Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Bitter Almonds]

Shrillary will just be a continuation of the bush-obama doctrine. I'm either not gonna vote or vote for a third party candidate. I wish Bernie would reconsider an Independent candidacy run...

[BryanM]

$hill not shrill don't give her more power.

Maybe I'll say fuck the man and vote for... the face of the birther movement?

Sounds like you're getting there.

Just tell yourself the insane right wing republican he'll put on the court won't be able to do much to harm gays and other minorities, and won't be too much different from the extreme right wing republican Hillary would put on it. Then you'll be able to sleep at night.

Link me to a quote if I'm wrong, but from what I've read on the matter, what Comey said was that if someone currently employed at the State Department was found to be doing what Clinton did, they would face internal disciplinary action, but NOT criminal charges, because for the latter to stick they'd have to present evidence of willful wrongdoing

...

The whole THE FIX IS IN nonsense, however...sorry, you, Trump, and the rest are just jerking yourselves off.

If someone at the state department did what she did, they wouldn't have just lost their job and security clearance for life (a clearance being kind of important for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES). They would be in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison learning about digging holes in people. Because they wouldn't have had the authority to do it.

She's special just because of her position, a Judge Dredd "I am the law" sort of privilege you get in society from being at the top. Those who make the rules never have to obey the rules.

And if you don't believe Bill's meeting with Loretta Lynch was to reassure her she'd get to keep her job or get a sweet promotion if she didn't do anything to Hillary, you've gotta be a literal child. There was never any possibility of Hillary going down from this. The fix was in decades ago. That's just how things work.

[BulletMagnet]

Just tell yourself the insane right wing republican he'll put on the court won't be able to do much to harm gays and other minorities, and won't be too much different from the extreme right wing republican Hillary would put on it. Then you'll be able to sleep at night.

As much of a sellout on many issues as she is, there's no way in hell her list of potential court nominees would have a single crossover with Trump's.

If someone at the state department did what she did, they wouldn't have just lost their job and security clearance for life (a clearance being kind of important for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES). They would be in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison learning about digging holes in people. Because they wouldn't have had the authority to do it.

Petraeus WAS charged criminally in his case, because he DID knowingly supply classified information to his biographer/friend with benefits, and he got off with 2 years' probation and a $100K fine (though he could have also gotten five years' jail time for lying to the FBI during the investigation, which I don't believe Hillary has been accused of). Again, feel free to take issue with the way the law is applied, but at this point the whole "Hillary is Darth Vader" mindset is just a means to act self-righteous and above it all. There's enough to criticize her for as it is that we really shouldn't feel the need to crank the dial to 11 for the sake of personal catharsis.

And if you don't believe Bill's meeting with Loretta Lynch was to reassure her she'd get to keep her job or get a sweet promotion if she didn't do anything to Hillary, you've gotta be a literal child.

Not to brush aside the meeting or its circumstances (at the very least it provided a new barrel of bait to the crowd that still wants to see Hillary hanged for their own fantasies of what went down in Benghazi, the last thing anyone needs), considering that she publicly stated she would go along with whatever the rest of the investigation concluded I'm not sure how much of an effect on things she was supposed to have had...who knows, maybe there's some big, impossibly complex clandestine thing going on like everyone seems to want to believe, but I'm tempted to guess that this will end up being remembered more like Whitewater; a screw-up that everyone wanted so very hard to believe amounted to more than it was, no matter what the facts on the ground turned out to be.

[Durandal]

Man, this election went from "Yaaay this is so exciting!" to "Oh fuck, what other choice do I have?" so quickly I've got whiplash.

At this point the choice in the election seems to all come down to 'let the nice old lady with the entire Catacombs of Paris in her closet run the country and have essentially nothing change for better or worse' or 'let the clown in the businessman suit run the country and who the hell knows what will happen for better or worse'.

I wouldn't blame anyone for picking either or neither.

[Ed Oscuro]

So how does the Trump campaign's own lack of transparency and double billing stack up to the emails (and I'll throw in Benghazi just to be a sport)?

If someone at the state department did what she did, they wouldn't have just lost their job and security clearance for life (a clearance being kind of important for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES). They would be in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison learning about digging holes in people. Because they wouldn't have had the authority to do it.

