Provided and what is publicly known, based on the review of all these emails. Investigators read every email, looked at the key players, looked at the security issues, including what it means to use a private server, and then came to a judgment that i thought was quite clear in the way it stated it. Number one, there was not the evidence to support the bringing of federal charges. Full stop. But number two, he went further and said this was not a close call, and any reasonable prosecutor would not go forward. Major yet there is this ongoing debate that people who have been in lesser positions within the government have been charged for lesser offenses. Is that a valid point of view, a valid criticism of the conclusion comey reached . Eric i think it is a valid question to raise. You certainly have outside lawyers, some of them former prosecutors, who are saying there are lesser offenses that have been charged involving handling and mishandling of classified evidence, even if there was not intent, which is the big thing comey focused in on in his briefing, saying that they found no evidence, or at least not convincing evidence, that she had intentionally violated any of the statutes. There are other people who were prosecuted that were not found to have intentionally violated the statutes. Major and rudy giuliani, a trump supporter, a partisan, but nevertheless an effective prosecutor, said one of the things prosecutors look at is, if you do it over and over again, that suggests intent. Ari it could be, and prosecutors look for all sorts of aggressive theories. I think what jim comey was talking about with intent is that they in their review did not find an intent to either distribute or endanger this classified material. This was a bug, not a feature. He also spoke to the lack of judgment or wisdom in setting up this type of system. As others have noted, there are many aspects of the government process that have unsecured materials. Alberto gonzalez was reviewed because he took materials, put them at home and safe in his office. Some may think that sounds somewhat safe. It was not. That was unauthorized place. They ultimately determined that what he did was unauthorized, but it was not a desire to break the law when he put it in his safe. I think another big question is, what do people think happened . Do they think something was focused on mishandling classified information, or Something Else . A lot of the other trials, there was usually what i would call a plus factor. There was an endangerment of classified material and Something Else. Sometimes that was express intent to give it to a reporter, which as journalists, a lot of us end up getting this material and have a broad view of why that could be in the public interest, but the standard that comey is applying, taking it and giving it away to an unauthorized person, what general petraeus pled to, that is a plus factor. And then there is compliance, what a lot of people dont care about. Some other cases have been cited involving the person who mishandled the classified information misleading investigators. General petraeus admitted to doing that. That is a separate federal crime. There was no allegation of that here. I think director comey did something positive by trying to share so much, but that leaves a lot of people picking apart disparate aspects of it. Major i want to pick up on what ari just said, because many people have raised the petraeus case as something comparable, and therefore evidence that the system did not work as it ought to have, from a legal perspective. Would you care to validate or invalidate that theory . Eric i think youre right. The impact was the foxy and fbi. The fbi was, yes, while there were similarities between the two cases, the petraeus case was identifiable. He gave his mistress like book journals with classified information in them. He was tape recorded saying he knew they were classified and lied to the fbi about it. Those facts from the outside seemed more egregious than those in the clinton case, as much as you can criticize her. And he was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. The feeling was, if general petraeus was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor, where does that leave us with Hillary Clinton . I think that was a big part of why you saw them not recommend charges. Major there is a perception that something went wrong here, but maybe there was an erroneous expectation that the law would come down harder on Hillary Clinton than the fbi director did. Does this raise legitimate questions about the sanctity of the rule of law . Eric i dont think there is anything about this case that is normal. Every step of the way, it has been unusual from the profile of one of the subjects in the investigation, to the media scrutiny, and yesterday to the remarkable press conference that comey held. It is difficult to compare this to other cases. You can make a case, as many are, that her prominence got her lenient treatment. On the other side, you have democrats who are saying she got worse treatment than other people might because you have the fbi director talking publicly, laying out blistering fax of her behavior and her decision not to bring charges. Ari there is a lot there in the system that the shores independence, so it is a serious burden for people with political conspiracies to provide evidence. Why did the bush deputy general want to go to bat so hard for Hillary Clinton, if that is your conspiracy . Why would the fbi agents who read every individual email be doing this . As a lawyer and journalist, i am always open to the evidence, and there may be things we dont know, but we live in a world where a disease he does throw out major charges and allegations and ask other people to respond to them. I think director comey deserves better than that. Thats how i approach my backchecking. I will to use Something Else, within minutes of his presentation, you had politicians coming out and saying obviously it should have been the reverse. Speaker paul