The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clinton’s Email Traffic

I would suggest anybody who wants to get to the real issues with HRC's email accounts take this article from Politico for a spin:

Politico Article

An analysis of the released emails raises questions about whether Clinton deleted a number of work-related emails—and if she did, why.
By PETER SCHWEIZER July 06, 2016

But, when it comes to Clinton’s correspondence, the most basic and troubling questions still remain unanswered: Why are there gaps in Clinton’s email history? Did she or her team delete emails that she should have made public?

The State Department has released what is said to represent all of the work-related, or “official,” emails Clinton sent during her tenure as secretary—a number totaling about 30,000. According to Clinton and her campaign, when they were choosing what correspondence to turn over to State for public release, they deleted 31,830 other emails deemed “personal and private.” But a numeric analysis of the emails that have been made public, focusing on conspicuous lapses in email activity, raises troubling concerns that Clinton or her team might have deleted a number of work-related emails.

This is one of the pivotal parts:

Why does this matter? Because Clinton signed documents declaring she had turned over all of her work-related emails. We now know that is not true. But even more importantly, the absence of emails raises troubling questions about the nature of the correspondence that might have been deleted.

Now, we've all long suspected that the Clinton Foundation basically used the State Department as it's defacto benefactor or the other way around I suppose. This is clear when reading this:

Equally bizarre is the absence at certain times of basic logistical emails pertaining to Hillary Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. In general, Bill gets plenty of mention in the official emails released by the State Department, emails covering everything from travel logistics to press releases about Clinton Foundation work. But there’s an email silence in June 2010, when Hillary Clinton was in South America for a series of high-level meetings. According to her memoir, “by coincidence” Bill was in Bogota, Colombia, apparently for Clinton Foundation work, at the same time she was in the country. Also there with Bill was Frank Giustra, one of the Clinton Foundation’s largest contributors. Bill, Hillary and Giustra reportedly had dinner together, and the next morning, Bill met with Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe, followed immediately by Hillary’s meeting with Uribe. In the weeks that follow, Giustra’s companies scored concessions from the Colombian government on matters ranging from oil to timber.

Politico notes that prior to this and after, there were tons of mention of Bill Clinton within the emails. Schedules, events, meetings etc.

But during this, nothing. And as noted, it's very clear that Bill was there on Foundation business, why would anybody think Hillary would not bring that up in their subsequent meeting?

In any case, this just proves even more so, that Hillary used her position at the state department to better herself and her wallet, and put the security of the USA at risk, pure and simple with her handling of emails.

The remainder of the article even includes the comparisons of diplomatic cables vs emails sent for major events.

~Tenth

Stuff like How much will it cost to pay off so and so, where the arms are shipping to, but mostly all the times she asked, "Is he (Qaddafi) dead yet?"

a reply to: tothetenthpower

That IS interesting - great that media outlets such as Politico picks up on this. AS opposed to many heavily right slanted sites, Politico is not preaching to the choir - and it is MUCH harder for potential democratic voters to dismiss as a political attack when it comes from a source like this.

Thanks for sharing!

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Star and Flag!!!
Thanks for posting this.
There are a lot of very important questions that the media need to continue to ask.

Very interesting. Kind of surprised it's being highlighted by Politico though. I hope someone on the committee asks Comey about this today.

I just don't understand how her very use of the servers isn't criminal in and of itself - for circumventing FOIA retention guidelines. And deleting 30,000 emails as well. Okay - forget the classified or not BS - it's the off-site server and deletion that is the main concern. She circumvented over-sight and obstructed any possible inquiry.

a reply to: DupontDeux

I've noticed politico has gotten better lately, I've been reading them every day for the last few months.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

It is so painfully obvious Hillary abused her power and was not responsible in a number of ways. In a position where she is supposed to defend the country and help keep it safer, it's mind-boggling she has gotten away with as much as she has. Why doesn't anything ever come to fruition? Surely there must be SOME people within the government who are following what's going on and want her to be held accountable? Why does it seem that she is soooo untouchable?

I know she is already "in" the group, but why has she been able to blatantly do so many wrongs and yet she continues to climb to success? What in the actual hell is going on?

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Didn't Nixon erase 18 1/2 minutes of tapes? And he left disgracefully? So how are erasing 30,000 emails different?