3 ms·

> then she's committed perjury? Not just perjury. It's also destruction of evidence and conspiracy. Using the servers "for privacy" means anything that shou

> then she's committed perjury? Not just perjury. It's also destruction of evidence and conspiracy. Using the servers "for privacy" means anything that should be covered by FOIA but isn't available was destroyed intentionally. AFAIK the investigation didn't even touch FOIA liability. > What are your reasons for believing that she used a server for reasons of privacy? When they discussed moving her into the state system, she said explicitly that she didn't want the personal emails to become accessible: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-personal-email-worry-223559 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-person... So we have her on record saying (at the time) that she didn't want to risk any personal messages becoming exposed. She has every right to her personal privacy, but prioritizing that over "retaining all documents covered under FOIA" is both an abrogation of duty and an affront to transparency. On top of that, setting up a private email server is a huge amount of work. She could very easily have simply forwarded work messages to her personal account. She didn't do that, and she's well known for having a strong desire for privacy. I'm not saying "this is a slam dunk case and anyone who disagrees is clearly unreasonable." I'm saying there are perfectly valid reasons for believing that she committed perjury to avoid being charged with destruction of evidence and violating the FOIA.

grandalf 10y ago
there are perfectly valid reasons for believing that she committed perjury to avoid being charged with destruction of evidence and violating the FOIA. Yes! I will not vote for either major party candidate, but I think our nation would be better off with a more thorough finding of guilt or innocence. Perhaps this data dump will provide that.
neaden 10y ago
Right, if she destroyed documents to cover up wrongdoing. But there is no evidence of that. And since we can never have any clear evidence that she didn't commit a crime it currently seems as open and shut as it could possibly be.
- MarkPNeyer 10y ago
  > if she destroyed documents to cover up wrongdoing. If she destroyed any documents covered by the FOIA, period. Which she did. Saying "i did it for convenience" allows her to say that she didn't intentionally destroy them; she changed her email policies and that happened to have the "undesirable side effect" of destroying documents covered by the FOIA. She had a duty to preserve all those documents, and she didn't. It doesn't matter whether the documents showed wrongdoing; they were documents used by state officials in their duties.

grandalf 10y ago

there are perfectly valid reasons for believing that she committed perjury to avoid being charged with destruction of evidence and violating the FOIA. Yes! I will not vote for either major party candidate, but I think our nation would be better off with a more thorough finding of guilt or innocence. Perhaps this data dump will provide that.

neaden 10y ago

Right, if she destroyed documents to cover up wrongdoing. But there is no evidence of that. And since we can never have any clear evidence that she didn't commit a crime it currently seems as open and shut as it could possibly be.

MarkPNeyer 10y ago
> if she destroyed documents to cover up wrongdoing. If she destroyed any documents covered by the FOIA, period. Which she did. Saying "i did it for convenience" allows her to say that she didn't intentionally destroy them; she changed her email policies and that happened to have the "undesirable side effect" of destroying documents covered by the FOIA. She had a duty to preserve all those documents, and she didn't. It doesn't matter whether the documents showed wrongdoing; they were documents used by state officials in their duties.