The presumptive Democratic nominee has been the subject of many headlines in recent weeks. Most recently, however, the FBI made the headline on her behalf. After months of investigation, the FBI concluded that while Clinton and her staff were "extremely careless" with their handling of classified information, she should not have criminal charges brought against her due to the fact that she did not intend to break the law. Many have voiced their outrage that HRC was, in a sense, completely excused from her wrongdoings with her mishandling of classified information. When looking through U.S. laws, it becomes very clear that Clinton did indeed break the law and the consequences she is facing are minuscule compared to those who have committed similar acts.

The first question that must be asked when examining the case of HRC is, what law exactly did she break? The answer lies in the Federal Records Act passed in 1950. 44 U.S. Code § 3101 says:

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Put simply, this means that any records (yes, this includes emails) must be preserved and protected. The National Review does an excellent job of illustrating this point and the importance of her email servers in their article. Not only did she break U.S. record keeping laws, she put national security at possible risk. Clinton's private servers were extremely lax with regards to security. As a matter of fact, the FBI confirms this in their official statement regarding their investigation into the scandal. They go on to elaborate that while there was no direct evidence that outside parties broke into her servers, it does not mean that it did not happen. With servers like HRC was using, direct evidence can be hard to come by in the event of a security breach. It is entirely possible that, due to Clinton's negligence, hostile groups may have gotten hold of classified information.

For many, it comes as a surprise that Clinton is not facing charges. After all, the evidence is abundant, and those who have committed similar acts have faced graver consequences. For example, General David Petraeus was convicted of a misdemeanor account of mishandling information due to his leaking of classified information to his biographer and mistress. While Petraeus' case is different and he made himself much more vulnerable to investigation, the criminal act is very similar. Both Petraeus and Clinton mishandled classified information. Petraeus was forced to resign from his position and pay a substantial fine while Clinton is still on the path to the presidency.

The FBI is seemingly refusing to hold Clinton and her staff responsible for their actions. Instead, they acknowledge that she was extremely negligent and careless with classified information, but they argue that no reasonable prosecutor would attempt to tackle this case. The question then becomes, "Why?" The answer to this is not yet clear, however, many have begun to form hypotheses. Some argue that her unwavering support from President Barack Obama may have something to do with the FBI not pushing for charges. Others argue that Clinton may have more pull with the Bureau than originally expected. In any case, there certainly seems to be a lack of accountability held to Clinton and her staff.

Clinton has been buried in controversy and scandal throughout her presidential run. Many hoped that her email scandal would force her to be held accountable for her negligence. However, this proved not to be the case. The FBI has dismissed her actions as nothing more than being harmless and carelessness. This comes as a shock and concern to many. Clinton is almost undoubtedly corrupt and reckless and is, unfortunately, on the road to the White House.