Sure she did. Her closet server by definition removed it from a secure SCIF. IIRC she was also scrubbing classification marks, meaning she knew what she was looking at the entire time (proving her intent).

No, it didn't. Whoever emailed her the information removed it from the secure SCIF. Being the recipient of an email doesn't make you the person who removed the information.

At any rate no reasonable prosecutor is going to charge any of those folks because Waltz screwed up and added the reporter.

Except the issue isn't the adding the reporter. It's these guys deliberately using an unsecured channel in the first place. I agree that a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't charge the recipients over receiving and storing national defense information in an unsecured location

The Senate can huff and puff all they want. Given that the subject matter is foreign policy and military affairs...it's quite clearly and Constitutionally under the Executive Branch's purview.

No, it's not - or rather, it's not exclusively under the Executive Branch's purview. That's why there exist laws and statutes governing classified information! Why the Congress has Foreign Affairs committees and Defense Committees in both Chambers! Why the Congress is expressly given power over the Army and the Navy, over military bases, confirmation power over ambassadors and ratification power in treaties! Why we had all of those hearings on Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi! Foreign policy is not the sole and exclusive purview of the Executive Branch. It is 100% within the power of Congress to investigate this to see if anything needs to be done.