Freedom to Choose: The Invalid Argument for NOT Indicting Hillary

The argument goes something like this. When FBI Director, James Comey, delivers the results of the investigation into then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's handling of classified emails, the recommendation will be to refer the case to a grand jury to consider indictment. However, because an indictment of Hillary would so disrupt the Democrat primary process, essentially taking away the Democrat's front-runner and denying them of their first choice for their presidential candidate, Attorney General Loretta Lynch will refuse to pursue the case. I call this the "Freedom to Choose" rationale. Politically, Lynch thinks President Hillary is more important than equal justice for all.

From its website (http://www.justice.gov/about): this is the mission of the Department of Justice:

Our Mission Statement

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

I don't see where it is the job of the Department of Justice or Attorney General Loretta Lynch to ensure "choice" for Democrat voters. She needs to enforce the law - Period.

Lynch needs to focus her attention on the last line of her department's mission statement:

"...to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans." which includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Do the right thing!