Hillary Clinton deleted thousands of email messages from her private email server before allowing access to the remaining messages to government investigators. As far as I can determine, the received messages are gone forever. All it would take to put them out of reach would be copying the remaining messages to a new disk drive and physically destroying the original drive. The Clinton campaign contends that the deleted messages were trivial personal communications and “spam.” I find this assertion difficult to accept, for the following reasons:
1. The Clinton Foundation was a powerful tool used by the Clinton’s to secure resources and influence.
2. During HRC’s time as SoS, there were several instances of foreign governments concluding major arms purchases from the US after making large donations to the Clinton Foundation.
3. Even a single email message indicating improper use of the Secretary of State’s office would be sufficient to derail Clinton’s Presidential campaign.
4. As a highly intelligent observer of national politics, Clinton would have observed numerous instances of public figures being damaged by email disclosures, and would have acted to protect herself from this risk.
5. The rationale of using a single email address for “convenience” is far less convincing as the basis for using a private mail server than having the ability to suppress any embarrassing private email communications.
6. Having permanently deleted her emails, Clinton has no fear of contradiction regarding her assertions about their content.
HRC is asking the voters to trust that she has not destroyed any evidence of a conflicted agenda in her pursuit of political power. I don’t believe her. I believe that HRC deliberately used a personal email server so that she could have a high degree of freedom in advancing her political interests while enjoying the ability to suppress any undesirable email records. If you think that Clinton’s decision to be able to erase email evidence of past misdeeds is a clever move, then she reflects your values and you should vote for her. Others will reach a different conclusion.