Your own link:

"We tried," the employee said. "We told people in her office that it wasn't a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed." [emph. added]

You claimed she was DIRECTLY informed (as worded). This is why I ask for links: details matter.

if there was some sort of mechanism in place to do what the 2009 NARA and other rules required...

Those rules only specified they be stored on gov't systems, and said almost nothing about the technology and technique to do it. If she copied or CC'd gov't employees, she would be abiding by the law. I've explained this already.

SHE SAID THERE WASN'T.

There wasn't what?

It's perfectly reasonable to ask you if you found the prior investigation - which was run by HER party - to be likewise.

No it's not. The debate is not about GENERAL party accuracy. My debate points don't depend on prior partisan accuracy.

and those are the ones that show the date gaps, a matter which they (unlike her, with tens of thousand of mixed-in emails we'll never see) will be placing right in front of your nose to review.

Fine, I'll wait until they actually do so rather than rely on your or vague GOP claims. If details come out that smack her, fine. Until that happens, I'm not going to guess out of my ass.

As far as Jason Baron's comments, they are not explicitly connected to any specific text of the law. It's hard to tell if they are an opinion or not. I originally asked for specific laws, not opinions about them.

State Department IT staff are on the record having told her multiple times that her method of communicating was preventing them from archiving her official email as required.

Link to them. I don't believe you.

that somehow there was a magic link between her private server and some archiving mechanism at State?

I never claimed that. I don't know where you got that idea.

Do you consider the investigation run congress when it was controlled by HER own party (which established after spending millions of dollars looking into related things, that there were NO such records at State) to have also been polticized against her?

What's this question have to do with anything? I see no relation. And I already explained how no found records at the present is not the same as no records ever.

When the investigators looking into this say something, you and they know that they will be fact checked to death by her political operatives.

Politicians often spin for short-term gain and don't care about fact-checkers much.

In cases of private communications being mixed in with official ones, government archivists are supposed to look at ALL records

Where is this rule written?

When cornered you seem to get wordy. Please focus more instead of idle speculation about motivations. Motivation speculation is rarely useful info.

The language always seems kind of inflammatory, but sometimes I think they have something of a point.

When calculating risks and outcomes, everybody brings certain biases to the table about what are considered acceptable outcomes, losses and gains. That those biases may be driven by "masculinized rationality" may be taking it a bit far, but the idea that it's not a perfectly bright line threshold and that some tradeoffs may be involved shouldn't be disregarded.

Of COURSE it isn't sufficient.

When - ever - has an activist said "yeah, well, what's being done is pretty much good, yeah. I'm happy. I guess I don't have much to be upset about any more"?

Here's a hint: if there's one thing I can guarantee the climate won't do, is be static.

Pffft. *I* don't even own a TV.

Actually the main purpose is to wound as many enemies as you can. Each wounded soldier takes 2-3 support people to care for them. The purpose of engaging in battle is to gain the specific objective (hill, town, city) as described by the mission objectives. A lot of killing takes place, yes, but it's actually the wounded that count the most from a tactical standpoint.

Helping makers of internal combustion engines create more efficiencies certainly does help direct competitors of Musk's.

Further, the Blumenthal story appears to be hearsay only. The hacker only claims they are legit. Nobody of respect has verified the hacker's full claim, to my knowledge.

State said they had none of it, nor any record of having seen any such correspondence

They also said their records are poor in general. "We don't have a record of X" thus does NOT rule out X having existed in the past.

Investigators say that what she provided has gaps of weeks and months missing.

I can only find Republicans claiming that, not objective (non-political) examiners. Do you have a better link?

Her smart lawyer says there's no point allowing anyone with any forensic skills to look at her server to see if she's lying or not because she's deleted everything off of it.

What's that have to do with points being discussed? I didn't dispute that they (eventually) deleted it from her server.

She provided NONE of her email to State during her time there (required by the 2009 NARA)

You don't have any evidence of that.

in responding to FOIA requests, said they had 100% of nothing of hers to meet those requests.

Link? Like I said, the State Department servers happen to be in poor shape. That may be the reason the FOIA people didn't use it, NOT necessarily because H didn't follow proper notification steps. Or maybe FOIA is too lazy to sift for CC's etc.

her emails were not kept there, they were kept on her server at home.

It can be both.

She's said as much

No she didn't. Making sure a full set is available here and now is NOT the same as admitting past copies were not sent.

Making sure is simply making sure. If I make sure I've locked the car door that does NOT mean it was not locked.

Anyhow, let the smart lawyers work it out. You are not a lawyer with sufficient experience on this such that I cannot trust your judgement.

Are you claiming the Blumenthal messages were never copied to the appropriate department persons? Do you have evidence of this? Note that even IF she did not CC'd them directly, that does not mean she didn't later send a copy.

If she held that position, then why did she (after the existence of her private stash had been discovered) agree to provide to State (long after she'd left office) 50,000+ printed out pages of emails

I don't know their reasoning, I cannot read their minds. I've heard the department archives are in poor shape, for whatever reason.

I meant "hearsay", not "heresy". My apologies.

Name one unique plane from WW2 that is still flying.

Harrison Ford's plane.....oh, wait

If you mean "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

Then sending to or CC'ing a person using an agency system would be abiding by the law since it would be recorded under their account. I've seen no evidence that she failed to do such. Only heresy from political opponents.