Maybe it's not Comey who is wrong here...

Let's start with this. When you hear the term "unprecedented" to describe anything regarding the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton, it's wise to keep in mind that at the core here is that a Major Party nominated a Presidential candidate who was "under" criminal FBI investigation. That, boys and girls, is where "unprecedented" should really stop and start. Anything that happens regarding this investigation should be put on the shoulders of Hillary Clinton (who got herself into this mess) and the Democratic Party (who chose to nominate her anyways).

So let's start with the latest accusations from the left that James Comey is suddenly a charter member of the vast right wing conspiracy and is acting as a rogue FBI director doing crazy "unprecedented" things in an obvious attempt to bring down Hillary Clinton. Everyone on the left points to the fact that Comey did not follow the advice of Loretta Lynch and others in the DOJ, who recommended that the latest information regarding the (once again) ongoing criminal investigation be held under wraps.

A partisan with motivation to alter election

Does anyone on the left stop to consider that the most obvious ulterior motives here do not come from Comey, but from Lynch? For all practical purposes, Director Comey has no personal political gain to stepping forward with this information. But there is a very obvious reason for the very partisan Loretta Lynch to want this information withheld.

Nearly two thirds of the country (including a fairly significant chunk of Democrats) believed that Hillary Clinton should have been indicted. The fact that she wasn't appears (from what we now know after the fact) to have been driven "more" by the Director on "up" than by the rank and file investigators who believed that they had a case. Occam's razor suggests that there was pressure to resolve the matter, and to resolve it in a particular way. I say this because between the two theories, the one that calls into question the overall competence and judgement of the FBI rank and file seem much more unlikely than that assumption that there was political pressure from the AG and DOJ.

It follows then, that similar logic applies to this situation. Is it really more plausible to suggest James Comey suddenly became a stooge for the Republicans, than to suggest that Lynch is "still" in the bag for Clinton? Moreover, doesn't it strike you as strange that the argument of "precedent" is being used for a situation that actually has no precedent? Is there really any sort of previous examples where people running for office were also under FBI investigation, and that the FBI was asked to take "politics" into consideration during said investigation? If so, doesn't that seem like a bad policy to begin with?

Really what is being argued by the left today... is exactly what the right has complained about for years. That the Clintons are above the law and should be treated differently because of their status.