Yes. I didn't know about the first Clinton administration doing it, but I'm not surprised. It's my impression that most classified info is secret for political reasons of some sort or another.
I love the way you wrote this succinctly.

Intent is not required to be guilty of this particular crime. If she had shown intent, Hillary should be charged with TREASON. According to experts in the intelligence community, the secrets on Hillary's server were compromised by the enemy, assets were lost, and the United States was damaged by H Clinton's actions. Intent is not required to be tried and found guilty for this particular crime.

FBI rewrote the laws to let HRC off ...http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/...

FBI Director Comey makes a point about Hillary not having intent of releasing state secrets and that is the reason she should not be prosecuted for this crime.
However, intent is irrelevent in this crime.
If Hillary had also had intent, she would be guilty of T R E A S O N instead of gross negligence. She is likely guilty of gross negligence and should be tried and, when found guilty, she should be imprisoned therfore.

We are now entering the bannana republic stage ....

It's half that and half the expectation that she is already entitled as part of the system. The corruption is so routine among these people that they have lost track of who owes whom what for particular favors.

It's no more corrupt now than it has been, just more cynically blatant out in public. Their open expectation of acceptance of the corruption is itself another level of corruption. Perhaps that is what leads to your more than the usual nausea.

Both, and equally serious. Neither is new. The (first) Clinton administration was caught using private email addresses with phony names to avoid FOIA and discovery in law suits and the practice has routinely continued. Her widespread compromising of classified information, which she knew and ignored, is only a function of being in an agency that happens to deal with classified information. Many other agencies don't have that kind of information. But classified documents are often as much political as legitimate secrets, as agencies hide what they are doing from each other in political competition.

He just wasn't a stupid enough looter to suggest prosecuting someone with the pull of the Clintons (and who might become the next corrupt POTUS.) He could also recognize the advantage to himself if the new POTUS owed him a big favor.
The fix is in, as gamblers say. There was no doubt of the outcome regardless of the evidence, just as there was no doubt that Oswald was a patsy, and Jack Ruby was the hitman hired to asure that there would never be any trial to uncover any doubt of Oswald's guilt.
American government is a cesspool.

One big happy club of elitists covering for each other.
The average Joe would be bum-rushed to jail.

What he said was, in essence, that someone else who did the same thing would probably not be prosecuted, but would face administrative sanctions.

Did it rise to the level of gross negligence? There was no evidence given that she was aware of how reckless it was and did it anyway. Proving gross negligence as opposed to ordinary negligence would be really hard -- hence the judgement that a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't bring the charge.

Its nauseating to see exactly how corrupt out government is..

Magna Carta, equal justice my ass.

"Of course there was no analysis of why she did this, although the presumption is to keep her communication from legitimate inquiry. "
Thank you. This is my thought exactly. I'm less concerned about whether secret information got out than if public information was wrongly kept secret.

If she was not a politician with pull she would have been prosecuted or she would have settled with a fine. Instead, now she "owes" someone in the justus department and if she is elected she will pay them off with a cabinet post.

The BATF and the FBI have been burning innocent people to death without any prosecution for three decades. About time you realized the government is corrupt.

I really, truly, dislike Hillary Clinton and think she would be a disaster for the country, pushing us farther toward socialism. Nevertheless, I found the analysis reasonable.

It found that she and members of her staff probably broke the law, but not to such a degree that it would be likely to be prosecuted. The key issue was that while reckless, the emails were in the performance of her legitimate duties and not to deliberately reveal secret data . The FBI judgement was that such activity would probably not be typically prosecuted -- although they suggested that administrative sanctions would likely be imposed, which is moot now as she is no longer in the department.

Since we know from books like "Three Felonies a Day" it is common for people to break laws and not be prosecuted, in fact it's a daily occurrence. While she will claim "vindication" it clearly documented the reckless lack of judgement that she was responsible for.

Of course there was no analysis of why she did this, although the presumption is to keep her communication from legitimate inquiry. And, most importantly, there was no reference whatsoever to any analysis of impropriety with respect to the the Clinton Global Initiative and various donations and speaking fees that were paid by people seeking favorable treatment.

This was just about classified document handling.