On Tuesday, FBI director James Comey announced he would not recommend obvious felon Hillary Clinton for indictment.

His rationale. She didn't have the requisite intent to move forward with the prosecution.

Here was Comey's conclusion, quote,

Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges.

There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.

All of the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly, intentionally, and willful

mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as

to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States,

or efforts to obstruct justice.

We do not see those things here, unquote.

This logic relies on two ideas, neither of which is in evidence.

First, the law requires intent.

Second, that even if the law did require intent, that intent would have to rise to the level of treasonable activity.

First, and most obviously, the law simply does not require intent. Here is 18 U.S.C.

793F, which Comey explicitly referenced, quote, whoever, being entrusted with or having

lawful possession or control of any document writing, codebook, signal book, sketch, photograph,

photograph, photograph, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note,

or information relating to the national defense,

through gross negligence, gross negligence, permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust or to be lost, stolen, abstracted,

or destroyed, or to, having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper

place of custody, or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust or lost

or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft

...