Well, she'd be fired, if she was still Sec State or in Obama's cabinet in some other capacity. But she isn't. Indeed she holds no position currently that requires a security clearance. So the FBI can't apply meaningless sanctions, and what she did does not amount to a level of negligence where she could be legally prohibited from running for president. So that quote amounts to nothing and means nothing.

Lol, apparently offenses while on a job only have consequences if you are still in the position. 

Unlucky hillary haters. Better luck next time!

Umm... The "Hillary is just a dumb blonde" defence kind of falls apart given the fact she was specifically advised by experts (i.e. "trained") to use more standard secure procedures, but refused to, multiple times migrating to new non-secure private servers, deleting evidence along the way. You have seen the mid-90s video of her and Stan Lee at some fundraiser? , her outright saying how "she would be stupid to use email because of how often she has been investigated", i.e. specifically showing understanding of the issue and motive to avoid accountability/ investigability, i.e. compliance with law. She's a corporate lawyer, she understands the issue just fine after counseling on the topic by experts and other bureacrats concerned on the subject.

Are you kidding?  Plenty of people HAVE been convicted for exactly the same charge that the FBI de facto admits Hillary committed,
as even without intent proven, "negligence" is still grounds for felony charges... In one case Bill Clinton pardoned his CIA director for mishandling
secrets after refusing advice to ensure compliance with security protocols via his personal computer. (being pardoned implies guilt).
 The FBI specifically go out of there way to emphasize that "given same circumstances with somebody else, don't expect you can get away with it, we just aren't charging Hillary".  The FBI clearly is stating that other people will go to jail for exactly the same thing.  But elite political dynamics over-ride neutral application of the law.

Of course it was done deliberately. But it was a private, secure server. It wasn't like she was using Facebook messenger. It has nothing to do with being tech savvy. The issue is whether she believed using her private secure e-mail was legit. And it seems at the time she believed it was. Doing something like this that only results in a technical breach of the rules, but does not actually cause any harm to anyone should not be treated as a politically hanging offence. Ergo she should not be subject to criminal proceedings for what she did.

Another question is whether she lied to investigators or under oath. That's a maybe. The FBI could have chosen to try to prosecute her there, and that is a legit reason to prosecute even if she committed no criminal sin with the emails. But it seems the assessed the chances of success and decided securing a conviction was unlikely, therefore she wasn't charged for lying / perjury. Now people can and probably will debate this point sharply. But whatever noise happens on the internet it's not going to actually achieve anything. In terms of the election, most people already made their mind up as to whether this whole thing will determine their vote before the FBI announced anything. Some people were probably waiting until a decision on prosecution was formally announced, but ultimately, now that there is no prosecution people are going to decide who to vote for on other factors.

You have a cross to bare.  Thats fine but I will be waiting for the list of individuals who have been jailed for neglecting security when transmitting emails in the capacity of public office.  

Read the quote. You might understand context then, or maybe you don't want to.

I'm sorry but why would anyone in such a government position be sending documents to their personal email irrespective of how secure one thinks that server is?

Wen Ho Lee, scientist imprisoned including solitary for mishandling classified material (taking off work computers to home), charges dropped, career ruined.
Thomas Drake, NSA manager and dissident, convicted for retaining information/ "improper usage of computer", career ruined and sentenced to probation.
Jeffrey Sterling, CIA officer, convicted and jailed for retaining unimpressive "secret" documents when larger prosecutorial aims weren't supported by evidence.
Sterling is still in federal prison in colorado AFAIK.  

One can compare the treatment of HRC to that of John Deutsch, CIA director pardoned (req: guilt) by Bill Clinton for same crimes as HRC was investigated, whose case was actually promptly investigated compared to timeline of HRC case, investigators directly seizing servers rather than as in HRC investigation, where suspect (HRC) was allowed to "vet" information released back to investigation for relevance (e.g. filtering "personal" topics).

Listen to Hillary in the video, she makes it 100% clear how email i.e. investigable trail, is not desirable when you are prone to be investiated.  Thus her persistent refusal of advice for more secure & legally compliant servers, because doing so makes her subject to legal investigations/oversight.  Don't fall for the dumb blonde stereotype, she knew exactly what she was doing.  Really, it's regrettable she can't directly invoke royal prerogative like her Saudi and Qatari funders, but must play games like this because "democracy".