ryan said this was clearly erroneous, so this was a problem for the rule of law. Quite the opposite, i think, if he had not digested all the information. There are a lot of things that voters may want to punish, including the way Hillary Clinton acted in her tenure as secretary of state, that are simply not illegal. They may the unwise, unsafe, or poor judgment. Thinking about the connective tissue between the law and the politics, i think it is good that the investigation is over and voters can factor this is information, not a binding decision. Major the investigation is over, but the investigation of the investigation has not started. Ari the process was abnormal. Was abnormal good or bad . People will debate that. Typically, you dont have announcement like this. That is going to be debated. I think at this hearing that the House Republicans are leading this week, that is a legitimate debate. The fbi director regularly testified, there is regular oversight, and now he cant say this is an open inquiry, i cant talk, he will have to answer those questions. Major eric, to the point you are making, democrats might say, mr. Fbi director, under normal circumstances, you might have issued a statement, or you might have just come to the microphones and said, we looked at this, it does not warrant a charge, thank you, i am leaving the stage. Eric we rarely see democrats and Republicans United in congress, but they might be united at this hearing tomorrow, both in asking tough questions of the fbi director. Republicans saying, why did you not recommend charges . The democrats saying, why did you go public with all this criticism . He is going to get it from both sides, but i think he is prepared for that. You are right that he did not take questions yesterday. I certainly wish he had. But i think his aides knew he was going to get hits from all sides. Major eric, as you are sitting there, what was the question you most wished you had the chance to ask the fbi director . Eric i think i would have asked him, given the standard he laid out, why he did not consider or recommend a misdemeanor charge, which a lot of people are questioning as well. Without intent, it may be gross negligence. Would that have been proper here . Ari there is an expectation of uniformity under the law, and transparency, tell us what is going on so we know it can factor in, especially when we have a subject like this. To pick up a different legal example, we saw that play out in a lot of these grand jury proceedings around officers who were accused or suspected of improper use of force. We saw a very similar tension where some of these prosecutors were clearing Police Officers who have been involved in very controversial shootings, put out more information than usual about grand jury proceedings, which are secret and supposed to be. Major we saw that in ferguson. Ari exactly, where it was a big controversy. That goes back to that tension. I believe the internet and public scrutiny as part of this. Things we used to accept more as a culture and society as being done over there are under pressure, a type of extralegal pressure to say, we are used to hearing more about other things, why are we not hearing about this . This is a different scenario. My analogy is to the procedural tensions. Jim comey was trying to do something there he says was for the good of the fbi, just as some of those prosecutors said, we dont usually release grand jury materials, but we are going to. We cannot meet that goal without the attention back to uniformity, where other people were saying, gosh, other people dont get this treatment that these officers got, and that then seems unequal. As for the questions, i think the biggest question would be, even if you cant describe all the classified materials to us by definition, director comey, did you see the type of thing that really gave you pause as to how anyone could do this, or did you see something that looked bad in retrospect, but was not at a high level . Major eric, one thing the fbi director said that for a lot of peoples attention was, we here at the fbi were not involved on whether or not you can continue your classified access status, or you would receive administrative punishment. Many people would have said, if Hillary Clinton were in the federal government, she would have are classified access denied and she might be fired or demoted. Do you think that aspect of this will continue to be debated or scrutinized . Eric sure. In fact, we are writing about that question today. We saw paul ryan calling for her classified briefings to be denied as a president ial candidate, yet by custom president ial candidates get access to classified briefings. There will certainly be ramifications. The state department has been looking at whether those people were still employed you might have been involved in this should be in any jeopardy, and i think there is no doubt that there will be ongoing questions involving Security Status for people involved. Major because that is an important process question. Its not necessarily an intimately legal question, but a process question with gravity. Ari we were talking a lot about the law. When we talk about policy, what is in the mind of someone in government to is so consumed with secrecy, or routing around the normal rule, legalize it may be, that they need to create a solo operation to control everything . As a policy question, that raises major questions about that persons trust in the system, ability to work with others, and, not that privacy means you always have something to hide, but you are not entitled typically to that kind of privacy for work material. Why is Hillary Clinton so prone to secrecy . Major ari melber and eric lichtbau, thank you so very much. Major we continue this evening with politics. Joining me from cincinnati, bob costa of the washington post, and in washington, Colleen Mccain of the wall street journal, and ann of the washington post. Bob corker takes himself out of the running as Donald Trumps potential running