General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules
Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept., Possibly Breaking RulesBy MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT at the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?ref=politics&_r=0
"SNIP...............
WASHINGTON Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials correspondence be retained as part of the agencys record.
Mrs. 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 was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clintons advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretarys post in early 2013.
...............SNIP"
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)The Hillary bashing by the media has begain
applegrove
(118,577 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)But, you're right. The law requiring them to keep their personal business separate from their work is probably silly and Hillary knew that. That's why she ignored the law.
Also, it doesn't trouble you that out of tens of thousands of emails, only 55,000 turned out to be work related?
Hillary supporters sure are a funny group.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)You realize 55,000 is in fact "tens of thousands", so moot point. I get what your getting at but you might want to rephrase that.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"Also, it doesn't trouble you that out of tens of thousands of emails, only 55,000 turned out to be work related?"
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)keeping all their email outside of FOIA? People say some pretty stupid things when it comes to partisan politics.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
It was a big deal then.
Mitt had entire computer systems destroyed. No problem. But HILLARY! OMG!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)liberalla
(9,234 posts)can't wait.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)aquart
(69,014 posts)I am confused about the difference between rules and laws and what the mandated penalties are for violation. Who has been prosecuted for this? Jailed? Fined? Lost a pension?
Congress passed this? I sincerely don't know.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I just can't wrap my head around this. Didn't anyone she emailed with notice that it was not a .gov address?
This is gonna be the new Benghazi for the RWers to go crazy about.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Imagine the shitstorm that would cause.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)government systems. But still, you don't want the world reading your business until you're ready to reveal your business.
Keefer
(713 posts)Clintonemail.com . Not gmail.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)that doesn't matter. This is a major breech of government policy. It indicates an underlying dishonesty, an arrogance that she can do what she wants to and everyone else be damned. Not the kind of person I'm willing to trust.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Just a tiny suspicion.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)as the sort of Democrat who deserves the adulation she all too often gets.
liberalla
(9,234 posts)continue the coverage... coming up. Thanks for the link to the NYT.
onecaliberal
(32,811 posts)still_one
(92,108 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I remember the same thing happening during the Bush Administration-- I expect most here do. It was outrageous then and it's outrageous now.
merrily
(45,251 posts)even if they are Democratic government officials?
Please see Reply 9.
840high
(17,196 posts)Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)Those who care about a Secretary of State shielding 4 years worth of communications from the FOIA.
onecaliberal
(32,811 posts)Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)And that's to keep the person and/or their aides from handpicking which emails to archive. That does not in any way meet the definition of transparency.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)If they didn't want an email to be seen they could just withhold it and no one would know. There is no knowing how many thousands of emails were withheld.
onecaliberal
(32,811 posts)DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)onecaliberal
(32,811 posts)That's why I call and register democratic voters, that's why I canvas neighborhoods, that why I drive dem voters to the polls. That's why I served 2 terms on my dem central committee. What the fuck do you do besides sit here and judge how democratic someone really is. Enjoy complete ignore. Sick of this kind of crap.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)I can see why you are working so hard to get her elected.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)she possibly did not follow the email rules - that is not right.
We are facing the same issue here in Florida with rick scott. It would be hypocritical to hold his feet to-the-fire and not hers.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)but that's just Hillary bashing
The laws are just for the little people. Laws don't apply to Hillary and her Wall Street friends
aquart
(69,014 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)That doesn't mean she should be able to break the rules without consequences
onecaliberal
(32,811 posts)I might give a shit.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)How ethical...
onecaliberal
(32,811 posts)Ethics are a joke. Why aren't these people in prison for war crimes.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)What I don't understand is how it an excuse...
Great... Serial Killer Bob took out a dozen people... That doesn't excuse someone who only kills one or two...
It isn't a justification in any way..
onecaliberal
(32,811 posts)For many administrations going back. Not justification. It's just the way it is. Have a good day.
aquart
(69,014 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)that will help her through this terrible episode...
But you know, they've got photographic evidence:
Team H is gonna have to launder a lot of social media pages...
treestar
(82,383 posts)And those are laws regarding national security.
