Perhaps one of the harshest critiques hurled at presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, by the current State Dept Inspector General, was this:

"At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."

Any Government Employee knows (should know) that everything you do as a Government Employee IS, and one day will (presumptive) become 'a permanent' Public Record. That is what the National Archives is all about. This is because you are working on the public's dime, so the public "has a right to know" what you are actually doing. In theory anyways ... that is what the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is supposed to be all about -- the public's "right to know" ... holding our Government "accountable", ... Sunshine is the best disinfectant, etc. etc.

Apparently Hillary Clinton, missed that day of training.

It's not really an "Official Record" if no one knows it exists, right?

As Wikipedia goes to great lengths to explain, "official government records" are not that fungible ...

The Federal Records Act of 1950 is a United States federal law enacted in 1950. It provides the legal framework for federal records management, including record creation, maintenance, and disposition.[1]

The Federal Records Act came following the recommendations of the Hoover Commission (1947-49).[1] The act, and its related regulations, require each federal agency to establish an ongoing program for records management and to cooperate with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).[1] A 1985 NARA pamphlet describes the Federal Records Act as the "basis for the Federal Government's policies and procedures for creating, maintaining, and disposing of Federal records. The act and its related regulations define Federal records, mandate the creation and preservation of those records necessary to document Federal activities, establish Government ownership of records, and provide the exclusive legal procedures for the disposition of records."[1] The Second Hoover Commission (1953-55) addressed paperwork management and recommended the adoption of program relating to "directives management, reports management, paperwork quality control, and clerical work measurement." [...]

The Federal Records Act was amended over time. Amendments in 1976 emphasized paperwork reduction and information lifecycle management.[1] The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, which followed the issuance of the report of the Commission on Federal Paperwork in 1977, introduced information resources management and gave responsibility to the Office of Management and Budget for creating federal information policy standards.[1]

In December 2014, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 was signed into law by President Barack Obama.[2][3] This bipartisan act, which followed the 2011 President's Memorandum on Managing Government Records, modernizes the Federal Records Act.[2][3] The act expressly expands the definition of federal records to include electronic records (the first change to the definition of "Federal record" since the enactment of the act in 1950).[2][3] The act also grants the Archivist of the United States the final determination as to what constitutes a Federal record; "authorizes the early transfer of permanent electronic federal and presidential records to the National Archives, while legal custody remains with the agency or the president"; "clarifies the responsibilities of federal government officials when using non-government email systems"; and "empowers the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal."[2][3]

But, but emails are "electronic records" -- so they were not explicitly covered until after Ms Clinton ended her public service as Secretary of State.

Well, not really.

These recent Federal Records Act Amendments, which Obama signed, extended the definition of what an "electronic record" is, how they will be handled, and the preeminent role of National Archivists to decide what is an "official record", and what it not.

But even prior to these clarifications and codifications (necessary because of 'the abuse of some' ...), the State Dept already had its own regulations -- since 1995 -- regarding the significance and importance of emails AS RECORDS.

So much so, it has prompted the National Review has bluntly and plainly ask: Did Hillary Commit a Felony?

[...]
There is also little doubt, given this functional definition, that e-mail has been covered by the Federal Records Act since its adoption by the federal government during the Clinton administration. As Ian Tuttle correctly notes, the State Department’s own manual has plainly provided, since 1995, that e-mail records must be preserved under the Federal Records Act.
[...]

But Mrs. Clinton did something here that went well beyond occasional or incidental use of private e-mail accounts. She eschewed the use of an official account entirely, and deliberately established a private e-mail account, apparently maintained on a server in the Clintons’ New York home. As a result, her e-mails were at no time during her tenure in office subject to the Federal Records Act. (She provided some of the e-mails only after she left office, and only when the Department of State asked for them back.) As our friends at Judicial Watch will no doubt remind everyone, there were plenty of Freedom of Information Act requests that would have implicated her e-mails. But they were never searched, even though a reasonable search of all responsive federal records must be made in response to FOIA requests. And the records would have been relevant to congressional inquiries as well, including continuing investigations of the Benghazi attacks.

Why does that matter? Well, a federal criminal law makes it a felony when any custodian of official government records “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same.”
[...]

Yet Hillary's continued "feigned cluelessness" about the IG unflinching report, just goes to show how thin her defense of "mistakes were made", yeah but "I had permission", have been up til now:

Huh? What's a little "careless" and unwitting "shredding" (and server wiping) among friends? It's not like anything nefarious was going on, that needed any some serious "track covering" (on public vs private information basis).

Besides what does the Chief Information Officer at State know about which are records 'worth keeping' ... and which are emails better left 'unread'? (historically speaking.) Only Clinton's internal staffers are wise enough to make that call.

And pay no attention to these other "record keeping" anomalies, that happened on Hillary Clinton's Watch as Secretary of State -- it's not like they are reassuring harbingers of how she would actually govern, once she gets that "promotion" she's been angling for ...

[...]
According to the Office of the Inspector General report made in 2014, the State Department's records failed to properly account for some $6 billion in contracts over the prior six years, including around $2 billion for the department's mission in Iraq. The report said, "The failure to maintain contract files adequately creates significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department's contract actions," and added that investigators and auditors had found "repeated examples of poor contract file administration" which it had characterized as having been one of the department's "major management challenges" for several years.[315]

During 2014, the State Department failed to turn over documents to the Associated Press that it had asked for through a Freedom of Information Act request based on the possibility of Clinton running for president in 2016. The department said it "does its best to meet its FOIA responsibilities" but that it was under a heavy administrative load for such requests.[316]

The ethics agreement between the State Department and Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation that was put into force at the beginning of the secretary's tenure came under scrutiny from the news media during early 2015. A Wall Street Journal report found that the Clinton Foundation had resumed accepting donations from foreign governments once Secretary Clinton's tenure had ended.[317]

What's $6 Billion in unaccounted for funds, when it comes to War-waging endeavors. Heck you should have seen what we wasted on the initial Iraq War conflict. Another Hillary "mistake", that probably will never be rightly accounted for by History (and Historians.) "Pish, Posh. History's Mysteries." Sometimes you got to 'break some eggs' ...

And when it comes to those "private" (and overly generous) Clinton Foundation's donors: There's Nothing to see here ... Nothing at all.

We should all just TRUST HER ... because after all She's No Donald Trump ... (Hillary sticks to her stories, no matter how flimsily they may get -- unlike The Donald, who changes rifts, like he changes suits.)

Hillary would never do THAT! ... Change Lies Horses, in the middle a stream ...