I don't know why media keeps repeating statements like this. The bar is not whether she intended to thwart law but whether laws were broken, period. You could also ask whether she could reasonably have known of the risks when she made that set up. That may be why she played dumb about it "what, wiped like with a cloth?" etc. Or you could ask not just whether she should have known, but being ignorant of the ramifications she should have deferred judgement on the setup to experts. She pressed for this setup in the face of resistance from her own team, in spite of warnings and so on.
Doesn't mean they will recommend prosecution. Political interference by FBI is an interesting, possibly dangerous turn of events. They may want to defer to the body politic and let the public decide if she should be President if only because they don't want to open pandoras box of precedent where the FBI investigates major party nominees. I know, she brought this all on herself, and really her party should have drummed her out of the primary rather than rally behind her and squeeze competitors out.
> Doesn’t mean they will recommend prosecution. Political interference by FBI is an interesting, possibly dangerous turn of events. They may want to defer to the body politic and let the public decide if she should be President if only because they don’t want to open pandoras box of precedent where the FBI investigates major party nominees.
WHAT?
If crimes have been committed the FBI should not ignore it just because of who the person is - THAT is political interference. Prosecuting crime is not left to “the body politic”.