Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email At State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules 538
HughPickens.com writes: The NY Times reports that Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, according to State Department officials. She may have violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act. "It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business," said attorney Jason R. Baron. A spokesman for Clinton defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the "letter and spirit of the rules."
Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems indicative of sense that the rules do not apply to me.
That's pretty much the definition of politics.
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, of the power class. It doesn't have to be politics, a simple engineering company with a dozen workers and a mentally-ill sociopathic boss can have the same behavior.
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Insightful)
The different is Hillary Clinton is a very bright woman, at the top of her game, recognisable around the world; she knew what she was doing.
Re: Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Funny)
I further assume that the people around her are also smart, intelligent people, and not all political-appointees - didn't they think it odd to address their emails to the Secretary of State at pantsuit@hillary2016.org?
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Informative)
The different is Hillary Clinton is a very bright woman, at the top of her game, recognisable around the world; she knew what she was doing.
I remember an interview from years back where she was asked if she used email and her response was along the lines of " Oh no. Emails are discoverable".
So yes, she knew exactly what she was doing and why she was doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
So yes, she knew exactly what she was doing and why she was doing it.
If she is so smart, then how come she got caught?
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Insightful)
If she is so smart, then how come she got caught?
She didn't care, because she knows there won't be any consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
Because people like her always get forgiveness even if they knew there was no way in hell they would ever have gotten permission. Laws simply don't apply to Aristocrats like her as long as their system continues to function as intended.
Re: (Score:3)
So yes, she knew exactly what she was doing and why she was doing it.
If she is so smart, then how come she got caught?
She didn't get caught. What "triggered" this story was when she submitted the emails from her personal email account to the government, as required by law. The same as most other federal officials.
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is talking about Republicans, their crimes or what they will do. Let's not project on Republicans what the Democrats do daily with their own special version of vitriol and rancor. Let's face it, besides Fox News and Al Jazera, you can't tune into a news program that isn't controlled by the left wing. So no reason to even try and deflect here. Hillary is a liar and a cheat and a good one at that. I thought she made a good Secretary of State, just for the record.
Re: (Score:3)
She didn't lie or cheat, at least not based on the emails.
you means the ones she let us see. being that we have no way of knowing what is missing, we cannot be sure.
While that may be true, one is presumed, under the law, to be innocent until proven guilty, Personal emails are not subject to archiving, nor are emails deemed to be of a sensitive nature. As has been done by her predecessors, it is up to the Secretary of State to determine which emails are to be sent for archiving and which are to be exempted. So unless there is evidence to the contrary, she is in the clear.
It should be noted that this is no different than in the pre-internet age, when correspondence was
RULES????? NO. (Score:4, Insightful)
"RULES?" Come on. If I kill someone I'm not "breaking the rules," I am breaking the LAW.
Likewise, this is Federal Law.
At least the apologists at the NY Times are out in force here to minimize it.
Re:What exactly were the rules? (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Basically, she was required by law to archive her communications on federal servers. She did not.
Also of note, according to TSG she forwarded classified intelligence Emails to Sidney Blumenthal, who was not a federal employee.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/d... [thesmokinggun.com]
Re:What exactly were the rules? (Score:5, Insightful)
AND remember the liberal democrat cries about Sarah Palin's alleged use of private email for public use (until it was hacked and nothing was found) ??
Yeah, the same people who were screaming lunatic mad about that, are the same ones suddenly silent here. Those people need to be "named and shamed".
Re: (Score:3)
I voted democrat in the past 2 elections, and I think this is pretty horrible. This is far worse than when Palin did it because it puts national security at risk.
Re:What exactly were the rules? (Score:4, Insightful)
So releasing secure documents to someone outside of government is not "illegal"?
You really believe that?
Re: (Score:3)
If she had classified intelligence emails on unapproved servers, then that's another violation as well. One count per email.
Re:What exactly were the rules? (Score:4, Informative)
So, I'd like to see the text of the "rule" saying she needed to use a .gov account before saying she broke the law. (People seem to be referring to the 2013 National Archives and Records Administration guidance as the "rules", but 2013 was after she left office.)
After some quick digging, this appears to be the law broken:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Basically, she was required by law to archive her communications on federal servers. She did not.
The link you give says nothing of the sort. The link states that a government may require an ISP to archive e-mail subject to a subpoena.
