Originally Posted by lawyerdad
I have no idea what "esoteric reading" means in this context - is it related to cultural Marxism?
I (like the rest of the poasters here) haven't reviewed the evidence and thus have no basis to form a solid opinion on whether an indictment was warranted.
I will say that while I'm not friends with Jim Comey, I've worked in some of the same circles for and known him professionally for years. His integrity is beyond reasonable questioning.
But I'm sure you legal experts all know far better.
Cleverly hiding a layer of meaning opposite to the surface narrative, usually because it is not safe to speak the truth directly.
You're of course right that the public has incomplete information this case.. but just take Comey's statement in isolation. He describes H engaging in activity clearly in violation of at least one Title 18 section (that doesn't require intent.)
The reason Comey gave for not recommending indictment amounted to a single sentence in the 20 minute press conference: that a reasonable prosecutor would not bring a case based on the evidence his team reviewed.
I am open to be persuaded of that (especially if there is some kind of high burden of proof for showing harm done), but Comey spent zero time in his press conference trying to do so. Instead he seemed to be constructing a straw man diversion around intent.