She knew very well that she shouldn't have used her private email server, yet she went ahead and did it anyway. The reason why she went ahead and used it was so that people from her foundation could also have access to it. Huma Abedin said that Chelsea had access to it so she knew where she should send Bill so that he could give a speech.
There were others who had access to it. How many of them had security clearances?
She knew that that was going to be a big problem for her during her campaign. This was one reason why she pushed for the media to focus on Trump and the pied piper distraction.

Her email behavior turned out to be a major problem for her presidential bid, with an FBI investigation and a rolling production of her messages during the primary race and in the midst of the general election campaign.
“The most important of the mistakes I made was using personal email,” Mrs. Clinton acknowledged in an interview with “CBS Sunday Morning” ahead of her book launch.

“I said it before, I’ll say it again, that was my responsibility. It was presented in such a negative way,
and I could never get out from under it and it never stopped"
Mrs. Clinton said.

This doesn't even make sense. She takes responsibility, but apparently she thought it should just go away.
Sorry Hillary, that is what happens when you are under investigation because of your decision. This doesn't just go away because you said you were wrong.

"The most important of the mistakes I made was using a personal email server,” (my additions)

That was one of the things that hugely irked me. I retired as a Fed civil service IT person. If I'd been a party to something like that I would have lost my job/been fined/possibly seen jail.

Here's the "most qualified person in the history of the world" to be POTUS. She's a grad of a prestigious Ivy League law school, First Lady of Arkansas, spent 8 years being a power in the White House as First Lady, then went on to be elected to the Senate and then finally Secretary of State. Yet she had no clue about security/classification or Freedom of Information Act law/regulations?

Was she one of the the most incompetent persons in the world who always managed to fail upwards for close to 30 years while not learning anything in a series of powerful/responsible positions, or was she was lying through her teeth about her lack of knowledge? My guess is the latter, but either way, she disqualified herself from earning my vote.

Perhaps the most sickening claim, or at least one high on a lengthy and competitive list, bolded below on a quote from the article linked in the OP:

... According to the Washington Times:

Hillary Clinton’s case isn’t interesting enough to the public to justify releasing the FBI’s files on her, the bureau said this week in rejecting an open-records request by a lawyer seeking to have the former secretary of state punished for perjury.

Ty Clevenger, the lawyer, has been trying to get Mrs. Clinton and her personal lawyers disbarred for their handling of her official emails during her time as secretary of state. He’s met with resistance among lawyers, and now his request for information from the FBI’s files has been shot down.

“You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject,” FBI records management section chief David M. Hardy told Mr. Clevenger in a letter Monday.

“It is incumbent upon the requester to provide documentation regarding the public’s interest in the operations and activities of the government before records can be processed pursuant to the FOIA,” Mr. Hardy wrote.

Mrs. Clinton, is the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, former chief diplomat, former U.S. senator, and former first lady of both the U.S. and Arkansas. ...

Former chief diplomat? Somehow I missed this, don't recall that job title ever having been mentioned before - does everyone else but me know about this? Or was this something unofficial to do with such as her fracking-promoting and TPP-pushing international tours? Anyone know?

With the public interest long since scrapped as a concern of corrupted government serving the interests of the top fraction of the 1% at the general public's cost, it is now officially also not deemed that the public has a necessary and essential '...interest in the operations and activities of the government...' - which is publicly funded and exists to serve that public interest - in order to keep that public in the dark regarding particulars of that corruption?

And refused in part on the grounds that the woman who endangered national security by using a private server for State Department information exchanges simply by mixing private and official correspondence on it therefore has private rights over public property?

Blatancy levels are full now, I think.

Isn't enough enough yet?