In FBI Director Comey's testimony before congress, he sighted the FBI's inability to prove "mens rea" as a reason for not indicting her. Does "mens rea" mean ignorance of the law is an excuse? No, it means "evil mind" which means that Director Comey is saying that the FBI couldn't prove what was in her mind, which would mean that there is no reason to indict anyone seeing as how no one can prove what is in someone's mind.

According to the United States Code:

Title 18, Chapter 37
Section 793 Subsection (f) which states:

"(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through 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 (2) 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, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Keep in mind that:
1) The violation in most of the statutes referenced in the testimony revolve around whether classified information was:
a) transmitted through an "unauthorized" location
b) Stored or retained at an "unauthorized" location

c) Access to classified information was granted (through negligence) to people or entities that did not have the required clearance

It has been well established and documented that BOTH of these things are true by Director Comey, Huma Abedin, the Justice Department and Clinton herself.

The only thing that is required in most of these statutes is GROSS NEGLIGENCE:
Comey openly cited that Clinton exhibited carelessness and negligence in absolute terms and language. "mens rea" or "intent"is not discussed in the statute or the requirement thereof.

Of course when Comey sought the prosecuting of Martha Stewart, it was before the compulsory unwritten mind reading stipulation. All that was required is to prove that she lied, as cited by Mr. Comey himself:

'At a news conference announcing the charges against Ms. Stewart, James B. Comey, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, said, ''This criminal case is about lying -- lying to the F.B.I., lying to the S.E.C., lying to investors.'' Addressing a question that has long hovered over the investigation, he added, ''Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not for who she is, but because of what she did.''

Mr. Comey called the indictments ''a tragedy'' for the company and its 600 employees. ''It's a tragedy that could have been prevented if those two people had only done what parents have taught their children for eons,'' he said, ''that if you are in a tight spot, lying is not the way out. Lying is an act with profound consequences.'' '

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/business/prosecuting-martha-stewart-overview-martha-stewart-indicted-us-obstruction.html?pagewanted=all

Speaking of securities, evidently there was no tragedy involved in Mrs. Clinton setting up a private server in her home to conduct national security correspondence because there was no way of proving what was in her mind? Will Martha Stewart become a whistleblower and spill her guts before the election about everything she knows about the criminal justice system and the Enron scandal that President Obama is attempting to resurrect from the grave as carbon taxes? Only time will tell. What is apparent is that we are living in the final days of The AntiMartha Stewart. At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.