That has precisely nothing to do with State Department employees, nor does it say anything whatsoever about what e-mail addresses they use.
Also of note, according to TSG she forwarded classified intelligence Emails to Sidney Blumenthal, who was not a federal employee.
That is a great example of "ABCs"-- Argument By Changing the subject.
Re:What exactly were the rules? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there is the whole Fucking Common Sense thing about Government Employees using Government emails to discuss Government business.
Seems like it's a good opportunity to create a new, well deserved law that any correspondence about government business, policy or even what color you want your office painted needs to be done on a government email account.
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:4, Insightful)
...and I'll bet pretty much any ranking politician does much the same, and thinks along the same lines - in any party, in any country, in any system of governance.
If I'm honest, I reckon to be a politician of any note, you pretty much have to be a bit under-handed from time to time, and you pretty much have to push the rules to their limits. If you just want to be a local politician, or even maybe a national politician that doesn't do much more than that (what we call 'back bench' here in the UK) then you can probably be fairly noble, if you really want to be. If you've got any sort of ambition though, then you've got to 'play the game' considerably harder than that, and so pushing boundaries of the rules/decency/morality start to become more of a requirement.
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Interesting)
...and I'll bet pretty much any ranking politician does much the same, and thinks along the same lines - in any party, in any country, in any system of governance.
If I'm honest, I reckon to be a politician of any note, you pretty much have to be a bit under-handed from time to time, and you pretty much have to push the rules to their limits. If you just want to be a local politician, or even maybe a national politician that doesn't do much more than that (what we call 'back bench' here in the UK) then you can probably be fairly noble, if you really want to be. If you've got any sort of ambition though, then you've got to 'play the game' considerably harder than that, and so pushing boundaries of the rules/decency/morality start to become more of a requirement.
I've heard it said that we get the type of candidates for political office that we do because the system is not attractive to good and noble candidates.
It also rings true that we have lowered the bar of expectation with regard to decency and morality from our politicians.
Fortunately, we can both still vote in our respective nations to change this perversion. FWIW, there are many candidates for the upcoming presidential vacancy I would be less pleased to see in power than Mrs. Clinton.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
95% of the public won't even remember this incident come election time. And odds are more people will end up voting for her since she has no records from when she was in Government service. Its kind of hard to paint the opposite side as bad or terrible when there is no absolutely zero record of what she actually did...and you can bet that her political operators will go out of the way to find embarassing stories about her opposition....
And so as most modern liberal candidates go, she will win simply becau
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a very good reason she exited the State Department stage when she did. She only had the job so she could check off the box labeled " Experience " for her upcoming Presidential bid. Without it, her lack of experience would have been front and center during her entire campaign. This has been planned for quite some time. Though her success at her previous job posting is certainly up for debate.
Her election team knows how short the average voter memory is. Exit the spotlight a few years in advance of the main election and you're golden. Can't have all this ISIS, Ukraine, Iran, Syria business getting in the way of a potential Presidential Candidacy now can we ? Though the closer we get to election season, we'll see all the skeletons dragged from the closets and put on display for both sides.
I would expect nothing but the usual smear campaigns from both parties telling us that Candidate X is better than Candidate Y because they are not AS evil as their counterpart over in the other party. Our entire system isn't about who is best qualified anymore, rather it's about picking the lesser of two evils. ( Which, if you think about it, still makes us Evil . . .
I do have to thank the current administration, however, for introducing a good dose of reality to the upcoming generations. ( In fairness, it happens every election cycle ) I do hope those that voted for Mr. Hope and Change Yes-We-Can remember just how that turned out and not be so easily swayed with the next candidates election promises. ( But I won't hold my breath )
Hillary certainly has a shot at the title, but only if the Republican side fails to field any serious competitor to oppose her. ( We so need a new system to replace this very outdated and increasingly corrupt one we have now )
Third party ? LOL. Never happen.
While we may have far better candidates in the Third Party corner, the media is not on their side. All of the mainstream media in this country is controlled, or has interests in, one of the two major parties. As a result, a Third Party will never see the same exposure to the populace as the other two candidates. No exposure = no chance of getting elected.
