3 ms·

One wonders why she deleted emails that under US law for someone in her position weren't allowed to be deleted, around the time she was asked to hand over her r

One wonders why she deleted emails that under US law for someone in her position weren't allowed to be deleted, around the time she was asked to hand over her records. There is no technical requirement to do so. The only reason I can think of that makes sense is that there was information there that she didn't want to share with others. And given these included professional emails that were part of an ongoing investigation, I'm frankly surprised that it isn't seen as a deal-breaking issue for even her candidacy. Obviously it's not the same as Watergate actions of breaking into offices. The point is that people are hinting at Clinton deleting emails to cover something up. I mean 'plausibly done to avoid auditing'... what does that even mean? What does that imply to you?

ajross 11y ago
BrandonMarc above was quite clearly comparing Clinton and Nixon directly, even as far as using the "[I am not a] crook" appelative. That's what I was responding to. If you want to assert a (sigh...) "cover-up" that's a rather different argument. But in general, if you want to do that you need to start from some kind of hypothesis about what is being covered up (ex: "Some guys were arrested at the Watergate Towers, did the president order the break-in?") and not something that looks like clumsy scandal-proofing to the non-partisan.
- BrandonMarc 11y ago
  The "I am not a crook" phrase (however it was stated) actually wasn't on my mind. There are a large number of Hillary supporters that, even if they are shown proof of criminal activity, simply won't care. Not a bit. Thus their thought process is, "Sure, she's a crook ... but all politicians are crooks, and she's on OUR team, so she gets our support."