That's not true. You're just doing your best to play like you really think all of this is just a misunderstanding. It's not, and you know it. I know you've already spent ten seconds and Googled for things like this, but I'll play along if it makes you feel better. Here's just one random first-on-Google example:

http://america.aljazeera.com/a...

You've speculated that her records were kept correctly (despite what she and everyone else says), and that there's no evidence she's done anything wrong. The implication then, by you, is that she did things correctly - and the ONLY way that could be, is if there was some sort of mechanism in place to do what the 2009 NARA and other rules required. But there wasn't. SHE SAID THERE WASN'T. So you are tap-dancing around the whole "show me proof" thing in order to avoid just plain facing what the woman involved has herself been saying. Why, I can't imagine. Are you working for her or her party?

Yeah, sure. It was someone else hacking your account when you complained that the current people looking at the matter weren't objective and a-political enough for you. It's perfectly reasonable to ask you if you found the prior investigation - which was run by HER party - to be likewise. You're implying it's not, which means you're being hypocritical on the subject. Only the party you don't like can be political in such matters, or only the party you favor can be objective?

The politicians doing the spin, here, are the ones relying on the fact that the person they're backing has conveniently destroyed records. The politicians conducting the investigation are relying on the documents SHE cherry-picked, 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. Asserting that they're probably lying as they talk about public records you can review, while proposing the exact opposite about a stridently partisan person who has just been caught avoiding the very rules she said her department employees must all follow, shows how objective you're (not) being.

This has been the case for a long time. Jason Baron, former director of litigation with the National Archives, explains the problem here. He said in an interview that "Clinton’s use of a private server gave her exclusive control, thus preventing the department from having full access to emails she sent and received while a federal employee. Government employees have no right to privacy on government computers and even personal emails are subject to review and perhaps release at the department’s discretion. Setting up a private server to conduct public business inappropriately shifts control of what is accessible to the end user alone rather than allowing the institution to decide threshold questions.” That's been true of federal records for decades: the agency archivists decide what's private, not the person running her official email on a server she's keeping in her home.

Who's cornered? Not me. I'm just explaining the facts to someone who seems really desperate for them to go away.

No. Pretending that market pressures don't drive companies updating their products and their pricing is ridiculous. You have to know that. So what are you trying say, by pretending that it's otherwise? My "argument" isn't wrong: companies continue to improve their products and adjust their pricing because markets require that. It's very reasonable to wonder about someone's experience and awareness of economics and business realities when they say otherwise.

Why the hell do you think that people who make things bother to improve production? Because if they don't someone else will, and they'll lose their market. You really do lead a sheltered life, don't you. I can tell you've never actually made anything, or been tuned into the bottom line of any business entity that does. You should. You'd learn a lot.

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. Are you saying that despite the steps she took to make sure that no mail sent to and from her counterparts all around the world, to and from other agencies and branches of government (including the White House) , and to and from the well known mile-long list of donors to her family enterprise and political operation, that somehow there was a magic link between her private server and some archiving mechanism at State? A link that you think might exist, but which SHE acknowledges did not exist, and which some how - despite no email address involving state.gov being used in such communication - magically somehow got archived at State, and not one single example of such can be found by multiple investigative teams? And why would they find it - preventing it from getting into that system is exactly why she built a path around it. State's archives have copious correspondence from hundreds and hundreds of their other officials, staff, contractors, previous cabinet appointees and related users - just not a single scrap from her? Of course they don't: she didn't use that system.

And SHE HERSELF says that she thinks having corresponded with staffers inside State was a good enough way to retain those messages. She hand-picked reporters and pre-approved questions in the only Q&A she's allowed on the subject, and so conveniently was able to avoid being asked how she thought that method would apply when corresponding with people like Blumenthal (who hasn't denied that the leaked emails were his, by the way). Which is why she's never had to address the fact she wasn't personally taking any steps to CC or otherwise mirror all of the mail sent to and from her private server, as required by law. She hasn't mentioned CCing her State.gov mailbox that because at her direction, State's IT never even established an email account for her to which she would mirror her mail.

