No, because it's a violation of the law. The federal government is supposed to keep records of everything they do, for several reasons : 1) they are accountabl

No, because it's a violation of the law. The federal government is supposed to keep records of everything they do, for several reasons : 1) they are accountable to the people. Granted this is a principle. At some point in the future, everything the federal government did will become open knowledge. 2) It must be possible to get them in front of the justice system. This is a basic principle of a separation-of-powers democracy. The justice system is, by law, entitled to access any and all documents, emails, everything any agency has (just so we're clear : not talking about the judge down the street, although they have some access, but the supreme court has full, unquestionable, access) 3) FOIA (freedom of information act). Citizens and others can petition the justice system to make government documents public. Unless the justice system and the federal government agree something can not be made public, it is made public. This is extremely prominently mentioned on every computer system anywhere near the federal government. Record keeping requirements this, email archival that. Ms. Hillary Clinton did not miss these requirements. She knowingly violated the law and conducted official government business in an illegal manner. Ms. Clinton knowingly, and with the aid of dozens of people working for her on the public's dime violated the law. In theory the minimum punishment for this is to become unelectable for 5 years, but "somehow" I doubt that will happen. Also there seems little doubt that the emails she will make public will be a filtered version of the original. This is comparable to fraud (though technically not fraud) : if you did this as a CEO of a publicly traded company, it would be considered fraud, and you could very well go to jail for that.