HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Secretary Kerry is ...

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:52 PM

 

"Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to rely primarily on a state.gov email account."

Responding to the Times story, the State Department says it "has long had access to a wide array of Secretary Clinton's records — including emails between her and Department officials with state.gov accounts."

The department says it is updating its records preservation policies, taking steps that include regularly archiving all of Secretary John Kerry's emails.

"For some historical context," says deputy spokesperson Marie Harf, "Secretary Kerry is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov email account."


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/03/390429337/hillary-clinton-s-use-of-personal-email-account-at-state-draws-scrutiny

Benghazi!

140 replies, 7321 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 140 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to rely primarily on a state.gov email account." (Original post)
geek tragedy Mar 2015 OP
elleng Mar 2015 #1
merrily Mar 2015 #31
kwassa Mar 2015 #35
merrily Mar 2015 #37
kwassa Mar 2015 #39
merrily Mar 2015 #40
kwassa Mar 2015 #43
merrily Mar 2015 #48
pnwmom Mar 2015 #55
merrily Mar 2015 #56
pnwmom Mar 2015 #58
merrily Mar 2015 #61
pnwmom Mar 2015 #63
merrily Mar 2015 #75
pnwmom Mar 2015 #78
merrily Mar 2015 #79
merrily Mar 2015 #81
pnwmom Mar 2015 #83
merrily Mar 2015 #94
pnwmom Mar 2015 #99
merrily Mar 2015 #101
pnwmom Mar 2015 #103
merrily Mar 2015 #113
pnwmom Mar 2015 #114
pnwmom Mar 2015 #80
merrily Mar 2015 #82
pnwmom Mar 2015 #84
merrily Mar 2015 #85
pnwmom Mar 2015 #86
merrily Mar 2015 #89
pnwmom Mar 2015 #91
merrily Mar 2015 #106
pnwmom Mar 2015 #107
merrily Mar 2015 #88
pnwmom Mar 2015 #92
pnwmom Mar 2015 #115
pnwmom Mar 2015 #87
merrily Mar 2015 #90
pnwmom Mar 2015 #93
merrily Mar 2015 #96
pnwmom Mar 2015 #98
merrily Mar 2015 #100
pnwmom Mar 2015 #102
merrily Mar 2015 #104
pnwmom Mar 2015 #105
merrily Mar 2015 #108
Sancho Mar 2015 #120
merrily Mar 2015 #121
Sancho Mar 2015 #126
merrily Mar 2015 #128
Sancho Mar 2015 #133
merrily Mar 2015 #135
Sancho Mar 2015 #138
merrily Mar 2015 #139
uponit7771 Mar 2015 #130
leveymg Mar 2015 #140
leftofcool Mar 2015 #76
merrily Mar 2015 #77
Sancho Mar 2015 #117
merrily Mar 2015 #118
Sancho Mar 2015 #119
Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #2
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #3
Cha Mar 2015 #5
Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #7
still_one Mar 2015 #109
merrily Mar 2015 #38
stevenleser Mar 2015 #59
still_one Mar 2015 #110
2naSalit Mar 2015 #69
Cha Mar 2015 #4
merrily Mar 2015 #6
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #10
merrily Mar 2015 #19
leveymg Mar 2015 #27
merrily Mar 2015 #32
leveymg Mar 2015 #33
merrily Mar 2015 #36
Autumn Mar 2015 #41
merrily Mar 2015 #49
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #8
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #9
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #11
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #12
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #15
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #17
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #18
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #13
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #14
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #16
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #20
merrily Mar 2015 #21
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #23
merrily Mar 2015 #24
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #25
merrily Mar 2015 #26
former9thward Mar 2015 #29
merrily Mar 2015 #30
leveymg Mar 2015 #28
merrily Mar 2015 #52
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #122
leveymg Mar 2015 #129
still_one Mar 2015 #112
Renew Deal Mar 2015 #22
merrily Mar 2015 #34
karynnj Mar 2015 #45
merrily Mar 2015 #50
Generic Brad Mar 2015 #42
merrily Mar 2015 #51
stevenleser Mar 2015 #60
merrily Mar 2015 #62
stevenleser Mar 2015 #64
merrily Mar 2015 #65
stevenleser Mar 2015 #66
merrily Mar 2015 #67
stevenleser Mar 2015 #68
merrily Mar 2015 #70
stevenleser Mar 2015 #71
merrily Mar 2015 #72
stevenleser Mar 2015 #73
merrily Mar 2015 #74
onenote Mar 2015 #123
merrily Mar 2015 #124
onenote Mar 2015 #125
merrily Mar 2015 #127
merrily Mar 2015 #131
onenote Mar 2015 #132
merrily Mar 2015 #134
onenote Mar 2015 #136
merrily Mar 2015 #137
octoberlib Mar 2015 #44
Autumn Mar 2015 #46
octoberlib Mar 2015 #47
merrily Mar 2015 #53
octoberlib Mar 2015 #116
alp227 Mar 2015 #54
merrily Mar 2015 #57
pnwmom Mar 2015 #95
merrily Mar 2015 #97
leftofcool Mar 2015 #111

Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:56 PM

1. A DUer who works at State Department wrote this important piece:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 08:53 PM

31. That post is laughable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:16 PM

35. That post is probably correct, not laughable.

unless you have a somewhat weird sense of humor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #35)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:25 PM

37. You're saying Hillary is so uneducable that she could not even be taught to use one email as opposed

to another? Really? What does it take, really, to switch from, say Hotmail to gmail? People do it all the time, including seniors wanting to keep in touch with great-grandkids and including Luddites. It's not as though someone asked her to invent a new email format or write the program. Or even to learn email from scratch. (btw, she had just opened the Yahoo email account, and I strongly doubt she had no email at all before then, even just as a Mom whose only child was not living at home, let alone a US Senator campaigning for President.)

Some official has cited Obama as a perfect example of someone who complies with the act very well. Hillary needs speed more than the President?

Come on, now. Let's be real, please.

Besides, if you are Secretary of State and feel you cannot comply with federal law for one reason or another, you take steps. You just don't ignore the law.

But, as another post of mine downthread says, the important issue under the Act is not which computer or email account was used, but that records are preserved and archived. And she did not do that, either. The stuff about the vast educability limitations of the woman who seeks the Presidency and her special need for more speed the POTUS are beside the point, as well as easily refutable.

It's no coincidence that we learn via an FOIA request for Hagel's govt email records that Hagel did not keep a government email account.

There were, I am sure, reasons why Hillary did not comply with the Federal Records Act, but they were NOT that she is ineducable or that she had a greater need for speed than the POTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #37)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:37 PM

39. I'm actually sorry I responded to your post. This entire issue is TRIVIAL beyond words.

1) Many federal employees that have posted to this thread say that the email system is lousy. My friend who worked on the White House staff said the same thing to me 15 years ago.

I am not a federal employee, but my work email system is terrible, especially from a remote location, though nothing I do is confidential. I back up everything on gmail, which is vastly superior.

2) Many people stick with the software they are comfortable with, particularly if they are not particularly tech-savvy. Particularly older people.

What I have read about Hillary from years ago is that she is loath to put anything down on paper that can get pulled up in an investigation years later, and that she prefers conversations. I doubt she ever put anything of import in an email if she could call a person instead. Her lack of compliance might simply be from a lack of knowledge of the act, though I am not sure I agree with your broad interpretation of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:48 PM

40. Yet, you responded again, so I doubt you're that sorry. As to trrivial, please see my Reply 19.

1. Has it occurred to you that the President and his cabinet and other advisors just might have a different system? Regardless, it something is regquired by law and the President is able to use the system, it should be good enough for Hillary. And, if it is not for whatever reason, the Secretary of State has plenty of other recourse besides just ignoriing the law, as I said in my prior post.

2. The yahoo account she did use was a new one as of 2009, so she was not sticking with something she knew. I addressed seniors in my prior post. For that matter, I addressed switching from one email version to another in my prior post.


What I have read about Hillary from years ago is that she is loath to put anything down on paper that can get pulled up in an investigation years later
,

Bingo.

