Quote (Pollster @ 15 Jun 2016 18:39)
It doesn't matter how long ago it was; we have no reason to believe the nature of the investigation has changed. The FBI could confirm to Clinton if she was the target (it hasn't), and if the investigation had proceeded to the point where the FBI was able to further investigate whether wrongdoing had taken place, she would stand accused of an actual crime. They haven't even determined if any wrongdoing actually happened yet.
Earnest didn't say what you're claiming either, he was only reiterating Obama's commitment to the basic idea that all investigations should be decided based upon fact and not political calculus. We don't know if the investigation Emmit Sullivan referenced involves Jake Sullivan mishandling classified information or selling state secrets to Lithuania. It could pertain to Clinton mishandling classified information. We don't know what it is. But we do know that Hillary Clinton isn't "under criminal investigation," because those words actually mean something, and you're using them incorrectly.
Yes, obviously the fact that the FBI investigation hasn't proceeded to such a point where it can be characterized as such is a nagging little detail. You're still getting the methodology wrong (that might be the fault of relying on such shitty sources, who knows). I can't say I care what kind of image you may have of me, either.
I'm really confused why you're trying so hard to argue this point. She's currently under a criminal investigation by the FBI....a federal circuit judge involved in the case even said so in a court filing. I think she's unlikely to face an indictment, but it's still a criminal investigation.
The FBI is either going to recommend and indictment or they will not, and that's based on whether they find any criminal wrongdoing. You're admitting that there is an investigation taking place and that they are searching for any wrongdoing, but you aren't putting all the pieces together or listening to what the judges involved in the case are saying.