If this were Snopes, they'd most likely use their True/False category where they state what is true and what is false:

True: Clinton's team destroyed emails on the server False: the process didn't leverage "acid wash", but something called BleachBit

Or something to that effect. Not a Snopes writer.

To give a recurring example, this is like the debate on gun control and when someone says "automatic weapons" or "assault rifles" and the other party attempts to shut it down there. That is what the tweet effectively attempts to do (countering the intent of the message by discrediting verbiage).

This isn’t a mere semantic quibble. It’s a blatant misrepresentation of what was done, with an attack based on that.

To make an analogy to gun control, imagine if a prominent person said that the Parkland attacker constructed the bomb he used to kill all those kids with a rare explosive that can only be obtained from the government of Ecuador, and implied there was something funny going on. Should we avoid calling this “false” because he did actually kill a bunch of kids?

Bleach is alkaline, quite literally the opposite of an acid.