Here ya go...... thank me later.
Typical response from a zero IQ c.unt idiot.
What dogshit like this and the others defending clinton don't get is that by defending her in these matters they are damaging the entire integrity of the political process:
1-the next time a republican does something illegitimate or questionable they can no longer make a claim about it, because they defended her illegal behavior/crimes
2-undermining the trust of people in the political system, that it is acceptable to steal/lie/be corrupt and that the public has to accept it, like the US is now russia or venezuela.
As for the facts, I'll just let the NY Times - the #1 PR flack for the clintons - do the talking for me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/u...column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
"Even as he declined to recommend a criminal case against
Hillary Clinton, the
F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, undercut many of the arguments she has used to play down her use of a private email server while secretary of state, describing a series of questionable, even reckless, decisions made by her and her aides. At least 110 emails sent through her server contained information that was classified at the time it was sent, he said, meaning it should never have been sent or received on an unclassified computer network — not hers, not even the State Department’s official
state.gov system.
That fact refutes the core argument she and others have made: that the entire controversy turned on the overzealous, after-the-fact classification of emails as they were being made public under the Freedom of Information Act, rather than the mishandling of the nation’s secrets.
Mr. Comey’s announcement was, arguably, the worst possible good news Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign could have hoped for: no criminal charges, but a pointed refutation of statements like one she flatly made last August. “I did not send classified material,” she said then."
