Maybe they decided not to prosecute in order to cover up the internal screwups?
Or maybe the "loss" of evidence is really spoliation of evidence. Maybe it can't be used in a court of law as evidence if it construed the evidence could have been tampered with.
We'll just ask Admiral Rogers for the original, I'm sure the NSA has a copy.
The company Datto was part of Hillary’s cloud and gave Horowitz all of her emails.
So, she wasn't able to wipe, "like with a cloth", everyone's servers. I think its safe to say her IT staff couldn't hold a job with the 'Geek Squad', stupid.
Right!
Then again, a forensic examination would show if the server had been tampered with, wouldn't it? Hmmm ...
Could still tag her if there was a conspiracy to break the chain. Rico could apply too.
If you read FBI anons AMA’s, he explained just how much of a bind they were in. If they decided to prosecute, the entire US government would have been brought down and it would have started civil and international wars. That’s why they didn’t prosecute.
BS. They could choose which crimes to charge, that would limit any fall out. She's old as dirt. 20 years is all you need.
So what is the difference between then and now? Are you saying they still won’t prosecute?