1)      When something occurs that is perceived to be wrongdoing on someone’s part, it is the duty of an investigatory agency, usually law enforcement to conduct an investigation.

2)      Determining harm is one thing, but the most important thing to determine is what did the “suspect” do or didn’t do in the course of events leading up to the alleged wrongdoing.

3)      Investigators must examine all avenues to include victims, witnesses and if possible the “suspect” to get a picture of what happened.

4)      Investigators then, if they feel charges should be filed need to cite what in criminal law they can use to say “This person broke this law”. Perceived criminal acts are not crimes if there is nothing on the books to allege the “suspect” did to break the law.

5)      If Investigators can complete the above, they forward their request for prosecution to the relevant prosecutorial agency.

6)      Attorneys then must sift through the information provided them by the investigators provided them as well as pertinent laws and legal precedent to determine first:

a.       Was a crime committed

b.      Did the accused act with criminal intent to commit the alleged crime

c.       Was there “concurrence”? Was “actus reus” (guilty action) and “mens rea” (guilty mind) in play to constitute a crime?

7)      Upon reviewing the above, if a prosecutor can make a prima facie case that can meet the three required elements of a crime, to the point there is a likelihood of a conviction, they will proceed with filing formal charges. If not, they’ll pass it on for further investigation to meet the burden of proof or drop the case all together.

Most unbiased and level headed experts in criminal law agreed that making a case against Secretary Clinton over her use of a private email server was difficult at best.

First of all, no actual federal, state or local criminal statute could be cited to accuse Clinton of breaking. Second, nothing gathered could indicate she purposefully, with malice of forethought acted out to purposefully break a law that has yet to be cited, for criminal intent.

If charges had been filed, this would have been laughed out of court at the preliminary hearing.

This is what FBI Director Comey has been trying to explain. Although he found carelessness in how the emails were handled, he couldn’t find anything to show, beyond all reasonable doubt that a crime was committed or that Secretary Clinton purposefully, with criminal intent broke the law.

At worst, she was careless. As careless as her predecessors Condi Rice and Colin Powell,;and as careless as two members of Congress holding hearing on this investigation Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz who both use private email accounts to conduct their Congressional and often classified duties of business.

Can we finally move on to real issues?