Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Regrets, But Defends, Use of Family Email Server
dcblogs writes: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that, in hindsight, her decision to use a private email server to conduct official business was not the best one. But she is defending it and said the system was secure. Clinton, at news conference in New York, said the email server that she used had been set up for former President Bill Clinton. The system had "numerous safeguards" and is on home property protected by the U.S. Secret Service, she said. "There were no security breaches," said Clinton. "I think the use of that server, which started with my husband, proved to be effective and secure," she said. It still remains unclear about just how appropriate Clinton's system was. As a general rule, government IT policies don't give federal employees the option of using their own email accounts to exclusively conduct government business.
The sad irony here is that the Clinton presidency was the first where they had to set up a real email presence, and they hired some really smart people to do it. They did a great job. But that was a long time ago, and things have moved on. So they're getting criticized for using SSL 2.0 for transport security, which is a valid criticism now, but is still better security than most people have. And of course it's not like security on government servers is better. So this is kind of obviously a deliberate attempt to create a fuss over something that really isn't as significant as it's being pumped up to be.
On the plus side, maybe more people will start using strong TLS transport security for their email...
"It still remains unclear about just how appropriate Clinton's system was."
The most ridiculous part of the summary. Except for the whole "convenience" pseudo-argument. At best this excuse suggests that Clinton is willing to prioritize personal convenience over transparency and accountability, which is probably not a great look for someone who is expected to announce a presidential campaign in the near future.
Ms. Clinton can use her private server for anything personal anytime she wants. Her government business, especially cabinet level correspondence, must originate from a state.gov address. During my work for the DoD email messages had to be digitally signed with a government issued smart card (CAC) to provide authenticity. It's a tenant of best practices. I can't imagine the State Department not adhering to the same standard of security when doing the people's business.
Too much focus on the server. Using a home server or a contract server makes no difference from a legal/ethical standpoint. You don't conduct federal business on a private email account. That seems to clearly have been violated If you do, then that private account should be subject to access from the appropriate authorities.
Secure from the privy eyes of accountability.
I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
Seems to me the reasons for her decision to use a private server for government business are pretty simple. It means that she (and her staff) get to decide which documents should be forked over in response to FOIA requests.
In a just world this server would now at an independent expert for thorough inspection.
Same thing for congressional oversight. Case in point: Benghazi.
Also, it keeps all of her correspondence out of the official protocols. She wants to delete some stuff? No problem. That would be more complicated if she had used her government-issued means of communication.
I seem to remember from earlier incidents (like the hack of Sarah Palin's personal mail) that this is *not legal*. For good reasons.
Finally, it is basically a given that some of her correspondence contains sensitive, if not outright secret, information. If someone like Thomas Drake gets threatened with ridiculous punishment for having *un*classified information on his home PC, surely this here should land Mrs Clinton in a whole lot of trouble. But, well, who am I kidding, right?
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Section 3 (d), Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.
So she was aware of these problems in 2011 and did everything she told other people not to do anyway?
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
we are going to hear about this ad nauseum for months, as if she personally commanded the jihadis there
i'm not really a fan of clinton, but the bias against her is obviously overblown
if clinton had done this:
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
we would hear about she had committed sedition, treason, and was a traitor, for the next 2 years, daily
and it IS sedition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
but this letter will be forgotten in a week
because it's not hillary clinton who did it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it will begin the death-rattle of the Democratic party. Progressives see through her like a dirty window.
Did you just put the blame on your husband?
It specifically is illegal actually.
And the destruction of government records is a felony.
news at 11. ;)
Her email records were sopeniaed by congress in the middle of that bengazi thing and they were never provided because the state department didn't have them despite by law having a right to have them.
If government officials can use private email servers to host government emails then there is no way to know who said what to whom when. The whole point was to have the records with a trusted third party that could be audited.
Because she self hosted her own email there is no such third party and we have to "trust" that she didn't delete government emails.
Given that there are gaps of MONTHS in the records she provided there is no way that she didn't unless she didn't send a government email despite being the head of the state department for months.
How fucking likely is that?
I'm not saying she's going to jail. She's too powerful and her political allies are too powerful. That doesn't mean she isn't as of this moment almost certainly a felon.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Setting asside the legality of not using government-run email for government business (which is a clear violation of the records act), I have one comment:
Ordinarily, there is no way one could argue that a server sitting in somebody's home was more secure than one sitting in a data center owned and managed by a Federal agency. Then the IRS thing happened, showing an incompetency in their IT department that is deserving of much public ridicule and a proverbial "you'll never work in this field again." After that, an AOL or MSN account might be preferable.
30 years in IT, more than 15 of those running ISPs, and I've never seen anything like that level of incompetence from a professional IT organization.
It will be interesting to see if somebody has the balls to issue a warrant for the physical server itself. I doubt it, as this is mostly an excuse for the Repubs to act outraged and make a lot of noise without actually accomplishing anything of value, and the Dems to act like victims and make a lot of noise without actually accomplishing anything of value.
When it's all over, there will be new rules to follow and new hurdles for us plebes to jump over because clearly we need to regulate email or something equally stupid, and as always, the political class will except itself from it's own laws and rules.
Bureaucrats and politicians are nothing if not predictable.
"I don't think software should necessarily be free
You people are being taken for a ride by a lying skank.
Per other threads, said email server failed Qualys SSL scans, but has been 'updated' recently. Do we have a lazy admin at the healm? I'm not sure how that's Clintons fault, unless they're the ones who watch said admin like a hawk. (Yea, right...)
Was she breaking rules of law with regard to the State Dept.? From what I've read, no. Was it preferred she use State Dept. resources? Yes. But it wasn't required. Perhaps those rules should change, Republican leadership!
As far as her position, and the emails? To me it seems a matter of convenience. If most of her communications in life, before/during/after State Dept, were used through her personal server, stands to reason she would maintain that behavior. That said, I'm more concenred with the discipline of the position. As long as she knew what information could and couldn't travel through her personal server, and 'Classified' or other didn't go through improper channels, I don't see reason for the broohaha.
If it's a matter of necessary steps having to be taken for archival purposes, required by law? There are far more cumbersome parts of the US Government with which I take issue with, long before this.
Does it go to transparency? Are we seeing 'EVERYTHING' she communicated? Odds are, yes. These people aren't your average Washington idiots. The Clintons got to where they are because they're smart. They wouldn't 'screw up' by not handing over a few emails that 'someone' out there new existed, but didn't get released.
And last, but not least.... If someone, is looking for dirt on her, odds are, they won't find it in an email stash through her personal server. I can guarantee, if there's stuff the public shouldn't know with regard to what she's communicated, the public isn't going to know.*
*Notwithstanding whistleblowers, leaked documents from hacks, and Executive Order releases.
If the Clintons are known for anything, it is their ability to craft a message and stay on message. Remember, "It's the economy, stupid!"? The entire group is known for being able to quickly respond with a wall of on-message response to any crisis.
Yet in this case we had radio silence for a week, followed by this evasive and strange defense.
She repeated this a couple of times. It surprises me that none of the nerds here have picked up on this. She didn't want to have to carry two phones, so she used her personal email account. Nobody at her press conference thought to raise their hand and say "Uhm, excuse me..... but, you can have more than one email account on your phone."
We have Bill Clinton's people claiming that he's only sent two emails in his life just a couple of days ago, then she goes out and claims that the email server was set up for him, and she had to delete more than half of the email on the server because it was personal, stuff between her and her husband. Yikes. This is not the Clinton machine we are used to.
In the 90's the message was tight, and if facts were uncovered that contradicted the message then the whole team changed messages at the same time. They need to step up their game....
You are talking about an email server, whilst Topgear is not being shown on Sunday. Get a grip people.
This sort of thing isn't unprecedented, the Bush White House had a policy of issuing important staffers two Blackberries, one that had a whitehouse.gov email and one that had a gop.org email, and using both systems indifferently for communication.
I sorta don't care in either place, at least from an ethics perspective, since all emails ever seem to do is trigger dopey years-long investigations and pseudo-controversies about the parsing of language and people going off half-cocked. Case in point: Benghazi.
On the other hand, I'd rather not people like this be president of the United States. I think Lindsey Graham has the right idea, if you're an official person, NEVER USE EMAIL. Write official documents carefully, or just call someone.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I'm not even going to blame her for this issue. She's not an IT person. That's not her job. I'm going to blame all the IT people that worked with her that never said anything, or raised any kind of fuss over the problem.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Clinton, at news conference in New York, said the email server that she used had been set up for former President Bill Clinton.
Complete BS. Bill Clinton is on the record as having sent two emails his entire life:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...
Quite a bit of work setting up an email system for someone who doesn't use it.
sopeniaed
In case it helps in the future:
You probably know a subpoena is a demand with which you'd be penalized if you don't comply. So, a demand under penalty.
The word subpoena comes from "sub", under, (as in submarine), and poena, punishment, (as in penal system or penalty, in sports).
Maybe that will help you with the spelling. :)
If it were today she would have been wrong but at the time she used her server it was within the laws of the land. Further government emails were hacked and made available to the public whereas her emails were not during that time period. What we have here is another instance of the right wing trying to confuse issues and keep the public from looking at real issues. Here is an example : We could easily pass laws that required a cop to walk through nursing homes on his patrol route and make note of odors or conditions warranting an inspection. By doing so we would save thousands of seniors from neglect and abuse. Yet instead of passing laws to actually do some good and protect people the right wing distracts us from doing what needs to be done. Or we could have church groups send in volunteers to walk through nursing homes daily and quickly note if meals look decent and that the rooms are clean and the patients reasonably cared for. Yet nursing hope operators will hide behind privacy laws and private property laws to prevent exposure of what the nursing homes are really like. But congress will never take on such issues as they are too busy trying to acquire re-election and political power and donations from people like nursing home owners.
Clinton printed over 50,000 pages of e-mails, which were then shipped to the State Department. It would have been less work for her to send those e-mails electronically. What was her purpose in doing that extra work?
