The State Department has not turned over all of Ms. Clinton's emails to the Congressional committee. State may have them. Nobody knows except the State Department. Thus, your claim that we know she didn't turn over all of the emails is false. The State Department might have them, they might not.

You're misunderstanding the quote. According to them the information should have been deemed confidential. It wasn't, though. That means there is no proof that she sent material that was, at the time it was sent, deemed classified.

Did she break the law? According to the facts, the answer is no. If the facts change, then we can ask the question again.

Deleting personal emails is not destroying "incriminating evidence".

And, oddly enough, under government regulations, individuals do get to decide if a document, including email, meets the requirements for retention.

Whether that's true or not (I doubt it), she wasn't under investigation.

She didn't destroy anything that Congress asked for. She deleted

personal

emails, which were not covered by the subpoena.

Thank goodness our legal system isn't based on one person's "comfort" but on actual facts.

Sorry, the OP was correct.

Even if the Blumenthal emails meet the subpoena requirements, we don't know if the State Department has them or not.

The WSJ article appears to be the one that's out of date. See, for example, Hillary Clinton: Report of Email Probe Has 'a Lot of Inaccuracies', which includes comments from the State Department making it clear this isn't about Ms. Clinton at all, it's about whether some information should have been deemed classified that was not.

I appreciate someone explaining the legal angle because tso many people have jumped to incorrect conclusions on the legality of her actions.

I also respect your opinion of her actions. That's a valid critique, one similar to mine.

She was required, by law, to turn over her work emails. A Congressional committee subpoenaed the State Department for them. Later, after she had turned them all over and deleted her personal emails, the same committee subpoenaed her, again, for the same emails.

If "one of us little people" did the same thing, we'd be protected from big, bad government intruding into our personal correspondence just like she is.

Really? Please share with us a single law that she's broken. She met all the required retentions laws, it was legal to send email from a non-government server when she was SoS, and this latest charge is actually focused on failures of the State Department's classification process and has nothing to do with actions by Ms. Clinton.

So, please do show us what law she's disregarding.

This possible investigation isn't about which email server Ms. Clinton used, it's about whether there was information in the emails that the State Department should have deemed classified but did not. Since Ms. Clinton's emails were released by the State Department, about 30 emails have been deemed to contain information that should have been classified.

Does this in any way implicate Ms. Clinton? No. When she sent the email, the information was not considered classified. Does it have anything to do with the fact that she did not use a government email server? No. Once again, the information was not deemed classified, so using her personal email server was legal.

Based on the information available, I agree with the inspector generals - the State Department should spend some time figuring out a better way to determine what information is sensitive and what isn't.

Since you don't have to implement ever aspect laid out in Mr. Fielding's dissertation to be RESTful, I think your second paragraph is a bit too strong.

One thing that's probably not clear from your comment is where you talk about forms. A RESTful API doesn't provide forms, but it may support POST/PUT HTTP verbs, actions that are most often exercised by using forms.