3. We know from ongoing litigation brought by Judicial Watch that Clinton instructed her staff to destroy public records, including burning her daily schedules. The FBI has an obligation to investigate that destruction, doesn’t it?4. Since “intent” is not part of the relevant statute, why did you decide it was critical? And even it were, given ample circumstantial evidence — including false statements under oath — the standard of intent has been reached, hasn’t it?
5. You said “we cannot find a [similar] case” that led to prosecution. There are several, such as the conviction of Bryan Nishimura, and the discharge of Marine Jason Brezler. The difference is Clinton is a presidential candidate, correct?
6. You have personally prosecuted ordinary people for much smaller offenses, including a man who sent a 23-word email encouraging staff to save subpoenaed documents. You’re applying a different standard to Clinton, aren’t you?
7. You said that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring an indictment against Clinton or her associates. Yet several reasonable federal prosecutors — including a former Attorney General — disagree. That was premature, was it not?
8. The FBI does not decide prosecutions, but presents findings to the Attorney General. Yet you precluded any other decision by stating publicly “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict. You overstepped your authority, didn’t you?
What an amazing sham!