You're right, there is in fact a difference. Clinton did in fact break the law. Comey said as much himself as he outlined her offenses during the now infamous press conference. Comey then took the role of being prosecutor, judge and jury and decided that Clinton did not "intend" to break those laws which he detailed. One, that was not his job to do. Secondly, and most importantly, intent is irrelevant in determining guilt or innocence. This fact is, as per usual, ignored by leftists as it destroys the narrative. It's for a judge and jury to determine the outcome of her investigation. Now her intent, or lack thereof may have some bearing during the sentencing should she be found guilty in a court of law, which is where this belongs. Perhaps a kind hearted judge could be found to oversee the trial and then give her a lighter sentence if found guilty because she didn't "intend" to break the law, but the bottom line it was not for Comey, or you, or me, or the media to decide. Until this evidence as outlined by Comey is presented in a courtroom during trial, this case remains a travesty of justice.
A travesty of justice would be charging an innocent woman with espionage.