who is a convicted felon.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...a-found-guilty-removal-and-retention-classifi

Charged and : The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.

I mean, you and the other liberals can sit there and keep saying no laws were broke. Its false. Been proven false.

The real issue is HRC is to big to prosecute. Kind of like Bill. They declined to prosecute. Didn't make him lying under oath any less illegal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-charges-submarine-photos-cellphone/31005689/

"So far, prosecutors have not presented any evidence that suggests Saucier tried or intended to share the photos to foreign agents."

What. Thats why I added his quote. Are you being intentionally obstinate or simply need everything written out and explained like a 3rd grader. Comey said or implied rather, her actions would likely result in a different outcome for someone else. She's the elite and untouchable.

Yes, you must spell it out for these people.

Not exactly. There is a big difference in determining if a suspect broke a law and whether there was enough evidence to take to court.
Comey's statement detailed several laws the investigation believe we're broken. What he said was that it couldn't find enough proof of malicious intent. He also said they had charged and convicted lower level government employees of the same or less evidence. The only statement she can take as positive is the last one. His statement is chapter and verse a call that she is both too incompetent and too corrupt to be president.
Basically she was called out but received a pass because of who she is and where we are in the election cycle. If you don't get that from Comey's presser you are either stupid or so true a believer you care nothing for the facts.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/05/fbi-director-recommends-against-prosecut

Save your insults for your boyfriend, I don't care. I'll add some of his quotes, too.

"we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct."

"we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information"

"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. In looking back at our investigations, into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

"All the cases prosecuted involve some combination of clearly intentional or willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or an obstruction of justice. But we do not see those things here."