Are you really suggesting that all of a secretary of state's sensitive and official communication is with her own staff? That she has no communication with people in the senate, the congress, ...
Sending to the Senate and Congress would ALSO likely qualify, since they are Federal systems. It doesn't have to be only to her department's own servers. Besides, she may have CC'd or forwarded such to her department staff. Anyhow, you have presented NO clear evidence that she failed to CC/copy sufficiently to comply. I just see meandering speculation from you.
You're convinced that, for example, Blumenthal's emails are all fake? Be specific.
I have not seen them confirmed by a reliable source. It appears to be mostly right-wing conspiracy sites echoing around that story, with no concrete citations. Further, H may have forwarded a copy of them to her staff/department. There is no proof she didn't. Even IF the hacker's copy had no CC with such, that doesn't mean she didn't BCC or forward a copy AFTER sending to Blumenthal. The hacker wouldn't see such on B's box. I assumed you worked in an office before and understand forwarding and BCC.
You suggested she committed a crime, and the usual assumption is "innocent until proven guilty". Can you solidly PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt she never forwarded or BCC'd the alleged Blumenthal message? (Let it alone it's legitimacy to begin with?) Some hacker's blog is hardly crime-level evidence by itself.
Any mechanism in place to automatically mirror her correspondence with third parties. None
I never claimed there was.
So, you'd be all for what the current investigation proposed: handing her server over to completely neutral third party for forensic analysis...
That's a side issue. Let's focus on your crime allegation.
which contradict things she's saying in public
No I didn't. You just have an incorrect model of reality in your head, probably obtained from cheesy blogs. You should focus on objective info available instead of the conspiracy blog plot claims.
It requires federal officials to proactively keep their public documents available for things like FOIA searches. She actively hid her records from such searches,...
Incorrect. It requires official gov't business be saved, not "public documents". So far there is no evidence she failed to comply. She's is NOT obligated to turn over copies of personal emails (so far. A judge may rule otherwise eventually, but that's future.)
because she had not provided the records, even after she left office
Her "server dump" is bonus info. She may have copied/CC'd the proper people/servers during the course of her time as SOS, but THE ORIGINAL SYSTEM IS SCREWED UP. That's not her fault.
I will agree the retention laws were F'd up at the time, but that's not directly her fault, and even if she failed to manage IT "well", it's not a criminal act.
From a technical standpoint, to track email properly and make sure none are missing, something similar to an ACID-compliant database with unique sequential message keys would probably needed. But, the law at the time didn't require such (and seemingly still doesn't), and thus it's difficult to prove certain messages were never sent. One can prove the existence of a message under such a rickety system, but maybe not the ABSENCE of. Thus, it just may be impossible to prove that Mrs. H "never sent a compliant copy of message X" because the technology used was not just powerful enough to document and prove the "hole".