Someone help me understand what a new investigation will find that the other one did not.
1) HIllary Clinton and her team emailed info that was subsequently determined to be "top secret" on her private server.
2) Hillary Clinton said she turned over all her work related emails to the State Department and destroyed personal emails. Subsequently this was found not to be true as many more emails have been found that were not personal in nature.
3) Emails were erased from the server after they were subpoenad.
4) Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not know what the "C" stood for on emails found on her server. C= Classified.
All of the above are true (correct me if I'm wrong on any facts) and Hillary was not charged with a crime and did not have her classified clearance removed.
The new emails have to change a) the will of the FBI director or b) present new evidence.
Emails from her server are unlikely to have anything on whether her team purposely destroyed the emails after they were subpoenad.
It seems like the only way this changes the game legally is if 1) there is just tons and tons of classified info in them and Hillary can't get by saying she didn't know the stuff was classified or
2) They find very sensitive stuff that shows she purposely did not turn over emails that would make her look bad even if they work related.
Am I missing something?
Politically I get it, it's not good to be under FBI investigation during early voting.