No!

I was the mystery Deleter! It was me. (... maybe)

Thanks for the great laugh, gjohnsit. You Spartacus rabble-rousing you.

user Euterpe2 explained there are very strong "legal reasons" for them NOT to do this:

I used to be a FOIA officer.

When there was a FOIA filed for some set of records, one thing you simply could not do was discard or destroy any potentially responsive document. Everything had to be preserved, first for review while responding to the initial request, and then in case that response was appealed. If the requestor let the appeal period run out with no objections, then okay, normal practices for record retention would again apply.

There were occasionally things that fell in a grayish area between personal and government records, such as hardly intelligible notes-to-self that someone might scrawl in a personal notebook during a phone conversation. These might be considered non-responsive to a request, because personal, but it would go against all my instincts to destroy any such items until the request was completed and the appeal period ran out. I mean, if you had an appeal claiming you didn't cough up all the records you should, and it went to court, the judge would NOT be pleased to hear records that could be responsive had gone into the shredder before he or she could review them. Oh no, not at all.

IF any Secretary of State records were destroyed as purely personal that arguably were government records after all, AND evidence of this is found, e.g., because the records were accidentally preserved elsewhere, that would be damned serious, I think.

It's less the "crime" than the cover-up.

I'm also thinking -- oh, she had her private lawyers do the destruction of these allegedly non-government records that she had purposefully commingled with government records? Cute move, employing the only set of people who will never have to testify about the destruction and what was destroyed -- due to attorney-client privilege.

Oh, this is smelling worse and worse.

not sure if her staff has "security clearance" of not,
but that would seem very unlikely for her Lawyers to have.

Of course, the way the story keeps changing,
I expect them to say soon: "That those Emails deleted themselves"

... you know like how those cones, all arranged themselves on the GW Bridge, in New Jersey.

It's one of those paradoxical mysteries.

the Laws no longer apply

those breaking them -- have officially jumped some shark somewhere.

If only the sharks, would catch on,

like they did in the journalism-matters days of Nixon.

to a more deserving Status quo, Say Anything,

power-grabber.

I doubt the HRC brain-trust thought of it,
before they played the Sgt Schultz Lawyers-did-it Card.

that kind of history, under the guise of the Secretary of State,

would be worth deleting.

And probably very easy to identify too -- 30,000 times.

Judicial Watch announced today the release of more than 200 conflict-of-interest reviews by State Department ethics advisers of proposed Bill Clinton speaking and consulting engagements during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. The documents were obtained as result of a federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department on May 28, 2013 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00772)). The lawsuit is ongoing.

June 2011 documents show that the State Department approved a consulting arrangement with a company, Teneo Strategy, led by controversial Clinton Foundation adviser Doug Band. The Clintons ended the deal after only eight months, as criticism mounted over Teneo’s ties to the failed investment firm, MF Global.

Mr. Clinton’s office proposed 215 speeches around the globe. And 215 times, the State Department stated that it had “no objection.”

Mr. Clinton’s speeches included appearances in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Central America, Europe, Turkey, Thailand, Taiwan, India and the Cayman Islands. Sponsors of the speeches included some of the world’s largest financial institutions—Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, American Express and others—as well as major players in technology, energy, health care and media. Other speech sponsors included a car dealership, casino groups, hotel operators, retailers, real estate brokers, a Panamanian air cargo company and a sushi restaurant.
[...]

I wrote this piece -- to document all the different versions of the story.

It seems they finally landed on the "shield" of Attorney-Client privilege (which casts incredulity on the prior versions).

But you raise some very good questions Crucian, which I hope the FBI takes seriously.

Those were public records, belonging to the State Dept National Archives.

Unless her lawyers were sworn representatives of the State, I doubt they had the "legal standing" to do what they did

ie. destroy public records -- as the recovery operation, has been showing.

from upthread,

from user veganmark:

I can't vouch for the accuracy of Ed Kleins' recent book on Hillary ("Unlikeable") - he's a Republican, after all - but he indicates that an anonymous White House source close to Valerie Jarrett has told him that, when Hillary first assumed office as SOS, she was required to assent to 3 conditions: Use a .gov email to insure government transparency; Do not let the Clinton Foundation accept donations from foreign entities during her tenure as SOS, so as to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest; And to cut all times with Sidney Blumenthal, whom Obama despised owing to his despicable role in Hillary's 2008 campaign. Hillary agreed - and then proceeded to blow Obama off on all these points.

Klein also makes the point that it was Valerie Jarrett who initiated the series of investigations targeting Hillary's term as SOS.

If Klein is right, Obama has reason to be secretly mad as hell at HIllary, and may be willing to let her take the perp walk.