As I suggested in my prior post, that was the most likely reason she disobeyed the Federal Records Act and all else, like the laughable post from the State Department employee . Except in this case, she did send tens of thousands of emails and a law required certain things be done about those emails. And she ignored it. Just like she ignored a subpoena for a year as First Lady.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #40)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:03 PM

43. I still think this entire email thing is a non-issue, of little importance.

We are both guessing about Hillary's motives and actions, or lack of actions. So is the State Department employee, who has better personal knowledge of her than either of us. He has actually had professional contact with her.

I only shook her hand once.

You just think your guesses about her motives are better than other people's guesses. I am not seeing that, at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #43)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 12:08 AM

48. Yet another reply? My, my. For the second time, Reply 19 spoke to the "importance" of the issue,

well as to the bs surrounding it from both sides, despite the its relatively trivial nature . You've sure proven what my Reply 19 said.

I replied to you twice. Both times, you ignored everything I said.

In your Reply 39, you repeated the same things you had said in your Reply 35, even though I had already responded to them. So, my responding to your Reply 35 was a complete waste of my time.

Now, in response to my Reply 40, you claim I am guessing, which is also bs, and that I think my guesses are better than everyone elses's which is still more bs. IOW, my Reply 40 was also a waste of my time.

Neither in your reply 35 nor in your reply 39 did you refute anything I said, nor did you add anything new to your Reply 35, with the exception of some personal insults.

You seem likely to be one of those "I must have the last word, no matter what" posters. I am not. So, have at it, but I am done wasting my time replying to you on this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:12 AM

55. In the real world, 50 and 60 year olds rely on 20 year olds to set them up with technology.

The mistake was with her staff and/or whatever part of the government is in charge of the whole computer network.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #55)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:29 AM

56. Come on, pwnmom. That is patently untrue. And ageist. And laughable.

50 and 50 year olds don't switch email accounts unless someone younger sets that up for them: Even when the law requires them to switch?

I know many people over 60 and that is just untrue.

Besides, Hillary was a Senator and a Presidential primary candidate long before she was 60. And before that, she was First Lady. If she were 80 or more the first time she tried to do anything at all online, I might be more receptive to this myth that no one over 60 could possibly switch email accounts, even with all the help in the world available to them, unless someone else did it for them. Heck, people in their 80s are posting on DU. I recently congratulated someone who posted he or she was 85.

Anyway, it's the rare 20 year year who sets up a switch from great grandma's email without being asked by grandma and it hasn't even been claimed that she ask for help and was refused.

And what a lame excuse for violating the law.

Besides, she set up the personal yahoo account--and a private server in her home--at about the same time she was nominated for Secretary of State. So, please give me a a damned break with the laughable old lady luddite stuff. Besides, if it were true that she can't possibly manage to switch from one email account to another to comply with the law, even with all the help in the world available to her, what in hell would that say about her being President?

Finally, as I have posted, the really important issue here is preservation of the documents and archiving. She didn't do that, either, or allow anyone else to do it. What's the laughable excuse for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #56)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:49 AM

58. You've missed the key point. She didn't just switch email accounts. She had a private server set up in her home, which

requires technical skills few politicians have. Someone else suggested this to her and did it for her.

http://time.com/3732852/hillary-clinton-email-server/

“The big caveat is that you must know what you’re doing in terms of setting it up securely, and that’s a fairly difficult, non-trivial problem for most people,” says Katie Moussouris, chief policy officer for San Francisco-based HackerOne, a company that works with friendly hackers to help organizations like Yahoo, Twitter, and even government agencies detect vulnerabilities in their own technology.

SNIP

But if you still want to email like Hillary Clinton, Moussouris recommends relying on an expert — if you can find one. “Qualified security people are very rare,” she says. And that’s one of the problems with this setup for Clinton.

“I couldn’t imagine a top-notch security person going to work for anyone in Washington, let alone an individual in, essentially, a non-technical function,” Moussouris says. “We have a scarcity of talent in the security industry, and we see this when we try to hire good people all the time.”

As a result, Moussouris assumes whoever set up Clinton’s private email server was a staffer, unless they were very well paid. And if that’s the case, the best way to email like Hillary Clinton is to spend a lot of money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #58)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:01 AM

61. No, YOU've missed the point. Having ample ability to comply with federal law Hillary chose instead

simply to violate it. And most probably simply because she wanted to keep her emails away from FOIA requests, even though federal law provides otherwise (while protecting matters that are legitimately personal or that are claimed to be secret). And while unofficially running for the job of faithful executing federal laws.

And if your point was anything like that she was enough of a non-Luddite to set up a private server in her home when she got nominated for Secretary of State, you sure picked a funny way to say it in your prior post. This may be the hugest goal post move I've seen attempted from one post to the next on [strike]DU[/strike] the internet yet and I've seen some beauts.

Finally, you ignored the failure to archive, as also required by law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #61)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:10 AM

63. She didn't fail to archive. There was no time limit in any law or regulation in effect when she was

S of S, and she sent the 55,000 saved emails when the State Department requested them (and requested those of all the S of S's going back to Madeleine Albright.)

There is no evidence she broke any law. No one is responsible for following laws retroactively, not even Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #63)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:20 AM

75. The lawyer at the National Archives who was Director of Litigation says she broke the law.

Please see my Reply 65 for a tiny bit of his cv and a link to the rest.

To refute that, and believe you instead, I will need to see the Federal Records Act and regulations promulgated under it, each as amended through the date that Hillary left office.

Links, please.

And I note another goal post move. First,anyone 50 and over, including Hillary, is too old and uneducable even to ask her staff to set up a government email account for her. Then, she's brilliant enough to have someone set up a server in her home. And now, there's no violation of law at all. One would have thought you would have started with that.

Where, oh, where will the next goalpost be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #75)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:30 AM

78. Where does he say she broke the law? All you did was post a bio. That isn't very useful.

All I can find is his quote in the NYTimes article:

“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013."

I'm not sure what this says about him since Hillary, a high-ranking official, was openly using the private email account while he worked at the agency. And between 2000 and 2008, Colin Powell also used a personal email account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #78)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:34 AM

79. No links per my request? Also, what allowed Hillary to retain control over her govt papers until 2

months ago? Anything to cite for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #78)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:40 AM

81. This article cites both Attorney Baron and his successor at the Archives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0

Nothing to see here, right? Everyone else did it? LOL!

Still going to need the links and the link that allows her to retain control of government records until two months ago (and I would bet she still has a good number, but, of course, that's just a guess).



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #81)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:43 AM

83. Yeah, it cites him for being an idiot.

"“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013."

He was there while both Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were using personal email accounts and yet he can recall no instance. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #83)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:01 AM

94. That is a ludicrous claim Read his resume.

He was there while both Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were using personal email accounts and yet he can recall no instance. LOL.


What's so funny about that? Did Hillary tell him she was using her personal email and only her personal email? As Director of Litigation for the National Archives, was he supposed to search her home for private servers? I would not make a comment like that and through the idiot word around at someone else.

And you're moving the goal post again? The issue is whether he knows the law not whether he knew which email Powell and Clinton were using.

Try again, though your posts seem to be getting more and more desperate each time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #94)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:30 AM

99. Please see post 84.

You point to a couple random quotes by the Director of Litigation -- who did NOT accuse Hillary of breaking any law, by the way.

And yet you ignore the sworn testimony in 2013 by the head of the National Archives.

(Who also doesn't accuse Hillary of breaking any law.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #99)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:34 AM

101. Also false. I didn't ignore his testimony.

Come on pwnmom. If you're going to keep posting at this hour, at least state facts correctly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #101)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:35 AM

103. Where did you respond to David Ferriero's sworn testimony as Archivist? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #103)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:16 AM

113. This is about the third time you've asked me to show you where I posted something directly TO YOU.

Kinda shows you ignore anything you don't like. Last time I'll do your looking for you: Reply 89.

And, fyi, since you're such an expert on the law, you should know that (a) a lawyer is an expert on law, not an archivist; and (b) sworn testimony is not always either correct or unrefuted by other witnesses or other evidence. People lie, forget, err, testify to things they are not experts on, etc.

