Clinton was totally exonerated
She was not, Comey was clear she was guilty of negligence - i.e. she did what it was thought she did. What he said was that they would not prosecute it.
And the reason for lack of prosecution was inability to "demonstrate intent" whatever that is supposed to mean in that particular context, as has been hashed over previously.
Actually no. Lisa Page's released Congressional testimony was very informative on this point. The DOJ directed the FBI that the DOJ would not prosecute Clinton for gross negligence, notwithstanding the plain words of the statute.
Comey's words well beyond what was really the case. An accurate version of what he said is: "we have established gross negligence on behalf of Clinton and her aides, and the DOJ has exercised its prosecutorial discretion to not prosecute those violations." The idea that anyone can say with a straight face that she was exonerated, or did not violate the law, is just a master piece in propaganda.
...the email server was not illegal and it did not violate any rules.
The email server was not illegal (as a technicality, it certainly violate multiple rules) largely because no one ever contemplated anyone would be able to override all the safeguards in place that should have prevented it from ever happening. It's sophistry over substance to pretend otherwise. Every single last rule related to security, use of government email and retention was premised on mandating that government employees use only governmental systems for official business. She openly violated all those directives, she did so despite multiple people on multiple occasions telling her that she did so.
She then blatantly violated the legal requirements that were imposed on her, that she acknowledged and agreed to, about mandatory record keeping of work related files received on personal accounts.
Despite Comey's conclusion these were in fact all intentional and knowing violations. Setting up the server and redirecting all email is not an "accident" or an act of "negligence," its an intentional act.
I think he's confusing "but members of the Bush Admin (kind-of) did the same thing" with it being legal for both groups to have done so.
That's just cover propaganda, what happened in Clinton's office has no parallel in Bush's office or anyone else's. There is no parallel to an intentional redirection of that magnitude other than those that are for nefarious purposes (e.g., Russian and Chinese hacking), even whistleblowers have done data dumps and not real time re-transmissions.
While the Bush White House was outed for an issue not much unlike the Trump's have had. They had an email system for the political/campaign activities, and then they had their "official business" email, where some official business wound up on the political/campaign email sever.
Don't know why this keeps coming up, it's mandatory to have separate equipment for non-government use because using government accounts for political activity is illegal. There are clear rules about what do with official business that comes in on the non-government servers (all of which Clinton ignored and violated).
