Did Hillary Clinton Delete Her Own Emails? Podesta Leaks

Among the Podesta Emails was an email (ID 4099) from Erika Rottenberg (General Council at LinkedIn) to Stephanie Hannon (Hillary Clinton's chief technology officer), Ann O'Leary (Senior Policy Advisor at Hillary for America; Co-founder of The Opportunity Institute).

In it, Erika expresses a question:

1. you're obviously amongst friends, but here's the one i referred to (can't remember which of you i talked about it with, if not both). It's from someone that wasn't goign to come, and i encouraged him to come. he comes at the issue slightly differnetly than what I've dsicussed with both of you (Ok, one thing to use personal email, but why the "twisted truth" (not my words) on why - with the two problematic areas being (a) emails to bill (when they were to bill's staff) and (b) i only used one device -- BB, when 2 weeks earlier, it was an iphone, BB and ipad. As Ann and I discussed, hopefully that's a timing issue and whilst in state, she only used one.

*For my question*, it's basically some variation of [not quite phrased right yet]: I know when I talk to my friends who are attorneys we are all struggling with what happened to the emails and aren't satisfied with answers to date. While we all know of the occasional use of personal email addresses for business, none of my friends circle can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.

[her spelling]

As for Erika Rottenberg, an expert in cybersecurity, she is referenced in a few other emails; but this one from Robbie Mook (Hilary's Campaign Manager) to Podesta (email id 2579) in regards to her letter of intent, is odd:

Interesting. Let me see--if she doesn't need to get paid a ton, in house legal or policy may be options too

It sounds like Mook is going to hire her.

In another email (Id 4136), she discusses "a policy question" about a friend trying to get into the Chinese market, perhaps having accepted Mook's offer of "in house legal or policy".

"Going to 10k foot level -- All comes down to access to the cn market (given the 1.4B people that live there).... And protection of a co's Crown Jewels (ip, data) and values (free expression/censorship/democracy) ---- our govt has a trade deficit w China so what can govt do to help companies compete? (There is a lot in here - which we won't get into tonight -- I spent a lot of time at linkedin on our China launched studying their market and these dynamics. One thing is clear - the Cold War w cn doesn't work and we need to figure out a way to compete. Otherwise our children's children will grow up in a very difft world. "

[her spelling]

For context, Mook's interest in Erika Rottenburg was Feb. 2015, the emails deleted in March of 2015; the email from Erika Rottenburg to Hillary's advisors was in June 2015; Erika Rottenburg begins "teeing up policy questions" late June 2015.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Did Richard 'Tricky Dick' Nixon delete his own tape recordings?

It took long enough. The state of secrets is probably run by think tanks of lawyers, cronies and crony lawyers. They have to prepare to confess, covering all the angles. The biggest tell of cover up to me is that they let Nixon and Hillary turn over their own evidence.

Usually they raid and confiscate that stuff. But then this is a gubment off the rails. When Nixon left he got pardoned, Hillary got pardoned too. And shes not even in the oval office yet.

Quite revealing!

Well, only to those of us without blinders on.

Those with Clinton-blinders wont even acknowledge this thread, let alone the criminality of the Clintons themselves. Pathetic deplorables!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Hillary Rodham Clinton, acting above the law?
Apparently even her associates know this, and
are complicit.

At what point should we be looking for the obvious
to come blackmail in this cesspool?