There’s a question that needs to be asked regarding the Hillary Clinton investigation and I think that James Comey alluded to it in his testimony today.

He’s a bright man, he more than likely knew that he would be dragged in front of Congress, and then he could let the cat out of the bag and detail OTHER felonies that were committed that hadn’t been looked into.

Here’s his testimony:

There was a statute passed in 1917 that on its face makes it a crime, a felony, for someone to engage in gross negligence. So, that would appear to say … maybe it’s enough to prove they were just really careless beyond a reasonable doubt. At the time Congress passed that statute in 1917, there was a lot of concern in the House and Senate about whether that was going to violate the American tradition of requiring that before you’re going to lock somebody up, you prove they knew they were doing something wrong…. As best I can tell, the Department of Justice has used it once in the 99 years since, reflecting that same concern. I know from 30 years with the Department of Justice they have grave concerns about whether it’s appropriate to prosecute somebody for gross negligence, which is why they’ve done it once … in a case involving espionage.
-James Comey, FBI Director 7/7/2016

Did James Comey purposely not prosecute Hillary on the basis that he knew the case would blow up in the media if she was charged with a statue that was written and only used once in the last 100 years?

AND with that in mind would he use a ‘tell’ (in poker terms) to instruct Congress which rock that they should be looking under to find felonies that have recently been tried with a slam dunk?

It seems pretty obvious to me that he is hinting in this direction:

Chaffetz asked Comey whether he had reviewed Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi committee as part of his inquiry. He said that he had not, but that he was aware of it. Chaffetz also asked Comey whether Clinton had lied to the FBI, and he said he did not have reason to believe she had done so. -Breitbart

Time will tell but the other felonies are as obvious as heck to the American public!

“Did you review the documents where Congressman Jim Jordan asked her specifically, and she said ‘There was nothing marked classified on my emails either sent or received.’ … Did the FBI investigate her statements under oath on this topic?” Congressman Chaffetz asked.

“Not to my knowledge — I don’t think there has been a referral from Congress,” Director Comey replied.

“Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?” Congressman Chaffetz asked.

“Sure do,” Comey replied.

“You’ll have one. You’ll have one in the next few hours,” Chaffetz said -Law Newz

This gives Comey the perfect alibi, “I had to look into this because of the Congress demanded it!”

This shifts the burden of investigating to the ‘Republican Congress’ and should he recommend charges it’s no longer him but the Republicans that will bear the burden.