Thank you for the article. The headline totally supports what you are saying! Luckily, the headline -- like so many headlines -- says exactly the opposite of what the article says.
Headline: Clinton private email violated 'clear-cut' State Dept. rules
Article: "Spokespeople for the State Department and Clinton stressed earlier this week that the agency had 'no prohibition' on the use of private email for work purposes."
Other key phrases: "general rule", "warn", "fuzzy guidelines", "should be", "except in certain circumstances".
That article supports my position. If it supported yours, it would say
"Spokespeople for the State Department stressed earlier this week that the agency had 'clear-cut prohibitions' on the use of private email for work purposes."