Printed texts take more time to search, and they do not contain all the internal meta-data. Perhaps too she just wanted to show her middle finger to the people who asked for her e-mails.
This is honorable behavior?
There is still no evidence that any federal laws were broken. And the change that would have required her to use a state department email took effect after her tenure ended.
But hey, it's Hitlery, so she must be hiding the evidence of the Vince Foster murder in there or something. Or all of that Benghazi evidence that 7 different congressional investigations failed to uncover.
But she is defending it and said the system was secure.
Isn't it good that she knows more about web security than the computer consultants who rated it
It specifically WAS LEGAL during her tenure as Secretary of State. She's not going to jail because she didn't break any laws. Can we get on to the next conspiracy theory now?
Does anyone here have an email server that is NOT backed up?
Does she have backups for her server?
1) No - she is a clueless ditz and the people working for her should not be allowed to touch a computer again.
2)Yes - she is hiding those and the backups should be turned over to the archives immediately.
3)She did but they got destroyed - HARD CORE FELONY of destroying data!
Pick 1.
Laws are for the little people, not them.
They believe, and act, as though they are above the law. Lying, perjury, obstruction of justice.
There's no dilemma if you feel that laws simply don't apply to you...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
that "law" bs is for regular people
"Rules are for other people. Nothing happened. Why is the vast Right Wing Conspiracy so worked up over this?"
-Styopa
All career polititians do this, not just the Klintons. It's also interesting to note that Bill has only sent TWO emails in his whole life. TWO EMAILS! Lindsey Graham, not a one! They should take a poll of congress (to start) and see how many emails they have all sent. I bet you at least 50% "don't do email". These are the people who represent us? Riiiight!
They all disgust me how they feel the law does not apply to them.
So we have the smartest woman in the world who can't handle two Phones or E-mail accounts with a husband who is a pig spending his pleasure time with under age prostitutes being portrayed as the poster child for strong women and leadership? does that make any sense to anybody? Imagine lefties if Sarah Palin said that about e-mail?
quickly note if meals look decent and that the rooms are clean and the patients reasonably cared for.
I see you had someone you know fall to this scam. I am truly sorry. I am sorry you just found out.
Nursing homes have *long* been know to be somewhere you do not send someone unless you are willing to go there every day yourself and make sure the 'nurses' and janitors are doing their jobs. I dont see the D's writing any laws and they are supposed to be the SJWs.
My parents have made it clear. "Do not send me there let me die in my own house".
Where I grew up 30 years ago. We tried exactly what you said. Send in groups to help out. Want to know how they handled that? "only family members may enter and here is a guard to make sure" I am not saying they are all like that. But that was the response we got and that was one of the 'nice ones'. The ones that are actually horrible have 0 interest in getting help. They just want their 5k a month per room.
The gov shuts these things down all the time. Its called the state and health department. Want to know what they do? They shut down. 2 weeks later they are open again under another name. The people who got 'thrown out' suddenly have a bed again. The family who sent them there are glad for it as they do not want their parents around anymore. Then its business as usual after 2-3 months of 'being good'.
Right now the problem is bad. It always has been. It used to be MUCH worse. But these nursing homes are in for a real trip when my generation gets there. We are not shy about bitching on the internet. The generation after mine is not shy about posting every aspect of their lives from their phones.
My point is there are already plenty of laws on the books. Congress even passed many of them. Then handed it over to the states who do not fund it or just ignore it. This is a case where 'more law' will not help. It needs what you started off with. People willing to go in and help out and the organizations willing to fix their mistakes. However, you seem to have found a convenient scapegoat of 'the republicans'. When it is the people RUNNING the nasty ass places who need to be outed. If you want to look to why the police do not swing by? Look no further than your local mayor as he can easily mandate it.
If you have someone in one of these places see if you can pull them out. Find somewhere better. If you can volunteer to go into one of these (and they let you) do so. Most of the people in there are just simply lonely and wildly bored and want to speak their minds. Even if it is something you 100% disagree with. They just want to talk.
Tell me how supposedly one of the most important jobs in the country can be run by a person who's communications are separated from her official office?
When in WDC, she can't refer to incoming email from staff who are just around the corner or down the hall? Someone calls from London and says "look at the email I just sent." and Hillary has to say what? Maybe "I'll look at it tomorrow when I get home." What the hell is that for a high level functioning government cabinet position?
So she must have had official emails for HIllary being sent addressed to some lower person in the Secretary's office (probably clippy.)
This sounds to me like the perfect way to raise funds for a personal project from governments around the world, and eventually destroy the hard drive.
If I say I regret using it the people will forgive me.
Lies, lies, and more lies.
FBI uses Gmail for plenty of their official business still as many of them don't have email addresses given to them by the Bureau. I thought it was strange at first some years ago when we started working with them but when you started seeing that all agents were using it there isn't much you can do but go along.
So, the Bush White House had its staffers use government email for government stuff, who'da thunk it?
Note that if Hillary had done that, noone would be getting excited now. Who cares if she has a private email server, as long as ALL of her government correspondence is done with the official account?
Note, by the by, that the argument that all her official correspondence with State Dept. staff is a matter of public record because the worker bees were using government accounts is specious. SecState also communicates with representatives of OTHER governments. The communications with those other governments would not be available on the State Dept servers if done through a private email server....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
90 posts and counting, without a "How is this news for nerds" bitch.
"It specifically is illegal actually."
If that were true, her enemies would quote the law.
Her enemies have not quoted the law.
Therefore it is not illegal, actually.
My first job after college was as a computer programmer for a branch of the US military that I don't like to name. I'm glad I did the job at the time and just as glad that I left for private industry 20+ years ago. The reality of government service is that big shots do whatever they want whether it makes sense or not and whether it's legal or not because the people under them who realize "Hey. That's NOT allowed!" don't have the authority to make them do what they are supposed to do and the people above them who do have the authority have bigger fish to fry. So nobody tells them "John Doe isn't following the rules on email" or whatever. Plus, people in the military and government are amazingly vindictive and if you complain about a superior doing something wrong/illegal, the person who is likely to pay for it is you, not them. So I totally understand how Hillary came up with this stupid idea to use her own email server and everybody below her was too scared to complain about it and Obama had bigger issues like Ben Laden to worry about than what server Hillary was using for email.
When I worked for the US military, we had a general who ran our base and he single handedly kept an ancient Vax system alive for his email. I had a job that got me into contact at times with fairly senior civilian managers and they used to complain about how they loved a new Unix based email system that the base had setup but the general refused to use it. He insisted on using an old Vax that at the time couldn't easily be integrated into the newer system for some kind of technical problem that had to be overcome, so the top military and civilian managers had to have an email account on the Vax just to see if the general sent them email, but everything they sent amongst themselves that didn't need to go to him went through the new system. The general finally had to retire and once he left, his successor didn't care anything about the old Vax email system, so it finally got shut down. So I've personally seen it where some big shot in the government just does whatever the heck they want to when it comes to email. I've wondered how much it cost in manpower and other costs to keep one old email system alive because one general refused to use anything else.
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016!
Many businesses discourage or forbid employees to use personal email systems for company business. The reason of security is there yes. But there are other good business and legal reasons to discourage this practice. Any company IT department caught up in a lawsuit requiring full disclosure can attest to the nightmare it is even with only the company email system. To add to that an external system is just plain nuts.
By using a well secured personal email server she provided potentially sensitive documents with greater security than the US Government could do. Snowden and other blackhats had no access to any part of the Clinton server and its back-ups.
Meanwhile, the secondary stories around this issue are making public the Senate's appalling lack of basic comprehension of today's common modes of communication.
Remember when the Bush white house lost millions of official emails and the media barely mentioned it? Fox news even went as far as saying the emails were recovered but never went into detail on how this was confirmed. Of course the email scandal did not affect Bush's ability to win reelection or tarnish his presidency in the eyes of the political right.
Keep in mind the democrats went "ballistic" and tried to make an issue out of how the Bush administration thumbed its nose at document recording requirements. They had a point but they lost the moral high ground when Clinton is caught not even using official email.
Of course what the political pundits on the right won't admit to is that official diplomatic cables are used not emails to send confidential information. Also as far as we know, none of Clinton's email actually went missing. Not to mention, no candidate regardless of party would ever get caught using official email to document something scandalous. Sure some local politician or even a freshmen congressman may occasionally get caught, but seasoned professionals like the Clintons, Bushs, Boehners, or Mcconnells won't. They could send their more controversial emails outside of official channels and still consider themselves within the current rules.
The actual lesson we should take away from this political ping pong match is that both sides will try to create any controversy to gain a political edge or more importantly distract us from more pressing issues. Like how the US Senate is trying to usurp executive powers by bypassing the president on matters of foreign policy. Notice how the email controversy was dialed up to counter the criticism? What else is being done while the public is distracted?
Nah, you see the problem was that they didn't really pay attention to what business was running on either blackberry, or they intentionally used the non-government emails for business that was clearly government-related ("we should fire these US Attorneys") but they didn't want captured by the Records Act.
You see, when you give people two email systems it doesn't address the ethical problem, since you're now allowing someone to choose wether their correspondence is recorded or not. The only alternative now is to force people to turn over their private emails as long as they're government employees.
I don't think ANY emails of ANY kind should be public record. I thought I made that clear.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I know what you mean, Hillary. I didn't want to carry two devices either. I actually managed to get THREE email accounts on a SINGLE phone, but, whoah! It sure weighed a lot. I could hardly carry it around with me. That's why I deleted 30,000 emails too. They were just making my accounts too heavy!
She was Secretary of State for years. She resigned the job years ago. If this issue is really that important, why did nobody speak up after her first couple of months? I'm not saying let her off the hook, but the controversy seems timed for political reasons.
This woman is so crooked that when she dies, they'll have to screw her into the ground to bury her. It would be interesting to see this thread's moral outrage if a republican SOS decided to spin up an email server in his/her house for public and private use. Obama and his administration is a crime in progress and HC should be prosecuted for this unprecedented act.
