We’re in agreement on all your points. The scenario you pose is exactly what I want, too: an insurmountable mountain of evidence proving criminal actions.
It remains to be seen if Comey and the FBI are, in fact, being allowed free rein in this investigation. I have my doubts. I also have cautious optimism. As for Hillary, she can’t vaporize actual evidence in an honest investigation. The dance routine is to stave off a perjury charge. So that’s what she does, because that’s all she’s got. As you correctly point out, it’s not enough in the face of solid evidence in an honest investigation.
What I find intriguing is that Shrillary and her staff, supposedly the brightest and best anywhere, were so technotarded to believe that they could just willy nilly set up and use a home-brew server and keep its contents private and secure.
Red flags had to go up from every quarter once this was known, especially from career State Dept. people, the Pentagon, and the White House. There are still some patriots in that snake pit.
A home brew server on its own may not be a problem if it were used only for personal correspondence (still stupid for a high level government person who is subject to blackmail), but that it was her SOLE email purveyor is absolutely moronic.
The Clintons want to keep the eye on the bouncing ball that is the permissibility of the personal email server (everybody does it, no evidence that is was compromised, etc.)
They do not address anything to do with the use of this server to conduct Clinton Foundation business, nor do they really address the presence of classified information on it (other than it wasn’t marked classified-baloney-that is not an excuse-she has an imperative to know what is classified by its content-no markings necessary).
Nor do they address the vulnerability of the server and the probability that it was hacked and enemies have information (classified or not) to use or sell which puts our military assets in danger. That is the crux and that would be why the NSA and military would have a keen interest.
The Espionage Act of 1917 (which has been amended several times) essentially made it a crime for any person to convey information intended to interfere with the U.S. armed forces prosecution of the war effort or to promote the success of the country’s enemies.
If there is irrefutable evidence that she, even unintentionally, allowed information (classified or not) to be conveyed to our enemies which compromised military assets, she’s in for a very hard time.
That’s my take. I have no special knowledge or friends who have special knowledge.