Re(2): Here is my proof where is yours ? Posted on 2/6/2018 at 07:22:49 PM by JHS
In assessing Comey's actions during the 2016 election, if you assume these four things to be true, his behavior makes sense: 1) Comey is a narcissistic showboat who, throughout his career, has portrayed himself as some boy scout type seeking truth and justice, 2) Comey did not want Trump to win, 3) everyone thought Hillary would win and that Trump had no chance, and 4) there was never any real investigation of Hillary. It was a show for the public and the outcome never was in doubt from the very beginning. No grand jury, no documents subpoenaed, early immunity deals with people who had any possible criminal exposure.
With these things in mind, Comey's actions are easy to explain. Lynch said she'd let Comey make the decision, so Comey gives a grandiose speech in July 2016 about how thorough the investigation was and, though Hillary had been careless, no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case. (Of course not-hard to bring a case when there is no grand jury to indict anyone). He gets his moment in the spotlight, and Hillary is now clear to win the election.
In October 2016, an unexpected development happens. The NY FBI office discovers a bunch of Hillary e-mails on Weiner's (or Huma's) computer. This will leak out, as the NY FBI office has been at odds before with the DC office. If that happens, Comey looks bad because the Hillary investigation will seem rigged. So he publicly notifies Congress that he'll look into it, and a few days before the election he again clears Hillary.
If Hillary had won as expected, Comey would have come across as a high-minded seeker of justice who was above political pressure. Hillary would have kept him on as FBI director. But the unthinkable happened, and Hillary lost. Now everyone needs a scapegoat and Comey was as good as any until the Trump colluded with Russia narrative got traction.