You do realize that President Bush (#43) had his own share of email shit-storms don't you? In fact this might have lead to Hillary's decisions, flawed as they were, (I don't know). Citations follow...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/watch-an-old-home-movie-from-2000-where-hillary-clinton-said#.re86K3GRo
When she became Secretary of State, she had to use e-mail. Hence, she got her own private server (at home where it was under protection of the 4th Amendment).
The right place to air her rationalizations is in a court of law, not in the media. This is a clear criminal offense. The public rationalizations are a essentially an admission of guilt, guilt of a clear and direct violation of federal recordkeeping laws that are intended to protect the country and the people from political abuse. Prosecute her and the many other politicians that do this, that's where they should be explaining themselves, not in the media.
I'm astonished by how many people are crying about the notion that she could have deleted emails without records; if you're adamant that politicians are corrupt enough to do that, then why do you assume they couldn't make unwanted emails permanently disappear from the .gov accounts they're supposed to be using? Catching Mrs. Clinton with her hand in the cookie jar doesn't change the nature of secrecy and mistrust which underlie politics as a whole. Politicians aren't going to suddenly stop communicating things they don't want on record, they're just going to try harder to keep those things buried. None of this addresses or helps to solve the much more apparent problem of poor security standards.
Under Clinton, 2 of her employees died. Emails were requested IMMEDIATLY afterwards, and months of emails after that incident were not part of what she turned over. In any possible reasonable sense, she is hiding something, you are a shill if you disagree.
Besides that, her Clinton foundation pulled in millions from foreign governments and we don't know if she was promising State Department favors in return. It is a blatant case of looking like bribes from foreign governments. Emails might clear that up, but we don't have that ability.
So yes, we do demand transparency when your employees are killed on the job or you are taking in millions of "donations" while on the job. Every utterance or action, maybe not, but in these cases, yes.
So in other words you are wrong and probably a shill.
State Department rules clearly require government assets be used for government communications
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
She doesn't regret using personal email. She regrets getting CAUGHT using personal email.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
As far as we know, ONLY Hillary Clinton used her family email server. The rest of her staff used government mail servers. Therefore any correspondents between her and her staff or the president is recorded on an official email server anyway.
I'm not saying that I agree with her using her own personal email server, but I also don't think this "controversy" rises to the level of me really giving a rat's ass about. Actually it rises to the level of "She should have known better... but meh".
What does concern me is that the right decided to use this low grade political material so early that it will be forgotten by the time the election season actually hits full stride. So the more important question is what's going on that requires the gullible media's distraction on something as trivial as email usage by a retired secretary of state?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Yeah! I'm sure a server from the mid 90s is VERY secure! I hope they applied all their updates!
Except that here everything was commingled and there was no third party to verify official emails were saved.
FOIA doesn't apply to congress, nor are or were any members of congress required to use official email.
...mumble mumble sopeniaed [sic] mumble mumble benghazi mumble mumble fucking mumble mumble power mumble mumble felon...
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
While there is no law prohibiting her actions, State Department rules clearly prohibit it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Irony of ironies...
Hillary Clinton once served as a staffer on the Watergate Committee.
You know... the Watergate incident, where former President Richard Nixon was ultimately forced to resign... because he had a personal recording device that had embarrassingly large gaps in the tapes that congress subpoenaed? Yep, that Watergate.
.
.
.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
If they set up a guard to keep people out, that's pretty disturbing. My mom is in a nursing home right now for rehab following knee surgery at the moment, and they do not have security guards at her nursing home, nor did they at the previous one she went for rehab when she had hip replacement surgery. Both of these were real nursing homes that also have rehab centers.
What nursing homes do have are people at the front desk who prevent you from leaving if you aren't supposed to. This is to protect Alzheimer's patients and other patients with dementia, who could easily wander off into traffic. But a security guard preventing people from coming in to visit patients is weird. It's pretty routine for clergy to visit folks in nursing homes, so a home that prevents them from doing so would be raising a really big red flag. If you have a home like that near where you live, you should do something about it, not just sit there criticizing.
Well, there's that whole thing where she says "we deleted emails".
But don't let that stop you from being a Face Painting Homer.
Sorry, but it was expressly against State Department policy since 2009, she was SoS when one of her underlings got fired for doing the exact same thing in Africa, and the whole thing was very likely against most gov't secrecy regulations considering some of the content that likely got passed around on it.
But, you know, worshippers gonna worship...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Her "enemies" are quoting State Department Rules
And then, there's that whole common sense thing that Government Business should be done on Government assets.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Clinton had the power, and used the power, to delete any emails from this account she felt like. But that's okay, because she only deleted "personal" emails.
It is illegal to have classified information on a private e-mail server. The notion that she never sent or received classified information in six years is laughable.
You can't be a felon if you haven't been tried/convicted.
To semi-paraphrase her old man: 'It depends on what the meaning of the word 'legal' is...'
While it likely did not violate any specific statutory law, it definitely violated numerous regulations on the matter - regulations that she herself whined about Bush allegedly breaking, and that one of her underlings got fired specifically for during her tenure.
Sorry, but while it may have been technically "legal", it was definitely in violation of regulation, a risk to national security, and definitely sleazy. President Nixon got fired for less... and he only had an old Dictabelt recorder.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Hillary should offer up her private emails as soon as the Republicans in Congress release all of their private emails.
If you have credible evidence that any of them did government business on such systems, I would agree.
This is not some petty-assed partisan issue, so please stop worshipping.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"It's OK for high-profile Democrats to break the law because Republicans are evil and can't be allowed to win elections."
Grandiose delusions, nothing else needs to be stated. Stop attempting to cover for the people you falsely believe to be on your team.
As the New York Times reported, chemical weapons were indeed found in Iraq.
But you just keep shilling...
There is still no evidence that any federal laws were broken.
You must not know about the federal records act of 1950 and the national archives and records regulations of 1995. NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) adopted regulations in 1995 which required the preservation of official e-mails created on non-official accounts. The Archivist interpreted the Federal Records Act to apply to e-mail records and further provided that “[a]gencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate recordkeeping system . . .” So as early as 1995, all federal agencies were required to preserve official e-mails, including those created or maintained on “external electronic mail systems.”
Later NARA regulations merely clarified this requirement. In 2009, after a Government Accountability Office report indicated that certain agencies had lax e-mail practices, the NARA adopted new regulations that provided that any emails created on private e-mail accounts must be preserved. But that regulation merely restated, in perhaps slightly different language, what the 1995 regulation had already mandated, requiring that “[a]gencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”
Now just saying that the other employees with a .gov email address had the emails archived does not meet the criteria of the law. What if other government employees also used personal email? Then there would be no official government archive of the email. What about her official emails to foreign heads of state? Those were not archived either. What about official emails to non .gov addresses in the US? Just these questions show that she did not follow the laws and regulations that were established before and during her time in office.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414913/yes-what-hillary-did-was-illegal-and-has-been-20-years-shannen-coffin
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
So basically any person off the street can walk into your mom's nursing home and wander the hallways? You don't consider that a security risk? The potential for identity theft via medical records is staggering.
You also realize this was the major factor in law being passed to prevent that. Documentation for the National Archives is law concerning state document retention. While I agree at the time she used the system it may not have been illegal, but a memo released and signed by Obama https://www.whitehouse.gov/the... suggest otherwise, http://www.whitehouse.gov/site...
However we are reminded time and time again no law was broken, what was broken was procedure, if one can not follow a simple procedure set out by their employer their actions are questionable and their motive becomes dubious.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Ok, I'm not big on all the hubub around these emails either -- but we need to be the change we want to see in the world. If Democrats like Hillary want our political discourse to be better then they need to set the standard, not act like children and point the finger back across the aisle. If all we're going to do is wait and see which party will do the right thing first, then they will NEVER do the right thing. We, as a governed populace, should be looking for a government that does the right thing even when it means admitting they had previously done the wrong thing.
So IF the NSA has copies of everyones email , surely they could fill in the gaps you mention ?
Also I heard she release paper copies that probably don't have the header info, sequence numbers etc.. seems like it would be handy to have that info as well. the 3 month gap may have only 1 or 2 emails or 1-2 thousands missing.
I don't have a problem with that.
The American public has been doing that for how long now, and without knowledge it was going on?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Goes a long way to show the kind of character this likely presidential candidate has or doesn't have.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
They're hoping to find a "gotcha" email in her corespondence. Especially one of the ones deleted or not handed over. Then they hope the pressure keeps on and she loses the primary. You forget that primary season is starting soon,and the republicans know they have no good candidates at this time. The Gov. from Wisconsin is their best bet. Dems have Hilary, Elizabeth Warren and people even seem to still like Anthony Weiner.
It was Blumenthals AOL account that was hacked, and in that hack there were several emails from Clinton that were concerning State business, while technically her server may not have been compromised, her emails were.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
When a government staffer sends an email to the secretary of state (both using a government account) the email travels from his/her computer to the server (in the same building) to the secretary's computer. It doesn't touch the internet at any point (no intercept risk). When Clinton sends an email using her private account it goes from her computer to the open internet to her private server to the open internet to the government server to the destination computer. That's TWICE it's wide open for intercept.
Because she self hosted her own email there is no such third party and we have to "trust" that she didn't delete government emails.
Not really. If she sent them to someone else's government email address, then they would still be preserved. Of course, if she sent an email to someones private email address then that would be lost... but I don't think you would have access to that email anyway, as it would just be an email between two private email accounts.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Maybe the part about "I deleted all the unimportant emails. Trust me" part?
I can't wait to hear what happens when forensics gets to their machines and hopefully finds tons and tons of illegal activity.
No person should ever be allowed to do this, especially someone who doesn't understand the impact of doing this from a technology perspective and only from a political one.
They are stored with the Rose Law Firm Records...
Or did Vince Foster have them? ... I don't recall...
There is nothing to be seen here, Move along.
What difference does it make?
Blah!