You know that's not true, really! Not only did it seem like the immediate reaction from the diplomatic corps was "this happens," but just think back to Snowden: He knew he had to take those materials and go because other people tried to blow the whistle and their superiors broke the law to prevent it, every time. Maybe some of the culprits will get indicted eventually but the people who lost big so far have always been the whistleblowers. "Back channels" looks like the smallest part of the problem with the rule of law in the US bureaucracy.

[BryanM]

or 'let the clown in the businessman suit run the country and who the hell knows what will happen for better or worse'.

Yeah man! You have to be dead inside to not wanna see what'll happen.

(Same thing as 2000 to 2008 will happen, but it'll be far more entertaining.)

considering that she publicly stated she would go along with whatever the rest of the investigation concluded I'm not sure how much of an effect on things she was supposed to have had

The prosecutor has 100% control of whether they even try to win or not. You can indict a ham sandwich. You saw that fucker in Ferguson practically jizzing at his podium in happiness at not doing his job. This is common knowledge.

Just like you can't "prove" a team at the Olympics is intentionally throwing a game, you can't blame a jury for "getting it wrong" or a prosecutor for "not really" prosecuting.

Then smug assholes can lean back and say "well, you can't prove that the lady with $5 million to gain for playing ball isn't a corrupt piece of shit" and then she goes on to collect millions of dollars in the upcoming decades and the world ends because we're all fucking dead.

The end.

-- A Cheerful Poem By Bryan:^)M

[BryanM]

Petraeus WAS charged criminally in his case, because he DID knowingly supply classified information to his biographer/friend with benefits, and he got off with 2 years' probation and a $100K fine

This reminds me of when Mr.Burns gave Mr.Smithers a 5% pay cut. $100,000 is maybe two weeks pay for Petraeus.

But when the peon Bradley Manning does it, he gets 35 years.

Bradley Manning tried to kill himself recently.

$100,000 is maybe two weeks pay for Petraeus.

Update: Excuse me, I should have guessed it was more like 4 days.

[Bitter Almonds]

Chelsea Manning...?

[quash]

Petraeus WAS charged criminally in his case, because he DID knowingly supply classified information to his biographer/friend with benefits, and he got off with 2 years' probation and a $100K fine (though he could have also gotten five years' jail time for lying to the FBI during the investigation, which I don't believe Hillary has been accused of).

Wanna know something cool? You actually don't need to "knowingly" mishandle classified material to face criminal charges for it. Google the Espionage Act. The verbiage used back then was "gross negligence", but surely that can't be too far from "extremely reckless"?

She got away with murder, dude. Literally anyone who has ever held a security clearance knows it. This isn't even partisan anymore; she got off the hook for mishandling classified materials because otherwise the head of the FBI would have mysteriously committed suicide and we would have a civil war within our federal government.

[Mischief Maker]

I just love the fact that her logo is overshadowed by a big red arrow pointing to the right, symbolizing the violent shift her policies will take once all this primary silliness is officially over.



Maybe I'll start defending her in October.

[Durandal]

Wait, I always thought her logo was a symbol of 9/11.

[BryanM]

I just love the fact that her logo is overshadowed by a big red arrow pointing to the right, symbolizing the violent shift her policies will take once all this primary silliness is officially over.

The marketing logo has been widely ridiculed as the risible garbage it is. A guy was collecting them before losing all interest in politics forever as any reasonable person would do from this year.

The one making Rosa Parks sit at the back of the bus was the one we've decided is in poorest taste.

Sanders's advertising strategy was like a discussion about real issues. With the occasional "here's some music and hippies" thrown in there on top.

If Trump even slightly resembles a human being on a few issues, he's going to fucking annihilate the dregs of Coca-cola's/Al Gore's advertising team.

Wait, I always thought her logo was a symbol of 9/11.

[BryanM]

marketing logo

I think Lincoln Chafee had the best logo this year.



Most of these things are pretty awful and fail miserably; Chafee's is refreshing in a sea of miseries. I think frames should be used more often - makes it more distinct for shirts and coffee mugs. The background inside the frame can be anything, so it can be used as-is on top of black OR white.

But not if you're a deranged wikipedia editor and make the entire thing transparent. That doesn't work good.

