But your argument is that the fact of the server was disqualifying. That is of course an opinion, therefore an argument.
And your support in the following ¶ is an analogy: In the corporate world a private email system = loss of job, so it should be in the public sector.
I am quite certain that top management personnel at X corporation frequently use external communication systems for various projects. That’s just the way people are. For example, I have been a professor at xyz institutions. My colleagues and I frequently conducted administrative business on some level or other outside the institutions’ servers. It’s normalized behavior. It’s very unlikely any of us would have been discharged for this. And it’s very unlikely that the CFO of say Goldman Sachs who communicates with a counterpart in Zurich through a personal server would be discharged too. You would have to prove that. That’s too big a pill to swallow. Based in my own experience I’m not going to accept your word on that. But of course if you have some documentation, that’s another story.
You take an unreasonably rigid view of human behavior. People will for convenience circumvent what they feel is unwieldy infrastructure.
SoS is a special case, and it’s not clear based on reports whether HRC’s personal email system was more or less secure than US.gov’s. That’s more of a forensic question. Ultimately, government is an institution, and institutions are often stupid, and so creative-work-arounds are required. Every intelligent person knows that.
Intent is certainly on point. If there had been intent to mislead or cover up then there would be a strong case against. But your main charge here is stupidity. No one wants a stupid president. Hence Donald Trump’s unpopularity. But Clinton’s server may have been more a question of lack of foresight, which is not the same thing. Her solution to an IT problem may have been very intelligent on a technical level. I’m not sure. But she may have been unwise in not anticipating future blow-back. She did not anticipate how ferocious her opponents were.
About Comey’s “promise.” I reiterate an earlier post: facts on the ground always modify promises. It is absurd to suggest that keeping a promise is an inflexible principle when keeping that promise inflicts serious harm, which was the case here. Again, you are failing to make the important distinction between the lesser of two evils. The better way is the way that does less harm.