(July 8, 2016 at 1:27 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Thoughtt of this, don't know if it's exculpatory for Comey, but it might have been my take had I been in his shoes;
he was faced with possibly being a solitary individual with the power to (possibly) veto a president, something someone who believes strongly in democracy might be loathe to do.
Hence his use of accurate synonyms to describe Hillary's actions, but since they are synonyms, he has an 'out' for reaching his conclusion, but nevertheless, they are accurate synonyms for the precise wording that would have resulted in an opposite recommend from him.
He's put it in the voters laps, we have all we need to either vote our conscience or vote our politics.
I'd hope perhaps if I realized beforehand it's up to me to select, on behalf of everyone else, 2 profoundly different timelines, I might 'punt' too, let the people decide, fuck my oath, this is where I draw the line.
I hope that wasn't his justification, because it would be wholly irresponsible. She's a *candidate* for President, not the President yet. She doesn't hold any public office at the moment, and even her position as the expected nominee of the Democratic party is a position within a *private* organization. Clinton is a private citizen only at the moment, and she should have been treated the exact same way as any other private citizen.
We don't let the entire country vote on every other criminal case; this one should be no different.
The vote for President this year is especially different, because people voting for Clinton might not be voting for her based on their opinion of her crimes, but on the fact that they don't want a President Trump.