Re: (Score:3)
and so, if you go by silicon valley populations, the stereotypical 'white guy' almost does not exist anymore. walk the bay area streets and you find mostly asians, and they don't have the same feeling about what made america great compared to someone who was born and raised here.
One of the main assumptions underlying this whole post is distilled in these couple of sentences. I submit it isn't possible to know the feelings of someone from just looking at them. Moreover, the silicon valley and surrounding areas have been racially and culturally diverse for many generations, so neither can you tell from looking at someone where they were born and raised.
Blaming the complacency of the voting public on immigrants is pretty silly, in my opinion. I'd say your 'average' person (white guy
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:4, Insightful)
Who modded up this jingoism? It ignores the fact that white people (men, specifically) dominate the political landscape, and I say this as a white male. It was the good-old-boys who elected George W., not silicon valley, whatever the demographics may be now. It was the proponents of transparency and diplomacy who elected Obama, not the warhawks and national security fanatics -- they voted for McCain.
It's the standard tactic to blame the political problems du jour on immigrants. It's the go-to play of racial supremacy groups. It's a distraction from a debate on the issues themselves. Don't fall for it.
Re: Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've heard it said that we get the type of candidates for political office that we do because the system is not attractive to good and noble candidates.
It's not just us. Plato raised this as a general problem in ancient Greece. Good people-- the kind of people we should want to be in a position of power-- are quite possibly never the people who are lusting to put themselves into a position of power. That's the one-sentence summary of "The Republic".
Mencken said it decades ago (Score:5, Informative)
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Insightful)
It also rings true that we have lowered the bar of expectation with regard to decency and morality from our politicians.
That!
I've had a number of arguments against certain candidates because they quite obviously lied... and partisan apologists for that candidate would say "yeah, but all politicians lie!" This has happened, of course, for politicians from every party... but it shows that far too many of us not only accept it, but condone it. "It's OK because it's the one I support... but if your candidate lies I'll never stop mentioning it!"
I remember when Bill lied to a grand jury, and there were far too many people who said "yeah, but who wouldn't in that situation?" I wouldn't... I wouldn't have been in that situation, either. Which leads us to the fact that it's not just politicians, it's a large (and growing) segment of our society that believes that lying and deceitful behavior, immorality and selfishness are OK.
There is no sense or morality or common decency anymore. Sure, most kids lie about their bad behavior, but it used to be that parents would punish them even worse for lying about it. Nowadays so many people don't want to punish their kids - they want to be "friends," that kids get away with anything by lying about it... and those kids grow up, and breed more kids just the same; they grow up to be politicians, businessmen, police officers, and all manner of people that we are supposed to be able to trust. I even had an argument with someone boasting about screwing up someone else... their defense was "there's no law against it." I had to ask "since when to common decency and common sense need to be written into law?"
Re: (Score:3)
Never happened to me but I'm sure there are parents out there terrified of the prospect and I'm sure there's kids out there asshole enough to do that to their parents.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also rather difficult to discipline a child that would turn around and threaten the parent with a social services report for abuse.
I'm the oldest of eight... my youngest brother tried that stunt when he was 14; I was visiting at the time of the incident, and the little punk was acting out, thinking he was a badass (all of us boys did that, and we all learned the hard way that the old man will call your bluff without hesitation). Anyrate, the cops did indeed show up, and my old man told him exactly what happened, and then said "...and if he wants to go into foster care so bad, I'd love to drop him off into it right about now." The cop
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:4, Insightful)
When my son tried to pull that, I handed him the phone. I then explained what the process would be like, and he handed it back to me. You have to call them on the bluff, or you will become subservient to it.
Re: (Score:3)
I've heard it said that we get the type of candidates for political office that we do because the system is not attractive to good and noble candidates.
It also rings true that we have lowered the bar of expectation with regard to decency and morality from our politicians.
Really, we just need to ban anyone who wants to run for office from ever actually holding office. Pick the pool of candidates like we pick jury pools.
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Leaving the country to be run by people who are either too clueless to get out of jury duty
I've never quite understood: why would anybody want to get out of jury duty?
Re: Politics aside for a moment. (Score:3)
You sound like the apologists back in 2008 that excused Obama's lies on the campaign trail as 'something he had to do to win' - what?!?!
EVERY official communication email she sent originated from a non-governmental email server, and only those emails addressed to State a department workers were ever stored on federal email servers.
