Many RW conspiracy theories debunked here.

I was doing research on whether the legal requirement of intent applied to the gross negligence portion of the law Hillary was accused of violating:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

I came across something that showed that not only was intent required, to convict the DOJ would have had to prove that Hillary acted with intent to harm the United States or help a foreign nation. That's an almost impossible hurdle. Comey, McCabe, Lynch and all the others must have known from the start they were never going to make a case under that statute.

WHY INTENT, NOT GROSS NEGLIGENCE, IS THE STANDARD IN CLINTON CASE

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

The statute Hillary is accused of violating is says it applies to information dealing with national defense. In 1941 the Supreme Court found that those words passed the constitutional prohibition against vagueness, but only when there is the intent:

"on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained IS TO BE USED TO THE INJURY OF THE UNITED STATES Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/19/case.html#F12

"But we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established. "

The section Hillary is accused of violating contains the words "national defense." Those are the same words the court found were impermissibly vague except under the aforementioned standard.

In Comey's statement where he found that there was no case against Hillary he used these words:

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; OR INDICATIONS OF DISLOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

Like I said, everybody involved must have known there was never going to be a case. This would explain why Comey wrote a draft finding of no criminal case back in May when the case wasn't resolved until July. Comey knew how it would end and didn't need an interview with Hillary to find out. There was no plot by Comey to clear her when she deserved to be prosecuted.

Since Lynch knew, she needed no intervention to clear Hillary. Any tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton had no incentive to clear Hillary since Hillary was already in the clear. Bill certainly knew this since Hillary's lawyers must have told her and she must have told Bill. This is why Hillary was so certain all along that she wouldn't be prosecuted.

There was no plot by agents at the FBI because they all knew it was going nowhere too. Why plot to destroy a case that was doomed from the start?

I suspect that the RWs in Congress who are trying to point fingers at the FBI and Justice know this too. They are passing off their propaganda for political reasons, not honest suspicions.

I wondered if the law had changed since 1941. John Ford looked at the history in his article. Wikipedia also reports:

United States v. Dedeyan in 1978 was the first prosecution under 793(f)(2) (Dedeyan 'failed to report' that information had been disclosed). The courts relied on Gorin v. United States (1941) for precedent. The ruling touched on several constitutional questions including vagueness of the law and whether the information was "related to national defense"