Honestly, I find that hard to believe. In the field, I can see where an interview won't be recorded. But in an office situation, with all the funding and technology that they have access to, I can't believe they would not have something recorded with someone as high profile as Hillary. Recording an interview protects both parties from later false allegations. A recording and transcript lends credibility and transparency to the interview. Anything else here smells of coverup.In theory (and the key word here is theory) the F.B.I. was not going to make a decision about whether or not to recommend charges against Hillary until after they interviewed her. If that were the case, if they thought there was a possibility that charges would be recommended, they damn sure would have put her under oath, and recorded her testimony, as backup for their recommendation. The fact that they didn't do those things tells you they already knew what the outcome would be, regardless of what Hillary said during her interview.
When the DOJ investigates people or businesses, criminally or civilly, they will subpoena ALL records, notes, recordings, diaries, electronic communications and anything else they think is pertinent. Failure to provide can be theorized as evidence of concealment and intent to obstruct an investigation. Lack of due diligence can be evidence of concealment, or is indicative of gross negligence. And gross negligence is damning in many civil or criminal cases. (It is up to the jury will decide the weight of the negligence.) Any given failure to comply with demands can be viewed as guilty knowledge. That is, unless it is the FBI interviewing Hillary, and standard procedures will cause Hillary and the FBI problems in the future.
If nothing else, after listening to Comey talking to congress, it was startlingly clear that he was advocating as a defense attorney giving theories about her innocence, and not as a law enforcement professional whose duty it was to present the evidence to a grand jury.