You're trying to be funny, maybe trying a little to hard. But since the FBI files obtained by Hillary included several involving investigations into prominent Democrats as well as Republicans [including the details of FBI investigation number IP-7 1690, the investigation into the murder of US senator Birch Bayh's mistress and the appointment of an FBI suspect in the murder to a cabinet-level position by Governor Evan Bayh, Birch's son, who now holds his father's former senate seat] you just might be correct.
Indeed, if the material includes information from that VVAW *Operation Pheonix* plan, it could also inclede information from Director Hoover's *personal and confidential* files on political figures that the FBI director felt he needed some influence over, the Kennedy brothers in particular.
Speaking of which, what ever came of the reported plan to exhume Hoover's body for the post-mortem medical investigation into Hoover's death to which he was not subjected to at the time he suddenly *passed away.* Qui bono?
Not really, I just am at a loss as to what this author's point is. If he HAD the files and was using them for research, they HAD to be obtained via FOIA.....one cannot just "borrow" FBI files, they must be vetted and approved for release, as I said, via FOIA. So, it may be a major PAIN for him to go through the motion to "re-request" his missing files, not to mention the cost and the time involved, but he CAN get his hands on what he's missing, that way.
If he obtained the files by dubious means (ala the Craig Livingstone/Hillary Clinton method) then what recourse does he have and why is he bringing their loss to light? It's like calling the cops because your crack pipe is missing.......like I said, I'm confused as to just what the guy's point is............and why would the person(s) who took the files risk getting caught burglarizing the guy's place, if all of the files are available anyway, through FOIA?? To me, the whole thing is puzzling, to say the least!