[BulletMagnet]

The verbiage used back then was "gross negligence", but surely that can't be too far from "extremely reckless"?

Actually, it can (trigger warning: Media Matters, though the following are direct quotes, not editorializations by the site):

The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.

So that whole "malicious intent" thing that Comey was going on about - that isn't separate from the "gross negligence" provision in the Espionage Act, it's is instead precisely what he was referring to when he stated his decision.

Now, if there's something from the previous link that might actually be worth complaining about, it's the following:

“We don’t have a criminal statute that generally prohibits the mishandling of government communications,” or the mishandling of classified information, the professor said in an interview. “Maybe we should, but the FBI can only look at the laws that are on the books.”

The felony-level federal Espionage Act requires a showing of gross negligence, Vladeck said. “Simply using an unsecured system has never been understood to rise to that level,” he said. Charging Clinton under that law “would have been a novel application of an already controversial criminal statute.”

So, if you want to argue in favor of stricter laws and accompanying punishments when it comes to sensitive government material, by all means do so - heaven knows that Karl Rove would be first on my list after that theoretical reform passed. If you want to posit that Clinton took advantage of too-lenient provisions to escape sanction for her behavior, go for it, that's a reasonable angle to take. But I'm wasting my breath here - taking stock of the considerable amount of proven material that you have to formulate a legitimate criticism and/or proposed response is never enough. There must be more. There must be! There must be!

This isn't even partisan anymore; she got off the hook for mishandling classified materials because otherwise the head of the FBI would have mysteriously committed suicide and we would have a civil war within our federal government.

And right on cue, it never takes long before we're back to wallowing in the Vince Foster fever swamp, does it?

Meanwhile, Trump complains that because his campaign is being criticized for retweeting an anti-Hillary meme from a white supremacist feed (forget the stupid star, somehow where it came from is being conveniently forgotten by the "anti-Trump" media...but not the people Trump says he's never heard of), he's a bona fide victim of "racial profiling". Is there a bigger pussy on the planet?

[quash]

Are you sure you aren't a paid shill on the bankroll of the Clinton Foundation?

Even if you want to argue that she was somehow not guilty of being grossly negligent, the nature of TS/SCI material requires it to be removed from a SCIF: prima facie evidence of intent.

But please, continue to believe that this decision was reached out of anything other than self interest.

[BulletMagnet]

Are you sure you aren't a paid shill on the bankroll of the Clinton Foundation?

All I know is I've been infinitely more critical of Clinton than you've been of Trump - dude, I've been literally gift-wrapping criticisms of Clinton for you. If that's still not enough, and to truly not be a "shill" for Clinton I need to buy into every half-assed Rush Limbaugh wet dream that shows up on Facebook without so much as a perfunctory examination of whether there's any evidence to support it (hell, if it feels right, it must be true, what else do you need to know?), then I'll say it again: you're not ready for participatory democracy.

While I'm at it, feel free to peruse this post-mortem from someone who DID have security clearance.

[quash]

So that whole "malicious intent" thing that Comey was going on about - that isn't separate from the "gross negligence" provision in the Espionage Act, it's is instead precisely what he was referring to when he stated his decision.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

[quash]

While I'm at it, feel free to peruse this post-mortem from someone who DID have security clearance.

Did she commit a crime? Would anyone else—a lower-ranking official, someone who’s not a presidential candidate, someone who’s not named Clinton—have been charged with a crime? Absolutely not.

Complete and utter horseshit. If I were to be caught with half of a TS/SCI drone strike plot outside of a SCIF, I'd be turning big rocks into little rocks for the rest of my life.

[BryanM]

Not the rest of your life. Just ten to twenty years.

Though uh. Leavenworth is made out to be a scary boogeyman. If they put you with the guys who mass murder civilians abroad for fun and lulz, and you make them angry, then yeah that could be pretty much for the rest of your life.

[BulletMagnet]

Allow me to re-quote you, and highlight the part you don't seem to have acknowledged:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

There's that pesky term again: as was already covered, "gross negligence" must involve malicious intent, and unless you've convinced yourself that the entire Justice Department, down to the last underling, is totally in on the ongoing Clinton conspiracy to take over the world, it simply doesn't apply in this case. Once again, if you don't think the law is strict enough in its definitions to adequately serve our national security interest, feel free to take up that banner, but the more you throw your lot in with the "damn the evidence, there HAS to be more!" crowd the less you place yourself in a position to make an informed, rational decision about anything.

