Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did Hillary Clinton's email deletion constitute obstruction of justice in 2016?
Executive summary
The available reporting shows Clinton’s team deleted roughly 30,000 emails they called personal and turned over about 30,000 work-related messages; the FBI concluded in 2016 not to recommend criminal charges and said it found “no evidence of intent to obstruct” [1] [2] [3]. Critics and some commentators argued deletion after subpoenas raised obstruction questions, while conservative outlets made legal accusations — but the FBI and later public accounts did not produce an indictment [3] [4] [5].
1. What happened: numbers, timing and the deletions
Hillary Clinton’s lawyers reviewed about 60,000 emails from her private server, produced roughly 30,000 to the State Department as work-related, and deleted the remainder as personal; WikiLeaks later published a database of over 30,000 of her server emails released by the State Department [1] [6] [2]. FactCheck.org and the FBI summary noted the deletions occurred in late March 2015 — three weeks after a congressional subpoena in early March — which became a focal point for claims that material had been removed while under legal process [3].
2. The FBI’s conclusion: no criminal charges — and why that matters
FBI Director James Comey announced in July 2016 that the Bureau would not recommend prosecution, telling Congress the investigation found “no evidence of evil intent” and no proof that senders or Clinton knew they were sending classified information when the messages were transmitted; that assessment underpinned the decision not to charge her [2] [7]. That conclusion is central: under federal law, obstruction or related charges typically require proof of willful intent to obstruct or knowingly mishandle classified information; the FBI reported it did not find sufficient evidence of those mental states [2] [7].
3. The obstruction argument and opposing legal views
Critics — including some Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators — argued deletions, the alleged server “wiping,” and inconsistencies in timing amounted to obstruction of justice, saying deleting emails after a subpoena could be criminal [8] [4]. Supporters of the decision not to prosecute pointed to the FBI’s findings about intent and to Clinton’s claim that the deleted messages were personal [2]. Independent fact-checkers rated specific political claims (for example, the precise timing and intent assertions made on the campaign trail) as half-true or disputed because details about when deletions were done and what counsel knew were contested [5] [3].
4. Technical claims: “wiped” server vs. deleted emails
Journalists and technology commentators repeatedly noted a key difference between simply deleting emails and securely wiping a server — a distinction with legal and forensic implications. NPR reported the Clinton team did not disclose whether the server had been wiped and that wiping could hamper an investigation, while Platte River Networks (the server manager) said it had no knowledge of a wipe [9]. That technical uncertainty fueled more partisan claims even while the FBI was able to recover and review a large body of messages [9] [2].
5. What the public record does — and does not — show
Public sources provided by news outlets, the FBI summary, and later document releases show: tens of thousands of emails were reviewed; many were turned over; many were deleted as personal; and the FBI declined prosecution citing lack of criminal intent [1] [3] [2]. Available sources do not mention definitive, publicly released forensic proof that Clinton herself ordered deletions with the conscious aim of obstructing an investigation, nor do the cited sources show a court-established finding of obstruction (not found in current reporting; [3]; [8]1).
6. Why the question remained politically potent
Even without criminal charges, the timing and optics — deletions occurring weeks after a subpoena, the large number of messages removed, and partisan media coverage — made the issue a sustained political weapon. Analyses of 2016 media coverage show the email controversy dominated attention and was repeatedly used by opponents and commentators to argue both legal and ethical fault [8] [6]. Different actors interpreted the same factual matrix through legal, political, and technical lenses, producing sharply divergent public claims [8] [4].
7. Bottom line for readers
Legally, the FBI’s public judgment in 2016 was that the record did not support prosecution or a finding of obstruction; politically and journalistically, gaps in the timeline and technical ambiguity about deletions left room for sustained allegations [2] [3] [9]. If you seek a definitive court finding of obstruction tied specifically to the deletions, available reporting and official documents in these sources show none was produced (not found in current reporting).