Reach your own conclusion, if Hillary lied...

Listening carefully to FBI Director Comey presentation

on his department's investigation of Hillary Clinton's

private email server and his refusal to recommend an

indictment I thought with all I learned occurred would

reached a different conclusion 

We heard the word "intend" as the key. the 'fork in the

road'  Comey took that exonerated Hillary Clinton

What we did not hear him mention, actions taken were 

anything but usual, and lead a 'reasonable' prosecutor 

to do what Comey would not. Indict!

What were these "actions taken"?

1. Start with a private server in Clinton's home. detached

from the security the Federal govt. requires.

2. The deletion of all 30,000 email on server AND 

physical destruction of a perfectly good piece of 

computing equipment, the hard drive! 

Has anyone  reading this ever deleted entire contents 

AND hardware?

3. The IT professional contracted to setup the server,

refused to testify before Congressional hearing, even

using the Fifth Amendment 125 times!

There also happens to be 'left field' element, the word

'intent' that gained the attention of people who thought

an indictment was forthcoming.

Was it a coincidence President Obama made reference

to 'intent' when he said, “Hillary Clinton would never

intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy.”

I offer these points as "circumstantial  evidence"  and 

does not require the 'intent' Comey cannot find.

As defined, 'Circumstantial evidence' is evidence that relies 

on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.

It appears Comey did not consider this route since he 

made no mention in his presentation. 

Note:

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.

With obvious exceptions (immature, incompetent, or mentally ill individuals), most criminals try to avoid generating direct evidence. Hence the prosecution usually must resort to circumstantial evidence to prove the levels of "purposely" or "knowingly." The same goes for tort feasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens reato obtain punitive damages.

One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.

In fact, the only time the word circumstancial came up was when FBI Director Comey was question by Congress this week.

So, for those who say, " I don't know if she knew and lied", remember Hilary's criticism of Gen. Petraeus
before a Senate committee. She indirectly accused him of lying when she said,  it would take “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

To belief Hillary Clinton was honest, innocent and trustworthy is deserving of the same response she

gave Gen. Petraeus, it requires “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

-


Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/