A scathing Time magazine piece on Hillary Clinton has this nugget:

For more than a year after she left office in 2013, she did not transfer work-related email from her private account to the State Department. She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department–spurred by the congressional investigation–asked her to do so. And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache–31,830 emails–did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be “private, personal records.” 

What?! How in the world did they think not reading the e-mails to check for words that may not have been in the search terms was a legitimate way to go about this? It wasn’t, and it wasn’t designed to be. It was designed to let her say: Trust me. Only private e-mails were destroyed.

No lawyer worth his salt would have recommended this as the most effective way to preserve any work e-mails. To the contrary, in order not to be accused of destroying evidence, a lawyer would go to great pains and err on the side of including every e-mail potentially within the scope of a subpoena. That they did not, and instead chose to destroy anything that did not include a search word (Was every country on the planet in there? Every member of the National Security Council, every foreign leader and the name of her foundation in there?) demonstrates precisely why “trust me” is so absurd in the context of Hillary Clinton.

And if that were not enough, there is now a question of whether she signed a “separation” form upon leaving the government, in which she would have had to represent that she had turned over all government records and communications. The State Department refuses to say whether she signed. There is no good answer. If she signed it and was not honest, she is in a heap of trouble. If she did not have to sign it, it is further evidence that the rules don’t apply to her and that she is deliberately evasive enough to avoid perjuring herself.

You do wonder at what point some major Democrat or respected left-leaning pundit says the obvious: It is not that Hillary Clinton should get competition; it is that she really shouldn’t run. The “Oh, let’s give her some competition” is a cop-out. What Democrat will be competitive if she remains in the race? What Democrat who has a real future wants to go up against the Clinton machine? She’s effectively the incumbent, running for a third term. There is a reason few challengers will take on an incumbent.

In short, no one else really capable will get in as long as she is sucking up the money and oxygen. If she gets out, then watch talented and viable candidates pour into the field. The Dems have to collectively decide to throw their lot in with someone knowing everything they do (and knowing there is much they don’t), or they need to collectively tell her to scram. I suspect the only one with the nerve and influence to do that is the president. So what’s it going to be?