So we are led to believe that he took 5 copies of the same document, and he kept 2 of them, then cut up the other 3.
Even if he did need 2 copies for the testimony, why did he destroy the other 3?
No, no cover-up here.
These people. Do they think we're all so bloody stupid?
Apparently so, since this so-called explanation is illogical.
embarrassing handwritten notes from several Clinton era operatives?
I am very frustrated at reading the small inside page news articles that all seem to say he took "copies." I don't think he compromised our national security, rather some Clintonistas reputations. Throughout the 8 years, it seemed that the possible penalty for destroying evidence was deemed to be less that the political penalty if the information came out. Another one falls on his sword for the Clintons.