However, if you read the whole thing, and not just take one sentence and use it out if context, you'll see that the article you linked says a lot more than that she wouldn't have a reason to drop out legally...
"Hillary Clinton faces a range of high and unexpected hurdles to the Democratic nomination which, a year ago, was seen as hers virtually by monarchical right.
She has failed to get beyond the robust challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders...." she has "also failed to drum up enthusiasm for the idea of the historic election of America's first female president.... she can't seem to shake the perception that, as a former first lady, former senator, former secretary of state and current establishment favorite, she is part of an elite against whom the base of both parties are rebelling this election cycle. ...But perhaps the biggest challenge to her candidacy is yet to come.
While the FBI has been especially tight-lipped about the scope and focus of its investigation into Clinton's emails, the bureau recently acknowledged the probe has a "law enforcement" component, apparently repudiating Clinton's long-standing argument that it is nothing more than a routine "security review."
Michael Mukasey, former attorney general under President George W. Bush, said there's no such thing as an FBI "security review."
"That designation is unknown to anybody," Mukasey told theWashington Examiner. "The FBI doesn't conduct security reviews. They conduct investigations. They investigate possible crimes."
Mukasey said the few publicly available facts about the probe point to a thorough criminal investigation involving Clinton.
"If you've got 150 agents on a case, the FBI has acknowledged it's conducting an investigation, how much more real can you get?" he said. "It doesn't get much realer than that."
Clinton has characterized the lingering intrigue over her emails as a Republican attempt to weaken her prospects. Her national spokesman, Brian Fallon, has even attacked inspectors general appointed by President Obama when presented with details about their nonpartisan investigations into Clinton's private server.
But the Justice Department's involvement has proven increasingly difficult to write off as a partisan witch hunt.
Charles Lipson, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, said the legal issues underlying the email controversy are problematic regardless of how much Republicans have tried to exploit them for political gain.
Michael Mukasey, former attorney general under President George W. Bush, said there's no such thing as an FBI "security review."
"It is political only because it is a serious legal matter in its own right," Lipson said. "This is not a fake issue. This is a real issue, and that doesn't mean that Republicans who blow it up aren't seeking political gain. They are, but they're doing it on the basis of something that is quite real."
The reality of the situation was thrown into sharp relief at the end of January, when the State Department announced its intention to withhold 22 emails, totaling 37 pages, because they contained "top secret" information. That decision brought the State Department in line with the intelligence community, which had argued since last July that some of the emails may contain information classified up to "top secret".
"If the press reporting is to be believed, [the case] looks very strong," McCarthy said. "I say that because the statutes involving mishandling classified information are very prosecution-friendly, and they're obviously intended to be."
Joseph DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney under President Ronald Reagan, told the Examiner in January that Lynch would have "no choice" but to indict Clinton if the FBI recommended an indictment. That recommendation would come in the form of a confidential memo, DiGenova said, but "the bureau will no doubt let it be known" that such a memo exists in order to increase the public pressure on Lynch to proceed with the case.
Most reports indicate FBI agents are looking into whether Clinton or her staff violated provisions of the Espionage Act that cover the treatment of sensitive information, an offense that can carry a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.
While a number of factors are at play in the unusual case of Clinton's emails, McCarthy said the former secretary of state could be looking at more than one felony charge.
"If it is as serious as it appears to be on its face ... this should be a multiple felony-count indictment and it should involve not only Mrs. Clinton, but whoever else in her circle at the State Department or wherever else knew that this activity was going on," he said.
If the Justice Department hits Clinton with criminal charges, she faces a difficult decision: withdraw her name from the Democratic primary, or continue to fight the perception of wrongdoing in the court of public opinion while hoping a court of law does not find her guilty.
Mark Jones, a political science fellow at Rice University's Baker Institute, said Clinton would most likely exit the race if indicted.
Jones said Clinton would have little choice but to leave the race if indicted because she would be unable to paint the charges as a partisan attack.
"If the evidence is so strong and so damaging that Loretta Lynch moves to indict, that says something," he said. "Because the default for the Obama administration in general and Loretta Lynch in particular would be not to indict. The last thing they want to do is indict Hillary Clinton. They would only do it if there was such strong evidence that there was no gray area or wiggle room whatsoever."
Lipson said he thinks the possibility of Clinton being indicted is "very real."
"Indeed, the only reason she wouldn't be indicted, I think, is if there was a political decision at the Department of Justice and the White House to prevent it..."