Given that there are gaps of MONTHS in the records she provided there is no way that she didn't unless she didn't send a government email despite being the head of the state department for months.
This actually isn't that unlikely. Many politicians don't use email at all for government business, exactly for this reason (it all gets preserved).
Honestly, this preserving all emails is rather stupid to begin with. We don't preserve other communication media completely, I see no reason why email should somehow be special. It just forces politicians to use private accounts or not use email at all.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
sp.
subpoenaed
sorry.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
NSA isn't cooperating with anyone outside of the oval office. They've directly lied to congress a couple times. So I'm not holding my breath that they'll be any help.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And I am not suggesting I have the power personally to throw her in jail.
However, if the current information as we know it is accurate then she's almost certainly a felon. And even if she didn't destroy any information, it is still against the law to not use the government email servers for government correspondence.
This is both for security reasons and for investigative reasons.
What she did was indefensible for someone in her position.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Put another way: she is hoping to that her "gotcha" email is not found.
Why else would she fraudulent send emails the way she did?
> the huge hate fest going on
What bullshit. If a repub had done something like this, you would be the first to hang him/her.
But when it's a dem you want to dismiss it as a "hate fest."
Grow up and learn that both parties are shit.
But it DOES apply to the executive branch, and by extension the State Department..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Like all politicians, the regret *may* be heartfelt and really, really emotional (also: all ousted executives actually quit because they want to "spend more time with their families"), but the proper expansion is always "regrets she got caught."
Also: "family email server" makes it sound like "family car" -- oh, it just happaned to be around, and Pat doesnt' have a fur coat. She has a good, Republican (No! Democratic!) fur coat / Ford F-150 / email server. Nah -- this was not an "aw, shoot, I'll just wear any old thing" decision, with a "Oh, you mean you guys want copies, *too*?!" innocent shrug and sufficient deflection. It was the same kind of record-hiding move that people righteously castigated the Bush administration for -- that's being revived as an issue, which is appropriate, but mostly as a "that other kid did it too!" excuse, which isn't.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
She has months of gaps in her emails. That's not credible.
There is no way she sent no official emails while head of the state department for months.
As to your ad hominem on Fox news... it doesn't matter who says a thing. If the devil himself stood before you and said 1+1=2... is he lying?
Saying that it is from fox so is wrong is equally stupid. It is ad hominem. Do better.
As to requirements to use the US government servers, yes she is required to use them. She can use private email if she BCCs or CCs all the email to the government account. Otherwise she can't do it.
And even then that is frowned upon.
If on top of that she destroyed government documents then that is a felony.
She has MONTHS of gaps in her emails. Which means she's either filtering mails in sensitive periods of time to carefully redact information she doesn't want to reveal or she actually deleted them.
I suspect it is the first option. The server should have been ceased and gone over by independent computer forensic investigators. Same thing you'd do if you were auditing a corporation that wasn't cooperating with discovery.
She'll almost certainly get away with it. But that is more because she's powerful and has powerful friends rather then because she didn't do anything.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That's not accurate. The policies were changed.
Regardless, she's on record saying she doesn't like email because she doesn't want to get audited.
And she's on record saying the system was put in so Bill Clinton could use it... even though bill clinton doesn't use email.
And an ambassador in the state department lost his job for doing something LESS serious than what she did. He was running a personal server INSIDE the embassy instead of at his home.
The double standards are incredible. Both Obama and Hillary have attacked other politicians for doing the same thing. And now... she's doing it. Which means her protests against other people were what?
You're defending a slime ball. Just fyi.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The guilde lines were instituted in 2005. So... you're wrong.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... , though in that case the email was hosted by the Republican National Committee.
I'm generally a Clinton supporter, and I'm really unhappy with the email thing. But it is the same as has been done before and will be done again.
Not to worry though, I'm sure that we'll have EVEN MORE investigations into this than we had into Benghazi, with the exact same results.
Guccifer got it, look him up.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Every blurb I see about this story, she defends her decision to use a private email server on the basis that it was "secure." Regardless of the veracity of those claims, the security of the system is not the point. She conducted official government business on an email server under her control. When subpoenaed, she produced all emails she deemed to be responsive to that request and all other "non-business" emails had been deleted and says, "trust me, this is everything."
Security is obviously a concern, but the reason that these rules regarding emails exist is for oversight. Government email servers aren't under the control of the politicians using them, and that mitigates the risk of spoliation of evidence. With that in mind, defending her decision on the basis of security is non sequitur. The ridiculousness of her defense becomes more apparent through hyperbole: Yes, I ate babies, but safeguards were in place to make sure those babies were free of bloodborne pathogens.
Clinton said she never sent classified emails from her server. However, she never said that she didn't receive classified emails on her server. As anyone in the government industry knows, when you get classified emails on an unclass system you have to "sterilize" your servers.
Did she do that? Probably not.
I guess that's why she was such a crappy SecState - everyone's intelligence services were reading her emails.
It specifically is illegal actually.
You forget this pesky "t" variable in the equation that represents TIME.
It is illegal *NOW*. It wasn't illegal when she was in office. The requirement to use government hosted email was passed after Clinton resigned and only became legally effective in November of 2014. Clinton left office in February of 2013.
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
I want to say it's actually good this is happening now, gives the party some time to scrounge around.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
She's too powerful and her political allies are too powerful.
Does that mean she has your vote? Does she really have that kind of power that nobody can resist?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
True, but does it make you any less a criminal?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I'm not going to vote for her. Are you??
Forget her, and look for somebody else. If you do vote for her, then don't complain. You only look like a damn fool.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
At least the General's crime of sharing stuff with a woman he was sleeping with doesn't apply here . . . we think . . .
I'm a liberal who wants the next president to be a sharp operator who knows how to keep her hands clean and has no compunction about crushing her enemies. So yes, it helps me quite a bit.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I seem to be hearing and reading more from left wing sources about this than right wing. From the right wing I keep hearing the question "This is what it took to break the camel's back?"
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Yet another reason why people just shouldn't use email for anything substantive.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Given that the executive would have to be involved and the executive is not cooperating with any corruption investigation... that is a moot point.
What is more, the independent investigators have effectively been disbanded. So there is no possibility of trial or investigation because the people responsible for doing that either won't do it or were fired.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Actually it wasn't. Under the rules you're citing she could do it if she retained the records. There is no evidence that she did that.
The email that she turned over for investigation includes gaps that are MONTHS wide. For your statement to be correct, you'd have to be making the argument that the head of the state department sent no official emails for months.
How likely is that?
It isn't. And if she either doesn't turn over those emails or deleted them then that is destroying government records which is a felony.
period.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yes, and that was bad... and the democrats rightly pointed that out and the rules were changed.
Regardless, if she doesn't turn over all the government emails then she's committing a felony.
There are gaps in the released emails that are MONTHS wide. Think about that. There is no way that as the head of the state department she didn't send email for months.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Really she should just turn the server over.
It would settle the issue very quickly. What is the problem? That some investigator will see her talking about personal matters? What could possibly be that private?
And really, if she wanted specific email recipients to be redacted that would be fine. So turn over the whole thing, and then we can copy off all the emails EXCEPT those sent to a list of addresses she specifies. Her husband, her daughter, etc. Everything else gets entered into records.
If she wanted to keep the two separate, then she should have used the government address.
People are willing to be reasonable. But expecting us to give Hillery the benefit of the doubt in an investigation... to just accept "trust me"... is not acceptable. That is not how this works.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Did she get the Secret Service or someone in the government to help her secure it? Then why didn't anyone say anything?
Didn't she get government help to secure it? Then how can it be secure when her IP address will literally be on every email, the most attractive hacking target in the world?
That's just an argument to preserve that as well. The diskspace required to maintain all her phone calls for her entire tenure in office is not that great if you use some compression. You're looking at something like 100kb per minute in most cases. Assuming she makes 4000 minutes of GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL phone calls month you're looking at less then 5 gigs of sound files per YEAR. Which for a member of the cabinet is not a big deal.
Text messages could be retained indefinitely.
And to ensure that information is stored in this system, we could have it be a requirement that certain orders are not valid unless they route through one of these systems. That is, the government official cannot use their official power unless their directive routes through a recorded system.
So yeah, I agree... we should expand this well beyond email.
It would be no big deal for the government to run the phone numbers of the top 2000 or so government officials through an IP/PBX system that recorded every call.
Again, you're talking about at MOST something like 5 gigs a year per person. And likely a good deal less than that.
If we did this for 2000 people you're talking about 10 terabytes of calls per year for that whole system. I could personally afford that kind of storage for myself per year... so I don't see why the US federal government would have any trouble with that. And you wouldn't have to retain that indefinitely... just for ten years or something. So you're looking at 100 terabytes total over a ten year period.
That is nominal.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
No, the distinction you're talking about is whether she had to use the government system or not. It was strongly suggested as of 2005. However, she was permitted to use her own system so long as the government was given all the official emails.
If she either does not turn over official emails or deletes them, then she has effectively destroyed a government record. And that IS illegal and it WAS illegal then as well.
There are gaps of MONTHS in her records. She is either withholding official emails from those periods or has deleted them... Or are you saying the head of the state department didn't send any emails for months?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
She has the votes of anyone that wants a (D) after the name of the candidate.
At this point, the only people that can deal with the corruption are other democrats. And if this thread is any indication, all they want to do is win. They don't really care who they put in office or what the do once they get there so long as their side wins.
Sort of sad. We'll see what happens. Hopefully the democrats primary someone better than her so she at least isn't up for the presidential election.
I don't need this slime ball in jail. She probably deserves to be there. She has a long history of unethical behavior. However, what is most important is that she not attain high office again.
I'm okay with an ethical politician getting into office either republican or democrat. I don't care which party they come from. They're both fine. I'm just tired of unethical liars getting the nomination.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It's not without merit, but it's definitely some petty-assed partisan issue. It's coming from the Republican party in 2015. They don't do anything else anymore. They have an entire 24 hour news network devoted to petty-assed partisan issues.
