Comey proved that Hillary broke the law but refused to bring her to court. That is far different than claims made, and never proven.
The FBI said they had never recommended charges for someone in Hillary's circumstances. Nobody on the right ever disproved that, let alone tried. I mean, why disprove one's own lie? By the way, do you claim that if the FBI does not recommend charges, an AUSA is prohibited from pressing charges? I won't provide the answer
It was also said (FBI, I think, but have to recall) that the last 5 SoS's were roughly as careless about classified data, even if the means was other than a private email server. Nobody on the right sought to demonstrate otherwise.
For the same reason, they never bothered to try to match those rolls they keep at polling stations that record whether someone has voted against public death records, citizenship records, etc. Wouldn't want to prove that the voter fraud lie is a lie, eh?
All that really can be said is that Hillary violated the admin's promise of transparency by foolishly deciding to set up a private email server. Hence, at various points, we get lies about Benghazi, lies about the effect of Comey's decision not to recommend charges, lies about Vince Foster, letc etc etc.
And you have already convicted him without any proof. Last I knew this country has a motto and justice system based on "innocent until proven guilty". Not "guilty until proven innocent".
Accusers are considered "proof" when the target is on the left: Conyers, Franken need to resign, but if it's Moore or Trump it's "fake news".
It really is interesting. The people who demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt, aka a conviction, when the target is someone on the right suddenly forget about this wonderful standard when the target is on the left.
What's going on here is fairly obvious.
:shrug:
