Charles Krauthammer argues that FBI Director James Comey appears honest, but that his logic in not recommending an indictment for Hillary Clinton is flawed:
Right, so now there’s another potential investigation. I’m not sure it’s going to come out any differently than this one did.
I think Comey had a relatively good day. He looks like an honest guy, he didn’t look like he was hiding anything. But he couldn’t get over the logical problem. He laid out all the requirements, gross negligence, and then he says at the end that that requires criminal intent.
That’s nowhere in the statute. In fact, the statute says that you committed a felony either if it was intentional or if it was the result of gross negligence. Either-or; you don’t need intention.
He never got over that, and my interpretation is he was looking for a way to avoid indicting her.
That would’ve changed the course of American political history. She would’ve been out of the race. The entire campaign would’ve been upended.
And to me, it’s a bit like Chief Justice Roberts in deciding on Obamacare: He found the most tortured way to avoid overturning it, even though I think his analysis would have led to overturning it. Because he didn’t want to intrude into American history, overturning legislation so momentous. I think Comey did not want to be remembered as a guy who changed the course of American political history.