>
>I am totally perplexed how she could have been this careless. At the very least, it was pure ego and arrogance. Her harshest critics continue to press on this "selling secrets", but there needs to be strong evidence to support such a claim, and all that exists right now is circumstantial evidence. Some of it is worth pursuing, but is still circumstantial.
>
>In health care, given that the culture is nearly fanatical on privacy and security, it seems the smart people who get lax aren't so much forgetting it, as much as maybe it's pure ego. In other words, they might think they are so smart and so careful to begin with, that they don't need to follow restrictions that "get in their way".
>
>You might know that there is no love lost between the Obamas and the Clintons. So the question is whether an Obama-led DOJ will truly press on this and issue indictments. Remember, Hillary carried water for this administration several times, and she could very well go on the attack against the current administration (and anyone whom Obama would endorse in 2016, should Hillary's campaign continue to crumble) if the current administration indicts her.
>
>There have been many comparisons to Petraeus. Petraeus was also a critic of the current administration and had political aspirations. Certainly, Petraeus broke the rules. The question is going to be whether Hillary receives preferential treatment.

Personally, I think that she and her people aren't concerned about all this email chatter and it might even be a plus at this point in the campaign.
It's almost as good as Benghazi was- it's totally meaningless and it keeps people from discussing real issues that she'd rather not hear about - like her support of the Iraq war, her cozy relationships with Wall Street, Slick Willy's midnight pardons of billionaires and her bogus claims about dodging bullets in war zones.

During the primaries Obama never attacked her personally but he hammered away at key issues where she was vulnerable and eventually she folded.

She's still vulnerable on those issues.
Bernie is showing that her seemingly solid support can be eroded by hitting her on the issues.

The problem for the repubs is that except for Rand Paul, all their candidates are devoid of serious policy stances so they latch on to nonsense issues like emails, killing Obamacare, amnesty and who can build the highest walls in Texas.

Romney thought he could win just because he wasn't Obama.
Just not being Hillary won't do it this time either.

I promised a right-wing, Fox-loving buddy here that we'd go out together to ring doorbells for whoever opposes her if she's nominated and I plan to keep that promise, but unless the repubs get to work and start thinking about governing, she'll be a shoo-in.