or did not do concerning her emails and other conduct, and realized that she is, just generally, a dishonest person. She won’t go to prison for any of this, but at least the voters chose to allow her to retire to private life in Chappaqua.
Letting her escape the big house is a small price to pay for keeping her out of the White House.
She even argued that Nixon wasn’t entitled to defend himself against the charges. I understand that wasn’t the only reason she was fired from that job.
The higher-ranking people at State knew that she had this back-channel system. How is it that a federal department filled with highly-edumacated people had no one in it who said, ‘Wait a minute, this is the kind of thing that can get the Secretary in trouble?’ How is it that the security people at State didn’t object?
Well, that didn’t go the way I wanted. The bit in italics was supposed to also be in blockquote — not my reply.
You want perp walks?
This is the tip of that iceberg.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/15/ig-report-fbi-lawyer-1-tashina-gauhar-and-the-huma-weiner-laptop-issues/#more-150619