"We have no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, but the seriousness of the allegations, and the weight of circumstantial information, compel an effort to establish the facts." – Reagan’s October Surprise
When an unsecured email server was used to handle confidential governmental communications, Comey found “no clear evidence” of Secretary Clinton’s intent to violate the law, so he concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor would have pursued charges.”
When the IG investigated the FBI, Horowitz found “no clear evidence” that the people who headed the Clinton email probe were biased despite their biased comments and therefore concluded that there was nothing a reasonable prosecutor could pursue.
I wonder if Special Counsel Mueller will apply those same standards to the facts when he wraps up the “Trump-Russia-Collusion” witch hunt. Although I guess you have to ask yourself if facts really matter when you’re looking to ensure an “unbiased” prosecution conclusion.
Linked By: American Digest, and Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, and BlogsLucianneLoves, and Free Republic, Thanks!