Complete and utter horseshit. If I were to be caught with half of a TS/SCI drone strike plot outside of a SCIF, I'd be turning big rocks into little rocks for the rest of my life.

Feel free to offer, y'know, anything outside of what you obviously know about how these things must work to support this declaration...or, y'know, just keep on ranting about that drug paraphernalia on the White House Christmas tree.

[Bitter Almonds]

What does it take to show "malicious intent"? Does the perpetrator need to explicitly announce it to everyone prior to committing the crime? She willingly and knowingly broke the law because she believes she's above it ("I don't need to ask permission").

[atheistgod1999]

Don't you people know why she didn't get charged? It's because the government has already planned for her to be president.

[quash]

There's that pesky term again: as was already covered, "gross negligence" must involve malicious intent

False. Malicious intent is covered under (a)-(c). (f) is there to cover negligence.

Do you seriously think the federal government functioned all this time without a way to hem up those for whom they couldn't prove intent? Intent is notoriously difficult to prove in a court of law.

and unless you've convinced yourself that the entire Justice Department, down to the last underling, is totally in on the ongoing Clinton conspiracy to take over the world, it simply doesn't apply in this case.

I'm convinced the head of the FBI didn't want to have his head on a spike.

Once again, if you don't think the law is strict enough in its definitions to adequately serve our national security interest, feel free to take up that banner, but the more you throw your lot in with the "damn the evidence, there HAS to be more!" crowd the less you place yourself in a position to make an informed, rational decision about anything.

You found a joke of a dissenting opinion on a middlebrow content farm and tried to pass it off as being informed. I've been handling this kind of material on a daily basis for over four years, and everyone who has worked with this material knows that ignorance is not an excuse for leakage.

The law is fine, it's the people entrusted in enforcing it that suck.

Feel free to offer, y'know, anything outside of what you obviously know about how these things must work to support this declaration...or, y'know, just keep on ranting about that drug paraphernalia on the White House Christmas tree.

Because as I explained earlier, removing TS/SCI material from its source is prima facie evidence of intent to do grave harm to the United States. The definition of Top Secret material is quite literally information that could do just that.

[BryanM]

malicious intent

Edward Snowden had benevolent intent in defending the 4th amendment of the constitution. How's all that benevolent intent working out for him?

"Malicious intent" is a euphemism for "treason". She wasn't being investigated for treason. Comey claimed it was an investigation into treason at the very end? Where the hell did that come from. Did you hear one person on the entire planet outside right wing radio claim she committed treason?

If the standard of her actions being against the law was treason, and she wasn't being investigated for treason, there shouldn't have been a fucking investigation in the first place.

A goddamn farce. A goddamn fucking waste of christfucking tax dollars. She's above the law. There's no debate to this. Puppies bark. Kitties meow. QED

[BulletMagnet]

False. Malicious intent is covered under (a)-(c). (f) is there to cover negligence.

I don't "handle" this sort of thing as often as you presumably do, so I'm not sure what manner of protocol would suggest, let alone demand, that those adjoining sections are to be read as having nothing to do with each other, but off the cuff, and considering the afore-linked legal opinions of those who should know, I'm inclined to doubt that the key phrase the anti-Hillary crowd is suddenly making such a big deal of suddenly doesn't mean what they insist it means in this particular instance. In any event, if simply having classified material on private servers is enough by itself to constitute "ill intent", Hillary's got plenty of company - also note that Powell is quoted saying he has no idea why the emails in question during his tenure were/are considered "classified", which throws a bit of a wet blanket on the notion that anything "classified" must by definition have the potential to harm national interests.

As for proving intent in court, I'm sure you're aware that there's a very good reason it's hard to prove from a legal standpoint, but guess what: the government does have means of dealing with people it can't pin "intent" on - internal discipline, independent of the courts. Y'know, exactly what Comey said.

I'm convinced the head of the FBI didn't want to have his head on a spike.

When in doubt, pick someone in a high position who must have been "gotten to". That always explains everything!

I've been handling this kind of material on a daily basis for over four years, and everyone who has worked with this material knows that ignorance is not an excuse for leakage.

