Slashdot Mirror
Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email At State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules
HughPickens.com writes: The NY Times reports that Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, according to State Department officials. She may have violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act. "It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business," said attorney Jason R. Baron. A spokesman for Clinton defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the "letter and spirit of the rules."
This seems indicative of sense that the rules do not apply to me.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Did I win?
So exactly what shady deals has she been concocting with her rich chums then? And leaving no email trail?
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Do you know what will happen to her? Not. A. God. Damn. Thing.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Sorry but "the shitstorm will be her punishment" isn't acceptable.
The rules are there for data retention and accountability purposes.
Didn't we learn ANYTHING from the whole Lois Lerner debacle?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
From the 'liberal' media of CNN, the Washington Post and Huffington post this morning.
Now I'm no fan of the Clintons, but if you don't see a coordination job then you're either a Fox news watcher or a Lotus eater ;)
Not really. The really one remaining significant difference between the parties is that public shaming is still a career-ender in the Democratic party. There's no post-scandal career phase as an evangelical preacher, Fox news commentator, or both waiting for guys like Anthony Wiener or William J. Jefferson (the freezer cash guy).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Unlike poor Karl Rove who is rotting in jail for doing the very same thing, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
She must have sent a huge number of e-mails to 1000's of people. Didn't someone notice that the e-mails were from hillary@gmail.com instead of hillary@state.gov?
If I got an email from her dealing with official business, I would have questioned why it wasn't from a "real" e-mail address - as in whitehouse.gov or whatever.
Why didn't anyone say something sooner? Didn't someone suspect her emails the same way I would suspect an e-mail from a Nigerian prince needing help?
I am sure, after the Snowden revelations, that she felt that using her personal email for conducting official business was the safest and most prudent way to backup her email. It required absolute no effort on her part and it was guaranteed to be retained. A Win Win for sure!
I'm curious as to whether the "official" State Department email was encrypted by design, and whether her private email was encrypted at all. Seems to me that a lot of State Department secrets might be laying around in various places if her emails weren't encrypted.
I'm also curious as to how she proposes to PROVE that she's turned over all of her official emails to the State Department. After all, it might behoove her to "overlook" certain emails that portray her or the Administration in an unflattering light....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Who will apply the law to her? Her political allies in the DOJ? Who will look into it? Her political allies in the press?
When someone can never be held accountable, aren't they above the law?
Tomorrow: Everyone who wants her to follow the rules: sexists. They just don't like women in power.
The "possibly" stuff in the NYT report is because they're accusing her of a crime. (She apparently didn't have a State Dept. e-mail, ever. If she handled anything classified on this address, that's supposed to mean jail time. There would be fines or whatnot if its not an actual security breach.) The justice system, and thus the press, is supposed to refer to people who have been accused of crimes, but not yet convicted, as "alleged" criminals. Here, Clinton and her staff admit to using the illicit email server, but because she hasn't been tried and convicted, she "possibly" broke the law. That's why the NYT phrased it the way they did.
As far as Slashdot, that's just lax editorial standards.
The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act. Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted. Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations. In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.
The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee, for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an acronym standing for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas. Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc.") and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.
The "gwb43.com" domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee committee chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation. Waxman sent a formal warning to the RNC, advising them to retain copies of all emails sent by White House employees. According to Waxman, "in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications." The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.
On April 12, 2007, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that White House staffers were told to use RNC accounts to "err on the side of avoiding violations of the Hatch Act, but they should also retain that information so it can be reviewed for the Presidential Records Act," and that "some employees ... have communicated about official business on those political email accounts." Stanzel also said that even though RNC policy since 2004 has been to retain all emails of White House staff with RNC accounts, the staffers had the ability to delete the email themselves.
Not that being a "career-ender" actually matters to either Dems or Reps - if you're worth millions, who cares if you don't have a job?
And Bill Clinton, like Barack Obama, came into the office basically upper-middle to lower-upper class, and left or will leave as multimillionaires (Clinton is worth double-digit millions, Obama is approaching a billion).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
So no trial, just execution of punishment? No thought into if the emails were actually stored or not, just punishment because you dont agree with her politics?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
There once was a senator from mass.
Who went out in search for a piece of asd
Lucked up and found it
But fucked up and drowned it
Even that didn't end his ass.
...this does not seem to be that serious an infraction. To the average citizen, they will see this as the equivalent of using Firefox or Chrome when told to use only IE. (which, interestingly enough, her staff at the state department begged her to allow).In reality though, this is a VERY serious violation of IT/Security policy. The govt run email system has certain protections in place to ensure confidentiality, repel intrusion, prevent staff from snooping on emails, etc. While other email providers also care about these things, it's almost guaranteed that will not go to the same lengths to protect against and punish malfeasance. If I were her, the NSA revelations would have given me stomach ulcer. A govt email could easily be excluded from any digital reconnaissance conducted by the NSA. Her gmail or yahoo account? Just the opposite. And heaven help us if other countries have anything close to our capabilities/level of infiltration into 3rd party email providers. She should seriously be pondering how many of her foreign policy initiatives were foiled as result of her utter laziness and willful ignorance. They should fire some people at the state department -- anyone who received an email from her should have noticed she was using her personal email, and should have "blown the whistle". And this should be a major campaign issue -- but it won't.Our political system is not for the rational -- it's for the power hungry and those entertained by the power hungry. Full hypocrisy disclosure -- I also love House of Cards.
