I concur with my colleague Daniel Larison:

Clinton won’t be indicted for breaking any laws, but Comey’s statement is nonetheless an indictment of her poor judgment, negligence, and recklessness. This should be very damaging for Clinton, and maybe it still could be, but it can hardly come as a surprise to anyone that remembers how the Clintons have operated over the years. The sloppiness, sense of entitlement, and disregard for consequences are all only too familiar. We can expect several more years of this sort of behavior from a future Clinton administration.

Andrew McCarthy is stunned. He says the FBI director has refused to indict her on a premise that is not required for an indictment to be issued. And:

I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

It is somehow comforting to find that one’s pitch-black cynicism is vindicated. I did not believe that official Washington would indict Hillary Clinton, not in a presidential election year, and not when she’s the only thing standing between Donald Trump and the White House.

The thought of four more years of those people, the Clintons, in the White House, with all their sleaziness, their drama, their sense of entitlement — it’s sick-making. What a country. What a year.