>Could be they just saw no reason to bother because there was no possibility of getting him. There is no requirement to indict someone immediately upon collecting evidence, indictment is merely the formal accusation of a felony issued by a grand jury. I don't understand why some of you seem to consider this some wild thing

I don't think you know what you're talking about. It is quite unusual to delay indictment like this, perhaps you can find some other examples to prove me wrong?

>Furthermore, even if they had all this evidence nobody may have sat down and come up with a legal theory sufficiently tailored, and in fact you yourself raise this in the rest of your post:

It's the exact same legal theory they had prepared in 2011 https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/pr...

>Someone could just as well argue that it was Obama making a politically motivated decision not to indict, though I think that'd be a silly argument too.

There's an extreme difference between politically motivated indictment and politically motivated non-indictment. That's not silly, that's asinine.