I am not saying that this guy's testimony is wrong. However, repeating "sworn testimony" of an archivist about a law again and again, as though its its the Holy Grail is not impressive.

And now, my reply 108 stands. Either provide the links or leave me alone or talk to yourself. Your choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #113)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:03 AM

114. The Archivist is the head of the agency. Your guy was an underling.

They didn't ask for your guy's sworn testimony, and he didn't give it. And in the NYTimes article he never said Hilary broke any law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #75)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:40 AM

80. How the heck am I supposed to know what law or regulation YOU THINK she broke? You're the one

making the claim -- I'm saying you haven't provided any evidence of that. So tell me what part of what statute or regulation you think she broke, and what evidence you have that she did.

And while you're at it, tell me what Jason Baron is supposed to have said, other than what was in the NYTimes article that didn't mention any law she'd broken either.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #80)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:42 AM

82. I did not ask you to know the law. I cited the specific law. & You're lthe one who made the claim.

You claimed there was no archiving requirement while she was in office. Here is the claim you made:

She didn't fail to archive. There was no time limit in any law or regulation in effect when she was

S of S, and she sent the 55,000 saved emails when the State Department requested them (and requested those of all the S of S's going back to Madeleine Albright.)

There is no evidence she broke any law. No one is responsible for following laws retroactively, not even Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #82)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:44 AM

84. No one has shown that she violated any archiving requirement while she was in office.

I'm still waiting for the evidence of that.

You seem to be impressed by the illustrious Jason Baron saying he was aware of no high-ranking official using personal email.

I'm more impressed by the 2013 sworn testimony of the Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero, who said nothing in the law prohibited her from using a personal email account.


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-03/hillary-clinton-camp-pushes-back-on-email-story

In an extended statement provided to Bloomberg Politics, a Clinton aide detailed ways in which Clinton did not run afoul of archival laws or the practices of her predecessors. Clinton only used her email account for non-classified information, the aide said, backing up an assertion that the State Department made earlier Tuesday.

The aide also said that assertions from the New York Times and others that different records rules applied to Clinton than to her predecessors is wrong, since the National Archives and Records Administration did not issue guidance updating its rules until fall 2013, months after she left office. The same rules applied to Clinton as had applied to Powell.

While NARA’s preference is that officials not use an email alias, Archivist of the United States David Ferriero said in sworn testimony in 2013 that “nothing in the law that prohibits them.”

“We don’t care how many accounts you have as long as those on which you’re doing federal business are captured for the record,” he also said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #84)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:47 AM

85. You made the claim that the law was changed after she left office. I asked for links.

Now, rather than supporting your own claim, you are asking me to come up with links to disprove your claim.

Tsk. Not good posting form. Then again, a number of your posts to me on this thread have been downright hilarious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #85)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:50 AM

86. Here is the timeline:

2011: Obama signs a memorandum directing the update of federal records management.

Feb. 2013: Hillary leaves state department

August 2013: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) declares that email records of senior government officials are permanent federal records

September 2013: (NARA) issues guideline on personal email use

October 2014: Department-wide notice is sent out explaining each employee’s responsibilities for records management.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/03/hillary-email-scandal-not-so-fast.html



And this is what the national Archivist had to say in 2013:



http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-03/hillary-clinton-camp-pushes-back-on-email-story

While NARA’s preference is that officials not use an email alias, Archivist of the United States David Ferriero said in sworn testimony in 2013 that “nothing in the law that prohibits them.”

“We don’t care how many accounts you have as long as those on which you’re doing federal business are captured for the record,” he also said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #86)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:54 AM

89. Not so. See Reply 19. Besides, that still does not speak to archiving or retaining personal control

of government records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #89)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:58 AM

91. Your reply 19 does nothing to contradict the sworn testimony of the national Archivist in 2013.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #91)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:02 AM

106. Duh. It contradicts your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #106)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:05 AM

107. How does it disprove the head Archivist's sworn testimony? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #84)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:52 AM

88. Sorry, that does not speak to archiving at all. Please see Reply 19, which says the important

issue is preservation and archiving, not which computer or which email account she used.


Yes, it mentions the 'archivist law," which is the federal records act of 1950, as amended. However, he makes no claim she archived.


No one yet has even claimed that Hillary did not retain control of the records until after some news organization made an FOIA request for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #88)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:58 AM

92. She preserved the emails and forwarded them upon request. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #88)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:06 AM

115. He says there was no law against using personal emails.

And he made no claim about her having broken a law. Neither did Jason Baron for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #82)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:51 AM

87. Where did you cite the specific law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #87)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:57 AM

90. I ask you specifically for a link to the Federal Records Act of 1950, as amended through the

date of Hillary's departure from office (but not beyond) and regs (for the same time period). Since you are claiming the law contained no archiving requirement at all before Hillary left office, I'd have to read the entire statute and all the regs, but I am willing to do that, if you provide the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #90)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:00 AM

93. You're the one claiming she broke it the records act. You provide the statute. Logically, one can't

prove a negative. I have no idea what you're claiming, so I can't dispute you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #93)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:08 AM

96. BS. I didn't ask you to prove a negative. And you are so wrong about inability to prove a negative.

My prior post told you exactly how I propose to prove the law didn't exist, namely, by reading the entire statute and all the regs. At that point, I will either have found a provision requiring archiving and furnish it to you or will have to admit the statute and regs did not contain an archiving requirement then.


. You're the one claiming she broke it the records act.
Again, you claim the law did not contain any archiving requirement when she was in office. That is the claim that I asked you to back up. Stop trying to put it on me to disprove what you said before you prove your own claim.

I have no idea what you're claiming, so I can't dispute you.


Baloney, you know exactly what I claimed and how to dispute it, as well as how to support your own claim because I've told you more than once.

Another desperate post from you, coming up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #96)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:23 AM

98. I'm so wrong about "inability to prove a negative"? Guess you never took a basic logic class.

That explains a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #98)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:32 AM

100. More bs and more moving goalposts. Post 96 refuted your post 98 before you wrote it.

So, why did you even bother?

If you want to tell me why the methodology I outlined in post 96 is wrong, be my guest. But, if you did take a logic course, all you've proven so far is that taking such a course is no guaranty of logical debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #100)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:35 AM

102. You are asking me to read your mind and figure out what law Hillary might have broken

even though you've never read the law. Somehow, you think it's fine to claim she broke it without any evidence that she did so -- beyond your suspicious mind -- or any actual knowledge of the law.

I'm agnostic. Until I see the law, and know what she is supposed to have done not in accordance with the law, I'm not going to accept any claim that she broke it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #102)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:53 AM

104. you've repeated that falsehood over and over and I've refuted it over and over.

Somehow, you think it's fine to claim she broke it without any evidence that she did so -- beyond your suspicious mind -- or any actual knowledge of the law.


Do you never tire of posting any bs that occurs to you?


You have no idea what I've read. I read the law as it currently exists. That should have been evident to you from my Reply 19 on this thread, to which I've drawn your attention in several posts to you. The law as it currently exists contains an archiving requirement. I also read the amendments that became effective in 2014..

The amendments are hard to follow, because they are indeed amendments (They contain a lot of things like"after line 13, insert the words....". However, they did not seem to set up brand new archiving requirements for officials to follow, though there were a lot of directions to the National Archives themselves about handling of documents sent to them for archiving. (I am sure the Archive had had previous directions, but these either changed the old ones or were additions.)

Now, how much of the law as it existed when Hillary left office have you read to support your claim that she broke no law that existed when she left?

So, which of us is posting based on nothing but what's in his or her mind?

And, for the umpteenth time, she not only failed to archive. She also retained personal control of government records after she left office and until a news organization filed an FOIA request for them last year.


I'm agnostic.


LOLOLOL!!! Spare me. If something supports a claim you want to make you treat that something like God spoke it to Moses and, if it contradicts a claim you want to make you desperately seek to dismiss it, no matter what you have to pull out of your ear.

After your claim that no 50 year old knows how to switch email accounts, and all your goalpost moving and subject changing on this thread alone, please don't try to tell me how careful you are, or how allegedly baseless my posts are.

P.S. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #104)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:00 AM

105. The law as it currently exists is completely irrelevant

since it was passed after she left office.

