[Cboldt]

-- I believe the FBI is under extreme pressure not just from the public but from its own foot soldiers to recommend an indictment ... --

Maybe it is just semantics, but entertain this for me.

The police and FBI investigate many things. Sometimes the investigation concludes with a finding that there isn't enough evidence, or in fact the target is innocent. Does the investigator forward those files to a prosecutor?

Hell no.

When an investigator forwards a file, that is way of saying "there is probable cause a crime has been committed. Here are the facts." The investigator is done, other than appearing to testify before a GJ or in conjunction with a trial.

In other words, every time an investigator forwards a file, he is recommending an indictment, at least to the extent his competency allows him to make recommendations.

But the law vests all, 100% of the decision to proceed (and how to proceed) with a prosecutor, not the investigator. It is totally out of line for an investigator to "recommend an indictment." There are no "prosecutors in the FBI." Investigation and prosecution are two very separate functions.

[nathanbedford]

I don't object to your semantical distinction but I believe it is a distinction without much of a practical difference. As I understand it the FBI was going to render a "report" or at least some sort of rendering summarizing its findings. Whether it contains a recommendation for indictment or merely conclusions that the law was broken or merely a recital of facts which reasonably lead to no other conclusion, the effect is the same. That is the effect is the same if rank-and-file of the FBI are exercised about the crimes which we all believe have been committed and find a whitewash intolerable.