mate. What do you make of that . What do you think the short list for trump now resides . Great to join you. I am here in cincinnati as Vice President speculation continues for donald trump. He will be at an event in the evening with Newt Gingrich. Hours before then, i got a call from senator corker, chair of the Senate Foreign relations committee, and he said even though he spent eight hours with donald trump on tuesday, meeting at trump tower in new york, and then that an event in north carolina, he believes that because of his temperament, he is lowkey, his focus on policy, he decided to bow out of consideration. This narrows the list for trump. It is a sudden departure. People thought corker was being considered. He was under fetching. Under vetting. This shows you some reluctance people like corker and others have of being on the ticket, of being with someone like donald trump, someone who is controversial. Major does this really bring this list down to two, Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich . No, i think the list is more expansive than that. I think one person to watch is indiana governor mike pence. He had a warm meeting with trump over the weekend at trumps golf course in new jersey. He sees someone who has experience from his time in indiana that could bring heft to the ticket. If if he wants someone tv savvy, then christie and gingrich are in the running. But manafort is urging trump to pick someone with deep washington experience. Someone to reassure those in the party, the leaders in the party, trump. Ain wary of major and mike pence has a strong rapport with evangelicals and prolife christians. That could be an asset, could it not . He has deep roots in the evangelical community. He is someone you would always see at conservative conferences. He is someone who grew up in the midwest. Hes got the cadence of a conservative talkshow host. He actually was a talk radio host before he ran for office in indiana. His moniker was Rush Limbaugh on decaf. Thats what they called mike pence back in the day. Major what do you think is the most important political take away from Hillary Clinton . I think the political take away is that this is not over. We sought republicans move more swiftly today to make sure that this is the case. This will continue to be a political problem for her. It could be an administrative problem. Republicans are doing all they can, within their purview on the hill and elsewhere, to try to focus on the first part of what director comey said yesterday, which was a very strong indictment in every way, but the legal sense of the way secretary clinton had conducted business on her own and with her aides at the state department when it came to security practices. It was a very scathing report he delivered. That is going to be the substance of the republican charges going forward. It is also a political liability for her outside the strictly partisan sense, in that it is confirmatory for a lot of people that she has a trust problem, that there is always kind of a lingering question, has she said everything she needs to say, is she telling the truth . That whole set of issues that are raised by the email problem will continue for her. Major what is the atmosphere within clintons inner circle . I happened to be at Clintons Campaign headquarters as comey was speaking yesterday. The atmosphere was very happy, very relieved. They did not have a headsup that this was happening, so they were watching in real time as everyone else was. They were unequivocally happy about this. They really did not focus on scathing comments from director comey. The message from the clinton team has been, this is resolved. We are happy this is resolved, and we are moving on. But it may not be that simple. Even though there was not an indictment, there was damage done. They will need to keep answering. Major there has been some handwringing already that this was a Golden Moment for donald trump, that he mishandled yesterday, that there was not enough donald trump surrogates, not enough prominent republicans. He himself did not deliver a Strong Enough conservative message on this. Is that something the Clinton Campaign might find a narrow advantage in, in the aftermath . I think it might be more than a narrow advantage. It goes to the very different kinds of Campaign Operations that the two candidates have told. Hillary clinton started in a very deliberate manner, well more than a year ago, to build an organization that includes state operations and an enormous financing operation, a vast headquarters with surrogates all over the country, getting her advice and tips. All of those things take a long time to build. They also have an advantage in Clinton Network that a lot of those systems already exist after three decades as a political family franchise. Donald trump does not have any of that. His poor relationship with the Republican Party did not help him build that. He has a lot of makeup work to do if he wants to have those same kinds of resources at his fingertips. What you saw yesterday may be indicative of the fact that he does not have those contacts and networks at hand, and there is the fact of his own temperament. He could have simply focused like a laser on the first part of what comey said and hammered it for 20 minutes. And he did not. That is something that his campaign is going to have to decide whether they want him to do. Major bob, do you sense of unease about the trump reaction, unease about whether the Trump Campaign still isnt organized at the field level, coherent in terms of messaging . And Strong Enough in terms of fundraising to compete with Hillary Clinton . Bob i think there is a sense of resignation among people in the upper ranks of the gop, a sense that trump, if he has any chance of winning this general election, it is going to be because of his presence, his ubiquity on television, his ability to blend his populism and celebrities to something in under contrast to secretary clinton. They do not have the organizational depth, an