@Lash,
It does indeed look like perjury strictly defined. However Hillarey is very adept at putting responsibility for such actions on the shoulders of others who work directly for her and at her direction. Thus when her chief of staff signs somewhat fradulent letters and forms arranging for Huma Abedein's simultaneous employment by the State Department and a subcontractor for the Clinton Foundation working on her campaign, the reponsibility is magically not hers. In the case of the missing e mails the fault is assigned to her lawyers who she said were directed to do a thorough search and disclosure. (Never mind that these are the same lawyers working on her defense from potential Federal charges.
I know of no corporation or no military organization (at least until lately) that uses such concepts of responsibility. The CEO is responsible to the Board (and the Law) for the company's performance and the Captain for his ship -- whether he or she took the actions in question directly or not: responsibility is inseperable from authority. Sadly this does not appear lately to apply to politicians generally, and few are more proficient at evading responsibility than the Clintons . I suspect this and other issues like it are at the heart of the unease among voters we are seeing in both Democrat and Republican primaries lately.
Now Hillary complains on Meet the Press, in a rare interview with reporters, that the furor on the e-mail matter is a "drip, drip, drip continuing media conspiracy". That's another entry in the "
When we left the White House we were dead broke" book of Hillary whoppers. In this case the drip, drip, drip is the continuing flow of evidence emerging from the State Department, Intelligence agencies and the FBI contradicting her own assertions on the matter.
None of this alters the importance of Hillary the candidate to the interests of major elements of the Democrat Party, or the dilemmas they face in both defending her (while they can) and readying an alternative to her.
