You are completely missing the point.
We’re both missing each other’s point. Mine is as follows:
An employee has a responsibility to their employer to meet their employer’s governance standards with regard to the handling of correspondence and confidential documentation.
Every single company and governmental agency in the world has these standards in place. And in a democratic form of government, no employee should have the right to unilaterally disregard those standards.
A) no crime commtted
Irrelevant. The standard is not “crime”; the streets are littered with ex-employees of somebody who didn’t adhere to their employer’s standards. They didn’t commit any crimes either, for the most part. But their non-adherence was considered egregious enough for termination.
B) it’s not for Comey dispense punishment on this oversight, in effect disqualifying HRC for office. From the initial investigation, which closed in Sept. we knew the facts onthe server issue. IOW people had enough info to decide what was in the best interest of the country. Comey’s Oct. announcement was interventionist.
Handled in my previous response to you. Comey was irrelevant. She was in violation of governmental operating procedures that are in place for the very good reasons I previously mentioned. If that’s not germane to you, that’s entirely your affair. It was germane to me and many others.
C) Not following prescribed procedure has never been a disqualification for running for office — unless serious harm was the result.
It didn’t disqualify her in this case, either, at least not officially. She did run for the office, after all.
However, it certainly disqualified her in the minds of many voters. The point to Mr. Tracy’s article is that her supporters should have realized how disqualifying it was to so many people, and chosen a different candidate.
Since she lost, it’s rather difficult to contest his conclusion.