http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/07/video-trey-gowdy-uses-comey-to-expose-hillarys-criminal-intent/==============================

have also done.

That a current government employee who does what Hillary did would be in deep trouble while Hillary may still be elected to the highest office in the land is not disparate treatment.  Sure, it sucks, but that is not the fault of the FBI, Justice Department, our class or even our political system.

The law is being applied evenly, as it should be.  Neither the lowly clearance holder nor Hillary are prosecuted.  Also, there are no hard consequences for either if they don't still have the relevant jobs anyway.  Just as Hillary moved on and thus could not have her security clearance yanked and position terminated, if the government worker had gone on to a higher paying job writing computer software, there would be little consequences there either.  And while you could claim that if Hillary was still SOS, then she would be given a pass, I can with greater evidence argue that Obama would be forced to fire her.  And regardless of which of us is right, nothing from what happened here would bolster your case.  Hillary can't be punished without resorting to selective enforcement, not because she is rich or powerful, but simply because she doesn't have a job to fire her from.

But she's still likely to be the next president, you say?  Well, that's up to the voters.  And shouldn't it be?  Do you really think that government employees should have broken precedent and selectively gone after Hillary so as to prevent the voters from being able to choose?

This is why I am so impressed by how Comey handled their decision.  Where he did break precedent was to give the voters the information we should have to help in our vetting process.  If, as most of us anticipate, the majority will choose to vote for Hillary anyway, then they do so without important information having been withheld from them.