Much of your argument is moot owing to the fact that there was no federal regulation forbidding the use of private email — or even a private server. Where Clinton violated the Federal Records Act was in not handing over her entire email correspondence before leaving the State Department. (See below.)
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton violated federal records rules through her use of a private email…www.nbcnews.com
A brief quote: “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department issues before leaving government service. Because she did not do so, she did not comply with the [State] Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”
Since no laws were broken and DOS policy was not airtight (former Sos’s email practice), the issue then seems to be systemic and not personal. It seems you and others are holding HRC to a standard well beyond what the law actually allows.
From any legalistic pov this is hardly grounds for pre-emptive impeachment.
Further, previous SoS’s had conducted state business via personal email (Colin Powell and Madeline Allbright).
The Federal Records Act was amended after this scandal emerged, but prior to that there really was no specific law or rule to prevent HRC from doing what she did. Taking advantage of a lack of regulation is everyone’s right.
Corporate policies don’t necessarily extrapolate to the public sector. And regardless of corporate policies, upper management usually has a means of bypassing them — that’s a method of deleveraging liability.
However, this argument is still in the herring phase. The real issue stemming from the Tracey piece is Comey’s disclosure of the new Clinton email investigation on Oct. 28. You have said he “promised.” I have seen no evidence of that promise, but also I quote myself: 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.
That’s the third iteration of that point to which there has been no reply. I’m assuming you have no reply.