Just for the record, your experience working with colleagues who treated their responsibilities regarding classified information rather cavalierly is nothing like mine.
Let's be clear here. There wasn't a whole lot of "cavalier" attitude toward classified data. I cited two incidents.
In the first, the guy who took home the documents was fired. He just wasn't prosecuted. He was, on the other hand, allowed to come back and work after three years, so that's different than your experience. On the other hand, we weren't exactly the NSA.
The other incident I described was a case where I wrote an unclassified document, on an unclassified computer, and found out later that someone had seen the document, and decided it ought to be classified. The reason it was classified was that it had some numbers on it that could, in theory, be useful, and those numbers were obsolete by the time I found out it was classified.
These two incidents had direct bearing on things related to how awful Hillary Clinton was. First, people insisted that little people who treated classified documents the way Hillary did would be in jail. The first incident demonstrates it wasn't true. Your own anecdote also demonstrates it wasn't true, because you noted that some people went to jail, but others were fired. (I'll bet that darned few went to jail. You have to do something pretty blatant to go to jail. No one who took documents home to put in extra time went to jail. Fired, yes. Jail? No. If they did, there were some special circumstances involved.) Second, people act as if there is no difference between having a document that is unclassified, but subsequently becomes classified, versus having a document that is marked classified. Actually, there's a big difference.
This stuff about Laureate (?) University might have some meat to it. This email stuff? I would be very surprised.
