Talk:Seddie/@comment-3247345-20160706045107/@comment-14284535-20160708173229

Charles Krauthammer has what I think is the best theory on why she wasn't indicted. This also affected, among other things, John Roberts's reticence to repeal the ACA.

Everyone in the FBI and the Federal Judiciary saw how divisive the Bush-Gore decision from the Supreme Court was. Even though Bush would have won Florida anyway by 137 votes (if I remember correctly), the decision undermined many people's trust in the process because it looked overtly political. Thus, many judges are worried about making decisions with such massive consequences - particularly when they affect another branch of government in such an irrevocable way. Hence, Roberts does not want to overturn the ACA.

In this case, if Hillary is indicted, FBI Directory Comey essentially decides this year's election for Donald Trump. This is particularly bad because Hillary is about a 3-1 favourite; hence he would potentially be overturning the people's will. (That doesn't even account for the possibility that he thinks that Trump would be as much of a disaster as President as we here do.)  Thus, he basically decides gets out of the way and let the people decide.

IMHO, this trend is horrendous. The Supreme Court erred by not allowing the Florida recount to finish. Bush would have been elected anyway, whence only the most partisan would be upset. That does not mean that "make-up calls" like this are anything other than a very bad idea.