However, the basic premise of the article (and title) is dead wrong: Clinton can NEVER provide ANY evidence of ANY KIND in any way that shows she is innocent. It isn’t that Comey decided on her innocence by “not having evidence that would prove her innocence” but by deciding on her innocence BEFORE even beginning the “investigation”!
SHE IS GUILTY of buying and deliberately setting her email and her private server network and her private network circuit of strictly democrat operatives and lawyers and government officials SPECIFICALLY to avoid records that would show her bribery, her associations in governments and businesses overseas, and her sales of government information, plans, position papers and policies to the highest bidders.
Quibble -- that's really the premise of the headline, even if it is spun a little -- Comey never bothered to look for exonerating evidence, he just exonerated her.