Nobody is saying that ignorance is an excuse - what is being said is that ignorance is not grounds for prosecution. Comey said it again in today's testimony - if a current employee had acted as she did, the person would have been disciplined, possibly fired, possibly had their security clearance revoked, but not prosecuted. If you believe that she should have been prosecuted for the sort of offense she committed, then guess what - you decidedly do not think that "the law is fine", as it is currently written and applied. And again, that's a valid viewpoint to take - but for God's sake, own it.

Y'know what, I'll go ahead and gift-wrap another one for you: if you or Trump or anyone else said "if she was still at the State Department she'd have been canned and never allowed to touch classified material again, is this the person we want in the Oval Office?" that's a perfectly legitimate criticism. You could run with that 'til Election Day and neither I nor any other objective observer would be able to say much of anything in reply - again, though, I already know that it's not enough for you. You simply can't be satisfied with mere reasoned arguments, no matter how lengthy or well-documented, not to vote for Hillary, and there are plenty of those - there has to be more, there has to be some truly catastrophic revelation lurking just beneath the surface, enough to topple not only her candidacy but the entire Clinton "empire" and (what qualifies for) modern American liberalism altogether. A screw-up is never just a screw-up; it's a red herring from the REAL story, and any evidence of it that isn't at hand must have been purposely hidden. Attempting to turn an opponent's self-made messes into genuine action to improve the system is a fool's errand; if you're not always looking for that elusive final excuse to burn the whole damn thing to the ground you're just an unthinking part of the problem.

The continued allegiance I see to such a fanciful, egotistical means of viewing and/or selling the world is precisely the reason that I can't take either your candidate of choice or any of the supposed "arguments" in his favor the least bit seriously.

[quash]

I don't "handle" this sort of thing as often as you presumably do, so I'm not sure what manner of protocol would suggest, let alone demand, that those adjoining sections are to be read as having nothing to do with each other

Because they're different clauses, designed to cover different cases? The word "or" is found at the end of the first few.

In any event, if simply having classified material on private servers is enough by itself to constitute "ill intent", Hillary's got plenty of company - also note that Powell is quoted saying he has no idea why the emails in question during his tenure were/are considered "classified", which throws a bit of a wet blanket on the notion that anything "classified" must by definition have the potential to harm national interests.

Powell's case was slightly different in that he used web based mail services (authorized for some types of material) and that there was no evidence of TS/SCI material.

Anything classified does by definition have the potential to harm national interests. That is literally the point of classification.

As for proving intent in court, I'm sure you're aware that there's a very good reason it's hard to prove from a legal standpoint, but guess what: the government does have means of dealing with people it can't pin "intent" on - internal discipline, independent of the courts. Y'know, exactly what Comey said.

Except that taking SCI material out of a SCIF places you under the legal scrutiny of intent to leak information. This is part of the agreement you sign when you're granted clearance to such material.

When in doubt, pick someone in a high position who must have been "gotten to". That always explains everything!

She could very well be his boss in a matter of months. That is not something you want to deal with, especially as you near the end of your career.

Nobody is saying that ignorance is an excuse - what is being said is that ignorance is not grounds for prosecution. Comey said it again in today's testimony - if a current employee had acted as she did, the person would have been disciplined, possibly fired, possibly had their security clearance revoked, but not prosecuted.

Ignorance is grounds for prosecution, especially when you sign a legally binding agreement with the federal government saying that any leakage of SCI material will be treated as intentional until proven otherwise (which hasn't happened and at this rate never will).

If you believe that she should have been prosecuted for the sort of offense she committed, then guess what - you decidedly do not think that "the law is fine", as it is currently written and applied. And again, that's a valid viewpoint to take - but for God's sake, own it.

The law could not be any more clear. It is simply a case (not the first nor the last) of it not being enforced for someone too powerful to be bothered.

[BulletMagnet]

Because they're different clauses, designed to cover different cases? The word "or" is found at the end of the first few.

Again, I don't deal with this stuff on a daily basis, but does "different" always have to mean "completely unrelated"? I'm still very skeptical that that exact phrase managed to somehow find its way in there but apparently has no actual application in that spot because it was already referenced someplace else.

