No indictment, but how do Democrats deal with this:

[pnwmom]

255. Reasonable people disagree on which documents need to be classified

and different government agencies do, too. Jim Comey, the Republican head of the FBI, not surprisingly takes a more conservative position than State in making these often highly subjective decisions.

But as Head of State, Hillary had the authority -- according to Federal statutes -- to classify or not classify any email she wrote. The only person with greater authority was President Obama. Do you see him criticizing her classification decisions? Do you see Comey saying she made a criminally wrong decision? No, because she didn't. He didn't agree with all her decisions, but they were legally hers to make.

Tom Blanton at the National Archives has written about this general issue. He says that most of what is marked classified doesn't warrant the classification -- and that over-classification is bad for transparency and bad for Democracy.

Here is an article by a U Michigan law professor that explains why Comey lacked the legal grounds to prosecute her. The law doesn't give Comey or any other agency head veto power over the Secretary of State's classification decisions. Only Obama had that authority.



http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Is there one rule for agency heads like Clinton and another rule for the rest of us?

Yes, more or less. This is true both literally and as a practical matter. When it comes to classified information, agency heads have special responsibilities and special privileges. They have plenary authority to classify or declassify information. If rules regarding classified information are broken, they have the authority to determine administrative punishments. Unless they go so far as to break the law, no one is authorized to administratively punish them.