Why should she be believed?

Why should Ms. Clinton's claims about the emails processed through the now infamous insecure personal server be believed?  She has said the following.

Regarding providing emails to the Department of State, she said, "I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related."  However, it was years after leaving office and happened only after the personal email server became public knowledge.

Regarding her supposed and self-defined personal emails, she said, "I chose not to keep my private personal emails."  A strange statement, since they were retained for years after leaving the Department of State and were supposedly deleted only after the whole email issue came to the surface.

Regarding categorizing the emails as work related or personal, she said, "For any government employee, it is that government employee's responsibility to determine what's personal and what's work-related. I am very confident of the process that we conducted and the e-mails that were produced."  Why should the people accept her assurances, after it took years for any emails to be provided?  

Regarding the security of the personal server, she said, "And there were no security breaches."  This seems questionable at best, as she also claimed the sever was physically protected by the Secret Service, which is accepted as fact.  However, physical contact is not required to "hack" a server.  The claim is further called into question by the recent revelation that an international hacker was extradited to the U.S. by the FBI team investigating this matter. 

And, finally, regarding the processing of classified information on the personal server, she said, "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.  So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."  This has been proven to be absolutely false, with two dozen of the more than 2,000 deemed to contain classified information are so highly classified that they could not be released in any form.

After the above, there is a major matter not receiving the public attention it warrants.  The contents of the so-called personal emails.  Granting that some of the more than 30,000 emails were likely mundane and truly personal does not mean that all were.  Follow the logic: if the emails were so carefully scrutinized, as Clinton has asserted, prior to release to the Department of State (and then only after the issue became public and only in printed hard copy form), how did more than 2,000 containing classified information get released?  Why would Clinton knowingly release emails containing classified information?

Is her claim that she is "well-aware of the classification requirements" to be believed?  With all the thus far released emails containing massive amounts of classified information, the answer must be NO.  Based on this glaring inaccuracy, if not outright falsehood, can the American people and the courts believe her statement that, "I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related?"  No.

The matter not receiving adequate attention centers around the contents of the so-called personal emails.  If the review of work related email did not eliminate thousands of classified emails, we can not expect the review of personal emails was any more thorough or accurate.  Thus we can not believe that the deleted "personal" emails contained solely personal matters.  In party, because we can not believe how Clinton or her people would define personal.  For example, would communications on Clinton Foundation matters with business and government leaders in countries with whom the United States government was negotiating be defined as personal?

It is simple, we can not believe Ms. Clinton.

Let us hope the FBI is able to recover and review the so-called personal emails.  It is highly likely some of them contain potentially explosive insights into Clinton's behavior, judgment, and decisions while secretary of state.