When finally capitulating to demands that her public records actually be made available, she didn't print out 55,000 pages of them because of a failure by the staff and systems at State, she printed them out because that was the only way she was willing to make them available. She could have forwarded them electronically, in their entirety, as required (so that, as the law requires, a government archivist can evaluate the messages and cull the official from the private). But no - she and her lawyers opted for a method that would absolutely maximize the additional delays in allowing other people to look through the records, would remove helpful header information, and would add untold thousands of hours of taxpayer-funded work to turn the documents back into searchable form. That was a deliberate choice that added work on her part in order to make the process more difficult and slow for investigators and the press, who had been requesting the documents for years.

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? Now - under pressure - she's dumped hardcopies of the records that actually did exist all along (well, just some of them), and investigators who - unlike the last ones - aren't in her pocket for political gain say that the records have large date gaps. Unlike HER, they are conducting activity that will be entirely in the public record. When the investigators looking into this say something, you and they know that they will be fact checked to death by her political operatives. Despite her deliberate attempts to hide her communications from standard public review, you are giving her the benefit of the doubt ... but when a long-time career prosecutor (with a sterling record) and now congressman who knows that everything he says will be subject to endless review tells you what's present (and absent) in what are now public records available soon for YOU to look at, too, you're assuming he's lying?

It goes to establishing her deliberate actions in this area. In cases of private communications being mixed in with official ones, government archivists are supposed to look at ALL records, separate the official from the private, and return the private records to the person who blended them together. She knew this, and took actions to deliberately prevent such review. And knowing that subpoenas were coming, destroyed all evidence of how such decisions were made.

And in many cases, also cheaper. The examples I cited above show that behavior as well. You need to get out more if you think that, say, a given tablet computer from this year isn't better and cheaper than it was a year or two ago. Or that an off-the-shelf quadcopter and gimbaled camera rig isn't many times as capable for a fraction of the cost it was just a couple years ago. Eeeeeevil market economics at work.

What? The evidence is that State said they had none of it, nor any record of having seen any such correspondence until she just recently dumped that self-selected pile of paper on them. SHE said that was when she provided them with "the appropriate" copies. Not when she was in office. Not when she left office. But years later when forced to. SHE said so, not me. Congressional investigators (under both parties) could find not a single indication she had ever provided those records, State's internal records show no such thing. FOIA and subpoena-based requests turned up no such thing.

So what is it you're looking for, to understand this? She herself says you're wrong. Does that cover it for you?

She did NOT make a "full set" available, as required by law. She made available redacted hardcopies of only those that she decided she wanted other people to see. Investigators say that what she provided has gaps of weeks and months missing. What part of that are you refusing to hear?

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. You don't have to trust MY judgement. Trust the "smart lawyer" you just cited. If you don't like THAT smart lawyer, trust the smart lawyers from the congressional investigations that took place multiple times now, and the smart lawyers from the Associated Press, all of whom disagree with you.

That may be the point he was trying to make, but it's incorrect. Just look around. I can pick up a new camera from Nikon that's essentially the same price as the previous model while enjoying better features. The same is true of TV's from Samsung, or countless other devices. In real dollars, the same is true of cars, major appliances, all sorts of things.

Which "appropriate department persons?" Those messages were sent from him on his private account to her, on her private account. Period. She provided NONE of her email to State during her time there (required by the 2009 NARA), when she left (required by the Federal Records Act), or for year after she left - until a Romanian hacker spilled the beans. That's what got congress re-interested. Why? Because requests for the legislature for those records were coming up entirely empty. Multiple FOIA requests from external entities (like the NY Times, the Associated Press, etc - some of whom are now suing over the matter) came back completely empty.

She only printed out her personal selection of some of her emails (conveniently minus all header information, etc) when she could no longer maintain the lie-by-omission that the records didn't exist. "Oh, THESE emails? I didn't realize you meant THESE emails! Silly old me, I'm just a Grandma blah blah blah..."

