Intent is a conclusion that the judge or jury draws from the evidence presented, and most believe that there are enough facts here to infer intent. If I use BleachBit to destroy emails, then one may reasonably infer I intended to destroy the emails.

During his July 6 news conference, FBI director James Comey outlined in detail the facts of Hillary's potential violations of federal law, and common sense, in using a private email system to conduct State Department business that involved national security. But after listing all the facts Comey concluded he could not prove that Hillary had the intent to violate the laws, despite her use of BleachBit, a program to erase emails, to erase emails, her aides using hammers to destroy computers, and the destruction of over 33,000 emails many after receiving a subpoena from Congress.

The next question is why. If I spend money to establish a private email system instead of using the system provided and required by the State Department, then one may reasonably infer that I want to control the emails so I can delete them if necessary. If one looks at the cumulative evidence a reasonable person may infer intent. Comey knows this, every attorney knows this, so why did he say he could not prove intent?

In my experience, the police, FBI, or other investigators gather the facts then present them to the district attorney or the U.S. attorney, who decides whether to file criminal charges. The investigators may recommend, but they do not make the decision.

In this case, Comey did a news conference to outline the facts and to say there would be no criminal charges. It is unusual for an investigator to hold a news conference as Comey did. So why did he do it?

It is obvious that there are enough facts to establish intent. One statute requires "gross negligence," not intent. Comey found that Hillary acted "extremely negligent," which is the same as "gross negligence" unless one believes that there is a substantial difference between the words "extremely" and "gross" in the context of describing negligence. Maybe Bubba with his vast knowledge of the various shades of meaning of words such as is, and alone, may see a difference, but I believe that a judge or jury would say gross negligence is the same as extremely negligent. Comey, and every attorney, knows that there is no difference between gross negligence and extremely negligent.

Comey could have simply submitted his report to the Justice Department for it to decide whether to file criminal charges. This is the standard procedure. Yet Comey chose to go public with the damning facts but with no indictment recommendation because he said he could not prove Hillary intended to act as she did with the foreseeable results. He chose to take the blame rather than have the Obama Justice Department make the decision to not indict and let the Justice Department take the deserved criticism.

There seems no logical reason for Comey's conduct. Some say that Comey wanted to put the facts out and let the voters decide whether to vote for her because he did not want to be the one to remove a presidential candidate from the race. But had he simply referred the facts to the Justice Department, then the Justice Department would have made the decision. If this is his reason, then he acted out of politics and not justice based on the facts. He did not do his job. He acted like a politician not an FBI man.

Comey showed poor judgment both in the investigation and in taking it upon himself to announce there would be no indictment.

It was poor investigative judgment to not put Hillary under oath, not record the interview, and not to pursue the claim of a concussion causing her to forget briefings, Comey could and should have subpoenaed her medical records to verify her claim. If he believed her concussion story, then he should have said that is one reason for believing she did not have the mental capacity to form intent to violate the laws.

It was poor political judgment to make the decision not to indict rather than to send the matter to the Justice Department. Let Attorney Lynch make the decision not to indict, and then it would be even more clear that the Obama Justice Department was giving Hillary a pass. Comey chose to act as a politician to put politics above following the law. This is reinforced by Comey releasing the FBI documents on Friday before Labor Day. This was also done by the government to release Hillary emails on three prior occasions before holidays. This is the standard political move: to release records on a day when people are taking a few days off and not paying attention to the news.

Comey has damaged his reputation and the reputation of the FBI. He acted extremely negligent.

Comey made his decision to help Hillary, and he may expect to remain as FBI director should Hillary win. But Hillary, in addition to being corrupt, is also an ingrate. She does not act with grace to accept the Comey pass. She has disputed Comey's statements that she was not truthful. Hillary will replace Comey because she is upset that Comey laid out the facts warranting indictment. Trump will replace Comey because Comey did not do his job.

Comey should resign to avoid getting fired by either Trump or Hillary. Resign and hold a press conference to explain that he recommended no indictment because he did not want to remove a candidate from the race as he believed that is up to the voters. The confession would help restore his credibility and his conscience.