I'm not sure if I'm missing something but points 4, 5 and 6 (and particularly 4) from this piece seem somewhat misleading. > 4. "... she turned everything over

I'm not sure if I'm missing something but points 4, 5 and 6 (and particularly 4) from this piece seem somewhat misleading. > 4. "... she turned everything over to them promptly, with no hedging or negotiation." She had her lawyers select a bunch of stuff based on keywords and then turned that over, which is entirely different than "everything." > 5. "no evidence" "that Clinton may have deleted some official emails before turning them over to State" Emails have been found that weren't turned over. This means either they were deleted, not found the lawyer-run keyword searches, or similar. Which is not to say there's evidence of targeted deletion (people often use deletion as an inbox management method), but it's also clear that the corpus is missing pieces. This whole section is trying to make something highly ambiguous seem clear cut. > 6. " Not a single one of them has been even remotely suspicious or embarrassing, so it hardly seems likely. After all, why delete innocuous emails?" This is just a bad argument. While I don't subscribe to any particular email conspiracy theory, were there any of course they'd cover specific deletions with innocuous ones to give it all a veneer or regularity; you'd expect most deleted in such a way to not be "even remotely suspicious or embarrassing." The actual degree of suspicious/embarrassing in the recovered emails is probably also disputable some degree. The bottom line is that the whole email situation is a mess, a bumbling intersection of special treatment and cluelessness, and likely makes anyone who knows anything about tech cringe somewhat. But by it's very nature it's not as easy to dismiss as the author suggests because, as the author notes, "she was [probably] technically illiterate" and "famously confused by her iPad." It's pretty questionable whether someone who "basically treated email like magic" is someone who should be in charge of a huge apparatus fundamentally dependent on tech, and whether such a person would understand/appreciate the importance of things like the US Digital Service, 18F, or digital surveillance programs, etc. Sadly, this kind of consideration is going to get pushed under the rug (as the author of this piece is desperately trying to do) because she has the main qualification of not being Donald Trump. But really it shouldn't.