You supported an independent counsel for Hillary?
Of course. It's preferable. But I'm not assuming the result of the investigation was junk just because it was done by FBI. That's just nuts to me. Part of that has to do with the FBI findings being exactly as I said they would be a year ago: guilty of bad judgement, rule and statutory transgressions, but difficult to successfully prosecute based on precedent. Other Sec of State have done the same, and numerous cases of violations in handling classified documents without intent and where no harm can be shown to have resulted have ended in a hand slap, and a "don't do it again." (I know about these cases because I've handled myriad classified docs over the course of my career. So yes, I'm biased because the investigation came out exactly as I said it would. And naturally because of my personal experience and knowledge of the classification system I thought Comey's decision to not recommend prosecution, under the reported circumstances, was the correct one!)
The Petraeus thing, which people like to compare with the Hillary fiasco, was very different. Had Hillary, for example, been sending classified documents to uncleared persons on insecure servers that would have got her prosecuted. But in fact, cleared persons were sending Hillary, a cleared person, classified docs to an insufficiently secure server. That would, based on precedent, get her a don't do this anymore, and make it clear to everyone in your office they are not to transmit classified docs to your personal server.
You'd want to be able to show mal intent to able to expect a successful prosecution in Hillary's case. The precedents are clear here. Comey (a Republican!) made the correct decision re whether to recommend prosecution. Recall, he did not say she was without fault. He was over a barrel. What would you do if you were in charge of an investigation of a major party candidate running for president, and you thought the investigation had come to a conclusion days before the election? Would you say something or just keep quiet? If you put yourself in his shoes you'll understand what a difficult position he was in. All in all his FBI led investigation turned up exactly what everyone else agrees were the errors committed by Hillary and people working with and for her based on what was publicly known. So the only place we can have a legitimate disagreement here is not with respect to the outcome of the investigation part, but with the decision to recommend that she not be prosecuted. It's a decision dependent on opinion based on legal precedent. I say he made the correct decision. You say he didn't. I'm OK with that. We are all entitled to our opinions.
Of course if you're given to conspiracies, and especially those that reinforce your unshakable conviction that Hillary belongs on Death Row, you'll believe pretty much anything, including Tweets from St. Petersburg, or a media network specializing in scandal and anything salacious no matter what the relation of their stories to truth may be.
