2. The folks in the article all WILLINGLY gave classified information to others who were unauthorized to receive it. What information did Clinton WILLINGLY give to some unauthorized person? Please be specific.

3. What kind of idiot would suggest that Clinton violated the Espionage Act?

The article is nonsense.

The article is about the uneven use of prosecution of such activities by the Obama administration.

Drake didn't even share classified information and he was prosecuted. He was a whistle blower about illegal spying.

The article is nonsense.

If you have actual evidence provide it.

He had access to classified information and was sharing it with Hillary while working for her foundation.

Hillary might not be directly at fault but she knew what he was doing and had him on her payroll.

Why -- if Hills is clearly so "innocent" -- is the FBI's investigation dragging
on and on as we near the Democratic Convention?

How is this NOT like the DNC playing Russian Roulette, by openly and
enthusiastically backing a candidate who is facing a possible criminal
indictment, by a Republican FBI Director, the details of which could
easily be leaked at any time?

The level of denial on this by Hillarians is of epic proportions,

Not a big surprise since there is no evidence of any of those things happening.

The level of magical thinking demonstrated by Bernouts is hilarious.

That promptly had her emails hosted on the cloud. That's 1 & 2 and we will find out about #3 soon enough.

I'm sure it will be crickets tho

You have not done that. No one has.

But placing her server in the custody of an unsecured and unauthorized setting is "revealing".

violating FOIA, etc.....

and stealing thousands of documents and giving them to foreign nationals.

Different subsections, but the same statute. 18 USC Sec. 793.

Technically, she could be charged with 1100 counts of violating subsections (e) and (f), as that is the number of classified items found on the server. So, there really isn't that much difference in magnitude.

activity.

You're not discussing the actual people being compared in the article and seem to be referring to Snowden.

Thomas Drake, Jeffry Sterling, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General David Petraeus are the people being compared in this article.

between the different parties being compared...

The parallels are much closer than the cases cited in the article IMHO.

Those were at the very highest level within the Top Secret classification. They were so sensitive that most people in congress could not look at them and the Inspector General had to have his clearance raised so he could.

And they were sitting on her private server, un-secure and unencrypted for years. I have seen a few mentions of them, like that sat picture of military installations in a foreign country, and listing the real name of a mole in another country, black sites and secret programs that our government would deny the existence of. . . sitting right there on an UNPROTECTED server.

Oh, no big deal, "nothing burger".

Classic denial

whether she's getting foreign agents killed his sloppy handling of classified info or raking in millions in corporate blood money, she's doing Goldman Sachs', err, the Lord's work, and one must not be critical.

I guess we just have to accept that we are just the little people, and we must obey rules, whilst royalty is not subject to such petty inconveniences as rules and laws.

“There’s classified, and then there’s classified.”

Snowden tweeted. . . There's classified and then there's classified. . . .I wish someone had told me!

Now, that's funny.