Strawman again.
Nothing to do with Free Speech. These documents aren't even her property. Destroying something that doesn't belong to you isn't free speech.
The documents must be left intact where they were placed. It's then the responsibility of someone else paid to collect and archive or destroy them, if necessary.
She abused her power and should be held responsible.
Counterpoint: How do you know those documents weren't her property? Where does it say that the documents must be left intact where they were placed?
Another Strawman
These documents are provided by the government and remain its property.
Where does it say that the documents must be left intact where they were placed?
You certainly aren't very familiar with these speeches or you wouldn't ask that question.
These aren't strawman arguments. These are legitimate questions.
You've been attempting to shut down each of my questions claiming logical fallacies, but the questions I've been asking are the ones which will be brought up by a defense team and ones that I want to legitimately know the answer to. You appear to be much more familiar with these situations; can you enlighten me on the details so I won't make the same kinds of mistakes again?
(post is archived)