No indictment, but how do Democrats deal with this:

[BainsBane]

223. Then you would imprison the entire state department

since the antiquated nature of their email system means that people, until very recently, could not use it to communicate properly, which means they very often communicated in unauthorized ways. There has been testimony from state department personnel over how unworkable their system was at that time. Why do you like Powell used AOL? There is zero outrage to that among concerned "Democrats," yet Clinton's secure server is a problem. People who have examined the State Department email system even more recently say it's antiquated and insecure, in stark contrast to DoD and NSA systems. That reflects the vast disparities in resources available to State.

You say there is a difference between intentionally leaking classified documents (implicitly justifying it) and purposefully endangering national security, while using a private email server should be criminal because..... why exactly? We know the State Depart has been hacked. We don't have evidence that Clinton's server was. Clearly you aren't even remotely concerned about the security of documents because you just suggested that purposefully leaking documents "reveal information" doesn't raise the same concern. So the problem isn't that the information might potentially have been released but that she didn't intend to give it to the governments of Russia and China. It is in fact the absence of intent that means she can't be prosecuted. And it is that same absence of intent that you find unacceptable. You proved my point.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-clinton-isnt-getting-indicted-heres/