But NONE of the government recipients or people who used to be in government notified any authorities in the US Government that Hillary was violating the rules that they had to follow. So are they all complicit in breaking the law?
Given that private email accounts are not likely secure, how is it that other government official would send sensitive and sometimes secret materials to a private email account of Hillary's. That would also make any government official who sent official emails to Hillary guilty for not following the law.
Just another example of the fact we must follow the law or get hammered by government departments, but when the Clinton's violate law, it's just time for another spin job from Bill & Hillary: "What difference does it make?" with arms raised and screeching. God help the US.
Well, if anybody else in government did this, they'd get fired, lose their pension, and possibly face criminal charges.
When the people at the highest levels of power decide that the law doesn't apply to them, nothing at all happens.
So, on behalf of the rest of the world ... when the political leaders ignore the law and face no consequences, the rest of us want to send a big collective "fuck you".
This has nothing to do with her politics. If Bush or Cheney had done this, we'd want them prosecuted as well.
Laws which are selectively applied are crap. Assholes in power who believe the law doesn't apply to them need to be punished.
These laws exist so there is a public record of activities, not some place where you can sidestep that and conduct business elsewhere away from oversight.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You are glad that someone as seasoned at breaking the rules in technology is doing so? That sounds like a great thing to me. Here we go, here are more Government idiots who know how to use technology and will make sure that they have zero accountability! I am glad that the monkeys at the top finally learned the basics of interwebz 101 and know how to cover their tracks. We wouldn't want our Government officials to be held accountable now, would we?
I think you have misinterpreted the rules a bit. Campaigning and party activity are prohibited with government resources.
The President and Cabinet sending emails on implementing political goals are permitted activities. Sending emails about ?NC platform discussions are not permitted.
When I went through ethics training with the GC, it was very clear what was and was not permissible. From the GC point of view, the default was use goverment email and save every email.
I can see the desire, particularly at the executive level, not to leave a record because policy formulation can be a messy activity. However, I'm not sure that is the motivation in this case. First, there is no control over the retention of the other end and, second, a lot discussion happens on the classified side.
That may surprise people here. The Republicans have done a good job painting her as the quintessential ultra-liberal Democrat, but really she is no such thing. She is, in fact, from the right wing of the party and could have been an establishment Republican a generation ago. She is widely reviled by the left over her vote on the Iraq War Authorization of Military Force (although to be fair, Joe Biden voted for it too and he's seen as generally reliable on liberal issues, as long as he doesn't open his mouth).
On the other hand she's the first really plausible female presidential candidate for a major party, and I think a lot of people who want to see that milestone project a great deal of their hopes on her. But what makes her plausible in the first place is her acceptability to the establishment.
And what makes her acceptable to the establishment is her competence and personal accomplishments; being married to Bill helps. But the Ivy League education, experience in high profile NGOs and partnership in a major law firm mean she's seen as serious by "serious people". But in this case that should be held against her here. She's not like old Uncle Joe (Biden), whose heart is in the right place but who the hell can tell where his mind might go a-wandering; Hillary is someone you expect to have her head in the game. She knew damn well that conducting official business on non-government servers is exactly what people do when they're breaking the law.
I'm neither a Hillary partisan nor a Hillary hater. On the political spectrum I tend to fall a little to the right of the most vocal Democratic base and to the left of the establishment "DLC" wing that dominates the party at the national level. When the Secretary of State does something this fishy, that's a big deal. I think there should be something like a special prosecutor appointed, even though when the words "Clinton" and "special prosecutor" are uttered in the sentence the word "circus" can't be far behind. But then if the special prosecutor finds no indictable offense I'd be happy with that result.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Since the CIA monitors government email and the NSA monitors private email, I don't really think this is a security issue.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
You applaud Hillary for breaking the rules...good for you.
That is right, leaders shouldn't have to worry about rules like "accountability" and "morality" and "laws of the land" because that would get in the way of these tinpot dictators from doing what they wish. Couldn't have that in modern politics now, could we?
Nah, real leaders just break all the rules, murder their opposition and leave no trace to what they actually did. At least that is what you are saying. Maybe you used bad wording or such, but in the end the conclusion is the same...without accountability there is no way to make sure our leaders actually follow the same laws they put on the rest of us.
Sandy Berger told her so.
Not only does 'Billary' avoid oversight with respect to government emails, but she also defended a rapist and insulted the victim:
Rapist
And people actually vote for her? How sad.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
"RULES?" Come on. If I kill someone I'm not "breaking the rules," I am breaking the LAW.
Likewise, this is Federal Law.
At least the apologists at the NY Times are out in force here to minimize it.
I doubt that anyone else would get in all that much trouble. The media would no doubt castigate them if they were a conservative but no one in political power actually gets in any real trouble for breaking minor laws. I'm old enough to remember when Tricky Dick got in trouble over the Watergate scandle and I wonder if it happened today if he would still have to resign. I seriously doubt it. Sad that we hold our leaders to a lesser standard than ordinary people. Tragic really.