The only thing that matters is what the law said while she was in office and you've provided no evidence, other than a very sloppily written NYTimes article, about any details of an archiving requirement.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/03/1368297/-The-New-York-Times-Blows-It-With-Misleading-Hit-Job-on-Clinton-Emails?detail=email#

Now that you know this, carefully read that second section from the original Times piece again and take note of the journalistic sleight of hand: "Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act."

Catch that? To actually be damning, the words "at the time" would have to be at the end of the sentence: "Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers, as required by the Federal Records Act at the time."

Obviously, had the Times written that, they would have been lying instead of merely insinuating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #105)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:07 AM

108. No kidding. that is exactly why I asked you to support YOUR claim that the law as it existed when

she left office did not require archiving.

And now, you're trying to prove your claim by showing what the NYT did NOT say?' LMAPIMP.


Sorry, pwnmom. I am wasting no more time or energy or bandwidth on bs. Let me know if you finally provide he links AND address her retention of personal control over government property after she left office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #75)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:48 AM

120. That lawyer is a GOP operative...

just so you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #120)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:55 AM

121. Maybe. But he still knows the Federal Records Act. What evidence do you have?

Just so you know, he's probably pulling down very big bucks at the law firm where he works. Over a million a year would not shock me. And if his public statements make a jerk out of him, that will reflect badly on him and cost the firm business. So, he's taking a big risk by going public so big on something like this.

That said, I don't rule out anything in Presidential politics on either side. As I keep saying, it's no longer Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Now it's House of Cards.*



*Only because I've had some very foolish responses on this board, I hasten to add, I am not literally accusing any Presidential candidate of murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #121)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:48 AM

126. NPR had a report on this morning...

Here's the paraphrase:

Even though it was unusual, a number of politicians had their own servers in order to avoid random FOIA requests and internal spies. Included on the list were Hillary and Jeb (both). It's openly admitted that it was a legal tactic. If it was illegal at the time, then a large number of politicians were misadvised by a large number of highly paid lawyers.

Current legal thinking is that if the email was archived (which all those politicians were careful to do), then they were in compliance with the law. Hillary was and is represented by one of the most experienced law firms on this issue.

Hillary did not use the private email account for any sensitive business, she had a different system for secret material. Even if the system was hacked, it was not sensitive material. The idea was to keep the GOP and news sources from annoying FOI requests. Hillary and Jeb both did that and both are willing to let the emails go once their term was over.

If the State Department wants to take the heat for the consequences of email release, then it's fine with Hillary. Emails contain personal material (like medical conditions), SS#s, phone #s, etc. There is some question if openly releasing that stuff violates HIPPA, etc., so Jeb has already caught hell for his open release. Hillary is smart to put the burden and expense on the State to select what to let out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #126)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:57 AM

128. NPR said, IF her emails were archived? That's what you're offering as proof her emails were

archived?

Hillary is smart to put the burden and expense on the State to select what to let out.


Not exactly. State gets to choose from only what her staff delivered to state.

BTW, you never answered my question: Do have any evidence that Baron is a Republican operative?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #128)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:20 AM

133. He was interviewed on CSPAN a few days ago...

and identified as GOP...I recall he used to be at the National Archive, but maybe is no longer there. OTOH, Hillary is represented by a large law firm. It was mentioned by Rachael on her show.

Our local paper (Tampa Times) has reported the same AP stories: Hillary's server was archived by both Google and McAfee. She made some kind of change in 2009 and 2011 - likely to respond to new directives from the WH, but at any rate there is no reason to think the entire email archive is less than complete, but Hillary owns it (according to law at the time), so if someone wants to make a request for something they have to go through legal channels.

Just like if someone wanted the personal note you put in your spouse's lunch (like I did today), you don't have a right to it unless there is a legal reason to compel the document.

As already stated, it's a way to avoid random requests. Meanwhile, after 4 years of using a private server, protection by the secret service, 50,000 + emails, etc., etc., it's insane to think that Obama, the State Department and everyone else didn't know about her server. Even the GOP must have known it. Why make it illegal when both parties' candidates have their own servers (Jeb, Rick Scott, Scott Walker that we know of)? If she has to turn over Benghazi emails, she will (and has). She doesn't have to turn over the cake recipe for the wedding to the State or anyone else unless she wants to...

I wish I had the resources to run my own private server! My employer has contracts with the usual ISP's, but also have their own private servers for internal use with a staff of IT folks to run it and secure it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #133)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:39 AM

135. Every Republican is not a Republican operative. That's exactly why I bolded "operative" in my post.

I recall he used to be at the National Archive, but maybe is no longer there. OTOH, Hillary is represented by a large law firm.


I again request that you read the thread so I don't have to keep repeating myself or digging up the same links over and over.

He was not only "with" the national archives--the agency that writes the regs for the Federal Records Act, he was Director of Litigation, meaning he supervised all the litigation and litigation attorneys for the national archives. One could say that he was the Eric Holder of the National Archives. As far as where he is now, he is with a 160 year old law firm of over 600 attorneys. You can google, if you don't believe me ,or check the rest of the thread, but I've looked up those links way too many times between last night and today to do it again.

Besides, being represented by a big law firm doesn't mean much. First, we don't know what they told her and never will, because of attorney client privilege. Second, look at the legal opinions Buscho got. You could interrogate a person to death (literally) and it would not be torture. The two people most known for giving him those opinions are now, respectively, a judge sititing on the bench of the US Court of Appeals, lower than only the nine SCOTUS Justices, and a law professor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #135)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:54 AM

138. Here's Baron's CV...I looked at it...

https://jasonrbaron.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/jason-baron-cv3.pdf

He's obviously made a living on the issue of electronic disclosure. No doubt he has a viewpoint.

If you want to pick through every article and presentation, fine.

It's clear that a LOT of high level politicians ran their own server, and also they responded to changes in law, directives from the WH, and security concerns as they surfaced.

Why pick on Hillary? If using private email or running servers was illegal, then half the Bush and Obama administrations plus who knows how many state governments should be under the jail. That's why Obama sent out a directive to clarify, but we don't know how Hillary or anyone else responded to the directive. We have to assume Obama was satisfied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #138)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 10:02 AM

139. Please see Reply 19.

Pointing out what is wrong with posts is not picking on Hillary.

Sorry, I've spent way too much time and energy on this thread. And I am bored with it. I am done with it, at least for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #58)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:06 AM

130. Anyone who has a modem or WAP has a private server in there home, this i disenginuous

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #58)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 10:37 AM

140. Conflicting reports -AP reports the server registered by Admin named, "Eric Hoteman." However,

Politico states that person is actually named Brian Hothem, a former WH aide:

The mystery man linked to Hillary Clinton’s personal e-mail account appears to be a Washington, D.C. stockbroker and former aide to the Clintons who played a walk-on role in controversies that dogged the former first family soon after it left the White House in 2001.

The initial Associated Press report Wednesday about Hillary Clinton’s use as secretary of state of a personal e-mail server installed in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y. traced the creation of the system to a man named “Eric Hoteham.” There’s virtually no trace of an individual by that name in public records or other online databases.

However, a Clinton aide named Eric Hothem was linked to a flap in 2001 about the Clintons’ shipment of furniture and other items from the White House at the end of President Bill Clinton’s second term.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-eric-hothem-115764.html#ixzz3TWhVBJjD


There is an additional issue here. Clinton's email has been hosted on multiple servers, and all will have to be examined to determine the authenticity of any email record provided.

While her anonymous staffer claims Clinton has retained only her Chelsea wedding cake recipe emails, an AP article yesterday states that Clinton changed backup servers and hosts twice during her term as SOS, according to The Hill. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/234549-report-clinton-was-running-her-own-email-server

The email account was configured to start backing up to a Google server in 2012, the AP reported, after Clinton had said that China had tried to hack the Google email accounts of government employees. The email server was later connected to a commercial email provider run by security firm McAfee.

Hoteham is also associated with an email server at presidentclinton.com and the domain wjcoffice.com, perhaps an allusion to President Clinton's initials, the AP reported.

