This isn't exactly comparable. As several people have stated before, to indict Clinton, the FBI has to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly sent and received classified documents on a private server. The mere act of having those documents is not illegal as long as you are unaware of it. If the FBI cannot prove intent, then there is no case to be had.
The FBI also did not say that people who had done similar things would be prosecuted. Comey claimed that lower ranking people would likely have been fired for a mistake like Clinton's, and in doing so, possibly insinuated that Clinton should have been relieved of her duties. With that said, claiming that someone should have been fired does not mean you can press charges against her. The law in this case requires proof of intent, and there's no way for the FBI to show it.
Personally, if I had to bet, I'd wager that Clinton knew full well what she was doing, and I suspect that Comey does as well. The trouble is that that's not enough to build a criminal case from. It's enough to fire someone, perhaps, but not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
With that said, I'd argue that the report should be enough to keep anyone from voting for Clinton. Then again, we live in a country where her opponent is someone that can very generously be called "careless" with his business operations in the past, so whatever.
Let's just all vote third party.