Why is that a problem? That means any emails she sent to anyone overseas, leaders of foreign nations, for example, were never stored on federal email servers, invisible to any FOI
Re: (Score:3)
Now to get Congressional force to have NSA provide them.
Any costs associated with the retrieval should be paid for by her.
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems indicative of sense that the rules do not apply to me.
Nobody who would vote for Hillary Clinton will care about things like this. There might be some hoopla on Twitter and Fox News for a few days, and then there will be some stragglers like with Benghazi, but it will mostly fade out of the mainstream media within a few hours from now.
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody who would vote for Hillary Clinton will care about things like this. There might be some hoopla on Twitter and Fox News for a few days, and then there will be some stragglers like with Benghazi, but it will mostly fade out of the mainstream media within a few hours from now.
It will be brought up during the presidential debates at some point, assuming Mrs. Clinton runs as expected, but you've hit the nail on the head. The US political system is so polarized that many supporters are unable to gauge wrongdoings within their own party.
The over-the-top reaction from extremists on the other side parroting what some talking head said this morning drives the party faithful to circle the wagons. We have allowed them to divide and conquer us.
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems indicative of sense that the rules do not apply to me.
Nobody who would vote for Hillary Clinton will care about things like this. There might be some hoopla on Twitter and Fox News for a few days, and then there will be some stragglers like with Benghazi, but it will mostly fade out of the mainstream media within a few hours from now.
Plus, they've known that Clinton's been doing this since the Benghazi investigation, when Clinton staffers rifled through those personal email accounts to provide 50,000 messages for the investigation team. That this issue makes headline news now, the day after she officially announces her presidential election campaign, is pure politics to control the narrative.
Yeah, not really possible to put politics aside for the moment, since that's exactly what this is.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that everybody seems to defend the politicians on their side, no matter how immoral or corrupt they've proven themselves to be. Confirmation bias, I suppose.... it's always worse when the other person does it.
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:4, Insightful)
I then ask them to imagine the other guy doing the same.
It's wrong no matter who does it.
I think precedent has been set and our political system will worsen and quickly.
We have lost the reigns and are just trying to hold on for the ride now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This seems indicative of sense that the rules do not apply to me.
Nobody who would vote for Hillary Clinton will care about things like this.
That's a broad and largely inaccurate statement.
A lot of them will care very much, but not enough to vote for a candidate with much more serious flaws.
There might be some hoopla on Twitter and Fox News for a few days, and then there will be some stragglers like with Benghazi, but it will mostly fade out of the mainstream media within a few hours from now.
What does this have to do with Benghazi? If anything there's a major difference in that Clinton actually did something wrong in this one.
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:5, Insightful)
What does this have to do with Benghazi? If anything there's a major difference in that Clinton actually did something wrong in this one.
Well, we don't actually know that, do we? And that was the whole point of her conducting her job via personal email. She can completely cover her trail on any and all issues. Her staff combed through her email and only released the completely innocuous emails into official channels. She adopted this strategy, undoubtedly, because of her Presidential aspirations.
It really speaks volumes about her character (or lack of it).
Re: (Score:3)
The problem being that no politician has shown any indication of having character in such a long time that not having character isn't viewed as a handicap.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score:4, Interesting)
This seems indicative of sense that the rules do not apply to me.
Nobody who would vote for Hillary Clinton will care about things like this.
That's a broad and largely inaccurate statement.
A lot of them will care very much, but not enough to vote for a candidate with much more serious flaws.
I highly doubt it, her cult of personality is too big. Articles defending her [engadget.com] using the tu quoque [wikipedia.org] defense are already popping up. Hillary Clinton could tap dance in stilettos on a box full of puppies and PETA would praise her for mercifully saving them from a life of enslavement. If you really cared, you would simply abstain from voting for that particular office. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil. If the only choices I had for 2016 were Clinton or Bush, I wouldn't vote for either.
There might be some hoopla on Twitter and Fox News for a few days, and then there will be some stragglers like with Benghazi, but it will mostly fade out of the mainstream media within a few hours from now.
What does this have to do with Benghazi? If anything there's a major difference in that Clinton actually did something wrong in this one.
