You'd think a guy who's supposed to be such a great lawyer would do a better job of justifying the continuation of his "investigation", but...
How about the fact that new evidence is still coming in, a good prosecutor doesn't end an investigation before it's complete.
Yeah, "new evidence" will keep coming in right up until the end of next election.
Blame the State Dept. their the ones releasing emails on a monthly basis.
Oh, I thought you might mention the leaks made by someone (very likely NOT a Democrat) on the 'ghazi committee:
For the Republican Party’s many Benghazi enthusiasts, the report painted a nefarious picture, based on information the State Department had kept under wraps. Indeed, the fact that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded, “Thanks, I’m pushing to WH,” raised the prospect of Clinton urging the White House to shape its talking points based on Media Matters’ reports – a revelation that might help explain the GOP-led panel’s interest in David Brock.
There was, however, a problem: the Politico report wasn’t entirely accurate – or more to the point, the Politico report was based in part on information leaked to the news outlet that turned out to be untrue.
Politico’s online edition ultimately ran a correction and deleted the sentence about Clinton’s “I’m pushing to WH” email altogether.
But Politico obviously didn’t make this up; it relied on a source that provided misleading information...
To be sure, we’ve grown accustomed to some deceptive leaks from congressional Republicans, especially in the area of Benghazi conspiracy theories, but Gowdy has vowed to run a tight ship. In fact, the South Carolina Republican has specifically boasted, “Serious investigations do not leak information or make selective releases of information without full and proper context.”
Benghazi committee springs a curious leak
Yet I didn't, so what's your point?