The problem here is you are arguing against HRC’s practice while SoS — and it’s not a great argument to say that because a SoS used a private email system that person should not be president.

Yes, I understand that you disagree.

It is open to debate whether the private email system is the great national security risk you seem to feel it is

That is an interesting side-argument, but at the end of the day, it’s a side argument. And “security risk” was only one of the three issues mentioned. It was demonstrated in spades how having a separate server can prevent or obstruct Congress from engaging in its Constitutional oversight requirement.

What were the great catastrophes or even little ones that resulted from this non-standard practice?

Doesn’t matter. At this moment in time a catastrophe either (a) didn’t and isn’t going to happen, (b) didn’t happen but will later, or © did happen but they’re not telling us. Any one is possible. That’s one of the reasons why your reverse argument is intellectually fallacious, because it assumes as fact what is not in evidence.

But to go from that non-catastrophe and say because of that HRC should not be president is a case of the tail wagging the dog. that instance is vastly overshadowed by countless other traits and abilities involved in head of state.

That’s because you’re not extrapolating to cause. You’re saying “she broke a reg, shouldn’t have done it, but no harm no foul no big deal.” My point is that this behavior is yet again another instance in her long public history, starting with the secrecy of the Hilarycare event, where she exhibits behavior which any reasonable person views as paranoid.

And THAT is not a positive characteristic in a head of state.

Comey intentionally interefered in the o16 election. It was an extra-judicial preemptive strike on a future president. He violated FBI policy. He knew the limbo HRC would be in under investigation during the last week. Clearly he didn’t want her elected. That’s the issue, not was she right or wrong to use her own server — an interesting topic, technical, but not the real point here.

How do you know that Comey’s intent was to interfere in the election? What proof can you offer than you know what he was thinking when he decided to write his letter?

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.