[Alberta's Child]

When I served as chief of the Public Corruption/Integrity Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami, there was an unwritten policy at the Justice Department that no public actions be taken with respect to any investigation involving a public figure within six months prior to an election in which that figure stood as a candidate.

Then why did Comey publicly announce in July that the FBI would not pursue a case against Hillary Clinton despite admitting that she could have been indicted with the evidence they had in hand?

And why was the FBI given the authority to make this decision, when their role is not to make decisions like this but to investigate potential crimes and turn the evidence over to a prosecutor?

[1Old Pro]

Exactly, the evidence was there to indict, but the corrupt partisan DOJ refused to follow the law.

[Mack the knife]

And why was the FBI given the authority to make this decision ... ?

---

Because Loretta Lynch did not want to take the heat.

Lynch protected Hillary by not empaneling a Grand Jury to look into the obvious claims that Hillary used a private server for all State Department business, and you cannot do that job at all without using classified information. No GJ, no subpoenas — crippled investigation.

When it leaked that there was an investigation anyhow, she felt the cross hairs coming for her.

Here is a conspiracy theory for you: Loretta is a very smart woman, and came up with a brilliant plan to get out from under. She engineered the meeting with Bill Clinton at the airport, and engineered a small town reporter disclosing it -— an indisputable appearance of impropriety. When the predictable firestorm of criticism erupted, she publically passed the steaming bowl of **** to Comey. I believe the smile on her face today is one of schadenfreude.