>>No one has shown a single instance where that choice had an effect on the life of anyone in the world- except a politician or a journalist.
>>She's a horrible person- OK- but that email server choice was a non-event.
>>However, if you repeat a lie often enough - the server blah blah blah .. it becomes truth to some people and it might have contributed to her loss.

With the Russians cast as villains, how do you know they didn't hack her router and then review all the classified emails over the years, without detection? Not even very difficult if the router was supplied by her ISP with default credentials, as they usually are, or with a portal to allow technicians to dial ni to troubleshoot. That's the point: by stepping outside the allowed secure process, she created massive potential for breach which is the damage. Just as if you drunk drive home, you may well make it - but all along the way you've put people at risk and it's a crime.

>>Agreed. I think it's a death rattle.
>>It doesn't take a genius to conclude that someone who is reporting what someone else has tweeted is supernumerary.

Which is why he does it. ;-)

BTW, you probably saw in Comey's last testimony, his insistence that information the FBI gathers on American citizens is “lawfully collected, carefully overseen, and checked” and that the Obama admin did not surveil Trump

How the MSM rubbed Trump's nose in that, scolding him for such a vile attack on Saint Barack and added it to the list of 586 false and misleading claims.

But now there's a recently declassified judicial review coming to a "slightly" different conclusion from Comey. The official FISAC reviewing Judge rebukes the Obama Admin for creating "a very serious 4th Amendment Issue" by failing to follow lawful procedure when surveilling US citizens. Her conclusions include "lack of candor" in agency reporting to the Court, improper escalation of surveillance including domestic communications if a US citizen has a single communication linked to a FISA warrant (such as Russia) and the distribution of “raw FISA information” (meaning unmasked raw surveillance) to numerous bureau associates including private contractors with no need for access. Her finding includes hundreds of examples of breaches, even apparently listening in on privileged client-attorney communications, though some of it remains classified and is redacted. Note the Judge's observation that the improper process was already terminated by the Trump administration before she finished her report.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

Oh dear. What's the bet that this is part of what Nunes was so horrified by, that led to his stepping down? What's the bet that Trump/Trump campaigners were indeed a target and might even appear in the redacted sections. What's the bet that Trump has kept his powder dry while his enemies postured and painted themselves into a corner and now he can use his "ultimate declassifying power" to unmask some of those unmasked by the Obama administration and leakers.

Needless to say, not a peep on this from the MSM that benefited from some of the leaked result that they ought to have known involved a serious breach of citizens' rights, but King Canute can't stop this tide coming in I'm afraid.