In Comey's explanation of why Hilary Clinton could not be prosecuted, even her erasing emails with confidential national security secrets, signing that she knew the laws and lying about it, he claimed that since it can not be proven she knowingly and deliberately meant to break any criminal laws even if she did - she therefore can not be prosecuted. Not one person has presented even allegations that anyone in the Trump campaign, administration, or himself deliberately meant to break any criminal laws. Therefore, on the logic that means Clinton can not be prosecuted, neither could anyone in the Trump administration, Trump campaign or the president himself. Ignorance of the law and even indifference to laws IS a defense. Unless there is some recording of any of them saying "I'm now going to deliberately commit the criminal offense of _______" they can not be charged with any crime or even taken before a grand jury. Since lying and even destroying documents does not prove intent according to Comey as the top cop at the time, what evidence is there that anyone of Trump and Co. knowing and deliberately meant to commit criminal violations for the purpose of doing something criminal they knew is criminal? Even if any evidence ever is found that any of them did anything criminally illegal, that does not make for a criminal case. It would have to be proven the person KNEW it was criminal and did it knowing they were committing a crime when doing so.
" knowingly and deliberately meant to break any criminal laws "Is an element decided by a jury, not a pollitical figure.
The FBI decision was the end point of a completed investigation. When the Trump investigation is completed, they should use the same standard to decide whether or not to prosecute HIM. Meanwhile, they should use a consistent standard for deciding what ought to be investigated. Although she didn't go to prison, Clinton did suffer some political damage for her acts. Perhaps Trump will also suffer some collateral political damage.
