>>1752151 (lb)
"It was unclear how government classified documents got on Hillary's private server. So we won't investigate anyone about it." (paraphrase)
What do I do with such a statement? Laugh? Cry? What verbal gymnastics! But the contents of that Midyear Investigation, which are in a Classified part of the report, might be very interesting.
Why? Significant new evidence? What's the law about that tolling?
Well I guess so, maybe that could be argued, but (am not a lawyer so really guessing here) I suppose you'd be asked to show a conspiracy between Hillary and Horowitz to get a judge to agree. And if so, that would be hard.
Yeah, "what a shock". What's not a shock is that a NY AG even would go after a charitable foundation that paid out to charity over 100% of the donations it took in, if that foundation is related to Trump.
Also, isn't it unseemly for newspapers that say "the truth dies in darkness" to make sarcastic asides to their own reporting?