Implicit in this demand is the fallacious assumption that in revealing information about one candidate, Comey was obliged to issue information about the other, for no reason other than to “even the playing field” politically. “Evening the playing field” is nothing even resembling a practicable legal standard. According to this retort, Comey ought to have been expected to ignore the glaring differences in the two investigations — their investigative status, chronology, and the fact that one was closed while the other was active — and made proclamations about both out of a need to attain some kind of ill-defined political parity. That really is a form of literal false equivalence: If the Clinton investigation and the Trump investigation were meaningfully equivalent, then yes, Comey would’ve been obliged to make public statements about both. But they weren’t in any way equivalent, apart from the fact that they both implicated a major party nominee.
Hillary Clinton has provided me with a fairly clean litmus test for people’s political compass. Her supporters are to me impossibly convoluted and tortured in their rationalization of her candidacy. The ethical lapses that they have to trip over running to yas queen have left me in doubt of their entire moral character. I no longer trust them on issues of moral complexity. And yes, this goes beyond this election and extends well into all aspects of social policy and cultural authority.