(Very slight correction…Seven email chains
Yes, I’m aware, here is a direct quote - from Comey I believe (so we know what we’re talking about):
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails). Also, systems like that contain meta-data that cannot be deleted by the end user (at least to the people that she was corresponding with). It would have contained data about who, when, where, how many etc etc. There are digital fingerprints all over. Hiding 30k illicit emails would be nearly impossible.
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
Having said that, I never defended Clinton.
I think the use of a private server, while not illegal (to my knowledge at the time) was politically stupid.
I’m not aware of any law that prevented her from deleting her emails, save the ones pertaining to US government business, but again, politically this was INSANELY stupid on her part. I also find it ridiculous that she thought she could delete 30k emails and not, at least by accident, delete some official business.
Knowing how email systems work (as I work in data storage), if she were deleting massive amounts of classified or state dept business, it would have been found already. You can delete the stuff on your servers and backups, but then you’d have to go out into the world and delete 10’s of thousands of copies of those emails, most of which are stored on several devices and each device has two copies. Hackers have proven that they can access systems when they are motivated enough, either Hillary’s copies off her server or any one of the 10’s, perhaps 100’s of thousands of emails sent to others. The fact that there wasn’t any mystery emails released by Russia tells me there, most likely, that there was not a widespread deleting of State Dept emails.
So should Clinton have been charged with a crime? I haven’t seen the evidence and I do not know her intent and neither do you. I’ve always supported the idea of an impartial investigation, but given the fact that the Republicans have been in charge for 2 years but haven’t opened one or called her before House or Senate committees (as they already have ad-nasuim) I suspect their claims or “crimes” committed are just to rile people like you up, but as I said, I’d have no issues with an impartial investigation to put the issue to rest.
However, I don’t think most of this people on this forum would ever accept anything but a finding of crimes commited, even if Trump himself ran the investigation.