3 ms·
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 commi
by 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.