The point isn't whether she did something wrong or not, the point was there will be very few people talking about this in the future, regardless of her actions. The media will quite simply ignore this because they will be in the tank for Hillary the way they were for Obama in 2008 & 2012. I didn't vote for Obama, but I was actually glad that he got elected in 2008, because that meant that neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain would be president.
Re: (Score:3)
Her detractors have pointed out her egregiously illegal and immoral behavior, and her supporters have ignored it.
The is perfectly illustrated by her supporters accepting "at this point, what difference does it make?"; that any evil, no matter how disgusting, doesn't matter, because today is a new day.
Clinton is a psychopath, and her supporters are enablers.
Re: Politics aside for a moment. (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine the reaction on the Left if, for example, Dick Cheney had EXCLUSIVELY used a private, non-government email server his entire time in office.
Re: Politics aside for a moment. (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine the reaction on the Left if, for example, Dick Cheney had EXCLUSIVELY used a private, non-government email server his entire time in office.
It would be *different*, because it was Dick Cheney (in other words, not their guy). Sadly, this would probably be one of the least egregious things Puppet Master-in-Chief Cheney has done.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So no trial, just execution of punishment? No thought into if the emails were actually stored or not, just punishment because you dont agree with her politics?
Re:Jail time (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if anybody else in government did this, they'd get fired, lose their pension, and possibly face criminal charges.
When the people at the highest levels of power decide that the law doesn't apply to them, nothing at all happens.
So, on behalf of the rest of the world ... when the political leaders ignore the law and face no consequences, the rest of us want to send a big collective "fuck you".
This has nothing to do with her politics. If Bush or Cheney had done this, we'd want them prosecuted as well.
Laws which are selectively applied are crap. Assholes in power who believe the law doesn't apply to them need to be punished.
These laws exist so there is a public record of activities, not some place where you can sidestep that and conduct business elsewhere away from oversight.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that anyone else would get in all that much trouble. The media would no doubt castigate them if they were a conservative but no one in political power actually gets in any real trouble for breaking minor laws. I'm old enough to remember when Tricky Dick got in trouble over the Watergate scandle and I wonder if it happened today if he would still have to resign. I seriously doubt it. Sad that we hold our leaders to a lesser standard than ordinary people. Tragic really.
Security?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the CIA monitors government email [thefiscaltimes.com] and the NSA monitors private email [aclu.org], I don't really think this is a security issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Like she's even going to get charged. Get real.
Holder deliberately gave guns to Mexican drug lorgs and didn't get charged. I don't think Hillary using her personal email is going to get Obama to turn on her ... lol.
Re: The failure of rules. (Score:5, Informative)
I think you have misinterpreted the rules a bit. Campaigning and party activity are prohibited with government resources.
The President and Cabinet sending emails on implementing political goals are permitted activities. Sending emails about ?NC platform discussions are not permitted.
When I went through ethics training with the GC, it was very clear what was and was not permissible. From the GC point of view, the default was use goverment email and save every email.
I can see the desire, particularly at the executive level, not to leave a record because policy formulation can be a messy activity. However, I'm not sure that is the motivation in this case. First, there is no control over the retention of the other end and, second, a lot discussion happens on the classified side.
What difference does it make? (Score:3, Informative)
Did I win?
B0ll0cks... (Score:4, Insightful)
So exactly what shady deals has she been concocting with her rich chums then? And leaving no email trail?
Re: (Score:2)
That will be an interesting question to ask her during one of the many debates she may be in next year.
Re:B0ll0cks... (Score:4, Insightful)
Aside from the obvious issues with complying with transparency, discoverability, and archiving requirements that are legally imposed on official business even at much lower levels(heck, I've done penny-ante IT minion stuff for small municipalities that was subject to public records laws that would have made doing things over personal email grossly unprofessional at best and illegal at worst, and she's the fucking Secretary of State...), what about security?
Given the delightful creep of the Top Secret National Security Stuff blob to cover ever larger swaths of DC, surely the Secretary of State does some emailing about stuff that is, at least for little people, probably supposed to not leave the SCIF, much less be handled by who-knows-who at some random email provider or a DNC mailserver admin.
Re:B0ll0cks... (Score:5, Insightful)
"A spokesman for Clinton defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the "letter and spirit of the rules.""
That alone made me blow my coffee across my desk.
When there are regulations about email retention in place, using your personal email is NEITHER to the letter NOR to the spirit of the rules.