Destruction or attempting to hide federal records (which all SoS emails are) has always been illegal (since the 50's or so). The more recent law changes were more to clarify how records were to be archived (set a max 20 day limit on external records being transferred to your agencies official archiving system for example).
Her use of a private email account is also not illegal although it violated a State policy in place before she took office, but even when using private email all records are required to be turned over for archiving.
So she's not in violation of the 20 day law, since it was passed after her time in office, but she is in violation of the original law requiring all records be archived. Her only defense was that it took her team 2 years to finalize their archiving plan and they were just about to start when they happened to get subpoenaed. So far she has not shown any archiving plan was ever in place.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
I'm just tired of unethical liars getting the nomination.
There is only one way to avoid that. If the voters aren't up to the challenge and can't be bothered, eh... Guess I'll have a cold one.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Can't they just ask the NSA for them?
Um, The AP is suing for the records. How long has the AP been part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"?
"As far as we know, ONLY Hillary Clinton used her family email server."
Yeah because no of her staff would use personal email accounts for government business...
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It would settle the issue very quickly. What is the problem? That some investigator will see her talking about personal matters? What could possibly be that private?
Are you joking? Think about how heavily scrutinized her personal emails would be. Anyone running against her could take comments completely out of context and absolutely destroy her in attack ads.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Just to clarify:
Colin Powell admitted to using private email (not one on a server he owned and controlled) but claims to have cc'd a State department address on all his correspondence. At the time that was considered an adequate policy with regards to federal retention laws.
Through hacks of other peoples emails we already know of some emails between Clinton and outside persons concerning some work at least somewhat related to her work as SoS. Those emails had no cc's to other state dept. officials so only exist on Clintons server as well as the server used by the other person.
Also,at least 2 of her direct underlings also have accounts on her server meaning any communication between the 3 of them would be wholly contained on Clinton's server.
Republicans did no got to Iran to undermine anything (you might be confusing them with Nancy Pelosi who actually DID travel to Iran against executive wishes or possible Ted Kennedy who actually did write letters to the Soviets asking for help to oust a sitting president). 47 (not 57) senators wrote a letter (effectively a press release) about potential treaties with Iran. As a co-equal branch of government and the ONLY branch that can pass international treaties into US law that was well within not only their legal right but was effectively exercising a right granted only to them by the constitution.
Inviting a sitting head of state to speak to congress might be rare but became a large poke in the White House eye mostly because of the reaction of the White House and fellow legislators. Their refusal to meet with the PM or attend his speech made it an event. If the President had just made an appointment to meet with the Israeli PM and Dem legislators just went to the speech it would have hardly been a blip on the news radar.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Her use of private email was perfectly legal during her tenure but has been against State dept guidlines that existed before Obama even took office.
That being said, it's not really her use of private email that makes this a legal case, it's her failure to transfer over her emails to the national archives. Regardless of the medium used to create, transmit or store federal records (which all SoS emails are according to the legal definition) since the 1950's all records MUST legally be sent to the national archives for storage.
There have been several changes to the original act to clarify storage methods and timelines (the latest under Obama set a 20 day max on when records had to be sent to archives) but the general purpose of the original act has always been the same.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
As far as we know, ONLY Hillary Clinton used her family email server. The rest of her staff used government mail servers. Therefore any correspondents between her and her staff or the president is recorded on an official email server anyway.
But what if other people in her staff were using personal email too? We would have no record. That is where her whole "I complied with the law" bullshit doesn't stand up to reason.
I'm not saying that I agree with her using her own personal email server, but I also don't think this "controversy" rises to the level of me really giving a rat's ass about. Actually it rises to the level of "She should have known better... but meh".
If it's not a big deal then why did she terminate another state department employee for using personal email? You might want to check out our former ambassador Scott Gration.
What does concern me is that the right decided to use this low grade political material so early that it will be forgotten by the time the election season actually hits full stride. So the more important question is what's going on that requires the gullible media's distraction on something as trivial as email usage by a retired secretary of state?
So for you this is a party issue. Now we know why you don't care about this. For some of us, this is straight up legal matter. Hillary needs to follow the same laws as all of us.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Tell your boss that the corporate email system is inconvenient, so you set up a private server at your house.
Have all of your contacts send all of your emails to your private account.
If your company wants backups to comply with any laws, tell them you will provide them, but only if you think they are relevant.
See how long you keep your job.
And that goes a really long way to show the character of the people that vote for them! Oops! forgot... Don't talk about fight club...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Try not to conflate the two issues at play here:
1) It is NOT against the law to use external email for official purposes. It's is against federal guidelines but those don't carry the same weight as an actual law and usually only involve workplace sanctions, not legal ones.
2) It is against the law to store classified information on external servers.
3) It is against the law to hid or destroy federal documents which all SoS email are. Violation of this law carries a 3 year sentence and is one of the only laws I've ever heard of that also specifically states that violators can never hold public office in the US ever again.
Her defense for #2 is she claims that as SoS she never handled any classified emails ever, an almost impossible tasked but at least its a claim.
She is most certainly in violation of the retention laws for #3 however but depending on whether they can show she is only in violation of the hiding/withholding portion vs the destruction portion will most likely determine if anyone bothers to actually charge her or not.
They already have emails from other sources showing her having email discussions about semi-work related intel gathering with non-state employees. They may skirt the definition of official record enough for her to get away with not having retained those but if they find anything else on some third party server (say any foreign diplomat she exchanged emails with) but cannot find a corresponding copy on her server then she's done for.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
If you're voting for Hillary, you're no liberal. You are a pragmatist! And I don't blame you. She is qualified, over qualified... She'll do much better to replace the 90+ year old Henry Kissinger. Then she can direct white house policy for the next 5 or 6 presidents.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We don't preserve other communication media completely, I see no reason why email should somehow be special.
In the US you do and it isn't.
All federal records must be archived for later FOIA requests of retrieval for other reasons. A federal record is essentially anything that someone does while working at a federal level job for the purposes of that job.. The form of the archive isn't important (hence why it was not illegal for HIllary to send over 55,000 pages of email instead of a simple thumb drive with the digital copies) but the fact they must be preserved is.
There are guidelines within the law that allows for some records to be destroyed but they are clearly spelt out and generally are done by the archivist and not the subject/creator of the record.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
It's always been illegal (since the 50's or so). Changes to the law have been more about imposing timelines and clarification (under Obama a 20 day time limit before outside records had to be submitted was added) but not about the requirement for archiving of federal records (which all SoS emails are by legal definition).
She was legally allowed to have a private server and legally allowed to use it for work (as long an no classified information was ever stored there - different law) but she was never legally allowed to withhold those emails from the national archives.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Use gmail :-P
Don't be like Sarah Palin using Yahoo mail.
Kidding aside
Actually I have my own email server, I use intermail on Linux Slackware server I have colocated
Funny, the left's view of Sarah Palin's Email usage was a BIG concern 8 years ago. Funny how "Big Concern" becomes "Low Grade" depending on which party you're rooting for.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Are you touched in the head? Seriously? Bush did it, so let's not worry. Wrong is wrong, Bush got away with it, fine. Let's not let another person get away with. Particularly, the person who called the Bush administration corrupt and full of cronyism over their email scandal (she did this in 2007 btw).
The issue is, we don't know if it violated any laws, because we don't have access to the information from that email server. She may have, she may not have broken the law. We don't know, and cannot possibly know. Obfuscation happens to be against the law, predating email systems. This case CLEARLY falls under those statutes. Just because "on the internet" isn't specified, doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
More like "guidelines" than actual rules.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I love that title: "Family Email Server"
Like it is some weird variant of MS SBS "for families".
You know, the email server that doesn't let bad things come through...
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
It wouldn't be too hard to construct at least a 'partial' audit trail by looking at those who DID recieve emails from her on the state department servers. Then compare this list to the list that she sent and see if they have anything in common. Obviosly you couldn't get things she sent to others, but at least you could verify that she has sent all the things she claims she has.
tenet: a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.
tenant: a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.
I don't believe all telephone conversations and text messages are recorded... but I could be wrong...
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Doesn't even matter - she's demonstrated that either:
a. Her technical adviser was too stupid to tell her that she could get two (or more) email addresses worth of mail on a single device.
b. She thinks that she can sway independent voters with a pack of lies that I'd be embarrassed to hear come out of a ten year old's mouth.
Either way, I'm of the opinion that she would have been better off ignoring it. Her dyed in the wool followers would continue to support her and the maybe-third-party voters wouldn't have had to listen to the dumb.
You introduced a fallacy that somehow I was one of the people upset about Sarah Palin's email habits. This isn't true since I am not even familiar with Sarah Palin's email usage.
If what you say about Sarah Palin is true then, to carry your logic even further, the republicans had no serious objections about how email is handled either.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
No. I think it's political fodder regardless of the party.
For the record, I wasn't too concerned about President Bush losing 2.2 million emails either. So for me at least it is not a republican vs. democrat issue.
Actually according to several news sources, the regulations that were in place in 2009 did not prohibit the Hillary Clinton's use of a non-agency email system. Instead it stated:
agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.
They also point out that Hillary did turn over 50,000 pages of email to the agency in December 2014.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
No one is saying AP is part of "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". What we are talking about is how hard the republicans are attempting to spin gold from political straw.
So you don't "give a rat's ass" but you are still commenting to downplay her inability to follow standard procedure that other officials have been sanctioned and fired over, and then go on to blame the situation on the Republicans? As a non USian, your message comes off as extremely partisan.
I'm sorry, that solution is not acceptable. See 4th ammendment.
Her closest advisers also used private email addresses.
And witholding information from FOIA requests. And don't forget the huge gaps in emails that were turned over to State.
Typical politician. The fact of the matter is that it was a violation of the Federal Records Act. Clinton, by federal law, was required to use a State department email address for all official business. She not only didn't use the state department email - she didn't even have one set up. Since it is policy to do so she must have expressly ordered it NOT to be set up.
