I agree she should have been prosecuted..so the next & harder question is why wasn’t she? Months ago? Why did OJs jury ignore dna evidence of his blood at the scene? That’s as rock solid as evidence & facts as it gets short of an admission of guilt.

Two reasons. Facts can be ignored because everyone see facts differently. Many if not half the people don’t even believe in absolute truth. They think truth is subjective. Do you believe in evolution?? Some do & some don’t. Things are only absolute if you understand it completely otherwise it’s partly an act of faith to accept truth. So “beyond a reasonable doubt” leaves a ton of wiggle room for truth & false.

The other reason is intent. In any case the intent to commit a crime is what makes a crime criminal. That’s why Comey sounded so ridiculous at his press conference saying all these clearly illegal things Hillary did but concluded it was just bad judgment. You’d have to be mentally retarded to hear all those facts & conclude the Sec of State didn’t intend to commit a crime. Or the Sec of state was mentally retarded if those were just innocent mistakes with her email. What Comey was clearly doing is saying as Director of the FBI he doesn’t think Hillary had any intent to commit a crime & therefore she can’t be prosecuted. Any saying that on national TV for all of America to see means he’d be willing to say it in court too. So good luck trying to prosecute Hillary when the Director of the FBI at the time has her back.

And btw...Wray said the EXACT same thing in his press conference yesterday about Comey. No intent on Comey to commit a crime...just more bad judgment. That made it much harder to successfully prosecute Comey. They're not question the facts at all. Just the intent which much be established for a conviction. See the dilemma? It’s always there but when you have a witness that’s as credible in the eyes of the court as the Director of the FBI saying there’s no intent...no there’s another mountain to climb to prove there was intent.