Replies

Can someone post the law that is being referred to here that he could have been charged with interfering with the election?

I would think that he would have some sort of immunity from prosecution. First off all he could do was recommend an indictment (which he famously declined to do), then it would have been up to the prosecutors to review the case and seek an indictment, before which they would have had to have the AG’s approval. And then it would have been up to the prosecutors to prove in court.

I just don’t see how gathering evidence, unless it was done fraudulently, would be cause to prosecute someone for interfering with an election.

Can someone post the law that is being referred to here that he could have been charged with interfering with the election?

I just don’t see how gathering evidence, unless it was done fraudulently, would be cause to prosecute someone for interfering with an election.

I agree. You don't charge the Director of the FBI with a crime for simply doing his job. He had the evidence. He laid it all out. He also had political cover - Barack appointed him and he had an excellent reputation (now gone forever.) There would have been backlashes from the die-hard Hillary supporters and the mainstream media but he swore an oath to the Constitution and he was duty bound to do his damn job. I think the man just wussed out. He laid out the evidence of her guilt and then said, "Well, I don't think any reasonable prosecutor would bring charges." That was NOT his job. His job was to examine the evidence, compile a report and deliver it to the DOJ with his evaluation as to Hillary's guilt or innocence. He's a wuss and he deserves all the shame and ridicule he's going to get for the rest of his life. He owed his country better. Shame on him.