"They also seem to disagree with pizzagaters. I find the invocation of the FBI in pizzagate to be quite selective. When convenient for the narrative they are invoked but then in the next sentence will be thrown under the bus as a corrupt organization that is in on the whole thing."

that is odd considering that i haven't read anything saying this. If you are talking about James Comey...I think you should first consider that he apparently read through 650,000 emails with a small team over the course of ...what...4 days? Impossible...I hope you will recognize this fact.

He also said that Hillary could not "reasonably" be charged for something I guarantee you I would have gone to prison for doing 1/1000th of while in the military.

Secondly, just because 1 person (james comey) comes out to say "nothing to see here" means very little. He does not represent the totality of the FBI--he is simply a figurehead. When I put down the FBI (which seemed to be an assumption on your part as I had said nothing bad about the FBI until this moment), I only talk about that...because the contents of her emails "did not put our country in danger". It is punishable to have government information held on private (and unsecured) servers. Very very illegal unless it is directly signed off on by higher ups.

When an entire group of experts have to come together (at the behest of specific department heads overseeing certain areas of crime), however, and represent the experts in their field within the FBI, this is an entirely different situation than Comey. So I have to say that it seems a bit selective of you to act as though the FBI is a singular entity and that the actions of a director, or my opinions about him, have anything to do with the FBI's relevance as a whole. ;)