I guess some media are concerned enough about the consequences of the Clinton email story having an effect on the election outcome that they have dropped the circumspection of calling "BS" and reverted to its fully enunciated form - BULLSHIT, thus signalling the highest level of outrage they are capable of allowing themselves. They are manning the battle stations and doing their level best to continuing tamping the story and its consequences to it's most contained level.

To that end Matthew Yglesias of Vox has provided Clintonites a last comfort providing Readers Digest apologia perfectly designed and constructed to defuse the entire Clinton "scandal" as trumped up bullshit, which they can share with friends and family over social media this weekend. He seems to be completely unaware that within the paragraphs of his defense, he has provided the perfect identification of both her guilt and intent.

First, his article : The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign

Yglesias starts off with the common deflection about why all the fuss about a "personal email account". He defaults unbelievably to the first defense deployed by Clinton of not wanting to carry two devices and looking like a dork, conveniently ignoring the fact that she is commonly surrounded by human pack mules whose sole role in life is to cosset HRC and to shield her from any unnecessary stress or burden. Let's not forget that HRC once emailed someone to tell someone else to bring her ice tea. So, I doubt very much whether concerns about room for another device on the mule train was really the impetus for setting up her alternate communications channel. This defense has always been and always will be nothing but sad.

Now to the really fun part of MY's article where he addresses the Server and the deletions:

Now, is it possible that Clinton’s legal team simply decided to entirely disregard the law and delete work-related emails?

In some sense, sure. But there’s no evidence that this happened. Generally speaking, in life we assume it would be moderately difficult to hire a well-known law firm to destroy evidence for you without someone deciding to do the right thing and squeal.

Besides which, it would be almost comically easy to catch Clinton in the act of systematically destroying relevant emails. The vast majority of the work-related email correspondence of an incumbent secretary of state, after all, is going to be correspondence with other government employees. Maybe she shoots a note to the Pentagon about Benghazi, or circulates ideas for a speech draft with her communications team. Any message like that, by definition, would exist on a government server as well as on her private one. This means it would be fully accessible via FOIA and also means that if Clinton’s copy were found to not be in the pile of emails she turned over, she’d be caught red handed.

Thank you for spelling that out so clearly, Mr. Y. Because, you see, Hillary and her cohorts did exactly what you define as catching her red-handed. To wit:

1,000 Clinton-Petraeus emails missing from records sent to State, FBI files show This is an article by Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Brown for Fox News published on October 22, 2016.

In a heavily redacted FBI interview summary from Aug. 17, 2015, a State Department employee from the Office of Information and Programs and Services (IPS), which handles Freedom of Information Act requests, discussed how Petraeus’ records apparently were not among the work-related emails provided by the former secretary's team.

"CENTCOM records shows approximately 1,000 work-related emails between Clinton's personal email and General David PETRAEUS, former Commander of CENTCOM and former Director of the CIA," said the employee, whose name is redacted, according to the summary. "Most of those 1,000 emails were not believed to be included in the 30,000 emails that IPS was reviewing. Out of the 30,000 emails, IPS only had a few emails from or related to PETRAEUS as well as a few related to Leon PANETTA, former Secretary of Defense."

So what do you think Mr. Yglesias? How about you, Director Comey? I'm assuming that 1,000 between the Secretary of State and the Commander of CENTCOM are work-related and do not involve weddings or yoga. I would also bet that a number of them are "sensitive" to say the least. I also think that them all mysteriously disappearing, being deleted or not being provided to State shows some level of intent to not provide them.

To me, the real scandal is that this story that was broken by FOX on October 22 and which is of the highest import has BEEN IGNORED by the media. Google "Clinton Petraeus emails" or any variation thereof and see what you find - virtually nothing. To me, it looks like a media blackout, because I do not see any possible positive spin on this story for anyone involved. How did Comey not know this and not see intent not only to mislead, but to cover up unbelievable malfeasance?

So, let's give a big hand to Matthew Ylesias for providing his criterion for email illegality and BULLSHIT.