Like she's even going to get charged. Get real.
Holder deliberately gave guns to Mexican drug lorgs and didn't get charged. I don't think Hillary using her personal email is going to get Obama to turn on her ... lol.
Yes, today Nixon would still have to resign for two reasons:
1. He's a Republican and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and all of the other liberal Democratic Party allied new media outlets would scream bloody murder how horrible this all was.
2. Just like in the 70's Republican voters are by and large don't wink at dishonesty in their ranks, but actually hate it. It's part of the conservative personality. So they would not support him.
Of course, if the exact same scandal occurred with Obama he would not have to resign for two reasons:
1. He's a Democrat and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and all of the other liberal Democratic Party allied new media outlets would scream bloody murder how horribly racist people are who criticize Obama and how "good people" are able to rise above such racism.
2. Democrat voters by and large wink at dishonesty in their ranks and actually admire it. When a Democratic President like Clinton or Obama lie and everyone knows they are lying you see most of the liberal media wink and nod at how "savvy" a politician he is.
Another Democrat blaming bush for Democratic shortcomings!
God damn, grow some adult pants and take responsibility for your decisions.
It will be an interesting exercise to compare the Bush Whitehouse Email Controversy' with Hilary's erupting email 'scandal'
Ken
Bush was a millionaire when he entered office (both Bushs).
Clinton was not a millionaire when he entered office - I think his gig as Gov. Of Arkansas netted him a cool $35K in salary.
Obama stepped into office a millionaire from book sales of his TWO autobiographies.
If Hillary becomes President, she'll step in as a multi-millionaire - probably richer than 'obscenely' rich Mitt Romney.
Ken
After some quick digging, this appears to be the law broken:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Basically, she was required by law to archive her communications on federal servers. She did not.
Also of note, according to TSG she forwarded classified intelligence Emails to Sidney Blumenthal, who was not a federal employee.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/d...
By getting this out there now, it can be written off as "old news" come election time. Savvy news media types know that the best time to expose the skeletons is months in advance. Savvy politicians know this too so expect more of these types of stories being "leaked" to the sympathetic press teams in the next few months. Meanwhile, the opposition is gnashing their teeth and hoping that they are able to reserve most the things that could discredit Hillary until the very last moment.
Another thought occurs to me as well; it seems that every time something like this happens to a liberal candidate, the majority of comments are along the lines of "oh it doesn't really matter because all politicians do this". As if it's expected. I recall the Earth shattering k-boom that rocked the planet when it was revealed that Sarah Pallin used gmail when she was Governor. The amount of ZOMGICANTBELIEVEITHOWSTUPIDANDILLEGALANDIMMORALANDJUSTPLAINDOWNRIGHTBAD that is. Yes, they all do it. Some of them do it for the purposes of obscuring and avoiding exposure. Some of them do it because they are lazy and/or stupid. I'm not proposing that Hillary needs to be put in the public square and become the target of rotten fruit. Just keep this in mind the next time a Republican is exposed and treat the occasion with the same level of contempt.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
Then there is the whole Fucking Common Sense thing about Government Employees using Government emails to discuss Government business.
Seems like it's a good opportunity to create a new, well deserved law that any correspondence about government business, policy or even what color you want your office painted needs to be done on a government email account.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
AND remember the liberal democrat cries about Sarah Palin's alleged use of private email for public use (until it was hacked and nothing was found) ??
Yeah, the same people who were screaming lunatic mad about that, are the same ones suddenly silent here. Those people need to be "named and shamed".
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I voted democrat in the past 2 elections, and I think this is pretty horrible. This is far worse than when Palin did it because it puts national security at risk.
I fully understand the implication for archival purposes of this failure and I'm not happy but it seems she's trying to rectify this thought I'd rather a national archivist select which emails get archived not her staff. However,I kind of yawn at this aspect of things: not good but not worth getting in a tissy over.
My greater concern was if any of the communication was classified or unclassified but sensitive. I mean over the course of her tenure she's got to have had some emails like that. Even if none of it was classified or sensitive, does she understand the implications this has for national security particularly should she become president and do something this boneheaded? She's gotta know she was doing it and it was wrong.
If she had classified intelligence emails on unapproved servers, then that's another violation as well. One count per email.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
So, I'd like to see the text of the "rule" saying she needed to use a .gov account before saying she broke the law. (People seem to be referring to the 2013 National Archives and Records Administration guidance as the "rules", but 2013 was after she left office.)
After some quick digging, this appears to be the law broken:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Basically, she was required by law to archive her communications on federal servers. She did not.
The link you give says nothing of the sort. The link states that a government may require an ISP to archive e-mail subject to a subpoena.
That has precisely nothing to do with State Department employees, nor does it say anything whatsoever about what e-mail addresses they use.
Also of note, according to TSG she forwarded classified intelligence Emails to Sidney Blumenthal, who was not a federal employee.
That is a great example of "ABCs"-- Argument By Changing the subject.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
So releasing secure documents to someone outside of government is not "illegal"?
You really believe that?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.