See your sibling post for why the GP is not, itself, a terribly insightful comment. As for yours (which raises a very legitimate question), Vice has an article

See your sibling post for why the GP is not, itself, a terribly insightful comment. As for yours (which raises a very legitimate question), Vice has an article that mentions that element: http://www.vice.com/read/why-clinton-isnt-being-charged-by-the-fbi-for-her-emails http://www.vice.com/read/why-clinton-isnt-being-charged-by-t... Basically, the key is that it must be deemed "intentional" or "gross" negligence, and nothing they found rose to that level (in their opinion). Of course, when mens rea is part of the sentencing criteria, there's lots of room for interpretation, which will ensure there will be a limitless source of fodder for Clinton's opponents and proponents to argue about for years to come...