Ok, here is why the Hillary email "scandal" doesn't matter:
1. Everyone knew all along that she was using a home server. It was incredibly clear. She didn't even have a .gov email address! Everyone who worked at the state department, or on federal internet security teams, or anyone who ever emailed her - they all knew, and no one cared. Where was the outrage 3 or 4 years ago? Why does everyone suddenly care now, during an election year?
2. Because everyone knew about it, that means they are just as guilty as her. Sure, she may have technically bent the law a little bit, but so did everyone else. Thousands of other gov't officials are every bit as guilty as her, since they knowingly sent "classified" emails to her non-secure home server.
3. The precedent is to not indict. The last 2 secretaries of state also "handled classified material on unclassified email systems", according to the state dept. source: mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044
4. The gov't email servers were less safe than hers. To clarify: the gov't servers do have better security systems than hers, but they're far from perfect, and they're a much bigger target. So overall, her server was probably safer. After all, there is no evidence that it was ever breached. The same cannot be said for the state dept's servers, or the white house servers: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2848779/list-of-hacked-government-agencies-grows-state-department-white-house-noaa-and-usps.html
Again, where is the outrage? If email security is really what people care about, then this story is millions of times worse than the Hillary story. This was a real hack and a real story!
5. It would only be a crime if "intent" could be proven - which is obviously not the case here. Think about it. She handled hundreds of thousands of emails during her tenure, and exactly two were supposedly marked as confidential at the time (the lowest possible level of classification). That number is so ridiculously low, it obviously can be explained by oversight and doesn't indicate any intent to break the law.
And if that weren't enough, she never sent or forwarded those 2 emails to anyone - someone else sent them to her. Oh and if that weren't enough, those 2 emails weren't even supposed to be marked as "confidential" at all - that marking was added and left on the emails by mistake. So again, in terms of "intent" she is obviously in the clear here, because those 2 emails were only marked as confidential by a clerical error.
To summarize: nothing happened, it's the same as it ever was, it doesn't matter, and there are better things to worry about.