Could someone please explain how, if using a private e-mail for government business is such an obvious crime that Hillary should be thrown in jail just for doing so (as Trump apparently contends), why Colin Powell (who also used a private e-mail account for government business) is still walking free? 
If this was a serious question, rather than attempt to protect Hillary, you may have started by looking at their dates of service and the level of technology in the State Department at the time each was in office, which alone answers why Colin Powell's use of private email - on occasion - is something completely different than diverting all government communications to a private server. Or one could look at the specific changes in IT policy that were put in place over time that make it clear that Clinton was operating in a different environment.
Or one could honestly ask, if any other government employee could have diverted their entire work related email load through a personal server? And if they could have gotten away with it.
So you're saying that the environment Clinton was working in was unique, not one that was extant before she took the job.
However, even though what she did was "unique," it is still obvious to many--like Trump--that it was a crime worthy of a prison sentence.
And they base this on the precedents of other crimes--
even though you have admitted it was in a unique environment.Do you see how the two ideas don't fit together?

Did Hillary break the rules by not using the government e-mail server for government correspondence? Yes, of course.
Does this reach the level of criminality that makes it "obvious" that she should serve jail time? Well, no.
The closest comparison is Colin Powell's use of non-government (and doubtlessly just as unsecure) e-mail for non-government e-mails. But, of course, we only have his word on it (just like we had Hillary's that no classified information were in her e-mails), so I don't find that definitive. All other comparisons was merely analogous, with very specific differences.
The FBI found she did not have any intention of mistreating classified material. And so far, there has been no evidence of an actual security breach. And the FBI did not believe it reached the level of a crime.
So it is not
obvious that she committed a crime worthy of jail.
You can talk about how these two events differ, but you still haven't talked about how Clinton's
unique acts were so
obviously egregious that there is no question that she should be incarcerated, when the closest similar act is ignored.
This is why the claims that "people have been thrown in jail for lesser offenses" and "she's obviously guilty" sounds so hollow. Because it wasn't so just a few years before they found out that Hillary had done so. 
They sound hollow, because they cause you cognitive dissonance. That's the only reason.
Sorry, it's hollow because I can recognize the cognitive dissonance of those calling for her jailing.

While some people may have a double standard, your mistake is in thinking that only a double standard can explain why someone might think what some of us think. Did you...I dunno...read my thread on the Bush admin? It's funny you should forget about that when it comes to this issue and try to reduce the Hillary question to one of merely taking partisan sides.
I am glad that someone is still upset about the similar egregious loosing of e-mails by the Bush Administration, Fenring, I would still like the phrase "Of course she should be punished for deleting those thousands of e-mails" to be amended with "just like those in the Bush Administration were punished for deleting 22 million e-mails." But the second part always seems to be left off.