The New York Times reported this week that Clinton exclusively used a private email address — later revealed to be hrc22@clintonemail.com — while at the State Department. Her aides only recently handed over some of those emails to the department, which collects employees’ emails to comply with public records laws.


That raises the question, where is the original server and how reliable is the chain of custody of the Secretary's email record provided belatedly to the Archives? Because HRC maintained her own system, the veracity of her claims of complete disclosure cannot be fully verified. As an AP report today observed:

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=Fwk8oDHY

It also would complicate the State Department's legal responsibilities in finding and turning over official emails in response to any investigations, lawsuits or public records requests. The department would be the position of accepting Clinton's assurances she was surrendering everything required that was in her control.

The White House said it was Clinton's responsibility to make sure any emails about official business weren't deleted from her private server.

"There's a responsibility that's associated with that, which is it's important to ensure that when official business is conducted on personal email, that those records are properly maintained and preserved," spokesman Josh Earnest said. He added there was no security review planned for Clinton's email server.

The AP said Wednesday it was considering taking legal action against the State Department for failing to turn over some emails covering Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat after waiting more than one year. The department has failed to meet several self-imposed deadlines but has never suggested that it doesn't possess all Clinton's emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:22 AM

76. Oh Boy!

You really don't know much about private servers do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #76)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:25 AM

77. Did you have any specific and relevant point to make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:31 AM

117. What evidence do you have to say this?

"But, as another post of mine downthread says, the important issue under the Act is not which computer or email account was used, but that records are preserved and archived. And she did not do that, either."

There are public reports that Google and McAffee both backed up Hillary's server to preserve it. The State Department has reported (even as long as a couple years ago) that they had copies and access to Hillary's email.

There have always been controls (stuff labeled secret, users cleared to see material, etc.) even before something becomes email.

Just because Hillary, (like LOTS of other government officials in recent years), kept email and other documents out of the hands of the public, GOP operatives in the government, etc. doesn't mean you have any reason to say there was no archive. In fact, what we have as evidence to date is that all emails are more available than any thing Bush, Rove, Governors like Jeb Bush, Rick Scott, and previous cabinet members did in exactly the same way.

The Act you refer to was likely the one amended and put into practice AFTER Hillary left office. Other than that, she appears to have complied with the law. She also has told the State Department that they are free to release the emails. Please note that it was a major problem in Florida when Jeb released all the emails. Peoples' personal information and all kinds of legal, but annoying stuff was included.

I personally look forward to reading about the cake that Hillary ordered for her daughters wedding.

In other words, I think we need to look at Hillary's use of an email server in context of 2009 and why she did what she did, not just to create another random attack because someone disagrees with Hillary as the best candidate. It was probably a smart move, and if Elizabeth Warren had done the same thing as a member of Obama's cabinet, would you be as outraged? In fact, do you know if Warren had/has a private email?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #117)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:38 AM

118. If you read the thread, you will see exactly what I am saying and why.

I have debated this extensively and literally ad nauseum with pwnmom and am not starting over.

That said, you might also look up what archiving means in the context of federal requirements. (It does not mean Google or anyone else backing up.) Also look up who is entitled to control of government records once an official stops working for the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #118)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:46 AM

119. Unfortunately..legal experts don't seem to agree with you entirely.

It's true that the law is changing as the issue of email transparency has come up over the last decade, but it's not clear that what you say is accurate.

Hillary has asked the State to release the emails. If they do, anyone in the world can say, "hey, I sent Hillary and email and it's not in the batch." so it's pretty hard to hide missing ones. Also, the State would be responsible for what is "sensitive". What's your problem with that?

At any rate, why are you not calling for Elizabeth Warren's private email to be released? Just curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:57 PM

2. Yes, this email thing is a bogus flap, just like Benghazi.

Two results:

1) The Republicans will be flogging this for as long as they need to, until they get something juicier on Hill.
2) Nobody is gonna change their mind about voting for her based on this nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:59 PM

3. DHS funding, war with Iran, SCOTUS gutting the ACA.

 

And this is what some people find to be the most infuriating scandal of the week?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:01 PM

5. The rw smear job worked.. again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:03 PM

7. No shit.

Anything to distract from Bibi and the general Republican melée.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:09 AM

109. don't forget that HSBC donated to the Clinton foundation, and that was pretty big scandal to some

here on DU.

Whether this current flap is an over-reaction or not is debatable. However, some of the issues being brought up as of late, are ridiculous, and only reflect on the bias that some here at DU have toward Hillary, not based on any wrong-doing or scandal, just pure hate.

Your points are right on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:26 PM

38. Not just like Benghazi at all. No one died. She seems to have all the records. She can fix this

retroactively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to stevenleser (Reply #59)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:10 AM

110. crickets

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:31 AM

69. Ding ding ding!!!

Not to mention, in addition to what Greek Tragedy said, the House is now discussing how to strangle the FCC for the net neutrality decision. All very important issues to deal with but instead it's emailbenghazigate which has materialized out of a slimy, thin veneer of bullshit, hatred and fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:00 PM

4. Benghazi! Damn, I thought we laid you to rest.. State Secrets! It's okay for Snowden et al but

the State Dept on private emails.. get out the hypocritical ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:03 PM

6. But Kerry was not not the first Secretary to have responsibilities with respect to federal records.

First, let's take note of what Ms. Harf said:


"For some historical context," says deputy spokesperson Marie Harf, "Secretary Kerry is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov email account."


For lots more "historical context" that is a tad less selective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_Act (The 14th federal statute ever passed in the USA)


http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Federal_Records_Act_of_1950 (in effect through the present, as amended from time to time)

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1233 (most recent amendments to the 1950 Act.)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141027729#post108 (my reply to brooklynite on another thread).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:30 PM

10. All of her emails with other state dept employees

 

would already be preserved via their state.gov email accounts.

It's not like she was emailing Merkel or Lavrov.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:17 AM

19. Not really the point.

Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:07 PM - Edit history (2)

I happen to think that the amount of oxygen put into this, on and off DU, has been beyond silly.

BTW, the important issue for purposes of the Federal Records Act is not which computer or email account she used, but the preservation and archiving of all federal documents, including emails.

If people on both sides were honest, everyone would agree that, on this, she made a technical foot fault. However, since she did not destroy any records (if true), she can and will comply with the Act ASAP (if true) and in fact began to do so two months ago. Therefore no harm done End of story.

But noooooo.

One side has to pretend she bludgeons baby seals with her personal Blackberry and the other side has to pretend the Federal Records Act of 1950, which is still in effect, never existed until after she left office and, anyway, poor HIlls isn't sufficient educable to be taught to replace yahoo with a govt. acct. (exaggerations but not by all that much!.)

However, if this stuff is going to consume all the oxygen in the room, it should not be to increase bs exponentially.

There was a Federal Records Act in effect while Hillary was in office. It did cover preservation and archiving of emails as well as of other kinds of documents and everyone knew that.

The law was amended in 2014 to CLARIFY that emails were federal records. However clarifying is not creating something new. Emails were covered by the broad language of the Act before emails existed. In addition to that, the Act had been amended in 1976 to specify that machine readable materials were federal records. Finally, there have been several kerfuffles over email as to Bushco, the CIA, etc., as well as, under similar state laws, Jeb Bush (and someone today posted Paliin, too). If Hillary was oblivious to all of that, I'll eat those baby seals without any Heinz catsup to make them more palatable.


As far as your suggestion that they can scrounge around current and former employees to piece together what constitutes all Hillary emails is similar to another post I read earlier to day saying NSA could come up with them all. The law exists for a reason. The suggestion that it's okay for Clinton to ignore laws because everybody else can put in lots of hours reconstructing someone she should have been doing routinely all along. Really? And the irony is, she want the job of faithfully executing federal laws, such as, well, the Federal Records Act.

