Do you think FBI Chief Jim Comey is a straight shooter?

The issues we have here is the gap between the letter of the law (or interpretation of the letter) and the concept of justice. I am sure Comey is a stand up guy and has conducted thousands of investigations in his career and done them incredibly well. This was unlike any other he has likely ever done.

The problem we have is that many will view the lack of a formal charge against Clinton as an exoneration of her. That isn't what happened but that is how it will be viewed.

The feeling that any of us having done anything remotely similar would have had the book thrown at us is very real. Most of us that served handled confidential, secret or top secret information or equipment etc. We would have been brought up on charges had we exposed this information to possible compromise in any way. The legal gymnastics to get us to where we are demonstrates the special consideration the ruling elite get when trouble comes knocking.

Comey, in this case, allowed far to much nuance and interpretation into the calculus and has now set a precedent that will be used by others to avoid charges for compromising national security or mishandling classified information.

Jim Comey is a straight shooter, if you can see past the politics. Remember when he was acting AG, he wouldn't sign off on Bush's wiretapping overreaches. People are reacting either way based on the outcome but I've seen little from the pundits as to what drove the conclusion other than "politics". My take is there's a gap between the law, the implementation of the law, and the determination of where the line is crossed so there's a violation of the law. The politicals were pretty clueless yesterday about it. I'm a systems type with a bunch of litigation involvement over the years.
So what we have is a law that hasn't been enforced much, hence there isn't much case law. DoJ always wants pretty much a slam dunk, but you don't want your test cases to be on high profile stuff. The FBI result had much to do with "we didn't see any evidence of". That is codespeak for when most everyone takes The Fifth, there's no incriminating evidence from that. If the bad guys are so sophisticated that hacking leaves no traces, there's no incriminating evidence. If Hillary's lawyers essentially do a DISA wipe of hard drives, there's no incriminating evidence. So there's a lot of circumstantial and conspiracy theory stuff. When matched up against the truth continuum in which "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard, there wasn't enough hard evidence to put it into the slam dunk territory.
Jim Comey probably believes Hillary and her goons are crooks but he sees it would never go through the system. That is actually a good thing. It prevents law enforcement from getting creative. We've seen a lot of that in planting evidence, etc. to tilt the side of justice they don't run. I'm glad he isn't that kind of creative. We'll see if the thinking was supported based on the result of the "Exit Poll" where we would see a bump up on key player retirements. The liberal press surely won't run any stories on that if it comes to pass.

Not anymore.