Even more absurd than to "smoke, but not inhale".
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If she was using an email service on US soil there is most definitely an email trail in some government bunker somewhere.
What makes her email any different from everyone elses'?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
She is too powerful. Powerful people tend to dislike light shown on their actions, because than rational people will see how stupid they really are and pounce on their bad actions and their bad conclusions.
This is the same for politicians throughout history....
So yea, while there might be hidden emails on some Government server somewhere, do you really think they will ever see the light of day? She would have zero issues killing them in the streets to keep them from coming out if I had to guess and this i
Re:B0ll0cks... (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know? Its not like you cannot go through her backup store and see if it happened and it would be her discretion if anything was covrred or not.
Typical government official, breaking the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Typical government official, breaking the law (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say it's not all that different. Breaking either one makes you a criminal.
I have counted no less than 3 anti clinton reports (Score:3, Insightful)
From the 'liberal' media of CNN, the Washington Post and Huffington post this morning.
Now I'm no fan of the Clintons, but if you don't see a coordination job then you're either a Fox news watcher or a Lotus eater ;)
Why now? (Score:4, Interesting)
She must have sent a huge number of e-mails to 1000's of people. Didn't someone notice that the e-mails were from hillary@gmail.com instead of hillary@state.gov?
If I got an email from her dealing with official business, I would have questioned why it wasn't from a "real" e-mail address - as in whitehouse.gov or whatever.
Why didn't anyone say something sooner? Didn't someone suspect her emails the same way I would suspect an e-mail from a Nigerian prince needing help?
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Interesting)
They didn't care. It is a pretty wide spread practice in this administration:
Lisa Jackson- EPA
Kathleen Sebelius - HHS
Seth Harris - Department of Labor.
and more
The AP covered it in 2013, it is not like we didn't know, we just did not pay attention.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article... [ap.org]
Sovereign Immunity (Score:2)
There is an ancient concept called "sovereign immunity" which holds that rulers (people making laws) are automatically exempt from those laws. The theory is they would carve exemptions for themselves if it weren't so wordy or otherwise onerous (requiring foresight). To be sure, this self-justifying concept is very attractive! Free-riders include some enforcers of the law (police). Small wonder that Hillary behaves as "rules are for the little people."
However, the concept belongs to fealty and other powe
Thank You, NSA!!!! (Score:3)
I am sure, after the Snowden revelations, that she felt that using her personal email for conducting official business was the safest and most prudent way to backup her email. It required absolute no effort on her part and it was guaranteed to be retained. A Win Win for sure!
There's probably a simple resolution for this (Score:2)
The law must be satisfied to the extent possible.
For starters: No deleting any e-mail in the personal account until the go'vt can review. Hand over the credentials for the "personal" accounts and allow all messages contained or archived to be copied to the federal servers and go into the public record; contact the email service provider with a court order to hand over all backups, have a police seizure of all digital media Mrs. Hillary had access to, and charge Mrs. Hillary the cost of compliance
Bush White House Email Controversy (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bush White House email controversy [wikipedia.org] surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act. Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted. Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations. In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.
The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee, for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an acronym standing for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas. Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc.") and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.
The "gwb43.com" domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee committee chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation. Waxman sent a formal warning to the RNC, advising them to retain copies of all emails sent by White House employees. According to Waxman, "in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications." The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.
On April 12, 2007, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that White House staffers were told to use RNC accounts to "err on the side of avoiding violations of the Hatch Act, but they should also retain that information so it can be reviewed for the Presidential Records Act," and that "some employees ... have communicated about official business on those political email accounts." Stanzel also said that even though RNC policy since 2004 has been to retain all emails of White House staff with RNC accounts, the staffers had the ability to delete the email themselves.
Blame bush! (Score:3)
Another Democrat blaming bush for Democratic shortcomings!
God damn, grow some adult pants and take responsibility for your decisions.
All of HIllary's recipients knew ... (Score:4, Interesting)
But NONE of the government recipients or people who used to be in government notified any authorities in the US Government that Hillary was violating the rules that they had to follow. So are they all complicit in breaking the law?
Given that private email accounts are not likely secure, how is it that other government official would send sensitive and sometimes secret materials to a private email account of Hillary's. That would also make any government official who sent official emails to Hillary guilty for not following the law.
