The magnitude of the mistake is the reason why. People shouldn't lose votes simply for any silly mistake, but if you screw up badly enough, then it becomes very reasonable to doubt that person's ability to be responsible with far more at stake. Clinton was irresponsible in following basic security protocals and put US National Security at risk. If she's been shown to be careless with important in the positions she's held (and careless enough to the point where the FBI director basically said she would have been fired if not for her prestige), then there's reason to suspect that she will be careless as president.

I don't know how true that is, exactly.  Not only can I see Trump doing the same thing (he doesn't even know what he said two days prior) but I can see many of the politicians in Washington doing the same thing.  Old people and technology don't mix all that well.  

I don't care much for her, and I certainly don't think this is a good thing, but damn if I don't want more oversight for all these technologically challenged individuals who run the world.  Why didn't someone say, "hey, stop doing that," during the time she was in office?  That doesn't make any sense.

The truth is, though, stuff like this wouldn't happen to someone as President.  There is too much security, too many people who actually know what they're doing who are the ones handling things.  That's why we had a President who was basically senile and nothing much came of it.  

Just to be clear, I'm not voting for either of them.  Also, she wouldn't have been fired if she were still in office.  This has happened before, actually, with a US Ambassador.  They faced sanctions but were allowed to resign instead.  At the level of office she held, that's the very worse she would have faced but I doubt it would have gone that far.  

One of the funny things about this is one of the charges Bill Clinton was impeached for was mishandling of Top Secret docutments, but in this case he left a "for you eyes only" file out in the public part of the white house. And another thing he wasn't impeached by the Repulicans, while they brought the charges against him, it was Democratic ran Senate that impeached him. In impeachment hearings the house acts as the proscutor and the senate as the judge who passes the final judgment. At the end they impeached him on most of the charges that were brought against, they decided on not removing him because it would cost a lot of money to put a new president in who whould be replaced that following year.

Someone mentioned Nixon. He choose to leave office rater then have the country spend millions of dollars impeaching him.

https://www.rt.com/usa/349600-clinton-treatment-fbi-emails/

Now look, I don't want to jump to any assumptions(or name calling). However, after reading this article, this is what I learned:

Hillary clinton mishandled government secrets. However, even though others were severely punished for doing the same, she ONLY GETS A WARNING.

Absolutely ridiculous. This is the person who wants to be the president of the United States. This only makes my hatred for Clinton grow even more. 

Imagine if Edward Snowden or Assange did this. They'd probably be killed and never seen ever again. 

To think that someone who is considered "extremely careless" by the FBI may run the most powerful country in the world...it's frightening. Truly frightening. 

"The similarity of such case to the Clinton controversy doesn’t seem to be lost on Comey. The FBI chief strongly stated that others who behaved as Clinton did wouldn’t necessarily get off the hook like the former secretary did."

The FBI can go fuck off for all I care. Why is this not talked about by the media? They're literally saying that you can be given a penalty for the same crime Hillary got off the hook for. Where's CNN to talk about this? 

Hillary talks shit about Edward Snowden exposing government secrets. Only approves it for when she benefits. What a hypocrite. Shows the person she truly is

So, you want Donald Trump in charge of nuclear weapons?

Hillary Clinton is the US's only chance from stopping that right now. And I am sure the FBI knows more than some angry forum poster who has zero knowledge or experience in with the law. You didn't even know that not only did Assange and Snowden mishandle government info, but they leaked TONS of it, and neither one of them is dead.

At least according to Comey's statement, the security culture at State was shit. I 100% believe this because (a) the inspector general position went unfilled for years, and (b) State IT, like other federal IT, is underfunded and glacially slow to change. HRC is the poster girl for a much bigger problem.

Also, I'm not surprised this didn't rise to the level of a criminal act. Laws about technology tend to be bad fits and out of date. The people making those laws tend to be about HRC's age and social category. I've told friends for months that if this isn't illegal, it should be, but it's so arcane that only top experts can say what is currently legal and what isn't. And it appears to be legal, despite being the worst publicly advertised IT security breach in US government history.

The thing is, there are different standards for computer security than there are for the legal system. In law, innocent until proven guilty, and in this specific situation, intent matters a lot. For computer security, it isn't "Innocent until Proven Guilty"; it's "The Enemy Knows the System." The hilarious irony here is that if the server had just been slightly more secure, there might have been evidence of intrusion. Cooper's complete incompetence meant that invading actors left no trace, so Comey can only say that hacking was "possible," even though we all know it happened again and again.

Honestly, I hope Comey testifies in front of Congress. It's Congress that blocked appointment of an Inspector General, and it's ongoing budget turf wars that leave IT budgets looking like crap.

Not to excuse anything HRC did. But this problem goes well beyond her, and we need to see the forest, not just the tree in the pantsuit.