You're kidding right? You never emailed something that you yourself didn't write? You probably do it all the time. You never copied and pasted part of an article into an email and sent it?

The email was sent by Hilliary to John Podesta so unless she states somebody else wrote it, which she doesn't, then she wrote it.

This is a classic example of a fallacy of false choice: presenting only TWO options as possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#Similar_concepts

Are you claiming that somebody hacked her email and sent JP fake emails? Um no. I didn't say she didn't send it. The email is in response to a previous conversation they were having . The subject of the email Clinton sent is: Here's what I mentioned. I'm saying that there is a highly plausible third choice. Podesta and Clinton were discussing something that was sent to her, by someone who was not part of the high-level policy discussions and after that discussion Clinton send what she was talking about to Podesta. It basically reads like an informal intelligence report advocating a particular policy, the type of document there is no history of Hillary Clinton writing. You would not say "here's what I mentioned" if you were the author.

I think HRC did have ground level sources in both Tripoli and Bengazi until the Bengazi sources were conveniently murdered and its very likely that she was not in the loop regarding Iraq.

This is fantasizing. And Clinton's sources would be official sources. She would have never had visited Libya informally and would have never build a network of sources (unlike an ex-CIA agent now doing business in Libya.)

Regardless of who wrote it, it was from HRC and it definitely says that the US gov. knows and in complicit in supporting ISIS through SA and Q.

It says nothing of the kind. It is explicitly about the US fighting ISIS. And it lays out the following ways of doing so.

making use of intelligence resources and Special Operations troops in an aggressive manner,

engaging ISIL using the resources of the Peshmerga fighters of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), and what, if any, reliable units exist in the Iraqi Army.

Committing US personnel to work with the Peshmerga as advisors and strategic planners,

engaging ISIS until they are driven back suffering a tangible defeat.

providing advisors and planners, as well as increased close air support for the Peshmerga,... to... defeat ISIL ....as well as artillery and armored vehicles

declaring a previous agreement with the Turkish General Staff, >> did not provide such heavy weapons to the Peshmerga to be obsolete

providing the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL

The email very clearly spells in out in language that anyone can understand, even me who really hasn't studied this much at all.

Did you read the full email? Did you read all the parts I quoted and much more in the email it talks about all the different ways we need to fight ISIS. The email is basically a list of tactics/strategies to fight ISIS. (By the way, in intel/military speak "engage" meets fight.) I'm not really sure how anyone who reads that full email thinks it's about supporting ISIS. I'm not being stubborn or ignorant or bullying. You should look at the whole email again with an open mind if you're able to.

In terms of not studying the issue, the issue is not a black and white issue. You've heard the term "frenemies?" It's that type of deal.

The not-so-simple version is our relationships with Saudi Arabia and Qatar are hugely complicated and contradictory. They are both strategic allies and provide huge amounts of support for US military efforts. We have an air base in Qatar and a training base and secret drone base in Saudi Arabia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Udeid_Air_Base

However, this doesn't mean we control what they do. They still follow their own self interest. Their main interest is countering Iran and they do this by funding Sunni forces around region. I bet they have funded Sunni forces who were fighting each other. (Actually that is probably guaranteed in Syria) Part of the reason the Syria war is so vicious is it is a proxy war where Sunni states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia are fighting their enemy, Shiite Iran. Assad doesn't have enough forces to control the country, the Syrian army is getting help from Shiite forces from Iran and Lebanon. When the Civil War in Syria broke out in Syria, Saudia Arabia and Qatar didn't wait for our permission to get involved. They jumped right in. They started sending weapons in 2011. They have a hugely complicated and contradictory relationship with jihadist groups as well. ISIS would love to kill of the Saudi Royal Family. They would love to take over Qatar or Saudi Arabia.

They are also not happy with our actions. Our intervention in Iraq has had the effect of greatly increasing Iran's power, because we overthrew a Sunni dictator of a majority Shiite country. They were hoping we would just install a new Sunni. Instead a Shiite was elected Prime Minister he allied himself with Iran and when we left he started turning into a Shiite dictator. This is part of the reason why ISIS was able to come back in Iraq after it was wiped out. The Shiite PM started cracking down on the Sunnis, he also never set up a national army, the best troops were meant to protect Baghdad, the troops in the Sunni areas were a shell, completely corrupt. One of the reasons ISIS took over so fast, is the Iraqi army gave up....in some cases their officers didn't even provide them with enough water to fight for a couple of days.

They also didn't like the Iran nuclear deal. The Sunni states feel they are basically at war with Iran, a war that will last far longer than the US's presence in the Middle East. (Iran probably feels the same way.) Because of this, they will follow their own interests.

Regardless of who wrote it, it was from HRC and it definitely says that the US gov. knows and in complicit in supporting ISIS through SA and Q.

Knows, yes, but complicit how? The only mention of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the message is acknowledging their clandestine support for ISIS and saying the US should respond with diplomatic pressure. Are you interpreting that to mean some sort of "keep up the good work, fellas!" pressure? I don't think that's what diplomatic pressure means.