I did not respond to anything beyond your title. In my OP, I had attempted humor with the bit about hatred of the Irish. It was my hope that readers would not post nonsense that only attempted, in the cheapest ways possible, to post such things. It is sad that you believed it was essential to identify the AG as a black woman, as if that was a factor in Comey's decision making after she recused herself for the inappropriate meeting with Bill Clinton. I could point out that the single largest Democratic Party group that under-voted in 2016 was black women. But like your "black woman" comment, it would simply be an attempt to distract from a meaningful discussions.
It is true that Comey went against a norm by holding the press conference. A norm, of course, is distinct from a "policy" (your word) although one could say it was an unwritten policy. Yet, context is everything. There have only been two previous elections in recent history where a candidate for president was understood to have engaged in illegal conduct. The first was with Richard Nixon in 1968, which I assume everyone is familiar with. LBJ nixed going after him for undetermined reasons, yet every informed citizen knew what was up. The second was when our candidate George McGovern attempted in 1972 to get the media to report on the crimes of Watergate, which he knew could be traced to the Oval Office. But reporting really only took root a year later.
Next, the retired FBI agents in the nest in NYC were not, by definition, Comey's insubordinates. Odd you would say such a thing. However, he was aware that some active members had informed the nest, who were -- exactly as I noted with unerring accuracy in the OP posed to leak. Indeed, their mouthpiece would have been Rudy, who also was not, by definition, Comey's insubordinate. Plus Russian intelligence was prepared to flood the internet.
So context, as always, is important. Comey was faced with issues that had never been faced in an American presidential election. He had two choices, and he made one that you still have strong negative emotiions on. Strong enough that you are able to ignore all of the others involved ..... in fact, so strong that you are incapable of doing so. And thus, you illustrate the risks of avoiding a rational discussion, and make a leap of faith that Clinton would have won but for Comey. That is, at very best, mere speculation that is entirely lacking in foundation.
= new reply since forum marked as read