Finally, she apparently is holding back some emails. I'm not sure yet what that is all about, so I will just mention that and leave it there.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:47 AM

27. Great summation. Thank you.

As the person who initially suggested NSA would likely have diverted a copy of the Secretary's commercial email, it will be hell to compel them to publicly acknowledge that they actually did so and retained these records without minimizing them. I did not mean to suggest that is really a safeguard. Instead, I was suggesting that as with CIA Director Petraeus, nobody has safely has an assumption of privacy with their email anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 08:56 PM

32. Thank you. As a general rule, I am very bad at remembering who posted what and I did not

recall that it was you who posted about the NSA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #32)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:13 PM

33. That's ok. I borrowed from you, too.

Pleasure is mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #33)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:17 PM

36. Borrow away! I am delighted. The more truth that gets spread, the better.

I borrow from other DUers as well. And I make a mental note of their screen names so I can credit them. When I was more organized than I am now, I've even bookmarked and put it into Word. But then, life happens. The computer dies before I save the bookmark. And, as I said, even with a mental note, I don't retain the screen name. So, I ask forgiveness from all DUers from whom I borrow, past, present and future. Just know that, if I borrowed from you, I respected what you said a lot and take it at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:51 PM

41. Perfect post, clear and concise. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 12:19 AM

49. Thank you.

I used to work for someone who said, "When all else fails, tell the truth." As to him, I was never sure that it was only half kidding, because truth was not his strong suit, so much so that he once said, "I'm so good at this (misrepresentating) that I don't even realize when I'm doing it." I had a feeling he did realize it when he embarked on it, but forgot that when confronted, but, that's another story entirely.

Despite him, truth is often the best alternative, as well as the easiest and simplest and least likely to blow up in anyone's face down the road. Politicians pay a variety of kinds of image makers to tell them exactly that, but some politicians don't just tell the simple truth, anyway.



And that sometimes leaves their supporters saying ridiculous things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:11 PM

8. The fact is, unless there's a way to know what is in the private email account (like checking

an ISP's server?), we are just relying on their word. How would we know what was lost, deleted, etc.? How do we know that the material there wasn't classified, or wasn't compromised by hackers? Who trusts public servants that much? I don't. Any cabinet member who did government business on personal email needs to forfeit any privacy related to that account and open it up fully to government oversight and archiving. Otherwise, it's just an obvious way to hide something or remove something from the record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:28 PM

9. Emails sent to anyone else in the state dept

 

would already be preserved.

Ditto emails sent to anyone in the US government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:34 PM

11. What happens when they all communicate via private email accounts?

Within the agency, between agencies. How did Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta communicate, for example? What email system?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:38 PM

12. For example, what email account did her spokesman use for this exchange with

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:52 PM

15. There are only about 100 reporters etc who were emailing Reines

 

during this period. He emailed Fox News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #15)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:08 AM

17. Since he was operating in his official capacity as personal spokesman,

what email account is this exchange, and all others, on? Was this exchange on a .gov account? Just to use an example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:13 AM

18. Given the attention this story is receiving, we'll find out soon enough.

 

I suspect if he were using a private email, Fox News would have disclosed it by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:40 PM

13. If they want to keep something off-record they do it by phone.

 

Email contacts--anything in writing really--is handled by their minions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:46 PM

14. That's why it seems so unnecessary to have to set up an entire separate email account

to do all your business. I assume the emailing is mostly done by staff, classified and sensitive stuff are supposed to go on a secure system and handled separately--then why avoid government accounts for even routine business?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:54 PM

16. My guess is that she has one and only one email

 

she uses.

Same issues would be present even if she used a state.gov address--people would want to know what she was using the private email for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:19 AM

20. Again, any private account used to conduct business that is meant to be archived

needs to be opened to government oversight/search/recording with no expectation of privacy (you have no expectation of privacy on federal computers), IMO, as opposed to allowing her to deny FOIA requests and investigations because it's on a private account and therefore untouchable. That way you can have your supposed speed or convenience, or whatever reason you're using a private account for this particular business, but can't evade scrutiny. It would serve her and all cabinet/WH personnel best to use government accounts for government business--the stink of hiding-something increases with the degree of reliance upon private accounts. In Hillary's case, it was 100%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:20 AM

21. This is what I mean about using oxygen on bs.

Are you really claiming that you know for a fact that Hillary never sent emails or a even a brief note that she composed herself? Come on.

That is simply not how busy executives who are trying to keep 40 balls in the air all at once work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:23 AM

23. I'm sure she emailed her minions at State.

 

I highly doubt she emailed DoD or CIA or WH or DOJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:24 AM

24. And what basis do you have to "highly doubt" that she never dashed off an email to Obama?

Be honest now. Absolutely none.

Jaysus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:26 AM

25. Have you ever heard of an email from a cabinet member

 

to the president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:28 AM

26. Not the issue: Have you ever heard from a reliable source that Hillary never sent one?

I am not the one making claiming to know how Hillary did or did not operate as secretary of state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 01:14 AM

29. Why would any DUer be in the position

to know about emails between the president and cabinet members? Or the SOS and foreign leaders? That is the strangest post I have seen in awhile...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #29)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 08:37 PM

30. Thank you. That was one of the more bizarre questions I've been asked in my entire life.

My knee jerk was to reply that I could not imagine a scenario in which someone in a position to know would mention to me an email from a cabinet member to the President. Or even when someone in a position to know would be confiding in me about anything on earth. I'm not evven sure I can imagine Biden saying to Obama, "Have you heard? Hillary emailed Holder."

Then I realized that the point of deflection is to re-direct discussion because the current direction is not good for the deflector. Here is someone attempting to defend Hillary by pretending that he or or she knows for a fact how Cabinet members operate minute to minute, who tried to put me on the defensive about that issue?

This is exactly my point on this entire thread: Either side will Say Anything, even about this relatively unimportant subject. One side to pillory Hillary and the other side to beatify her. It's absurd. And nothing else matters.

Among the victims of mindless uber partisanship are truth, integrity and principles and, of course, the 99%.

My prior reply stated what is, IMO, a perfectly reasonable approach to this nonsense. Why the simple truth does not suffice, at least on the Democratic side, is beyond me


If people on both sides were honest, everyone would agree that, on this, she made a technical foot fault. However, since she did not destroy any records (if true), she can and will comply with the Act ASAP (if true) and in fact began to do so two months ago. Therefore no harm done End of story.

But noooooo.

One side has to pretend she bludgeon seals with her personal Blackberry and the other side has to pretend the Federal Records Act never existed until after she left office and, anyway, poor HIlls isn't sufficient educable to be taught to replace yahoo with a govt. acct. (exaggerations but not by all that much!.)

However, if this stuff is going to consume all the oxygen in the room, it should not be to increase bs exponentially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:53 AM

28. It is email to nonofficial recipients which remains the

greatest concern as well as the security of all her communications on a commercial account. That's why this issue isn't going away anytime soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 12:55 AM

52. That and that this is another instance in which Clintons seem to feel obeying the law is optional--

for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:58 AM

122. Email to non-official recipients is private.

 

She's allowed to send private emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #122)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:02 AM

129. What I meant to say was non-US officials or official business with private parties.

Many of her aides were reportedly not using their DOS accounts, as well, so those messages also wouldn't show up. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:15 AM

112. of course. There is always someone who receives the emails. Wait, what if she wrote the email only

to herself, oh horrors, what is she hiding, why else would she do that.(sarcasm)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:21 AM

22. Kerry is a good guy.

Good for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:13 PM

34. Good for him for releasing a half truth intended to make it seem Hillary did not violate the law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #34)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:21 PM

45. Kerry is overseas and has been since this broke - he has put out no statement at all

The statement that you are speaking of was from the SD spokesperson.

I would hope that Secretary Kerry is not micromanaging the SD response while negotiating with Iran and then traveling to meet with other leaders. This is a big political story, but the SD itself was mostly involved because Hillary Clinton did this as SoS, when Hillary's team ran the department.

Part of why this came up is their effort to get the records that should have been routinely preserved. They got the records from Clinton, sent pertinent ones to the Benghazi committee - which they were legally obligated to do - and the committee noticed the email account. The only thing that you could dispute is that JK did not complain that it was HRC's fault when the committee accused him of not giving them things they requested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #45)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 12:46 AM

50. I would think this statement was cleared with him, esp. given Hillary's impending coronation and

that this issue involves at least a potential violation of law by Kerry's immediate predecessor as Secretary of State, who also happens to be another appointee of Kerry's current boss. And also cleared with someone in the administration charged with clearing public communications on this matter. And, probably Hillary or someone from her as yet unannounced campaign.