Laws about emails and federal records are suddenly to be followed to the letter? LOL. I bet if the feds caught Eddie on that it would be sneering 24/7.
Marr
(20,317 posts)apply to them.
But you'd like Hillary to be president. Do you see the subtle inconsistency there?
treestar
(82,383 posts)There can be no complaints from the same people about this. It should all be transparent anyway. Breaches of security are nothing to these people at all. It should all be transparent. So this should be a "meh" to them.
Marr
(20,317 posts)You know very well that people who are against mass NSA domestic spying are not simply for 'no government secrets'.
Your comment that the whistleblowers like Snowden enjoy freedom from the law that Hillary Clinton doesn't have is laughably absurd.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)and saw nothing wrong with it. I guess laws are just for the little people.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)No one knows how many emails there are. No one knows what procedures her staffers used to weed them out or include them in State Dept. business. How is this not purposefully evasive and against both the letter and spirit of the laws? Can't trust you to be open and honest with government records, then I can't trust you to run the government. The Clintons, of all people, know how this shit works--they have no excuse. Why did the Obama admin let her get away with this?
merrily
(45,251 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)trouble for using her personal account for DOL business? I seem to remember something of that, right before she stepped down. Oops, upon further looking, maybe that was head of EPA.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Hillary Clinton, WHOSE UNDERWEAR DRAWER WAS SEARCHED BY FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS, knows you don't get to hide anything.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)using loyal staffers who...OOOPS...accidentally deleted some of it! Their bad! As noted above, it's been done before.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I was like so she used a government email address for personal email an honest mistake she just forgot that she was sending it from her government address. But, the actual story is shocking. She never set up her government account? No one told her she had to or she didn't know or she didn't care, none of those options sound good to me.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)it has to be kept secure, and the emails archived properly. She knew exactly what she was doing, and so did the Obama admin. What, they conducted official business on "HillyC@comcast"? And were OK with it??
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I am flummoxed here, it makes no sense. It's seems like it would be like trying to get through college without a university address.
karynnj
(59,500 posts)Think of your own email where you type the name and the email program translates to the actual address. I know our email package does that.
It does seem like someone in her office should have questioned it. The state department said that Kerry has always used a government account since he became the Secretary. I would guess that was the norm.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)to know the email system, servers, addresses, etc. The classified stuff would have gone on a separate system, but the day-to-day business...who made this arrangement, is what I want to know--did she EVER get a .gov (or .state or whatever) and just didn't use it, or did she never get one provided to begin with? That would have to be a conscious choice.
karynnj
(59,500 posts)Even years ago it was routine to be assigned one in many companies or colleges. It will be interesting to get the answers. It sounds like the SD worked to get other secretaries' emails for historical reasons.
merrily
(45,251 posts)missed it. It's also shocking that, out of tens of thousands of emails, only 55,000 were supposedly government related?
This is a woman who did not comply with a subpoena for a solid year while First Lady, then claimed she stumbled over the papers required requested by the subpoena in the dining room of the first family's private quarters . Clearly, laws have not had the same consequences for her as they would for you and me.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I think it's going to all blow over though. If it is kept alive it will be because of the Republican yelling machine.
aquart
(69,014 posts)And what did they get? Not one damn thing.
Please proceed.
Response to aquart (Reply #25)
Marr This message was self-deleted by its author.
langstonhues
(49 posts)Or what was she hiding by doing this? We already have less and less accountability from banks, from government in general and from our rich employers, now official on the job emails that are being vetted by her staff is 'hillary hating'? Things are getting pretty weird.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)E-mails run on private gop.com, I might give a shit. But since Republicans created the "off the record" system of e-mails, I'm not inclined to say Democrats shouldn't use the same methods of protecting their conversations from public scrunity. Tell you what, have all Republican correspondence from gop.com given public exposure and I will happily want the same from Democrats.
napi21
(45,806 posts)by the "Benghazi Committee". I also have a really hard time believing the attorneys associated with the Sate Dept. would have ignored this for FOUR YEARS! There's a lot more to this story and I'm gonna wait until I hear their story before making a judgment.
langstonhues
(49 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)I do not trust HUAC.......I mean the partisan Benghazi committee.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I imagine the secretary of a department (or the president) for that matter doesn't email people that often...
