Replies

I think the error in the way that everyone looks at this is the focus on Comey. He is not the last word on seeking an indictment. Any US Attorney could seek an indictment, the AG could direct a particular US Attorney to review the case so far and to seek an indictment, if the evidence supported it, Comey's reluctance and reliance on intent notwithstanding.

I would also direct the FBI to look at communications between the Clinton campaign and its attorneys, and Verizon. Somewhere there was a conversation seeking the retention periods for information like the 3 months of Verizon Blackberry data at the first 3 months of Clinton's tenure at Foggy Bottom. Let's say in March of 2015, Hillary's lawyers inquired of Verizon, and learned that there was a 7 year retention for the data generated in January-March 2009. In that scenario all they had to do was run out the clock until April 2016 and the data would routinely have been lost for investigation purposes. I think it is that light that you have to interpret things like the Loretta Lynch - Bill Clinton tarmac meeting. He was making sure she knew exactly how slow the process had to be slow-walked so that Hillary was in the clear with respect to those early months.

I realize that Trump has a lot on his platter, but I hope that Sessions has not concluded that there is no point to prosecuting Hillary. Put it on the record, get a conviction, and then recommend a fine and probation as punishment. No incarceration, but get it on the record that she recklessly broke the law and compromised the security of the United States.