Failing to review that statement is not at the level any wise Cabinet officer and/or any high ranking Democrat is likely to deem "micromanagement." I am surprised that you would even mention something like that, esp. given you are a lawyer and possibly more of a Kerry fan than Mrs. Kerry herself.

Being overseas or in a plane is pretty irrelevant these days, esp. for a high ranking administration official. Phone and email communication occurs if people are one door down the hall, on a plane or in New Zealand, so that is an even more obvious makeweight.

Thank you for your explanation of this matter, but I would hope that my other posts on this thread show that I have at least a rudimentary grasp of the matter.

As to Kerry, you may note that I did not mention him in any of my posts on this thread, despite mention of him in the OP, until Renew Deal made a typically partisan comment about Kerry's participation in this matter that I did not think should stand unexamined.

If Kerry the main subject of an OP and I am going to post on that thread at all, I am going to post my honest opinion, good, bad or indifferent. However, to the best of my recollection, I don't go out of my way to attack Kerry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:52 PM

42. This issue is manufactured by the Jeb Bush machine

This was planned long before he released his e-mail dump that contained private information. It gives him the appearance of being more transparent than her. This whole thing smells Rovian to me.

Bottom line - she broke no law. But here we are hashing out a pre-fab conspiracy and totally overlooking the timing and comparison to Jeb Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Brad (Reply #42)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 12:49 AM

51. Yes, she absolutely did break a law, but see Reply 19. I agree that this was likely

planned by the Bush machine, though. Good job coming up with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #51)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:00 AM

60. Even conservative media is acknowledging today that no law was broken. You're now harder on a

 

Democrat than conservative media. How does that feel?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #60)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:06 AM

62. The law requires archiving. Her documents were not archived. What the law says

does not depend on what conservative or liberal media is saying. The statute says what it says and it required preservation and archiving, including while she was Secretary of state (The issue of private email accounts is separate from the archiving issue.)


How should I feel about knowing what the law actually says?

How does it feel to you to pretend what conservative media says means anything when it comes to the law, and to imply I should be ashamed of actually looking into the law when this blew up?

Also please see my Reply 19.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #62)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:11 AM

64. The lawyers at all conservative print and television media have told them no law was broken.

 

So either their lawyers are all wrong and they are missing a chance to say a Democrat broke the law (like that would ever happen) or you are wrong and misinterpreting the law.

Which do you think is more likely?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #64)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:25 AM

65. Anyonne can misinterpret the law. And, with all due respect, anyone can misinterpret what a lawyer

on TV said.

And I am not even going to speak to the reliability of what lawyers for conservatives say.

But, did they say having a personal email account did not violate the law as it existed while she was in office or did they actually mention archiving? Because this kerfuffle has, in my opinion, over-emphasized the personal email account, which is not the important point. See Reply 19.

BTW, you can really skip the appeal to authority. You tried that one on me over the Verizon case because I was disagreeing with msanthrope and jberryhill I read the case and guess what? I was correct. And, in any event, it's a logical fallacy. It should not convince anyone and it doesn't intimidate me. Besides for all you know, I have several bar admissions and 50 years experience.

However, if we are going to rely on appeal to authority, Jason Barron is the guy who said Hillary did break the law as it existed while she was in office.


Below is only an excerpt from his rock the world resume.

The rest is at http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/people/attorneys/baron-jason-r

The resume of the 160 year old, 600 attorney law firm that hired him is at http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/about-us

Read them and tell me again what is more likely, that Jason Baron knows what the law relative to the NARA was when Hillary was in office, or some lawyer hired five minute ago by some conservatives to look into this knew better than Jason Baron.

An internationally recognized speaker and author on the preservation of electronic documents, Jason previously served as Director of Litigation for the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration and as trial lawyer and senior counsel at the Department of Justice. In those roles, Jason helped drive the government’s adoption of electronic recordkeeping practices and defended the government’s interests in complex federal court litigation.

As NARA’s Director of Litigation, Jason led NARA’s efforts to provide responsive White House email and other records in the massive U.S. v. Philip Morris RICO lawsuit, and assisted in the defense of lawsuits filed against the Archivist of the United States under the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Records Act, and the Presidential Records Act in a wide variety of high-profile cases. As a trial lawyer and senior counsel for the DOJ, he appeared as counsel of record in landmark cases involving the preservation of White House email, statistical adjustment of the U.S. census, and early attempts to regulate the Internet.

Thought Leadership. Jason was a founding co-coordinator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology TREC Legal Track, a multi-year international information retrieval project devoted to evaluating search issues in a legal context, and served as track coordinator for the first four years of the track (2006-2009). He also founded the international DESI (Discovery of Electronically Stored Information) workshop series, bringing together lawyers and academics to discuss cutting-edge issues in eDiscovery. Since 2007, past DESI workshops have been held in Palo Alto, London, Barcelona, Pittsburgh and Rome, with a related workshop held in Beijing.

Jason is the current Vice-Chair and Chair-elect of the E-Discovery Committee of the D.C. Bar Litigation Section. He is an active member of The Sedona Conference, having served as a Co-Chair of the WG1 Steering Committee and as a member of the Steering Committee from 2008 to 2012. He has also served as an Editor-in-Chief of three Sedona publications: The Sedona Conference Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery (2007 & 2013 editions), The Sedona Conference Commentary on Achieving Quality in the E-Discovery Process (2009 & 2013 editions), and The Sedona Conference Commentary on Finding the Hidden ROI in Information Assets (2011); and also as Drafting Team editor on The Sedona Conference Commentary on Information Governance (2013). Additionally, Jason serves on the advisory board of the Georgetown Advanced Institute on E-Discovery, on the board of advisors for the Cardozo Data Law Initiative, and on ARMA’s governance board for the Information Governance Professional Certification Program


And it goes on and on and on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #65)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:27 AM

66. That's what you're going with? Conservative media has stopped accusing a Democrat of something.

 

If that isn't a wake up call for you, I have no idea what is.

p.s. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026314045

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #66)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:29 AM

67. Obviouslsy, you didn't read anything I asked you to read. Please stop wasting my time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #67)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:30 AM

68. None of what you wrote had any bearing on this. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #68)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:32 AM

70. Totally false. Besides if you didn't read it, how would you know what it bore on?

If your own posts are not a wake up call for you, I can't imagine what would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #70)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:33 AM

71. You're still making excuses. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #71)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:34 AM

72. No, I'm making sense and citing law and the guy who administered that law. You're citing Fox.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #72)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:35 AM

73. You're more vituperative against Hillary than conservative media at this point. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #73)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:41 AM

74. Still not reading. No surprise. Also, ,please consult a dictionary and/or thesaurus.

I cited facts and law and copied and pasted from the resume of a lawyer who, for years, worked with the Federal Records Act for years and directed other lawyers who did the same. "Vituperative" does not mean anything like that.

Also, most DUers be embarrassed to keep disparaging a poster over a post they didn't bother to read, so kudos to your courage, if nothing else.

Again, please stop wasting my time. No, never mind. That's on me.

I won't be replying to you again on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #65)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:08 AM

123. You realize that bios of lawyers posted by their law firms are totally self-serving

But if you're going to rely on him, you ought to acknowledge that even he conceded that Clinton's email practice did not violate the law as it existed at the time.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/03/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-election-2016/

And while Mr. Baron was Director of Litigation at the NARA, that obviously didn't give him any knowledge or insight into the practices of the various individuals who served as Secretary of State during his years in office as is proven by the fact that while he says he cannot not recall an instance where a high level official -- or anyone -- solely used a private email account for the transaction of government business, there apparently were numerous such instances in fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #123)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:22 AM

124. Sure I do. Every resume but a fool's is self serving, but law firm bios usually are not falsified

either.

He was indeed director of litigation for the relevant agency.

And even being hired and retained by the kind of firm he's with says something.


