Despite the $6T war of choice brought on by Republicans

which Clinton voted for

no partisan hell-hole committee was organized to attack Colin Powell

Again, no argument that the Benghazi committee isn't a big joke

whose treatment of e-mail is actually somewhat more questionable than Hillary Clinton's. Which is non-exitent [sic]. Both did the same thing only Clinton had a perimeter which is safer from a security standpoint.

Matter of opinion, and still doesn't address the fact that the State and IC IGs found classified material in Clinton's emails. If they had found it in Powell's emails, they would have referred it to the DoJ just the same as they did Clinton.

In both cases they did what was allowed. In both cases official business was conducted through a private server and in both cases there was no administrative order or law preventing it.

You'll notice i'm not disputing the usage of a private server for unclassified business

Now, its a problem because the wealth is wielding power to make democracy impossible which was the task of the committee from the start.

That's one hell of an ad hominem. And you think there's no wealth with a vested interest in pretending this didn't happen and ensuring Clinton is elected?

Ask Elijah Cummings about that.

You do realize that Cummings and Feinstein are going to be as partisan about the matter as the Benghazi Committee?

The State Department as no one apparently remembers is represented in the National Security Council by the Secretary of State. It's [sic] task is to keep secrets.

Yes, and that involves not handling those secrets in such a way where a number of unauthorized people had access to those secrets.

Attacking this by enabling FOIA as the committee advertizes [sic] itself as doing is a ghoulish, punk, destructive way to demolish the United States and US foreign policy.

The fact that you think FOIA is destructive says a lot.

Republicans want this both ways: First, the State Department is supposed to keep secrets - which it did. Republicans charge that it didn't. Second they attack the keeping of secrets.

It's actually Clinton who wants it both ways. To paraphrase: "No this information wasn't classified and that's why I kept it in my basement, kept it in a random data center in New Jersey, and allowed some random IT company in Colorado to have access to the server it was stored on. Oh the public wants to see the information? Nope, we classified it the same day you asked to see it, tough luck."

Putting "you" in a declarative sentence is automatically off-topic and risky behavior.

Not really.

Even asking a question could be risky. For instance "are you acquainted with cannon law?" is a legitimate question where as "do you know what murder is?" is a clear setup for a follow-up ad hominem.

Even the first would arguably be an ad hominem, because you're implying ignorance of the person you're asking. It's not the word "you" that makes it an ad hominem: one could accomplish the same by saying something like "for the benefit of those who are ignorant in <X>, let me explain cannon law".

"I can't tell whether your trolling" might be an ad hominem

And here's another example of an ad hominem without the word "you": quoting somebody and adding grammatical errors to their quote.

but if one were familiar with the definition of trolling

Boom! Ad hominem again!

the statement would be obviously senseless to make.

We're on a roll now, three times in one sentence!

State FOIA officials, the State IG, the IC IG, and IC FOIA officials independently determined that there was material that was classified at the time

Because of the partisan actions of the committee.

No, because the aforementioned people independently determined it was classified.

We all know that the US classifies way too many things.

So what is Clinton suggesting we do about it if she's elected president? Now we're finally getting to the meat of the issue, why everything she says about the issue sounds so hollow, why she's having such a hard time getting past this. People in general are tired that people like her, GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, et al pull the same stunts time after time. Nearly every excuse Clinton has given is something she would have the power to fix or at least mitigate if elected president if she really thought it was such an issue (with partisan politics being the one exception that she couldn't really do much about).

• "Too much stuff is classified and it's too subjective" -- So now that's she identified it as a problem, what is she going to do prevent overclassification if she's elected? Or is her solution merely to selectively enforce classification laws?

• "I followed the explicit letter of the law" -- So how does she plan to close these loopholes, does she plan to actually give teeth to enforcement of it? BONUS QUESTION: Does she plan to continue her email behavior if elected president? She has yet to say she will refrain from this in the future.

• "It was way too inconvenient to use the government's email system" -- So tell us your plans for improving government systems in general. Obviously she doesn't have the technical expertise to directly suggest ideas, but does she plan to organize a panel to look at the government's use of technology and how it can be improved, etc?

This thus winds up as an attack on the State Department for being "too" careful. And it was obviously careful enough.

I would argue that if were obvious, the FBI wouldn't be investigating to ensure that she was.