Update: Hillary Clinton is the subject of a FBI criminal investigation. In light of recent discoveries, why no indictment?

1SG (Join to see) Unfortunately I think there are so many other things having to do with Benghazi that there isnt' enough evidence to indict her on that this is the best chance of holding her accountable (in part) for her role in that debacle. As mentioned elsewhere on this thread it's highly unlikely she'll be indicted though since she happens to have a sympathetic AG. No way the prez will allow Hillary to be charged and risk having his own involvement scrutinized in the process.

SFC Jeff L., what I think about Benghazi is that there was an ongoing covert operation going on there - it is pretty apparent by the type of personnel present - and that when it was compromised a fairly clumsy cover story was distributed. There is plenty of smoke there, but not necessarily illegal. One would scrutinize and find fault with decision makers on their response and have plenty of leg to stand on.
At issue here is the clear attempt to evade archiving and scrutiny of correspondence by solely utilizing a personal and unregulated server located in a private and unsecured site. I would think that the MAJORITY of correspondence sent and received by a sitting Secretary of State would be classified just because of the level of the recipient/sender. Things as simple as travel plans would be secret. Nevermind intelligence estimates or diplomatic dispatches from the various embassies.
No, this is naïve at best, purposeful at worst. Much more likely that it is the latter.

1SG (Join to see) Yes it does appear that there were quite a few things wrong with the original scenario, but I would argue that running arms to Syria via Libya is the legal and moral equivalent to the DoJ's Fast and Furious, and shouldn't be overlooked or dismissed as not necessarily illegal simply because of a lack of proof. Or, more likely, lack of proof being released or acted up on. I'm hoping she'll be held accountable (not rewarded) for her actions as Sec State.

SFC Jeff L., I'm a little older, but this is very much like Iran-Contra back in the 80s. The parallels are so obvious you'd think some old timers would kibosh it just based on the outcome of that operation.

SSG John Erny - Staff; FYI, of the fifteen top countries with the OECD "Better Life Index" (the US ranks as #6) fourteen of them would fit the common American definition of "socialist". When you knock the (rough average) $500 per month cost of health insurance off the average household disposable income, you find that the US average household disposable income doesn't look all that great when compared to that of the people who live in countries with "socialized medicine" (although, even then, it IS $541 per year higher than the second highest average annual disposable income). [NOTE - Nine of the fifteen are Monarchies.]

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-countries-on-oecd-better-life-index-2013-5?op=1

When you look at the top ten countries for "Quality of Life" (the US ranks as #4) you will find that nine of them would fit the common American definition of "socialist".

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html

PS - The country with the world's largest economy is DEFINITELY "socialist".

Make what you will of the real data.

COL Ted Mc - Sir, I agree that there are elements of socialism in place in this country, and some are needed to support the elderly and disabled. The question that has to be asked in the other countries that score better than the US is how much of their work force is fully engaged to contribute to the common pool to support them. The US has a lot of people that are idle be it because they are a product of welfare or unwilling to work.

The other side of socialism is more gov. power and disreguard for the constitution.

SSG John Erny - Staff; I don't think that I quite understand your question.

Are you asking if "socialism" only works when there is work for all?

It is true that the US has a lot of people that are idle. Some of that is because they simply were never taught "work skills" (NOT the same thing as "job skills")

I'm sure that you have experienced the difference between a soldier who doesn't know what to do but is willing to do it, shows up on time, accepts instruction, and tries their best and a soldier who is an expert but isn't willing to get off their duff, never shows up when they are supposed to, doesn't accept instruction, and puts out the absolute minimum amount of effort. If I were to offer you a platoon made up exclusively of one type or the other, which one would you pick?

COL Ted Mc Sir, I would have to go with Type A personality. These are the kinds of people that make great soldiers and get things done. They also tend to advance in the ranks.

I'm thinking that she doesn't get to define the nature of the investigation. When the FBI is involved it's no longer a "civil" case or a misdemeanor, or even a security investigation. And as far as her testimony as to whether or not she sent or received classified information? Well, prison is full of innocent people. Just ask them. Or ask the IRS. They investigated themselves and discovered...wait for it...they didn't do anything wrong. The only real mystery is why there hasn't been an indictment yet.

SFC Jeff L. . Mrs Clinton is now calling on her husband to discuss her emails & the war on women by the Republicans. I don't understand how voters would want the Clintons back in the White House.. But this should be good material for Saturday Night Live...