Next point - how do we know which emails were deleted and which were not? Remember - Hillary controls the server. Had it been on a government server there would have been records and such. Do we really want to set a precedent where politicians get to decide what records get kept and which ones don't? Remember, Richard Nixon tried this with the Watergate tapes. He didn't want to turn over the tapes themselves, just edited transcripts of the tapes.
Thirdly - other government officials, including Obama, knew she was doing this. She was Secretary of State for 4 years. You can be sure that they traded emails somewhere along the way. Wasn't Obama the one that promised a more transparent government?
Finally - why would someone go to the trouble and expense to set up their own domain and email server? Something to hide perhaps? Now I don't know that she was up to no good but it sure smells fishy. And her track record of slippery half-truths sure don't help.
There is the political PR side of all this, you are correct.
To you and me she looks stupid because we generally understand what E-mail is and how it works and recognize the smoke and mirror trick she's attempting. But to the less technical, her story is plausible enough to be accepted, even by non-rabid supporters, especially given that those who are already in lock step with her will be repeating the lie as often and as loudly as they can. It's how the left has painted the Republicans as racist and having a "war on women" when neither is true. You just keep saying something over and over and people eventually believe it...
I think they initially miscalculated how damaging this story was and initially where going to just wait it out. However, it started getting too long, with even democrats repeating it so they switched tactics and decided to address it with the whole carefully scripted presser in hopes of being able to make it go away.
Time will tell if this was a good idea or not. Personally I think she should have just let it die unanswered, but I'm guessing that it was starting to get too close to her planned formal announcement that she's running for president and they felt it was better to cut their losses, give out the half answer, and move on. (Her typical "What difference does it make now?" move.)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
She has months of gaps in her emails. That's not credible.
Hmmmm? Her emails haven't been released yet. If her emails are released and there are huge gaps, then it becomes suspicious. I agree that using personal email was a big mistake, and that she could be hiding things. But we haven't crossed the line yet where there is enough proof that she has destroyed email. We don't even have the email archives yet.
Funny. I can picture that coming out of her pie hole. and she even looks like Barbosa.
Donations from foreign governments?
Whether or not the system was secure is but one concern. Whether the system was transparent and accountable to the authority she worked for as Secretary of State on behalf of the American People is at least an equal, if not greater concern.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The only alternative now is to force people to turn over their private emails as long as they're government employees.
This sounds like a reasonable strategy. I would totally support and push for this. All government employees must provide the government information about all personal / non-government email accounts and provide access to all their e-mail messages upon request, even for personal accounts.
The decision about whether an e-mail message, personal or not, becomes a public record, should be made by a trusted 3rd party and be separate from what infrastructure the message happens to go over..
Most e-mail messages should not be allowed to become public records, but they should be securely retained for a period for audit purposes; primarily to establish that the personal account is not being used for official business.
Even messages even involving their official account should not become public records, with the exception of some things like:
But e-mail not part of a record required should be required to be retained and be discoverable with a mandatory retention period for all departments of least 20 years, under seal for adjudication of legal matters, or issues under official investigation.
As far as we know, ONLY Hillary Clinton used her family email server.
You are mistaken. Hillary Clinton's top aides also used her private server.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/11/video-oh-by-the-way-hillarys-top-aides-used-private-e-mail-too/
The situation is perfectly clear. As Secretary of State, she was provided with a government email account that would archive her emails. She didn't use it, meaning she was free to delete any embarrassing emails with no check other than her own conscience.
She absolutely violated government policy by doing this. The State Department forced an ambassador to resign specifically because he violated this policy. Who was the head of the State Department when this happened? Hillary Clinton.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/05/hillarys-state-dept-forced-the-resignation-of-an-ambassador-for-using-private-e-mail/
I'm not saying that I agree with her using her own personal email server, but I also don't think this "controversy" rises to the level of me really giving a rat's ass about. Actually it rises to the level of "She should have known better... but meh".
Really? An elected official, a public servant, took affirmative steps to make sure that you and I cannot use FOIA to look at her official correspondence during her time in office, and that's "meh"?
Tell me, do you have one standard for Hillary Clinton and another one for Richard Nixon? Because IMHO what she did was far worse. No federal law required Nixon to record conversations, so he wasn't violating the law when he erased parts of the tapes. She was violating the law multiple ways, and knew she was doing so, and her actions took place over a span of years.
What does concern me is that the right decided to use this low grade political material so early that it will be forgotten by the time the election season actually hits full stride. So the more important question is what's going on that requires the gullible media's distraction on something as trivial as email usage by a retired secretary of state?
You are speculating that the Republicans are trying to distract the media? Do you think that would actually even work? Given the choice between publishing dirt on Republicans and publishing dirt on Hillary Clinton, the media will publish the dirt on Republicans 99 times out of 100, and the other time they will publish dirt on both.
There is a group trying to get records related to Benghazi, the incident where a US Ambassador and several other people were killed. We have reports that Hillary Clinton personally refused to beef up the security when the ambassador requested it. It would be nice to check the email records to see if this is true or not, so there is an FOIA request to see her email. It turns out that the State Department cannot turn over emails that they don't have.
This is a big deal. Hillary Clinton is not complying with the legal requirements of discovery during a lawsuit. She handed over 55,000 printed pages and claims that it's everything, but we just have to trust her on whether it really is everything.
We have no record of any emails from the Secretary of State for a period of months that includes Benghazi. And we have photographs of her using a Blackberry during those months, and a Blackberry is useful for exactly one thing, email.
Also, does it bother you that she is just straight-up lying about this? She said nothing for a week, and then came up with this weak-sauce excuse that she just didn't want to have two devices. Just two weeks previous to this blowup, she said on television that she uses both an iPhone and a Blackberry.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561329
On the other hand, if any data is recoverable, then it really means that the super duper turned up to 11 secure for someone of ex-Presidency and Sec of State was not as secure as they thought it was.
Just like her husband.
There is still no evidence that any federal laws were broken.
Seriously? You do know she fired an ambassador for doing this very thing when she held office and just the optics look bad. She should have come clean and turned over the whole bunch of e-mails and the server.. But no, we get the E-mail's she wants us to see, and even then only in hard copy, and she DELETED the rest!
No proof? Perhaps, but LOTS of evidence and destruction of same.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
the destruction of government records is a felony.
Yeah, she'd be in deep shit if this country had a functioning Department of Justice, but since that agency is lousy with Ruling Party operatives, she's probably going to get off scot-free.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Do you seriously think any classified information is being sent via e-mail? I highly doubt they would entrust any highly classified info to something as insecure as e-mail.
Keeping it secret will be worse... unless she has something to hide.
You are afforded the presumption of innocence in a court of law. Public opinion is not a court of law.
She's going to savaged in the primary at the very least for this and when it comes to the main election... if she gets that far she's going to get this question asked again and again.
And because she didn't disclose the emails... what they contained is left up to everyone's imagination.
You'd do far better to release them now. The sooner the better. Refusing to do so causes people to make the worst possible assumptions.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Not actually true. Two of her aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, used clintonemail.com addresses too. So any communications between the three of them are potentially lost.
I'm too lazy right now to find an unbiased source of the info but I originally heard it on NPR yesterday. First Google search lands here. The latest NYT articles definitely mention Abedin having a clintonemail account.
Emails between Abedin, Clinton and the wife of the Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi apparently fell into the memory hole. Not really interested in the Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy chatter but this was backdoor diplomacy that should have had some sort of record, even if it ended up classified.
She's only in trouble if prosecuted. Given that the DoJ is not cooperating with anything, I don't see how she's possibly going to suffer legally.
The best anyone can do is annihilate her political career.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If you are going to refer to all the controversy surrounding ethics with the Clintons, do try and keep in mind that except for fooling around with his secretary, Bill Clinton and Hillary have never been found guilty of any of the charges.
That seems to be a Clinton-esque parsing of the facts. :-) Didn't Bill negotiate a deal with federal prosecutors over his lying to a federal judge under oath and that one of the elements of the deal was surrendering his license to practice law? That's the rich and powerful getting off lightly, not being innocent.
You seriously think the Democratic bench is stronger than the Republican one? Speaking as someone who was very aware that Obama was going to blow out both McCain and Romney, 2016 is shaping up as a bad Democratic year. Hillary is the Democrats best bet - Warren is not a good campaigner and really only has rabid support among the most progressive wing of the party. Anthony Weiner couldn't even stay in the NYC Mayoral race without self-destructing.
If Hillary implodes, it's going to be a brutal blowout unless O'Malley can get some traction and the Republicans nominate from the bottom half of their bench (Jindal, Santorum, Huckabee).
Yep.
Best we can hope for is ensuring that she's not credible in Washington anymore.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Hillary should offer up her private emails as soon as the Republicans in Congress release all of their private emails.
Its not that simple. Setting up your own server in preparation for your job as Secretary of State effectively makes that a defacto government server, one that you are privately administering rather than having the appropriate government folks administering. That is the heart of this matter, whether or not that server should be considered a government server and come under the physical possession of government.
Currently, every public servant must decide which email system to use at the time each email is sent. Is it official or private? Do we trust a Secretary of State to make that distinction?
There is an enormous distinction between choosing which email account to use and operating a private server for government use. When choosing the email account to use the user can not manipulate history. When operating a private server that user can manipulate history.
Its implied that Hillary and Bill managed their own home mail server. But that seems pretty unlikely. Somehow I can't see Hillary checking for exploits against her MTA and patching. More likely someone did it for them. And having managed large organizational email systems myself for years, I have to wonder who that person is. Does this sysadmin work for the Clinton Foundation? Does he have a shoebox full of backup tapes under the bed? Is he nervously looking over his shoulder right now?
She's released emails to congress. And the congressional committees said there were gaps of months between emails.
She's also admitted to deleting something like 30k emails.
Given that the DoJ has been compromised by political hacks she's in no real danger of prosecution. She could run around town wearing other people's skin and unless the executive brings charges... nothing will really happen.
