Ted Cruz wanted to know why Comey was giving Huma Abedin a free pass, arguing that the law does not require the element of ‘intent’ for prosecution:

Comey basically gives Cruz a rubbish answer, arguing that DOJ prosecutorial history of the violations of this law always include intent, something he says he cannot establish.







But that sounds like malarkey to me. We’re not talking about Supreme Court precedent here, we’re talking about a law that in its own wording suggests that negligence is enough for the law to be broken.

What Comey is really saying is that he and Lynch bent over backwards to find a quasi-loophole upon which he could establish an excuse to let Hillary and her comrades go free.

And it’s preposterous.