Who knows.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Also, was anything deleted? Was anyone in her office as senator tasked with the job of maintaining her email? Was there also such a person at State?
Was there a separate Foundation email account?
How much of her email was written by her?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Not going to make a judgement without hearing from Hillary.
Gman
(24,780 posts)and it's gone down the memory hole. So this is just bullshit. Nothing else.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)that you are going to be publicly scrutinized in your conduct as SoS?
Gman
(24,780 posts)spare me, please.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)no one would notice or care that she never used a proper government account.
krawhitham
(4,641 posts)She did not just use and existing email, she created a new personal email just for being SoS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/02/hacked-emails-indicate-that-hillary-clinton-used-a-domain-registered-the-day-of-her-senate-hearings/
So she created an private email for government work while The Clinton Foundation was taking large donations form foreign countries
http://www.businessinsider.com/report-clinton-foundation-broke-foreign-donation-deal-with-white-house-2015-2
The GOP & Media will conclude she was bought off, it does not matter if it is true or not. They will argue she was "lobbied" to change her position on matters bases on who donated and those who were not willing to donate
She will have to prove otherwise and it is mighty hard to negative
Gman
(24,780 posts)Bush lost terabytes of email and nobody cared.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)We can't expect anyone to exceed the high standard they set. Breaking the law should be expected of all politicians now... because Bush.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The level of 'well he did it first' school-yard-level responses is puzzling from otherwise adult-appearing posters.
mythology
(9,527 posts)The laws requiring government work being done on government emails aren't trivial. I can't believe she would be this stupid if this is true.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)was a record kept.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)anyway.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)acco rding to Snowald.....isn't everything discoverable by the NSA anyway?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Reportedly, her staffers were not happy with the slow response time of State's servers. So the domain would have hosted her email, as well as those staffers. Otherwise there would have been no point in setting up the domain.
Additionally, she probably sent emails of an official nature to places that were not in the federal government. She was the Secretary of State after all. Communicating with people outside the government is kinda her job.
Only if they were looking for it before it was deleted.
Though it is extremely likely that China's and Russia's equivalents to the NSA have a copy of her emails.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)decided to turn them over.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)quadrature
(2,049 posts)what about John Kerry?
Broward
(1,976 posts)The apologists on this thread so far (and I'm sure there are many more to come) are all too predictable.
frylock
(34,825 posts)demosincebirth
(12,536 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)And obviously if they heve the private emails then, there shouldn't be a problem. There has been no reporting on whether these were high level or un-encrypted.
applegrove
(118,577 posts)emailing. Maybe she knew she was running for office again and didn't want to have any chance of things going wrong. I know I'm grasping here.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)[font color="red" size="8" face="face"]
The article doesnt say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.[/font]
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
dissentient
(861 posts)They are our betters, after all. It isn't our place to question them.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)This is a big fucking deal, and frankly shocking. I am shocked she had the poor judgement to do it, and appalled that our government actually honored this request? WTF, my workplace emails are more secure than the fucking State Department? Absolutely unreal.
For all those "no big deal people":
1. Yes, it is.
2. You would be salivating if this were a Republican official. You know it.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Brickbat
(19,339 posts)It's pathetically predictable.
...am I.
dembotoz
(16,796 posts)if hrc has a problem scummy should be in jail
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Judith Miller
Case closed.
onyourleft
(726 posts)...because everyone does that.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)You couldn't be more wrong. This is a game changer. This is about integrity and honesty. Those that think they are above the law, have neither. The arrogance to think this wouldn't be discovered and used boggles any rational mind.
brooklynite
(94,452 posts)This is a non-story about a non-existent (when she was in office) rule, that will have disappeared by this time next week.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'd say "New York Times, We SEE You." We saw them before, now we're seeing them AGAIN.
More Judy Miller-style shit....and amazing how many supposedly sophisticated, politically-minded people ate it up with a spoon.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)is only a friend of HRC,
or also a StateDept employee?