Anything classified does by definition have the potential to harm national interests. That is literally the point of classification.

So is Powell blowing smoke up our rear ends, or does only material of a particular degree of classification qualify as a violation worthy of investigation?

Except that taking SCI material out of a SCIF places you under the legal scrutiny of intent to leak information. This is part of the agreement you sign when you're granted clearance to such material.

Got a link to anything of that nature? I wasn't aware that "guilty until proven innocent" could be legally applied anywhere outside of military kangaroo courts.

Also, I didn't watch the entirety of Comey's testimony, but if such a provision truly exists, did he get beaten over the head with it by the Republicans in particular? I figure I would have heard something about that if anyone had brought it up.

She could very well be his boss in a matter of months. That is not something you want to deal with, especially as you near the end of your career.

While we're getting into theoreticals yet again, if he really does have such a clear-cut, open-and-shut case against her, why didn't he simply throw the book at her and scuttle any chance she ever had of winning the election, and not only not have to deal with her as his boss, but be hailed as a hero for rooting out such shameless corruption? Once again, unless you believe that the Clintons have an army of ninjas at their beck and call, what's supposed to have held him back? Heck, heaven knows that however many allies the Clintons may have, they've got a lot more enemies.

The law could not be any more clear. It is simply a case (not the first nor the last) of it not being enforced for someone too powerful to be bothered.

The fact that not only we but a good chunk of Washington continue to talk about this would suggest that the law is anything but crystal clear for anyone who doesn't already have a strongly preconceived scenario in mind. Hell, I seem to recall that a particular gun law argument hinged on the placement of a comma in the second amendment; methinks we're already considerably deeper into the weeds than that.

[quash]

This is what Hillary signed when she gained access to SCI material, at a bare minimum. It explicitly prohibits negligent handling of said information, subject to criminal penalties under more than one section of USC.

As for why Comey has insisted on defending her, there's a few theories out there. Scott Adams has an interesting take, as usual.

[Bitter Almonds]

I would welcome an indictment on shrillary rodent clinton. Maybe the democrats' party would then pull their heads outta their arses and put Bernie Sanders in her place.

[BulletMagnet]

This is what Hillary signed when she gained access to SCI material, at a bare minimum. It explicitly prohibits negligent handling of said information, subject to criminal penalties under more than one section of USC.

You're going to have to throw me a bone here, because I was unable to find the "if you move any classified material around, it's assumed you did it in bad faith" thing you mentioned anywhere in the document you linked; actually, items 11 and 14 go out of their way to note that the document was written up to be in accordance with various existing laws, and one would figure that "innocent until proven guilty" would be among them someplace. Again, if I'm missing something, please help me out.

In any event, I'll repeat my related query from earlier: if the "movement = ill intent" provision does in fact exist, why did a single Republican apparently not bother to confront Comey with it? If that's truly the way the law is applied in cases like this, what would he be able to say in response? It'd completely decimate the integrity of his investigation, which is precisely why they bothered calling him in; why in heaven's name would the GOP be pulling its punches?

As for why Comey has insisted on defending her, there's a few theories out there. Scott Adams has an interesting take, as usual.

This is a textbook instance of the "it can't be the obvious reason, we have to go deeper, grander!" mental block - I honestly can't tell whether Adams is truly that unhinged or if he's just trolling the hell out of us. Not only does he completely ignore Comey's stated reason for not pressing charges (sorry, but the phrase "100% guilty of crimes" is both incendiary and doesn't represent what Comey actually said), but does so in the interest of suggesting that Hillary's actions threatened the very fabric of the nation so badly that all Comey could do was commit another perversion of justice to semi-cancel it out - moreover, he's not even doing it for Hillary's sake, he's doing it to preserve Trump's potential credibility! If you put an iota of stock into such a tangled, masturbatory mess you're no longer involved in a political discussion, you're spinning Tom Clancy fan fiction out of whole cloth.

Seriously, if this is the sort of groping about in the darkness you need to do to find a possible alternative to the obvious answer (i.e. under current law, her actions simply don't merit prosecution, for better or worse), could the obvious answer actually be, y'know, right, to the point that it might be wise to change your angle and actually attempt to move the debate in a meaningful direction instead of always baiting your hook in hopes of hauling in Leviathan?