The emails she releases will be gone over and what people are going to be looking for is evidence of tampering with the emails or not releasing government emails. And one easy way to do that is to find someone else's email that she did talk to with some frequency. Every email that person got from her should also be in her released emails. If they find emails in a government employee's mailbox from her that she did not release... then she's in violation. Each incident carries a 3 year felony conviction.
Will that happen? Obviously not. Again, she could run around town wearing someone's else's skin. She's untouchable.
But it is potentially a powerful argument against her getting either the nomination or actually elected.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
She's saying its secure when we know it was using self signed certs, exposed OWA, and I saw something this morning that said Qualys scanned it and it was riddled with vulnerabilities. She says there were no breaches, but does she have the extensive instrumentation required to detect a breach, especially one perpetrated by government sponsored entities who would absolutely have an interest in the contents of her email?
It's just so frustrating to see the ignorance, and then to read comments from people defending her. You can say the timing is politically motivated. I personally think this is the State Department's fault much moreso than hers...but don't tell me that it was a.) legal, b.) a good idea, c.) secure, d.) in any way, shape or form compliant with even the most basic security frameworks out there.
I wish I could just not see anything else about this issue, but it's like a magnet for my eyes.
This is the same stupid ass statement she made at the press conference. No matter what you saw on TV or read on some interweb rag site, guys in black suits wearing sun glasses doing back flips over laser beams and plopping at the console is actually the least likely scenario for a computer to become compromised.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
TLS (ssl encrypted SMTP)
IMAPS (SSL IMAP)
POPS (SSL POP)
Not that I disagree with what you are saying. Apparently her email server sucked for security, so it is doubtful she was using any of these technologies.
http://politics.slashdot.org/s...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
http://www.archives.gov/record...
The official records retention laws are from the 50s. Don't let them lie to you, this has been illegal for a very long time.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
http://www.archives.gov/record...
There's the laws, they date back to the 50s. It is clearly illegal.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Here are the laws on this subject. Please read. They date back to the 50s and have been updated numerous times:
http://www.archives.gov/record...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You introduced a fallacy, namely that I said YOU did anything at all.
Sarah Palin's email issue was a "phoney scandal" drummed up by left wing haters, and resolved with one of them hacked into her account looking for incriminating evidence ... and found none. But until then, the haters kept mentioning "appearances of impropriety" as if that was enough reason to keep her from the VP spot.
Keep in mind, I am not a Sarah Palin fan, and have other reasons to keep her from office, all of which were basically the same reasons I didn't vote for Obama either (lack of experience).
I am NOT a republican apologist. I just see that the left wing has a high standard of hypocrisy going on here, including HRC who lambasted the Bush Admin for much less than she has been caught doing here. She can't even hold up to her own "values" (malleable as they are).
The question is, is using private email for official government use, under the retention policies, laws and rules apply to Clinton equally as it does for everyone else or not? Because, there are several people who have been tried and convicted for less than what Clinton has DONE (admitted to). Just asking how much of a Clinton apologist you are.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
We are being asked to believe that Hilary Clinton (or some unspecified persons working for her) separated "personal" from "official" e-mails, sent paper printouts of all the official e-mails to the State Department, and DESTROYED all of the personal e-mails. Why would she do that? Who destroys all their personal e-mails, and why? Isn't it much more likely that the "personal" e-mails were destroyed so that sorting process could not be reviewed, because inconvenient official e-mails somehow got destroyed along with them?
It specifically is illegal actually.
No, it specifically ISN'T illegal.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F...
"Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."
And the State Dept allowed it. Because it was perfectly normal. The requirement for the Secretary of State to use federal email systems only became law in 2014, after Clinton had left office.
There was no violation of law or policy.
I'm not sure the fourth amendment should apply to email.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
we'll see if she can't talk her way out of this first.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
""must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.""
Must ensure
Federal records
send or received
are preserved
in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.
http://download.gamespotcdn.net/d4/user_images/907/englishdoyouspeakitdemotivationalposter_2.jpg/
None of that happened. She also likely destroyed email which is an outright felony. Period. And was before she took office, was during, and is still now.
I believe the sentence is 3 years per infraction. So... this is not going away.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
link failed... I'd edit it to fix it, but slashdot has better data integrity then the US state department. So unlike Hillery, I can't edit my message after the fact.
The irony of this should be figuratively lethal...
http://download.gamespotcdn.ne...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I called this scandal "low grade political material" not some unnamed left wing hater. Yet you were the one that sad:
Since I was the one the inserted "low grade" into the conversation, I could only assume that you consider me a member or at least a diehard fan of the democratic party (which I am not) and that I was concerned about Sarah Palin.
Then after back peddling two steps, you move forward three steps with:
I think using private email for official government use is a valid concerned for a current governmental employee. That said Hillary is retired and serves no official capacity.
I also don't subscribe to the theory that existence of a personal email server is damning evidence of a serious crime. Especially in light of how loose the regulations were for government appointees in 2009. Just like I didn't think 2.2 million Bush emails disappearing was part of a republican cover up. I'm more interested in facts and all I see from the talking heads today is conjecture.
Do I think this issue should be taken into consideration when voting for president? Yes.
Do I think this issue is of such national importance that we should drop everything and ignore the bigger more tangible issues happening this moment and spend huge amount of political discourse on Hillary's email habits? No. At least not today.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
She's released emails to congress. And the congressional committees said there were gaps of months between emails.
She released emails to congress. Not all her email. That's why the federal government doesn't have her emails. If Congress had all her emails we wouldn't be here right now. Congress does not have all her emails, which is why we are talking about this. It's also why no one has an official record to pull these emails from.
Again, I'm not dismissing the accusations against her, but I am saying that because Congress doesn't have the full record, it's not enough evidence of anything, and it's disingenuous for senators to make claims based on that data set. But senators making disingenuous claims while knowingly not having the complete picture is nothing new.
The law only appears to require it be archived on (copied to) a federal system, NOT that it originate on a federal system. If she always sent and/or CC'd to at least one gov't account when doing gov't business, then technically she may be following the law as written.
Now, there was a State Department policy guideline against using a private account/server to send such messages, but it is not a "law", per se. It's roughly comparable to an employee manual saying, "All receptionists must wear a tie".
At least this is how I understand the legal situation based on reading multiple sources. If anybody has a specific law or document that says otherwise, please quote and link it.
Table-ized A.I.
Read again. "Agencies... must ensure".
Hint: Clinton isn't an Agency.
No Republixan is going to win yhe presidency in 2016. Between the tea-party, Koch brothers, the christian radicals and the racists no one coming out of the republican primary will be electable to the majority of americans. Romney was a good middle of the road pollitician until the primary where he had to reverse every position he ever had that appealed to any that wasn't one of those groups I listed.
The Republicans statistically can't win the presidency without about 40% of the latino vote. The last two elections they have barely gotten 15%. With the rabid anti immigration group that attacks anything hispanic as part of the GOP primary process it just isn't going to happen. In addition the millenials vote in force on presidential elections and they vote less than 20% gop. They have larger numbers than either gen-x or the boomers and more vote every year.
The statistics are pretty clear and every year the demographics get worse for GOP with a more ethnically diverse electorate that the GOP primary goes out of their way to alienate.
If she doesn't release all the federal emails then she is committing a felony.
Proving it will be another thing.
Trying her in any court will be another thing.
Actually getting a conviction will be another thing.
But if she doesn't release the emails then she's committing a felony.
She's not cooperating. At a certain point, that is a crime. The condition of her using private email hosting under the old regs was that the government gets all its email. She was supposed to be disclosing it as she went. CCing or BCCing it all to a government account. The government shouldn't have to ask for it. It should have been getting it as it was made. That was under the OLD rules.
Under the new ones she's just not allowed to do this period.
And regardless... destroying or refusing to disclose the documents is a felony. Before she took office, during her time in office, and to this day. A felony.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The head of the State department is absolutely responsible for state department policy and compliance to regulations.
Keep dancing. You need more practice.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
So, when Colon Powell did it it was no big deal, but Hillary does it and it's the end of the world? Also, no notices the irony of saying she should have used the State Department's server so her e-mails could be archived when the State Department admitted that they lost ALL the e-mails from her term due to a server upgrade. So if she had used their server all her e-mails would have been lost. Because she used her own they exist. How about a hearty "thank you" and STFU from all the repubs trying to contrive a controversy so they stand a chance against her in 2016...
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
http://www.jewishworldreview.c...
"Concealing government documents from the government when you work for it is a felony, punishable by up to three years in prison and permanent disqualification from holding public office."
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... , though in that case the email was hosted by the Republican National Committee.
I'm generally a Clinton supporter, and I'm really unhappy with the email thing. But it is the same as has been done before and will be done again.
Not to worry though, I'm sure that we'll have EVEN MORE investigations into this than we had into Benghazi, with the exact same results.
I think that's the point; it's beyond likelihood this was just an oversight. She (or her team) obviously decided it's better to just give the dogs one big bone to chew on than let them launch a congressional investigation into every single email she ever sent. As you say, I'm generally proHillary; not happy about this on an absolute basis; but as a political move, I think it was well played.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
There are exactly three possible paths a gov't employee can take if they decide to ever send a personal email while holding office: 1) All email, personal and official, sent on government account - no outside account. 2) all email, personal and official, sent on a private, non-government account - no government account. 3) All personal email sent on personal account, all official email sent on official account. Hillary could have gone with option 1, but I suspect she was afraid of filling up government email archives with her personal yoga workout routines. Condi Rice went this route. She could have gone with option 3, but as was witnessed when the Bush White House was found having email servers paid for by the GOP and used by GOP officials to conduct GOP business, the public had a hard time making sense of what they tried to do, and focused on the occasional misstep. No, Hillary went with option 2, and opened herself up to many, many problems. Answer this question - how do Chuck Schummer, Harry arris, and Nancy Pelosi conduct DEMOCRAT PARTY BUSINESS, on private email servers or on government servers? They, being law-abiding legislators I'm certain comply with the Hatch rule and conduct no party business in their offices or on official email accounts. Just like the Republicans did under Busg.