Just another example of the fact we must follow the law or get hammered by government departments, but when the Clinton's violate law, it's just time for another spin job from Bill & Hillary: "What difference does it make?" with arms raised and screeching. God help the US.
Re:All of HIllary's recipients knew ... (Score:4, Informative)
The law doesn't forbid the use of personal accounts.
But that's beside the point, as you can't break a law that wasn't even written, let alone put into effect, until after you left office.
The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014.
She stepped down as Secretary Feb 1, 2013.
http://mediamatters.org/resear... [mediamatters.org]
Hillary is a divisive figure *among Democrats* (Score:5, Interesting)
That may surprise people here. The Republicans have done a good job painting her as the quintessential ultra-liberal Democrat, but really she is no such thing. She is, in fact, from the right wing of the party and could have been an establishment Republican a generation ago. She is widely reviled by the left over her vote on the Iraq War Authorization of Military Force (although to be fair, Joe Biden voted for it too and he's seen as generally reliable on liberal issues, as long as he doesn't open his mouth).
On the other hand she's the first really plausible female presidential candidate for a major party, and I think a lot of people who want to see that milestone project a great deal of their hopes on her. But what makes her plausible in the first place is her acceptability to the establishment.
And what makes her acceptable to the establishment is her competence and personal accomplishments; being married to Bill helps. But the Ivy League education, experience in high profile NGOs and partnership in a major law firm mean she's seen as serious by "serious people". But in this case that should be held against her here. She's not like old Uncle Joe (Biden), whose heart is in the right place but who the hell can tell where his mind might go a-wandering; Hillary is someone you expect to have her head in the game. She knew damn well that conducting official business on non-government servers is exactly what people do when they're breaking the law.
I'm neither a Hillary partisan nor a Hillary hater. On the political spectrum I tend to fall a little to the right of the most vocal Democratic base and to the left of the establishment "DLC" wing that dominates the party at the national level. When the Secretary of State does something this fishy, that's a big deal. I think there should be something like a special prosecutor appointed, even though when the words "Clinton" and "special prosecutor" are uttered in the sentence the word "circus" can't be far behind. But then if the special prosecutor finds no indictable offense I'd be happy with that result.
Re: (Score:3)
She is, in fact, from the right wing of the party and could have been an establishment Republican a generation ago.
The first part of that sentence is true and tells you how far left the Democratic Party has moved. The second part is nonsense. A generation ago, Hillary was on the left fringe of the Democratic Party. She has not moved right, the Party has moved left.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's an open question of who's living in a fantasy world. I'm actually old enough to remember these people. Show me a Republican today who'd be as aggressive as Nixon on regulation. Who would sign the Clean Water Act, or the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or appoint someone like Elliot Richardson the head of HEW. Nixon also took the single most intrusive act of economic intervention ever by an American president (including FDR): the wage-price freeze. It's fair to say that there's nobody in national po
Re:Hillary is a divisive figure *among Democrats* (Score:5, Informative)
Richard Nixon proposed and drove the creation of the EPA.
He expanded Medicare coverage to include long-term disabled under 65.
He created the Federal disability insurance (SSDI).
He proposed a national health care plan, with federal subsidies (something more "socialized" than Obamacare).
Advocating any of these things today would make it impossible for any Republican to get the Presidential nomination.
Re: (Score:3)
Richard Nixon proposed and drove the creation of the EPA.
He expanded Medicare coverage to include long-term disabled under 65.
He created the Federal disability insurance (SSDI).
He proposed a national health care plan, with federal subsidies (something more "socialized" than Obamacare).
Advocating any of these things today would make it impossible for any Republican to get the Presidential nomination.
Hell, even Reagan is a liberal by today's standards!
She is just nasty (Score:3)
Rapist [dailycaller.com]
And people actually vote for her? How sad.
Compare/contrast (Score:4, Interesting)
It will be an interesting exercise to compare the Bush Whitehouse Email Controversy' [slashdot.org] with Hilary's erupting email 'scandal'
Good thing the NY Times is thinking ahead (Score:3)
By getting this out there now, it can be written off as "old news" come election time. Savvy news media types know that the best time to expose the skeletons is months in advance. Savvy politicians know this too so expect more of these types of stories being "leaked" to the sympathetic press teams in the next few months. Meanwhile, the opposition is gnashing their teeth and hoping that they are able to reserve most the things that could discredit Hillary until the very last moment.
