Replies

It seems to me that he went beyond the scope of his office by declaring that no reasonable prosecutor would charge this case. The role of the FBI is to investigate, not prosecute. So, I think the first question to Comey should be, "Who made the decision not to recommend charges?"

If he claims it was his decision, then it's pretty clear he overstepped his authority, and stepped on the toes of the career prosecutors.

And if it was not his decision, then he needs to say who it was, and that person (or persons) can be questioned why the facts would not support a prosecution, when they had prosecuted other similar cases.

It seems pretty evident that there was some pretty sticky things to go over before this decision was reached. Comey owes it to the American people, who ultimately are his boss, to clarify the decision-making process.

-- It seems to me that he went beyond the scope of his office by declaring that no reasonable prosecutor would charge this case. --

Maybe, maybe not. But he sure opened up a line of inquiry by not using the standard phrasing, "no probable cause that a crime was committed."

I'm curious if his conclusion that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case, extends to a case under 18 USC 1924(a). His remarks focused on the felony offense, and appear to sidestep the misdemeanor offense altogether.

Whatever the reality is, I also have a sense that the FBI and Congress are in cahoots to greywash this away, without a charge - that is, the intention is to limit the damage to political damage, and to not expose Clinton to any legal jeopardy.