My take on this is a bit different, but reaches similar conclusions.
Comey’s October 28, 2016 letter to Congressional investigators was worded to fulfill Comey’s promise to update them on any change in status of the Hillary private server investigation. He provided few if any details, and said nothing about other matters.
Comey’s November 6, 2016 letter stayed in the exact tracks cut by his first letter. As such, it is deliberately narrow in scope, and deals only with Hillary Clinton and the use of the private server while she was SoS.
After the October 28 letter, the DoJ was exposed for stonewalling review of contents of the Weiner-Abedin laptop, by not procuring a new warrant, to allow searching it for information outside Weiner’s sexting activity. To manage the negative publicity, DoJ hopped to, and produced a warrant by Sunday — BUT, this warrant was crafted to allow examining only emails to or from Hillary while she was SoS (Comey echoes this in his Nov 6 letter). Clinton operative/Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik was put in charge by Clinton and Lynch, and rigged the process to forestall analyzing the data for any other Clinton crimes.
In July, Comey stated that he would not recommend indictment because no reasonable prosecutor would choose to proceed with the case. That is a far cry from saying Hillary was innocent, and our Congressional Solons lacked the wit to ask Comey: Do you believe that HRC violated the law? (Not whether a prosecutor would risk his or her career, family, and life to bring a case against her, knowing a Washington, D.C. jury would acquit regardless of evidence.)
Claims that Comey’s statements and letters “exonerate” or “clear” Hillary Clinton and her cronies, are as false as the perfect white teeth she sometimes wears. The DoJ designed and timed this whirlwind “review” to produce a statement the press could deliberately misinterpret before the election.
Is the warrant publicly available? How do you know it was so limited?