If the "whether to prosecute" decision standard applied by James Comey against Hilary Clinton were applied to Trump, none of the lawfare cases would have been been filed.
__
After explaining in detail how Hilary Clinton HAD violated federal law ("extremely reckless / careless") and committed crimes based on proven facts, then-FBI Director James Comey infamously said [even though his job was only to provide the investigative findings, NOT the prosecution decision], essentially, that becauseno case had been broughton those facts under those statutes before,no reasonable prosecutor would do soagainst Secretary of State Clinton.
#1 - That's not the standard.
#2 - They are certainly not applying that "logic" now vis-a-vis Trump. They are instead engaging in mental and legal gymnastics on two fronts, i.e., (1) to get laws that have never been applied in this way before (2) to somehow fit facts that are not proven against him.
==
James Comey's "no prosecution" despite "extremely reckless," later reworded "extremely careless" finding re Hilary Clinton(in part):
"In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment [i.e., that of the investigating, not prosecuting body] is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
"Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case [this is NOT the standard] that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
______
On the LAW:If the standard (of whether to prosecute, as was stated by Director Comey re Hilary Clinton) is that there is A CASE that has applied the applicable law to similar facts before, then per the "first time" analysis of attorney Mark Levine*** and others, no reasonable prosecutor would bring ANY of these cases against President Trump either.
On the FACTS:No factual findings have (in keeping with due process and other procedural, statutory and Constitutional protections) been fairly established against President Trump as they had been against Mrs. Clinton.
______
*** Mark Levine, a lawyer, revisits the fact that all of the various lawfare cases against Trump are based on statutes never used in this way before, and/or contorted and twisted applications never done before.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kkGVBeaWU8s&feature=youtu.be