That's lovely. It doesn't change the fact that you were and are spectacularly wrong about a key part of the case against Clinton. I suppose calling people "doinks" for things about which you're actually incredibly wrong is your "thing"? I backed up my argument with statutes and case law. You've backed yours up with "I watched the testimony" (no actual quotes or anything, just your recollection of it) and then an assertion of supposed expertise.

Here's the thing- a musician doesn't, by nature, necessarily know shit about entertainment law, nor a construction worker about real estate law, nor even a cop about the finer points of criminal law. Just because you work/worked in military intel doesn't mean you know anything about the laws of prosecuting a high-level government official under the Espionage Act. You know who does know the law about that? The judges in the opinions I linked you to. You'll find that the law values judicial opinions far more than those of random individuals, tangentially related to the subject matter, spouting anecdotes and the "if it was me I woulda been jailed!" nonsense that always seem to pop up whenever this subject is discussed. Especially when the person giving them has already displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of a key part of the law.

You've yet to acknowledge that you were entirely wrong about the standard of prosecution (intent is absolutely required under the relevant sections of the Esp Act), so I'm beginning to doubt that you're arguing in good faith. Reasonable people can disagree about the FBI and Justice Department's handling of key parts of the Clinton case. But asserting flatly as a conclusion that Clinton only avoided prosecution because of who she is, while being dead wrong about the standard of prosecution in the first place, is a hollow and silly argument, regardless of your profession.