I don't think there was reason to expect a subpoena for the entirety of her personal email at the time the deletion decision was made. The decision to launch a full-scale Congressional investigation into the use of the private server well after she had left office was a substantial stretch, even given the irrational Republican hatred for all things Clinton. So, no, I don't think she should have known that a subpoena of such breadth that it would almost certainly not survived had it been issued in litigation was likely.Slartibartfast wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:27 pmneeneko wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:10 pmI think it would be more accurate to say the perception of cover up got her, not the 'coverup'.Slartibartfast wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:39 pmIt’s not the crime that gets you, it’s the coverup. The coverup got her. Just like it got her husband. Ask yourselves what it will take to convince you to change your minds about Hillary Clinton. I believe that she has far exceeded any rational standard, but maybe one of you can come up with a standard that she passes but which doens’t Let Trump off the hook, because I can’t.
Nope. She deleted emails. That’s a coverup. It doesn’t matter whether or not there was anything to cover up, once you’ve tried to cover it up you’ve crossed the line. This isn’t about perception, it’s the agreed upon facts that are in and of themselves damning.
Yes, the emails were not deleted till after the subpoena. The sorting and deleting policy change were from well before then though. A careless IT staffer did not get around to it till someone brought it up, and did not inform people further up the chain that they had not completed a task assigned to them months ago.
Which means that, when the subpoena was ordered (which was after the coverup was ordered) there was still a chance to reverse the decision. Did Hillary even try? Should Hillary be commended for making the decision before a subpoena came? Shouldn’t a politician of her stature have known that a subpoena was likely? How does any of this mitigate the deletion of information relevant to the inquiry?
A violation of the records preservation regulations in effect when the email account was being used was, as I've said, bad. But it's not (at least to my knowledge) criminal; expecting Congress to launch a full-out, millions-of-dollars-in-expenses investigation of that issue is a bit much. Anticipating that they would take that investigation to the point of demanding to personally review every email sent or received goes beyond even that. And the whole "classified information" thing was a stroke of evil genius on the part of the Republicans, but also not predictable.
And as far as the "chance to reverse the decision" was concerned, I don't think Clinton had any obligation to try and find out if it was possible. She was probably entitled to presume that her vendor was not negligent, and it's only negligence on the part of the vendor that left anything intact at the point when the subpoena was issued.
1: There was no reason for Clinton to try to reverse the decision.
2: The decision to have her lawyers cull the personal emails rather than allowing State or Archives to be part of that decision wasn't admirable. It was arrogant and ran counter to at least the spirit, and probably the letter, of the records preservation regulations. But it wasn't criminal in and of itself.
3: She shouldn't have known a subpoena was likely.
4: At the time the decision to delete data was made, I don't think there was an ongoing or reasonably predictable inquiry that would have made the information she deleted relevant.