In addition to the server, Hilary "abandoned secure line to use home phone"

[Tiberius]

Shouldn't we wait until the FBI presents a case, and she's convicted...before we start talking about her actions in any meaningful sense?  I know you're new here...but we have this thing called the presumption of innocence. 

Don't get me wrong, if she's convicted of a crime...I'd help put the logs under her pyre, but I think we're being a little hasty. If we refused to consider candidates for the presidency based upon whether or not the candidate had ever been accused or suspected of illegality...we'd be more than a few presidents short.

No, I don't think we should be waiting, and here's why. This has very little to do with whether her actions were illegal, and everything to do with the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind her actions.

I think most of us who have worked for a company would agree that using a personal email for work related matters is astoundingly unprofessional. This was a government employee though, someone in one of the highest levels of government. That goes well beyond unprofessional in my eyes. Even if it were technically legal for her to do so, what would people think if the President was found to be using a Gmail account for work related emails?

Some details we do know, from freedom of information requests and also from Internet scans that happened before the server was discovered. We know that it had a vulnerable version of RDP running (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/14/...e_pillory/), we know that for 3 months, communications to and from the server were entirely unencrypted (https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-ve...ail-server). In that 3 month period, Clinton travelled to a number of countries with the capability of spying on insecure communications (China, Israel, etc.).

Again, even if the server was perfectly legal, the facts are that potentially classified information, even if that information was retroactively classified, was being sent insecurely, and being stored on a server which had a vulnerability that could allow attackers to compromise it. Even if document A was not marked as classified when it was sent, if it were picked up by the Chinese government whilst being sent insecurely from or to Clinton's phone, then China have document A, and document A is now classified, meaning that China have a classified document, all because Clinton used an insecure private server.

The main problem with Clinton's server is that she used it, whether intentionally or not, to avoid oversight. Oversight which would have involved 24/7 I.T. teams ensuring that the infrastructure was protected and up to date, that regular security testing was carried out, and (more importantly) that potentially classified data was handled correctly.

That's why she shouldn't be President. Even if she is found not guilty on a technicality, she is still guilty of perhaps the most irresponsible handling of government data in history.