Aside from the fact that the NSA has legal opinions that all of its official actions are Constitutional (I don't agree with them, but I can't clearly refute them), what more would a public trial reveal?

Since she handed over a large number of emails, there's no reason to conclude she didn't hand over all the ones she was required to hand over. Your assumption of illegality seems to be based on your belief that Clinton was a criminal, which is similar to what judges refer to as novel legal reasoning.

You're also invited to say what Clinton did differently from her predecessors. We know Kerry is doing things differently, due to a change in the law.

A lot of ships were sunk during the battle, but it was a very far-flung battle. I believe Musashi was the only Japanese warship sunk in the Sibuyan Sea during that battle (a Japanese heavy cruiser was crippled during the action). In fact, the sinking was not due to magazine explosions but rather to flooding, finally capsizing. I'd expect the turrets to be quite some distance away, but there's no reason to expect the hull to have broken up badly.

There's lots of things I can either buy or find/create/grow myself. Potatoes I buy in a store are neither more nor less potatoey than potatoes I grow.

You're proposing an awful lot of centralization and regulations for something that's supposed to be decentralized and unregulated.

The assumption is that, if you're conducting $10K transactions in cash, it might be worth taking a look at you, because a lot of people who do that are criminals. Same principle as suspecting the husband if the wife is murdered: it may not be fair to any individual husband, but the husband is involved in enough murders to make it worth checking out.

Their severance package, as I understand it, involves chainsaws. I prefer payments for back PTO and maybe some weeks based on years of service.

At a quick read, the difference I saw was that Clinton handed over relevant emails (we have no way of knowing whether they're all the relevant ones, but this problem was solved by a law passed the year after she left the office), while the White House staffers apparently didn't. The Presidential Records Act requires that certain communications be delivered to the archives, and apparently that wasn't done in the Bush case.

Before we get out the firing squads, I'd like to know which federal laws they broke. So far, nobody has pointed out any to me.

Which laws did she break? Apparently she did turn over the relevant emails, if a little late, and I don't know what the law says on that.

If she was acting so nefariously, why have previous Secretaries of State done the exact same things? Have they all been nefarious? Including Colin Powell?

I would think that one way the law matters here is whether she actually broke it. The fact that she did something that would be illegal if she did it now is irrelevant.

If you want me to believe that Clinton was sleazy, instead of ScentCone, please give me some actual reasons why standard practices that were legal were sleazy.

A lot of sports journalism seems to work much the same way. Given random fluctuations in a player's performance, the journalists will make up reasons and assign moral failings.

Or maybe Jyhadi John was a really good guy most of the time. People aren't consistent.

One problem with anonymous tips is verifying their information. A lot of people see anonymity as a license to make stuff up that they think sounds good or make unfounded accusations against people they don't like.

What would be awkward about a public trial? Snowden violated the law in a big way, and it's very clear that he did it. If Snowden returned and had an absolutely fair trial in the best traditions of US jurisprudence, he'd be in prison for a long, long time. In what way would that be awkward to the government or anybody in it?

Why do you think he wouldn't receive a fair trial? The result of a fair trial according to untarnished US jurisprudence would almost certainly be a long prison sentence. Why do you think the US would object to that?