Waiting years to provide culled copies, without anyone in a government archivist's role to weigh in on what's really relevant, is completely at odds withe spirit and letter of multiple rules and laws that were very much in play while she was there.

No, that's EXACTLY what it means, because State, in responding to FOIA requests, said they had 100% of nothing of hers to meet those requests.

You're misunderstanding things here. It wasn't "they" that did this. It was SHE that did this. SHE decided, under pressure to finally produce some records before getting hauled into court to do so, to provide the emails she personally selected from her home server as header-redacted hardcopies. This wasn't the archive or IT people at State deciding that. That's what she dumped on them. However poor the archives at State may or may not be, her emails were not kept there, they were kept on her server at home. She's said as much. And she's said that she had her personal staff (people without clearances, paid for with funds much of which was supplied by foreign countries from whom she solicited huge sums of money while traveling abroad on taxpayer-paid trips) help her print them out so that State could finally have her records. You can't be still not getting this.

Actually, that's exactly how a market economy works. Things get better and cheaper over time because of innovation and stiff competition. Or did you still spend $10,000 on a 40" flat screen TV this year, and hundreds of dollars for a 20MB disk drive? That must be frustrating for you.

Do you REALLY think that the only people with whom the US Secretary of State communicates in the course of her professional duties are people INSIDE her own department? Not a single person in another country, not a single person in a think tank, another federal agency, not a legislator, nobody? Only the people directly under her authority at State?

Really?

Remember that one of the events leading to this was an email leaked by Romanian hacker Guccifer, who cracked into the private mailbox of Clinton confidant Sydney Blumenthal. He is advising her on sensitive intelligence (re: Europe, the Muslim Brotherhood, and much more) in a series of "highly confidential" messages. Those messages, by definition, never saw the State Department's mail servers or archiving systems as required by federal regulations in place at the time. Why? Because he was providing the Secretary of State with that sensitive information via a private mailbox on an server kept in her house, the contents of which government archivists will never have their legally mandated opportunity to review for what is, and is not government-related communication.

She went out of her way to keep such communications out of the hands of the archives. You can't possibly be confused on this subject.

Regardless, she did NOT claim that the State department had all of her records. 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 once pressed on the matter years after she left office and there was no denying it? Why didn't she just refer the people seeking the records to the CC's you're saying were adequante? You know why: because she knew it would be BS to imply that was the extent of her legal public records. But of course we get ONLY her opinion on what was or was not relevant. Everything else has been deleted, says her lawyer. But ... in those 50,000+ pages are gaps of weeks and months. Are you really suggesting that she exchanged no email, in her role as Secretary of State, for months at a time?

Really?

The denser population areas, with 4-8 level structures, is PERFECT for drone delivery to a rooftop mail-chute style system. Many large office buildings would be perfect that way too, since they usually have centralized mail rooms where things are sorted for each tenant.

Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA, for example. She deliberate violated both the letter and the spirit of that non-trivial bit of federalness. Basically, she decided it didn't matter to her, though it was very much in effect while she held that office.

Well, we're about to elect Hillary Clinton. She's not stupid. She thinks everyone else is stupid, and she's got enough supporters who don't care whether or why she's being feloniously coy about things like her email use (her lawyer just this evening explained that Clinton has destroyed all of her email that wasn't printed out to lamely respond to demands for her records from her tenure at State).

When she's president, don't ask why we elected a stupid person. As why we stupidly elected her. We'll have eight years to think it through. Yay.

What ARE you talking about? The problem you describe is the state being required to be more thorough in investigating matters like the case in question (the lady with the car, Twitter, etc). The solution to that isn't lowering the threshold by which we describe airlines pilots as too unstable to do that particularly stressful, demanding, and highly responsible (for other people's lives) work.

1/3 of people aren't airline pilots.

And more to the point, 1/3 of people don't take out their depression on a hundred or so other families by slaughtering a plane load of people.