Having been on the side of leading several investigations, or as a member of a team charged with conducting them – usually aircraft accidents, the accidental death of a service member, or possible criminal activity – I found the process relatively uniform. 

The real meat of an investigation is the determination of Facts and Findings.  These could be a lengthy list of what documents and actions were found during the discovery phase of an investigation.

An example of Fact: A review of the maintenance records determined that the aircraft was released for flight per the applicable maintenance instructions.  Finding: After departing controlled flight, the pilot in command failed to regain control of the aircraft using approved recovery procedures.  Conclusions and recommendations follow.

A good investigation should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that the template provided and the process followed were thorough and complete. 

Having briefed my findings, conclusions, and recommendations to senior leaders, I found FBI director Comey's conclusion statement to be simply bizarre.  "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."  This statement defies logic and the available information in the public domain.  There should have been sufficient evidence for any prosecutor to charge Hillary Clinton on violating a number of statutes.

If a real investigation had been performed, the Findings and Facts would have demonstrated clearly which violations of the statutes, directly and tangential, were attributable to her mishandling of classified information.  They would have been unambiguous, and the preponderance of the information would have outlined those easily proven and documented violations of the statutes.  Having worked in the intelligence community for a few years, with top secret clearances and having to undergo a polygraph, I was naturally drawn to the expected violations of 18 U.S. Code Chapter 37 – ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP.

There are multiple instances of Hillary Clinton's violations of 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, 18 U.S. Code § 794 – Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government, and 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information.  A properly conducted investigation would list the hundreds if not thousands of Hillary Clinton's individual violations of 18 U.S. Code.  Over 1,200 classified emails, from confidential up to and including special access program material, were found on Mrs. Clinton's email server. 

Then there is 18 U.S. Code Chapter 19 – CONSPIRACY.   There appeared to be an obvious strategy to violate 18 U.S. Code § 372 – Conspiracy to impede or injure officer.  During a document review and interviews, an investigator should have had no problem determining if the statute was violated.  Purposely deleting upwards of 33,000 emails so as to prevent or impede an investigator "in the discharge of his official duties" earns a "fine[] under this title or imprison[ment] not more than six years, or both."  The evidence was compelling: in setting up and operating an external email server, Mrs. Clinton, her staff and lawyers, and her computer technician's actions were designed to do whatever was necessary to keep the former secretary's emails away from the public and the government, and from an investigator. 

Additionally, there would be thousands of violations of 18 U.S. Code Chapter 93 – PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.  During an interview, MSNBC's Chuck Todd specifically asked Hillary Clinton, "How did your private server where you kept this classified information, some of which was retroactive, I understand, after your term as secretary of state – how is that not a violation of this code?" 

The rest of FBI director Comey's conclusion statement is not a conclusion or a recommendation, a recapitulation of the Findings and Facts to support the investigator's work, but a non sequitur.  "[O]ur judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."  A reasonable recommendation would read: Based on the Findings and Facts, that Hillary Clinton clearly violated, at a minimum, 18 U.S. Code Chapters 19, 37, and 93, an indictment is clearly justified and warranted.  The intentional destruction or negligent loss of evidence – 33,000 emails – suggests that Hillary Clinton believed that her emails were harmful to her, and that consciousness of guilt led her to destroy, hide, or lose them.

The Republican congressmen/lawyers at the FBI director's hearing were understandably distressed and angry at the nation's chief law enforcement officer's blatant prestidigitation, diversion, and disinformation.  Findings and Facts were obviously ignored and neutered as "potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information."

Director Comey said during his testimony, "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."

Really?  What is the difference between the cases against Alger Hiss and Hillary Clinton?  Hiss lied to the FBI about how he, a Democrat, lawyer, and senior State Department official, used his WOODSTOCK typewriter to move classified material out of the building at Foggy Bottom and push it into the hands of his Soviet handler.  Hiss was ultimately charged – not with gross negligence or being reckless or even espionage, but with perjury.  Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, lawyer, and senior State Department official, used a BlackBerry to move classified material out of the building at Foggy Bottom and push it into the unsecure hard drive of an unprotected email server.  If hackers didn't have a field day with that bathroom server, an investigator should have asked, "Who had administrator rights to that server?"

Technology is wonderful when you can remove the middleman.  Mrs. Clinton learned a crucial lesson from the old Soviet spy and, apparently, didn't lie to the FBI.  When Director Comey informed the Congress the former secretary wasn't deposed formally, that she did not testify under oath, not putting Mrs. Clinton under oath was a Get Out of Jail Free Card.  Not to do so was an abrogation of investigative responsibilities.  It is a necessary tool to conduct an investigation, so why didn't they do it?  No one at the congressional hearing would articulate the obvious – Director Comey didn't give her a chance to lie to the hear-no-evil FBI. 

Hillary Clinton is the new Houdini.  The Department of Justice is as corrupt as her magical support crew at the State Department, since no reasonable  prosecutor could find a dripping wet indictable charge even if they used a divining rod while standing in a wading pool.  Maybe the ghost of Vince Foster paid them a visit.

Director Comey and his FBI are a joke.  Reminds me of the old line: what did the county sheriff say about a robber who had been shot 15 times?  "Worst case of suicide I've ever seen."  No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.  Nothing to see here.

Isn't it time we get some reasonable people in these positions?

Mark Hewitt is former Marine Corps officer and the author of the espionage thrillers Special Access, Shoot Down, and No Need to Know.