Hillary Clinton’s email controversy continues to deepen.

Clinton supporters will say that FBI director James Comey found no reason to file charges against her. At the end of August, The Hill reported (emphases mine):

FBI Director James Comey’s argument hinged on the declaration that even though Clinton’s email setup was “extremely careless,” there was no intention to remove sensitive information outside of secure spaces. As such, no charge could be filed, he claimed.

“I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case,” Comey testified on Capitol Hill last month.

The same article reports that Republican congressmen wanted more information. They said the FBI investigation was light on probing questions:

FBI officials failed to aggressively question Hillary Clinton about her intentions in setting up a private email system, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) claimed this week, exposing a potential key vulnerability in the bureau’s investigation.

“I didn’t see that many questions on that issue,” Gowdy told Fox News’s “The Kelly File” on Wednesday evening [August 24].

Gowdy and other Republicans pointed out that, were this anyone other than Clinton, a federal indictment would have been handed down:

Any evidence to suggest that the FBI went soft in its interview with the Democratic presidential nominee is only likely to inflame those allegations.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has called for the FBI to create unclassified versions of the Clinton case file that it gave to Congress, so that the material can be released publicly.  

These legislators called for transparency.

Interestingly, even Clinton’s campaign team agreed:

Clinton’s presidential campaign has also called for the full set of materials to be released publicly, to avoid what they have warned would be selective and politically motivated leaks by GOP lawmakers.

The FBI documents are now available in two parts for public viewing.

On September 2, reports circulated about the candidate’s forgetfulness with regard to State Department emails and procedures.

Larry Johnson, an ex-Clinton supporter and someone who had official meetings with her when she was a New York senator, has a summary of them, also reported elsewhere. They cover security protocols, email management, electronic devices, access and more.

Clinton doesn’t seem to remember anything these days.

If she’s that forgetful, is she capable of leading the United States and the free world?

Or is this just the usual Hillary we’ve known about since the 1990s? Arkansas residents will remember her back to the 1980s when Bill was governor and she was an attorney, although very much part of the state’s political scene. There were plenty of scandals then, too. But I digress.

On September 2, the Weekly Standard reported that Hillary told the FBI that she could not remember:

any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records of handling of classified information.

Yet, the Weekly Standard has reproduced an image of the original Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement—which she signed on January 22, 2009. This agreement is in the aforementioned FBI documents and:

states that “I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.”

The form also notes that classified information is not always so marked, but is still regulated by the agreement.

Also on September 2, The Hill reported that the FBI documents reveal:

A number of Hillary Clinton’s private emails were erased weeks after The New York Times published a story reporting on her use of a private email server while secretary of State, according to notes from the FBI’s investigation released on Friday …

The deletion took place between March 25 and March 31, the FBI learned in a May 3 interview. The name of the person who deleted the emails was redacted from the FBI’s notes.

The New York Times story in question appeared on March 2.

BleachBit, a heavy-duty software, was used:

designed to “prevent recovery” of files so that, as House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said last week, “even God can’t read them.”

So, was this carelessness or something else? A September 12 article in the Weekly Standard has detailed Clinton’s statements throughout this drama and concludes:

We know now that her claims were false.

FBI director Comey put out statements about carelessness, as if this were all accidental. The Weekly Standard counters:

We are skeptical. Is it possible that a search of 60,000 messages might somehow miss a few work-related emails? Sure. A few dozen? Plausible. But several thousand? In a search conducted shortly before Hillary Clinton would launch her presidential campaign and conducted by people employed to protect her interests? Dubious.

But that’s not all:

Then, this past week, we learned that there was yet another set of work-related emails Clinton had failed to produce. Up to 30 emails related to Benghazi were among those Clinton deleted from her private server. We haven’t yet seen those latest emails. The Clinton campaign is downplaying their significance, arguing that they may well be duplicates of earlier emails posted by the State Department. Perhaps. But there’s little reason to take their word for it. Given that the inquiry into Clinton’s emails grew out of the investigation into the Benghazi attacks, one might expect that anyone searching for work-related emails would have included Benghazi as one of the most important search terms. Anyone searching for work-related emails whose goal was to find them, anyway.

There is also another email Clinton did not hand over to the FBI. I quoted from it yesterday. The Weekly Standard explains:

In an email exchange back in 2010, Clinton herself cited that as the reason she did not want to use State Department email. When top aide Huma Abedin suggested “putting [Clinton] on state email” or providing her email address to State Department officials, Clinton wrote back to say: “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

Clinton didn’t provide that one. That email—with a top State Department official about State Department business and concerning the very email set-up that investigators were seeking to learn more about—was not included in the emails that Clinton considered “in any way connected to work.”

Interesting, to say the least.

But, as always:

She got away with it. And, as regards the latest revelations, she will get away with it again.

Can you imagine the furore if this involved Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton? As it is, Big Media are telling us to keep moving. There’s nothing to see here.

I echo what Bernie Sanders said during a primary season debate: I am sick of hearing about her emails.

Nonetheless, the issue must be addressed.

It reflects on Hillary Clinton’s personal and potentially presidential probity.