As a former contractor to the State Department I can assure you that emails are not used for classified information. The most "sensitive" information in an email might be someone trying to re-arrange a seating at a State dinner because ambassador X's wife does not like ambassador Y's wife. Emails were treated like unsecured phone lines. In fact there is an entire booklet on communication protocols specifically instructing employees to treat email like a post card. Email and texting are simply adjuncts to unsecured phone calls.
There are plenty of methods for secure transmissions, but none of them are on personal cell phones.
There is not going to be an email thread somewhere with Hillary trying to cover up Benghazi. Republicans know this. It is nothing more than political theater that has and will piss off the moderate swing voters.
That's just ridiculous. Just because someone works for the government does not mean that he or she has no expectation of privacy. I'm not defending the use of personal email for official communications, but even high ranking officials should have some expectations of privacy in the conduct of their personal affairs. Yes, even if their last name happens to be Clinton :-P
"As a general rule, government IT policies don't give federal employees the option of using their own email accounts to exclusively conduct government business."
In fact the Department of the Navy enchorages Reservists to use their personal emails and third party "cloud services"
Every email she ever sent to any world leader or their aids and did NOT include a state department staffer on is not part of the federal records, period. Coupled with the conspicuous timing of large donations to her family charity soon after her state department helped broker multi-billion dollar deals and the possibility of corruption increases. Imagine if Dick Cheney had done this... See a problem with that?
What? When ahe did it it was OK, but now it's not OK, but since she doesn't work any more it's not an issue? But it wasn't OK at the time, she personally sent emails out telling others no to use personal email accounts for official communications - and warned them to do so might cost them their jobs.
This sort of thing isn't unprecedented, the Bush White House had a policy of issuing important staffers two Blackberries, one that had a whitehouse.gov email and one that had a gop.org email, and using both systems indifferently for communication.
I sorta don't care in either place, at least from an ethics perspective, since all emails ever seem to do is trigger dopey years-long investigations and pseudo-controversies about the parsing of language and people going off half-cocked. Case in point: Benghazi.
On the other hand, I'd rather not people like this be president of the United States. I think Lindsey Graham has the right idea, if you're an official person, NEVER USE EMAIL. Write official documents carefully, or just call someone.
When you have to shlep two laptops where you go, and the government one weighs twice as much as your own, and the government did not allow you to create a private logon for yourself, what would you do? You leave the crappy one at home.
And since Hillary communicated with government officials, they all have copies of her messages and their replies. Government messages to her open account would put the blame on the sender, not the recipient. I am sure her emails to government individuals were encrypted and sent via vpn.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
There was a drilling engineer that faced 20 years of Federal prison time for deleting texts and emails that might have been relevant to the oil spill. He was convicted, but his case is pending appeal. I would bet that he is now wishing he had thought to set up a server at home. Hillary is hoping for 4 years- I say let her have them, but maybe not in the place she expects. Besides, we all know that the NSA, the Chinese, the Russians, and probably even the North Koreans have all the copies of Hillary's email that they have been getting off her server for years. Nothing is lost- it is just that the people who have it don't want to admit they have it.
The cool thing about being the head of a department is that you can place requirements on your staff. You can choose not to apply those rules to yourself.
The question isn't what she did was fair. The question is what she did expressly forbidden and illegal during her employment.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Are you retarded?
Thank you for the article. The headline totally supports what you are saying! Luckily, the headline -- like so many headlines -- says exactly the opposite of what the article says.
Headline: Clinton private email violated 'clear-cut' State Dept. rules
Article: "Spokespeople for the State Department and Clinton stressed earlier this week that the agency had 'no prohibition' on the use of private email for work purposes."
Other key phrases: "general rule", "warn", "fuzzy guidelines", "should be", "except in certain circumstances".
That article supports my position. If it supported yours, it would say
"Spokespeople for the State Department stressed earlier this week that the agency had 'clear-cut prohibitions' on the use of private email for work purposes."
The underling was fired for using Gmail, a commercial system not under the user's control. That was the problem (a minor problem, on top of the long list of major problems with that underling).
The charge of hypocrisy is fair (or, it could be). If Hillary threw a spitball at Bush for doing this same thing, I wouldn't be surprised. I also wouldn't be surprised if there were important differences in the two situations. Either way, if your best charge is hypocrisy, then okay that's below my threshold for giving half a shit.
President Nixon wasn't fired, he resigned, and it was for way way more than sending emails.
I've had long conversations with my lawyer friends about the exact statutes you claim she violated. The text of the law doesn't support that claim.
Think about it, if she violated a specific statute, then why hasn't Fox News quoted that statute? Because they're too lazy? Because they can't read? or is it because the statute doesn't actually apply?
I don't have time to read entire sections of government statutes. Luckily, though, the army of conservative reporters and activists do have that time! And yet, none of them have pointed to any broken laws. Huh.
And in fact I did go read one statue quoted to me by my super-conservative lawyer friend. It was his best effort and yet he himself agreed it was a stretch to apply that statute to this situation.
When Fox News quotes the broken law, including the text of the law which clearly applies to this situation, then I'll stop being skeptical of the claim that Clinton broke a law by using a personal email server. Until then this is just another Benghazi Death Panel Government Takeover.
They don't care. They know the useful idiots will vote for them, no matter what.
Look at the apologists on this board.
Never mind she broke the law - "What difference does it make?"
The official records is not all that complicated. That link actually has summaries of the different statutes. However, there aren't any penalties involved, just a possible loss of a job if you are a gov employee.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
There are exactly three possible paths a gov't employee can take if they decide to ever send a personal email while holding office: 1) All email, personal and official, sent on government account - no outside account. 2) all email, personal and official, sent on a private, non-government account - no government account. 3) All personal email sent on personal account, all official email sent on official account. Hillary could have gone with option 1, but I suspect she was afraid of filling up government email archives with her personal yoga workout routines. Condi Rice went this route. She could have gone with option 3, but as was witnessed when the Bush White House was found having email servers paid for by the GOP and used by GOP officials to conduct GOP business, the public had a hard time making sense of what they tried to do, and focused on the occasional misstep. No, Hillary went with option 2, and opened herself up to many, many problems. Answer this question - how do Chuck Schummer, Harry arris, and Nancy Pelosi conduct DEMOCRAT PARTY BUSINESS, on private email servers or on government servers? They, being law-abiding legislators I'm certain comply with the Hatch rule and conduct no party business in their offices or on official email accounts. Just like the Republicans did under Busg.
I'm pretty sure she didn't give a rats ass about her yoga routines clogging govt. archives. Hillary is not an idiot, she knew that by hosting her own server, she had control over what was released back to the state department, or anywhere for that matter. If you think she didn't think of this, you are way too trusting, and probably get ripped off a lot. The fact that she did this, shows she values transparency just as much as the Obama administration, and, she's not deserving of office. Hopefully better candidates will be available come 2016....
and using both systems indifferently for communication.
So....every morning they shrugged, rolled a die and picked one at random because it's not like it was going to matter?
Or did they just answer both phones equally with a flat 'Yes...?' and avoid getting emotionally engaged with the caller?
Learn from it. You're a consummate bullshit artist, not someone who knows jack shit about computer systems.
Sure, right. We know that the Clintons knew this was illegal as all hell. She had enforced this rule against others in the past.But liberals own the federal government now so they can't be charged with crimes unless the party itself has issues with the offender. Welcome to Democracy 2.0, your votes don't matter now.
More that it was dismissed as not a big deal back then so why a big deal now?
That's the problem with setting low standards. When you try to hold others to account it comes back to bite.
Personally I think both are examples of a failure and that there should be consequences for both parties, but it's not going to happen that way.
Manning already found some remember and it's Manning in jail instead of Clinton.
You say that when Mr "shut down the tollbooths" is considered good enough to run?
Even from the other side of the world with no dog in the fight I can see that the Republicans need to go looking for responsible adults elsewhere if they are going to produce a possible leader in the future.
TLS (ssl encrypted SMTP)
IMAPS (SSL IMAP)
POPS (SSL POP)
LENOVO (SSL MITM)
Unofficial stuff is unlikely to have the benefit of a professional making sure it's secure enough.
Were you in Antarctica that year? It was as inescapable at the time as hearing about the film "Frozen" or it's music is now.
If you are going to open that can of worms then it leads to Reagan setting up his secret payoff deal with Iran before the election and undermining President Carter's efforts to free hostages.
If Saint Reagan can do it then why can't others?
As for 3, a law is only useful if it gets enforced.
The White House email debacle lowered the bar enough to make it that law irrelevant until such a deliberate turkey slap in the face of the law is forgotten.
Yes he's comically wrong, but as an aside I used to use email for web browsing back in 1996 when my workplace forbid network access for anything apart from email.
The service was called "ftpmail" but could also be scripted to post into forms on web pages. It was probably still around when Slashdot started so someone bloody minded enough could have used work email to put bullshit up on Slashdot.
Smaller systems are intrinsically more focused, which implies better privacy.
Let's not conflate privacy and security. Thats' not straightforward if we talk about such obscure concepts as group- or team- privacy. Anyway, it's obvious that sysadmins can access email contents, which we may call a privacy breach. When someone who was not appointed by the team or group does so, we call it a security breach. There are recipes to defend from the latter, not from the former.
Of course, one can choose to be "transparent" and operate through a gmail account. I don't recommend it. On the opposite, I recommend every group or team run their own email servers if they can spare the effort to keep them secure. I'd vote Clinton just for doing so if I were American.
Secret from ordinary citizens, of course.
Easily known to any spy agency. So our elite don't worry about their allies, implications are that all of the other intelligence agencies in the world are allies of each other. I can think of more than a few instances that would confirm that.
I think Mrs. Clinton's attitude and declarations show an apalling ignorance bordering to stupidity. I wonder, are there similar (vast) blackouts in her knowledge of driving a car, operating a mobile phone, microwave oven, kitchen robot, lawn mower etc. ?! Beware, Bill and other US or non US citizens !
Mikey