This fits with Comey’s very damning and strange exoneration. I suspected he was leveraged to let her off but had his revenge in damning her while doing so, then bringing up issue again the last week of the election.
Paraphrased Comey said: She’s guilty as hell but we can’t prosecute.
Yes it all makes sense.
But Mukasey is the first ex-senior official to bring it up.
Its about time.
I thought as much from the moment the first news of the unofficial mail server came out. The entire Obama administration was implicated, because, heck, she was secretary of state, communicating with everyone, and they could not help knowing she was committing an egregious breach of security. Obama or her colleagues should have stopped it immediately, but no, they colluded, and God knows what else they did.
The only question I have is why they let her do it. She had some “pull” sufficient to obtain this concession?
I don’t quite agree with the idea that Comey “ had his
revenge in damning her while doing so, then bringing
up the issue again the last week of the election”.
To me “revenge” sounds like Comey actually had wanted to
do the the right thing but was prevented from doing so
by Obama. The reason for Comey’s tortured explanation
was to acknowledge that Clinton did wrong but that her
behavior did not rise to the level of a prrosecutable
crime. Sure he knew it was bogus but he had to chastise
her in some way.
Comey’s temporary reopening of the investigation just
before the election that put Democrat panties in
a twist after the election was necessary in Comey’s
mind because NYC law enforcement found dirt on Hillary.
Comey calculated that Hillary would win anyway and he
wanted to look like he was doing his job. He had to say
something. If Hillary had won the election he figured
she would forgive him for his last minute “indiscretion”
because he fixed the issue for her after the fact. He hoped
to be President Hillary’s little FBI fixer boy.
I wonder if the word “Arkancide” ever entered the conversation? Maybe THAT was the leverage.