why do you need a quid pro quo on national security violations? The quid pro quo is in the russian uranium deal. You can never prove intent if people don’t tell you, but you can certainly find a federal regulation which says the sec of state can’t take money from russians whom she recommends be given uranium rights. Sounds ike a big abuse of power, bribery in the face of it, conflict of interest.
What is the national security violation at issue here? I was responding to an OP who claimed that the CGI emails will destroy Hillary. No, they won't, not unless there is a quid pro quo tying her influence to the payment. She did not take any money (CGI did), so unless you can prove that she benefited directly from influence peddling, you will have a very hard time getting even an honest USAG to take the case. And we don't have an honest USAG in this administration.
Sounds ike a big abuse of power, bribery in the face of it, conflict of interest.
OK. So what?
Hillary accepted a $100,000 bribe that was laundered through the cattle futures markets via a $5,000 straw purchase early in her career. Her defense of that incredible ROI was "I read some articles in The Wall Street Journal."
This "explanation" was accepted despite the fact that the manner in which the transactions were covered by her broker were illegal. Does that little episode pass the smell test any better than the Rosatom deal? Sure doesn't to me. But she skated on that, did she not?
"Sounds like" -- or more likely with the Clintons -- "smells like" is not proof.