UMass87 wrote:DEM - the author conveniently ignores that the vast majority of the emails were SENT TO Clinton (who, like everyone else at State, was supposed to receive classified email on the highly secured system at State). It's not just Clinton who isn't being prosecuted but everyone who sent the emails. The author, while pointing out that Obama appointed Comey ignores the fact that he is a Republican. It's a sloppy editorial and plays very loose with the facts. Comparing Clinton to Snowden or Patraeus is laughable. The guy is patently shilling for his book.
First of all, minor argument with your descriptor of Politico - I'd argue that they are best described as corporatist and establishment. Guess which of the remaining candidate best fits that mold? (at least until Trump "falls in line" with the corporate donors, which he might, and stops acting like a nutjob, which he won't).
Second of all, you seem to be stuck on the legal details of why she wasn't indicted, and that, at least in my view, entirely misses the author's point. He actually says right in the piece that he is okay with the decision the FBI director made, looking at it in isolation; the issue he (the author) has is with the double standards in our legal system on these matters, not just with regard to Clinton, but with all people who possess power (as compared to those that don't). As a matter of fact, reread the article from Politico link that you posted, the implication is right there:
Not every instance of mishandling of classified information by a top-ranking government official that is investigated leads to prosecution. Far from it.
There are, however, also a slew of cases that led to prosecutions of mid-level and low-ranking government personnel, as well as government contractors.
As is often the case (not just with Hillary Clinton), laws are often interpreted and executed according to who is the person in question. Rich are treated differently than poor, strong differently than weak, white differently than black. Not always, but often.
As for your point (IF it is your point, my apologies if I'm misinterpreting) that her subordinates were sending a lot of the emails and therefore should take equal or greater responsibility and blame, despite the fact that she, as their leader, set up the against-the-rules server - I couldn't disagree more, and I'll leave it at that.