Criminal Intent - That's what's missing and why no indictment will ensue.
One of the basics of criminal law is the concept of mens rea, which translates to "guilty mind" or "criminal intent." It's a fundamental part of indicting someone for a crime in our system of justice.
That guilty mind or criminal intent is missing in the SoS email thing. Even Hillary Clinton admits that she wishes she had handled her email in a different way, and has actually apologized. But, unless it can be proven that she had the intent to break an actual law, it's going to be impossible to indict or convict her for using that private server. Other Secretaries of State had used email accounts outside of the State Department's control, too. In fact, John Kerry is the first SoS who has not.
For whatever reason, probably for lack of familiarity with the State Department's email system and her constant traveling, she chose another method for sending and receiving email. Convenience was the primary reason, according to her own statements. In the course of conducting State Department business, some sensitive stuff got transmitted to her on that non-official email system. Later, some of it was classified after the fact. No doubt other mistakes occurred through using a makeshift email system with a server located in a private residence, too.
But, intent to commit a crime? I don't think so, and I'm sure such intent can't be proven to the degree that would cause the issuance of an indictment by a federal grand jury, the only body capable of issuing such an indictment. The FBI doesn't indict. Only federal grand juries can indict.
Will one even be called by the Attorney General? Probably not. Insufficient evidence. What will the FBI report and recommendation say? We don't know, and we don't even know when such a thing might be presented. Once it is, then it's in the hands of the Attorney General, who will have to decide whether to investigate further or call a grand jury.
Lack of mens rea is very likely to be more than enough reason for the Attorney General not to call a grand jury. That's what I expect to happen. No grand jury. No indictment. State Department policy has already been changed, and there aren't going to be any more private servers or non-official email accounts for Secretaries of State. That practice went on too long and was fraught with possible problems. So, a lesson was learned, but no indictment of Hillary Clinton is likely to be issued.
No mens rea.
= new reply since forum marked as read
if this is the case for very many other folks, but just wanted to let you know that there is at least one DUer who can't see them. 
You need to study before you teach.
First that article was dated March 8, and premised its analysis on "no new formation."
It's now nearly June and there is new information. The new information, the OIG report, provides evidence consistent with Marcus' analysis of the security statutes. And I fully agree that without more than has publicly been disclosed there is no criminal liability.
The OIG report raised new questions on the preservation and destruction of federal public records. The OIG made clear, in black and white, that Hillary and her staff did not comply with the record retention laws. That is, Hillary and her staff violated the federal record preservation laws. Since these are administrative laws (they are laws, not "rule" or "policies"
, there is not criminal liability on the practice of preserving the records.
However, the OIG report left open the question of whether any federal records were not only not properly preserved, but additionally, whether any were destroyed. The OIG report cites 4 emails to or from Hillary which Hillary did not produce and provide to State. In other words, it appears that those four (and there may be others) were intentionally destroyed after Hillary self reviewed and marked personal even though they were clearly business and subject to federal record retention law. There is a felony to destroy federal records.
Having said all that, I still don't expect her to be indicted. But the FBI has assuredly answered the questions raised by the OIG as well as others and it is certainly possible, with what we know at this point, that someone may be facing criminal liability.
Each Department is a fiefdom and the Secretary can arbitrarily make law and/or violate laws and rules with impunity simply because they are "the Big Kahuna"?
Sweet baby Jesus... 
it probably should have gone "isn't it a bummer..."
Just sayin'... 
...makes an ass out of you and umption.
Yet another Google expert! You'll have to excuse me if I wait for the final word from the FBI rather than relying upon your brilliance.
