Pics related.

Here's the evidence the HRC investigation was a sham: Strozk never even considered here a "target" of the investigation into an email server she admittedly set up that contained classified information

Provided are the definition of a target (which she obviously is, given she asked for the server to be set up, and paid for it.

Also provided: Comeys statements on the statutes, which she clearly violated.

Also provided: Strozks testimony on HRC not a target.

Also provided: Hillary admitting to setting up the server for "convenience"

Pics related.

Here's the evidence the HRC investigation was a sham: Strozk never even considered here a "target" of the investigation into an email server she admittedly set up that contained classified information

Provided are the definition of a target (which she obviously is, given she asked for the server to be set up, and paid for it.

Also provided: Comeys statements on the statutes, which she clearly violated.

Also provided: Strozks testimony on HRC not a target.

Also provided: Hillary admitting to setting up the server for "convenience"

>>5677785

The only thing that kept HRC from charges was the dropping of "intent" which isn't even part of the statute.

Nothing about her investigation was above board. She is clearly a target (exposed to criminal liability) despite what Strozk said.

She clearly intended to set up her server, and was at a minimum wildly negligent using it and asking her housekeeper to print classified docs

LOCK HER UP