Another thought occurs to me as well; it seems that every time something like this happens to a liberal candidate, the majority of comments are along the lines of "oh it doesn't really matter because all politicians do this". As if it's expected. I recall the Earth shattering k-boom that rocked the planet when it was revealed that Sarah Pallin used gmail when she was Governor. The amount of ZOMGICANTBELIEVEITHOWSTUPIDANDILLEGALANDIMMORALANDJUSTPLAINDOWNRIGHTBAD that is. Yes, they all do it. Some of them do it for the purposes of obscuring and avoiding exposure. Some of them do it because they are lazy and/or stupid. I'm not proposing that Hillary needs to be put in the public square and become the target of rotten fruit. Just keep this in mind the next time a Republican is exposed and treat the occasion with the same level of contempt.
Was any of this classified? (Score:3)
I fully understand the implication for archival purposes of this failure and I'm not happy but it seems she's trying to rectify this thought I'd rather a national archivist select which emails get archived not her staff. However,I kind of yawn at this aspect of things: not good but not worth getting in a tissy over.
My greater concern was if any of the communication was classified or unclassified but sensitive. I mean over the course of her tenure she's got to have had some emails like that. Even if none of it was classified or sensitive, does she understand the implications this has for national security particularly should she become president and do something this boneheaded? She's gotta know she was doing it and it was wrong.
Re:Split on this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry but "the shitstorm will be her punishment" isn't acceptable.
The rules are there for data retention and accountability purposes.
Didn't we learn ANYTHING from the whole Lois Lerner debacle?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious as to whether the "official" State Department email was encrypted by design, and whether her private email was encrypted at all. Seems to me that a lot of State Department secrets might be laying around in various places if her emails weren't encrypted.
I'm also curious as to how she proposes to PROVE that she's turned over all of her official emails to the State Department. After all, it might behoove her to "overlook" certain emails that portray her or the Administration in an unflattering
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are glad that someone as seasoned at breaking the rules in technology is doing so? That sounds like a great thing to me. Here we go, here are more Government idiots who know how to use technology and will make sure that they have zero accountability! I am glad that the monkeys at the top finally learned the basics of interwebz 101 and know how to cover their tracks. We wouldn't want our Government officials to be held accountable now, would we?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really. The really one remaining significant difference between the parties is that public shaming is still a career-ender in the Democratic party. There's no post-scandal career phase as an evangelical preacher, Fox news commentator, or both waiting for guys like Anthony Wiener or William J. Jefferson (the freezer cash guy).
Re: (Score:3)
Not that being a "career-ender" actually matters to either Dems or Reps - if you're worth millions, who cares if you don't have a job?
And Bill Clinton, like Barack Obama, came into the office basically upper-middle to lower-upper class, and left or will leave as multimillionaires (Clinton is worth double-digit millions, Obama is approaching a billion).
Re: Crime (Score:3)
Bush was a millionaire when he entered office (both Bushs).
Clinton was not a millionaire when he entered office - I think his gig as Gov. Of Arkansas netted him a cool $35K in salary.
Obama stepped into office a millionaire from book sales of his TWO autobiographies.
If Hillary becomes President, she'll step in as a multi-millionaire - probably richer than 'obscenely' rich Mitt Romney.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike poor Karl Rove who is rotting in jail for doing the very same thing, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Re:Crime (Score:5, Funny)
There once was a senator from mass.
Who went out in search for a piece of asd
Lucked up and found it
But fucked up and drowned it
Even that didn't end his ass.
Re:"Possibly"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who will apply the law to her? Her political allies in the DOJ? Who will look into it? Her political allies in the press?
When someone can never be held accountable, aren't they above the law?
Tomorrow: Everyone who wants her to follow the rules: sexists. They just don't like women in power.
Re: (Score:3)
The "possibly" stuff in the NYT report is because they're accusing her of a crime. (She apparently didn't have a State Dept. e-mail, ever. If she handled anything classified on this address, that's supposed to mean jail time. There would be fines or whatnot if its not an actual security breach.) The justice system, and thus the press, is supposed to refer to people who have been accused of crime