Obstruction of Justice

On May 10, 2016, Strzok says he “talked to [redacted]. Banner evening. Concluded by saying I cannot overstate to you the sense of urgency about wanting to logically and effectively conclude this investigation.”

Logically and effectively conclude the investigation? Hardly seems like terms that one would tell an investigator who was conducting an unbiased investigation. Reading between the lines I read, "...figure out a plausible way to exonerate her ASAP". IOWs, plausible deniability.

I have always sense corruption surrounding the Clinton emails. From her lawyers deleting 30,000 emails they deems were 'personal', to the Clinton Lynch tarmac meeting to the goofy press briefing Comey held enumerating all the illegal thing she did but then recommending she not be charged. Wasn't his job to do that but either he did it or Lynch would have done it and I guess they thought politically Comey doing it was the lesser of two evils.

Will anyone ever be charged? Not likely. From what I read when I took the bar.....uh...I mean while I was at a bar.....obstruction of justice is a pretty high bar to prove unless there is demonstrable quid pro quo and it is very unlikely anyone bribed people(s) in the FBI. I think it was simply party loyalties....as well as people looking forward to who they thought was going to be their next boss. My guess though is that Comey, Strzok et al could be charged with malfeasance...one or more of these:

Nonfeasance is the failure to act where action is required — willfully or in neglect.
Misfeasance is the willful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice.
Malfeasance is the willful and intentional action that injures a party.