Two Arguably Legitimate Explanations for Why FBI Director Comey Insulted the Intelligence of the American People Today on the Clinton Emails

Only two legitimate explanations can perhaps justify FBI Director James Comey’s Falling on his sword for Hillary Clinton FBI Director James Comey again proved today that the Clintons live by different rules. He found “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges in a case like this. Where is the surprise? The fix was in for months. President Obama months ago said he believed in the innocence of Secretary Clinton because he believed she did not act intentionally to harm the United States. The statute provides liability for intentionally or gross negligence, but no matter! President Obama routinely ignores the Constitution and the gun. FBI Director Comey did his best imitation of Chief Justice Roberts in rewriting the Obamacare statute to sustain it. President Obama and Secretary Clinton flew together on Air Force One to a campaign rally in North Carolina today as Comey was acting. I don’t always believe in coincidences. The President expressly passed the baton, not a subpoena or indictment, to Secretary Clinton at the rally. Former President Bill Clinton talked with Attorney General Loretta Lynch last week. Hillary Clinton is rumored to have said that she would retain the Attorney General in her new administration. No matter! It may be unseemly, but there’s no smoking gun. James Comey understood all along what his job was. He groveled for the appointment as FBI Director by President Obama in 1913. It’s like the Godfather. Comey knew at some point he would have to return the favor. She palpably, grossly, constantly, lied to the American public, but that’s not indictable. She proved, yet again, that she is a compulsive or pathological liar (take your pick), but no matter. Why anyone will believe any of her campaign promises and rhetoric is a great mystery. She committed obstruction of justice by destroying tens of thousands of emails, but the FBI Director ignored that. She was undoubtedly entered into a conspiracy with her aides to obstruct justice. If she were a Republican candidate, he would have thrown the book at her and her aides. No matter. President Clinton proved an expert at obstruction of justice, He got away with it. Why shouldn’t she? And yet we can posit two arguably justifiable justifications for the decision. The first is cold reality. The odds that any jury in Washington, D.C. could convict a Clinton of anything are about the same as winning the Power Ball. The second reason is that it is unwise public policy to indict officials of preceding administrations for criminal acts short of horrific crimes. Such behavior is dangerous to the survival of our democracy. However, an independent prosecutor with the cheer leading of Democrats and the media had no problem indicting members of the Nixon Administration for Watergate. Only a Presidential Pardon by President Ford prevented an indictment of President Nixon. Democrats cheered on Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in trying to indict Vice President Chaney or Presidential aide Karl Rove in the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity in the CIA. Fitzgerald continued the investigation long after the identity of the discloser was discovered. Neither explanation was given. Instead FBI Director Comey insulted the intelligence of the American people today.