I don't think that's what he said. He said that prosecutors have historically declined to prosecute in the absence of intent or other aggravating factors, and that none of those factors are present in this case.
It's kinda like going 60 in a 55. It violates the speeding statute, but almost all DAs would decline to prosecute.
NOTE -- I'm not saying I agree with Comey -- I'm just interpreting what I heard him say.
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws . . ." This is the phrase that bugs me. It was the first reference he made to Clinton's intent and set the parameter for his discussion of intent. It tainted the way I viewed his entire analysis of the intent issue. What statute requires proof of intent to violate the law rather than intent to engage in the conduct at issue?
Nevertheless, let's presume that it was just a poor choice of words and set aside that statement. What is the argument that she didn't intend what she did? I haven't seen anybody even hypothetically explain that. Comey certainly didn't. She knew she had the private server. She knew she sent and received classified documents from them. Nevertheless, she lied about every facet of the e-mail operation. I'm not a Trey Gowdy disciple. In fact, I think he's somewhat of a self-promoting tool, but his question to Comey about false exculpatory statements (her lies) and his answer were pretty revealing. Crockett may not care about them, but those statements are evidence of intent and consciousness of guilt. DoJ could bring this case if it wanted to.
And respectfully, I don't think the speeding analogy is very applicable. The police and prosecutors are unlikely to charge you for going 60 in a 55, not because of intent (After all, speeding is a strict liability offense, so intent doesn't matter.) but because it's not a wise use of judicial and law enforcement resources and because they don't want to look like nitpicky jackasses. If someone is going 60 in a 55, they're not endangering the public, but it costs just as much in time and resources to prosecute someone driving 120 in a 55. It's not worth it, especially when they're likely to get eye rolls and groans from the judge and the jury if the person decides to fight it. HRC's case involves a much more flagrant violation of the law with much higher stakes.
I should clarify a few things. First, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. You're not defending Comey's position, and I respect that you think for yourself on this, as you do on everything. Second, I'm not a Comey hater and don't blame him for this. My honest view is that he probably isn't recommending prosecution mostly because he doesn't want to disrupt the presidential election and be the center of controversy. I get that. Furthermore, I don't think this burden should be on him. DoJ makes the call to prosecute, not him, and only a naive fool would think that politics aren't entering the equation. That's why a special prosecutor should have been appointed.
