Over the last 24 hours the FBI blew the Clinton case.
In more than one way.
They didn’t have to prove intent despite Comey’s claims to the contrary.
There is also a clear historical precedent for bringing charges in cases where the evidence was far less damning.
From The Hill:
Unbelievably, having defined the elements of a national security crime and given specific examples of Mrs. Clinton’s reckless, dangerous conduct in each case, Mr. Comey concluded that “no charges are appropriate in this case” and that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Mr. Comey did not tell the truth. Many people, in and out of government, know Mr. Comey’s blatant falsehood.
Exhibit A is the July 2015 prosecution of Bryan H. Nishimura, a Navy reservist in Sacramento, California, who plead guilty to charges – developed by Mr. Comey’s FBI – that represent a mere fraction of what Mr. Comey says Mrs. Clinton was involved in doing at the State Department.
The public’s faith in the fair administration of justice was damaged by Attorney General Lynch’s meeting with President Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix. It was further damaged by the apparent sweetheart “voluntary interview” of Mrs. Clinton by the FBI on the Saturday of the July 4th weekend.
Then just over 48 hours later (no doubt Mr. Comey spent the weekend carefully examining a year’s worth of interview transcripts), the proverbial stake was driven through the heart of any remaining faith and confidence in the public’s concept of “equal justice under law” or in Mr. Comey’s professional integrity by his nonsensical, contradictory, and insulting decision to let Mrs. Clinton “walk” on her national security crimes. No other federal government employee would have received the extraordinary, exceptional treatment Mr. Comey conferred on Mrs. Clinton.
The more you look at the facts of both the evidence and the law, it looks like Comey either made a huge mistake or bailed out Hillary to help his boss and the Democrat Party save face. Either way. Not good.
H/T: The Hill