Quote:Things may change big time here soon. The AG and Comey will be in hearings before Congress shortly. Dependent upon how that goes the AG may have no choice but to bring charges due to public pressure.

 

 

Quote:I don't think so. The establishment has chosen Hillary. Its at least 60 40 she's the next POTUS. You go home with the champion.

 

Things may change, but not soon.  I see more technical oversight of all government agencies in the near future, hopefully by guys like JIB.

 

Yes, congress will drag the AG and Comey into hearings to scold them and build political theater in hopes of helping electing Donald Trump, but it's going to go about as well as the Clinton Benghazi Hearings, which were an absolute failure in their goal.  As for jj's conspiracy theory, it's right in line with the other partisan jargon that always pops up when you mention the name "Clinton" to some people.  When you go "Vince Foster" right away, it's a dead giveaway that you're not going to listen to anything the FBI director says.  Like the Anchorman said, you've got your mind made up about these folks.

 

Clinton haters, a solid 10 - 20% of the population, lost their 3rd battle in 2016 yesterday.  The first battle was when Hillary owned the Benghazi hearings, and the second was when anger got the best of the Republican party and they nominated Donald.  Hillary under indictment would have a HELL of a time winning in November, even against an orange neophyte with a bad haircut trying to tweet his way to the presidency. 

 

It comes full circle to "you mad, bro?", and, yes, yes they are.

 

Trying to stay on point:  The OP was, ultimately, wrong.  This IS what rule of law looks like.  The director had a job to do, did it, offered the opinion of the agency he serves, which is, by the way, a law enforcement organization.  The following Washington Post article sums up why Comey made his recommendation:

 

WP article on why Comey did not recommend indictment

 

The legal precedent just isn't there for an indictment.  The article also does a good job of differentiating the Patraeus case from the Clinton email case.

 

One thing I will admit:  Comey slammed Hillary and her department so severely yesterday before finally reaching the conclusion not to indict, that I believe it raised a great deal of confusion.  After about 3 minutes in, I was sure he was going to recommend prosecution, and Hillary's goose was cooked.  After exposing the litany of wrongdoing, within one final paragraph, he explained why prosecuting would be a waste of time:

 

From the WP article:

 

"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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

 

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. 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."

 

The bolded text explains his decision.

---