I’m no legal eagle either, but seem to me not only is there no upside but greater downside if they did try to prosecute. FBI director said they looked at all the facts and saw only great carelessness but no intent to break the law. So how does he pivot and now say the emails showed intention to break public corruptions laws? Comey made intent matter. So assuming they want to prosecute for corruption, they would probably have to show that her email set-up was intended to hide the corruption from Congress, from FOIA, from her boss the POTUS, from the inspector general and so on. He already said she did not intend to hide communications, it was just a bad personal decision to set up this server and a bad personal decision to delete thousands of emails. So imo, it would be hard to prosecute on corruption unless they had a real smoking gun and said “well she didn’t intend to hide her trail of corruption, but we found it anyway”. It’s ludicrous. What criminal commits crimes but doesn’t intend to hide the evidence? Deleting the emails would be imo vital to prove conscious intent to commit a crime, and cover it up. In other words, the act of covering it up shows that the criminal was aware of the crime and the evidence implicating the criminal. But Comey took that card out of the deck. They could likely never show conscious intent to commit a crime. It isn’t required to prosecute, but imo it makes it harder to convict. Again IANAL just my opinion.
using his logic she should have been indicted. Extreme carelessness = gross negligence (punishable by fine and/or imprisonment).