well that seems a bit vague, but I can understand why people would want to throw the book at them, right after they finish with Hillary, huh?
Certain people would like to throw the book at them, but it won't happen, because those certain people are not prosecutors. Prosecutors are going to look at what they did, compare it to what other people have been prosecuted for, and conclude that, whatever the letter of the law might be, they don't have a case. In the United States, we simply don't prosecute people for this, and if there was a prosecution, even if a conviction was secured, it would be thrown out on appeal, because it would be obvious that their actions do not rise to the level of normal prosecutable offenses, and it was the political nature of their actions that resulted in prosecution.
Let's simplify that: I don't care what you think you read in the lawbooks, no one ever goes to jail for what these people did. They'll be fired.
Now, once that part is understood, we get around to comparing what they did to what Hillary did, and we see that what they did was worse.
I'll let you connect the dots.
I'll offer up another related anecdote that I posted many months ago, right about the time Comey made his recommendation of non-prosecution last summer. I was listening to Hugh Hewitt, and one of the committee chairmen involved in the innumerable investigations was arguing for indictment. He was talking about the seriousness of her actions in mishandling classified data. To illustrate the point, he talked about what happened with some of the congressional staff who had mishandled classified data. He described, with great emphasis in his voice, that these people had ALMOST GOT FIRED!
There it was, right there. They almost got fired, and this, he said, illustrates why Hillary Clinton should be indicted.
Neither he nor the host seemed to recognize the irony of what he was saying.
