FBI Director James Comey has been called up to Capitol Hill to explain to angry and befuddled Republican lawmakers his decision not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her “extremely careless” handling of classified material. He’s expected to testify Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. While no doubt members of the Committee will have plenty to say to and ask of Comey, we at The Stream have some questions of our own we’d want to see answered:

1. Before we get to the meat of it, just for our own curiosity, why did you jerk America around for a dozen minutes detailing how Clinton violated the law only to turn around at the end to say you’re letting her skate? Isn’t that a bit cruel and unusual? So now that that is off our chest …
2. Do you really mean that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Hillary Clinton, based on the evidence you cited? Are former prosecutors like your former boss Rudy Giuliani and former colleague Andrew C. McCarthy “unreasonable” for disagreeing with you?
3. If a “reasonable person” would have known one of the emails had classified information in it, since there were a whopping 110 emails discovered — so far — in 52 email chains, isn’t that plenty of evidence her actions were intentional?
4. You said a “reasonable person” in Hillary’s position would know a private server was no place for those classified emails. Why does she get special treatment here, unlike a regular reasonable person?
5. You said Hillary behaved with “extreme carelessness.” Yet you said you will not recommend felony charges for gross negligence. Can you explain the difference between “extreme carelessness” and gross negligence?
6. If “extreme carelessness” is not quite gross negligence, then why didn’t you recommend charges the next level down, a mere misdemeanor of knowingly removing classified information from appropriate storage and security? General Petraeus pled down to a misdemeanor of mishandling classified information. Why does a war hero who made one slip-up face prosecution while a perpetual abuser of the rules involving classified material walks free?
7. You were very clear that there was a significant level of negligence and carelessness by Sec. Clinton. Can you provide Congress and the public with a comparable situation or analogy so that there is better understanding of how this fell in the spectrum?
8. Some are pointing to a Naval Reservist who was prosecuted under similar circumstances in 2015. What was the reason for the discrepancy between that situation and Sec. Clinton’s?
9. Is it customary for the FBI to accommodate the target of an investigation by scheduling an interview at her convenience? Is it customary for the FBI to allow a witness — in this case Cheryl Mills — to attend the interview of an investigation target? Is it customary for the Attorney General to meet with spouses of those targeted by an investigation? Why did Hillary Clinton get special treatment?
10. Why did you refer to HRC’s lack of “intention to harm” the U.S. as a reason not to bring charges when that wasn’t the relevant standard according to a clear reading of the law? The question was one of “negligence,” the entire point of which is doing harm without intent to do so. Do you mean to imply that no one with security clearance can be charged for violating security protocols unless they intended to harm the U.S. by doing so?
11. You say Attorney General Loretta Lynch had no influence on your decision. How does your boss fraternizing with the spouse of the investigation target not contaminate your investigation?
12. For that matter, how does your boss’s boss — the guy who hired you — declaring the investigation target didn’t damage security, announcing his endorsement of her candidacy, and hitting the campaign trail with her not contaminate the investigation? How can you say under oath that knowing what President Obama wanted to happen, and knowing what happens to the careers of those who cross Obama, had zero impact on your investigators?
13. Rush Limbaugh put together a montage slicing together your statement on Hillary and Obama’s statement on the matter from a few months back. They contain curiously familiar language. Listen for yourself, then answer: How are the American people not supposed to believe you’re not under orders?
14. If Hillary Clinton were still Secretary of State when this matter was discovered, would she have been forced to resign in disgrace?
15. If Hillary Clinton were applying for any job in the government requiring a clearance, would she be disqualified?
16. In your professional opinion — and mind you, you are under oath — has Hillary Rodham Clinton’s flagrant disregard for the law disqualified her to be Commander-in-Chief?
17. You said someone else would face “consequences” if they did what Secretary Clinton did, but that wasn’t what you were addressing. What did you mean by that? What consequences should Secretary Clinton face?
18. Finally, why is Hillary above the law?