And I'm paraphrasing here - that the law might have said "gross negligence", but it was written a long time ago and so he didn't think that in his judgement it should be applied against Clinton because the folks that wrote that law kind of meant it for other reasons.
Nice.
Since when does the director of the FBI or ANY public official get to decide that they don't like the way a law is written so they just are going to ignore it? We know current POTUS has been doing it since taking office...and the consternation over it has been rancorous.
This isn't a "partisan" issue....it goes to the sanctity and application of the legal process - against whomever the charges are brought. Kind of like playing tennis without having any lines on the court...whoever "wins" popular support on any issue just kind of gets to do whatever they want?
That's the obvious takeaway from this situation...where am I wrong?
Nice.
Since when does the director of the FBI or ANY public official get to decide that they don't like the way a law is written so they just are going to ignore it? We know current POTUS has been doing it since taking office...and the consternation over it has been rancorous.
This isn't a "partisan" issue....it goes to the sanctity and application of the legal process - against whomever the charges are brought. Kind of like playing tennis without having any lines on the court...whoever "wins" popular support on any issue just kind of gets to do whatever they want?
That's the obvious takeaway from this situation...where am I wrong?
