Without it, we might not have a terror problem at all.
My confidence in the FBI is pretty much zero at this point.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of the FBI, nothing that Comey says about the Clinton investigation makes any sense. Well, if you assume the fix was in from the beginning (as she told Brett Baier), it does.
[Update a few minutes later]
From (Democrat, AFAIK) Jonathan Turley:
Of all of the individuals who would warrant immunity, most would view Mills as the very last on any list. If one assumes that there may have been criminal conduct, it is equivalent to immunizing H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman in the investigation of Watergate.
Why, it’s almost as though there was no intent to seriously investigate.
This is gangster government, and it will only get worse if she gets into the White House. At least Trump will be more likely to be reined in by Congress (perhaps even impeached and removed).
[Update a few more minutes later]
Good question, from a smart prosecutor: “What more would she have had to do to get you to prosecute her?”
It’s not surprising these people are on a list. I bet they’re on a lot of lists. The interesting question is how many people are on this list in total.
If a million people are on the list then it’s useless. If one hundred people are then someone did a great job and someone else should be shot.
No doubt the truth lies somewhere between. But where? Why is no one asking?
In answer to the “good question” Comey made a true statement which was meaningless since it was never applied to Clinton.
The law means nothing when it is selectively enforced. It means nothing when those that are supposed to enforce it face no consequences (beyond answer to Gowdy et. al.)
If we allow Clinton to be elected we have put the final nail in the rule of law.