2 gapingly inadequate answers at Hillary Clinton's press conference about her emails.

1. John Althouse Cohen focuses on Hillary's answer to the question about "how the public can be assured that she withheld only personal emails, not work-related emails that might be 'unflattering'":

Her answer is that "you would have to ask that question to every single federal employee," since they all have the responsibility to decide whether to use their personal or work email addresses, depending on whether they're talking about something work-related or not....

When she decided which emails to turn over, a long time had passed since she had sent them. She's had the time to reconsider things she said before. She's gotten to see which subjects have become controversial over time. She's had time to reflect on strategy for an upcoming presidential campaign. After all that time, then she decides which emails to call "work-related" � knowing that as long as she assigns that label to a given message, the public will likely see it.

And which kinds of messages have the most potential to be "unflattering" to a political candidate? Messages she sent on the spur of the moment, without much reflection or political calculation. Or messages about something we now know is a hotly debated issue, but that she didn't realize at the time would end up being a big issue.

None of that is true of a federal employee deciding whether to use their work email address or personal email address to send a message.

2. I've been fixated on Hillary's statement she destroyed her personal email, which I noticed she slipped in at the beginning of her press conference. Did she really mean that? Why would a woman who values her friends and family � and who has written 2 memoirs of her life � not want to preserve personal correspondence? The 9-page statement put out by her office is quite clear on this subject. It said, the L.A. Times reports, that there were "62,320 messages that she had sent or received between March 2009 and February 2013" and that "30,490 of these were provided to the State Department, and 31,830 were private records that were destroyed."

Now, maybe it's just a lie. She didn't really destroy these records and is only claiming that she destroyed them so that we won't attempt to gain access to them. But if she really did destroy them, why would she sacrifice so much? It could be that everything she cares about went to Chelsea and a few others who she knows will keep all of her email. Thus, it's retrievable. Maybe it's not such a huge sacrifice. But 31,830 private records destroyed? That sounds quite drastic, and it stokes the suspicion that she did shunt damaging work-related email into the "personal" category, then destroyed it all so that no one could ever check her work.

But if those damaging emails were sent, couldn't the recipients produce them? Hillary is fighting for the presidency, and the door is closing in a year and a half. The press would need not only to acquire these emails from recipients, detect that they were not somewhere in the pile of printed-out 30,490 emails given to the State Department, and then face the defense that it's not really surprising that in the sorting of 62,320 messages an inadvertent miscategorization could be made... and what difference at this point does it make?

The evidence is limited because she limited it, and I'm forced to infer that she is hiding some very important things � important enough that it was worth destroying the evidence. You know, President Nixon did not destroy the Watergate Tapes. He considered it though:

"I had bad advice, bad advice from well-intentioned lawyers who had sort of a cockeyed notion that I would be destroying evidence," Nixon said years later in a videotaped interview. "I should have destroyed them."

Live and learn.