Beyond the personal interest, I had difficulty reaching beyond any conclusion other than "careless" from the get-go.  Mostly, I suppose, from my years' of legal experience in the federal enforcement sector--including, especially, the practice of developing a case with DOJ and additional experience in matters of information disclosure involving my own agency, other agencies, & the ongoing disagreement/differing approaches found among them (particularly with IG recommendations) ... from even that limited experience (and, definitely, prior to the complications of more recent information transfer issues) the direction of this matter had always been obvious apart from politics.  In fact, Director Comey clearly, succinctly, and helpfully listed the factors (individually) that would be needed to have given rise to further serious consequences such as a recommendation to charge.  Just as clearly he enunciated why the reality of being careless in the matter of emails here--as HRC has straightforwardly acknowledged as her mistake--in no way approaches the level of further action.  "No reasonable prosecutor" could contemplate charges, as Comey openly said.

In the world of politics, tho, the recommendation from the FBI for "no action" will not end conspiracy theories of a new variety among a number of Repubs ...because they are not compensated for "seeing" Comey's effective conclusion.  For Democrats like myself, we appreciate & cheer the result ...and, I most especially applaud Director Comey's personal and open explanatory announcement.  He is a forthright individual ... and, by not shifting the responsibility off his own shoulders (since the outcome was so obvious to so many lawyers all along) he allowed all of us to see government in its most transparent reality.  Note: While many commentators from both sides are on record before this as saying that he is highly respected throughout DC, until his powerful statement I did not understand how courageous he could be in the pursuit of justice over politics.

Meanwhile, could I suggest, trevor, that you might want to reassess your dominant anti-HRC position in general as well as in particular.  There is no shame in taking a relook at what you want in a president -- many of us (even preachy me) have done that with candidates in the past and changed completely -- and, in that sense and most recently, maybe even weigh the "carelessness" in context. I can think of no better way to do that than taking a close look at the pushing of hate so evident in Trump's campaign ... e.g., from Mexico to U.S. District Judges who happen to be of Mexican heritage, to the anti-Black inspired birther movement (the fabricated Kenya conspiracy) and courting of the Klan with David Duke et al, to the numerous statements threatening no entry/deportation & fear mongering about Muslims & their religion, and to the most recent anti-Semitic symbolism of Star of David against the stereotypical $$$$ greed lifted again from a White Supremacist publication. (Not to be forgotten, yet, would be the numerous sexist remarks from him recorded over the years ... e.g., the noxious recent incident about blood & M. Kelley.)  That is for starters ... needless to say, the patterns of hatred in these & other areas demonstrates hatred-peddling on a level much deeper than simple, correctable carelessness.

There are levels of mistakes in law & in ethics. Consider that the context of comparison between these two political opponents might reveal--in an ethical sense--a venial sin of a careless email approach by HRC; and, the continuing commission of deeper mortal sins by Donald Trump with his hate-spreading that divide Americans to the extent that would truly render our country weaker in the world today.

In a way Comey hits the nail on the head here

we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

Comey himself would face exposure to charges

link, please

I'm absolutely convinced this is going to be an election of reasonable people vs. what ever is left.

The reason I, and most people who read, knew there would be no indictment is that the question never was did she do dumb things.  Or did she do things that were ill advised.  The question was always did anyone DILIBERATELY do these things with any sort of malicious intent.

Article.

The article is entitled: "How the FBI director systematically dismantled Hillary Clinton's email defense".

Along with considering that Trump is flat out Batsh!t insane.  

Whole campaign

And his will be she is inherently corrupt

This is not the first time professors studying global warming on the government's dime have refused to release data/analysis.  The UVA case involving Michael Mann is one high profile example.

I am not sure what kinda dirty underware you think is related to global warming.  It is fairly standard for scientists to freely release their data and methodology if they expect their results to be accepted.

 But, not only is this a complicated case, it is a politically charged one. And, as Mr. Comey tried to explain why considerations were raised, discounted and ruled out as a part of good investigative analysis, those who looked for a different conclusion see that no charges are definitely proof of guilt. But, these types will not be satisfied until they make Mrs. Clinton try on OJ's glove.  They just know it fits.