But if you're going to rely on him, you ought to acknowledge that even he conceded that Clinton's email practice did not violate the law as it existed at the time.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/03/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-election-2016/


I posted in Reply 19 and more times on this thread after that that I can remember that use of a personal email account was not the important issue. She did not archive and she retained personal control over government records after she left office. I have yet to see anything that says neither of those things violated the law as it existed when she left office, have you?


And while Mr. Baron was Director of Litigation at the NARA, that obviously didn't give him any knowledge or insight into the practices of the various individuals who served as Secretary of State during his years in office as is proven by while he says he cannot not recall an instance where a high level official -- or anyone -- solely used a private email account for the transaction of government business, there apparently were numerous such instances in fact.



Totally irrelevant to any point I've made or tried to make and to what the law is. The fact that many murder every year does not mean murder does not violate the law. I never said this guy was an expert on what Colin Powell and Hillary did. Why on earth should he be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #124)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:37 AM

125. I don't know what law firms you've worked for

But I've worked for several over a three decade career and while law firm bios are not "falsified" they are self-serving and designed to amplify the experience and qualifications of their attorneys so that non-lawyers assume a greater level of expertise than generally exists.

And how exactly do you come to the conclusion that Mr. Baron's statement that Clinton's actions did not "violate" the law applies only to some actions, but not others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #125)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:52 AM

127. What law firms any DUer has worked for is pretty irrelevant. And, to quote Shania Twain, it don't

impress me much--or intimidate me. Either what I post is right or it's wrong. Either you prove it wrong or you don't.

Besides, on the internet, I could be Justice Ginsberg and you could be posting from Robert Waters Elementary School.

However, my prior post stated that those resumes, like all resumes, are indeed self serving but not outright falsified and that he was Director of Litigation for the Archives. Do you actually disagree with any part of that statement? If so, which? If not, why are you still flogging the resume issue?

And how exactly do you come to the conclusion that Mr. Baron's statement that Clinton's actions did not "violate" the law applies only to some actions, but not others?


First, I asked you a question that you did not answer before asking me another question.

I will reply nonetheless: I came to that conclusion because he used different wording that yours. He said "personal account." He did not say all Clinton's actions. Also, no one from her camp has even claimed that she archived or relinquished personal control, at least not that I have seen.

If you've seen something like that, I'd appreciate your sharing. I'd also appreciate your replying to the question in my prior post before asking me any more questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #123)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:07 AM

131. PS from your source:

but added her exclusive use of personal email is not "in concert with my understanding of what the federal recs say."


Unless he's talking about a DU OP, I assume he said federal regs, not federal recs.

As you know, federal regs are included under the broad umbrella of federal law. (The prior reference to federal law seems to have been the Act itself, but it's hard to tell because it's not a direct quote from Baron.)

Also from your source:

In 2013 -- after Clinton left State -- the National Archives and Records Administration, clarified that personal email can only be used in "emergency situations," and when used, the emails "are captured and managed in accordance with agency record-keeping practices."


As you know, clarification is clarification, not new law. And she held onto those records, which were government property, even if on her personal email account, herself until months after an FOIA request made. And handed over to State only a portion of what was in her account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #131)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:15 AM

132. And he says "use" not "failure to archive"

Yet he also says its not a violation of the rules as they existed at the time.

We've established that the main source you've cited (i) is wrong on the facts when it comes to whether other SoS's used personal email and (ii) believes that Clinton did not "violate" the law as it existed at the time with respect to using personal email and (iii) has not opined directly on the archiving question (which as I understand it did not contain a time limit and it would not appear that archiving them after the fact was actionable under the law as it existed.

Do you have a citation to anyone who has said that Clinton's actions, either in using personal email or with respect to the archiving requirement, violated the law as it existed at the time? Other than yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #132)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:25 AM

134. No, we've established only that you misread your own source.

He said her use was not in concert with his understanding of the regs.

We've established that the main source you've cited (i) is wrong on the facts when it comes to whether other SoS's used personal email and


Not relevant. Besides, there was no reason for him to know what accounts Powell and Hillary chose to set up with consulting him. And, given the foregoing, I am not going to bother to check his exact words, but I believe he told the NYT that he knew of none. If so, he is not wrong on the facts unless he outright lied.

Sorry, dude, but I am not replying to you again, let alone answering more of your questions unless and until you answer the questions that I've repeatedly asked you to answer.

I don't care which law firms you've worked for. I am not on trial. And you're not impressing or intimidating me so bullying tactics are pointless. Either you are having a good faith dialogue with me, in which case you'd answer my questions, some of which I've mentioned three times or more at this point, or you're not posting in good faith, in which case, you can talk to yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #134)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:42 AM

136. so what did he mean when he said she didn't violate the law

And believe me "dude" that it won't bother me in the slightest if you don't reply since you haven't posted anything particularly insightful (and no, declaring anything you disagree with to be "irrelevant" is not being insightful) despite having posted more times than I would ever take the time to tally up.

And you think what I've posted is bullying and an attempt to intimidate? Well, in that case I just feel sorry for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #136)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:53 AM

137. I said no more questions to me, dude, until you answer the ones I've asked you repeatedly.

And believe me "dude" that it won't bother me in the slightest if you don't reply since you haven't posted anything particularly insightful (and no, declaring anything you disagree with to be "irrelevant" is not being insightful) despite having posted more times than I would ever take the time to tally up.


LOL! Lawyer or not, I've refuted every claim you've made and you misread your own source twice and you accuse me of not posting anything insightful? Get real with yourself, please. And you ask me question after question and now complain that I replied to each one, instead of being rude and ignoring you?

Btw, what insightful thing did you post, pray tell? That law firm bios are self-serving? Hold the presses!

If you think "dude" was intended to bother you, I'm insulted. When I want to bother someone, I can do way better than that.



And you think what I've posted is bullying and an attempt to intimidate?


No, I know you have. Posting twice about law firm resumes, though you had no disagreement with what I'd said about resume, apparently as an excuse to tell me you are a lawyer, which I knew anyway, and trying to point out that I was not, which you don't know, one way or the other, anyway. (I've always appreciated the law lessons you've attempted to give me on DU, but you never once disagreed with any statement about the law that I posted, until this thread.)

Ignoring my questions, and also ignoring my requests not to ask me more questions until you answered mine. Asking me question after question instead. Not only am I not on trial, but even a judge would not let you get away with that if I were. I believe on TV shows it's called "badgering the witness?"



Well, in that case I just feel sorry for you.


No need. As you can tell, your attempts did not succeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:12 PM

44. So, Philippe Reines Sent Us an Email

Philippe Reines, the longtime aide to Hillary Clinton, sent Gawker a long note last night after a reporter for the Washington Free Beacon, C.J. Ciaramella, emailed him about an article of ours concerning his and other Clinton staffers’ use of a private email accounts to conduct official State Department business. The entire exchange, including our response at the very bottom, can be found below. We’ll keep you posted if Reines writes back. (Update: Reines responded; see below).


http://gawker.com/so-philippe-reines-sent-us-an-email-1689406566

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #44)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:41 PM

46. That's an interesting exchange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #46)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 11:17 PM

47. Reines is a trip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #47)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 12:57 AM

53. I liked how he tried to make something of the fact that reporters use private email addresses to

communicate with public officials. If all an official has is a private email address, what else is the supporter supposed to use? Smoke signals? And which law is the reporter breaking by doing that anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #53)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:09 AM

116. I agree. It's not the reporters fault.

The government official needs to make their email more accessible or maybe answer it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:00 AM

54. Which means COLIN POWELL used a personal email as SoS too.

I know right wingers have distanced themselves from Powell because Powell endorsed Obama and is a "RINO" for other reasons. But still.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #54)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:31 AM

57. And? Did Powell archive? Is he about to run for President?

As best I know, there is no penalty for violating the Federal Records Act. However, that does not mean no criticism for a high US official violating federal law, esp. for someone who wants the job of faithfully executing federal law.

His name is certainly out there, along with hers, which seems to be the worst thing that can happen with violating this law, and he's not even seeking the Presidency.

Mind you, I have no use for Colin Powell. Mei Lei. Dont'ask, don't tell. Knowingly using his credibility with the American people to help sell the Iraq invasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #57)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:03 AM

95. The point is your Jason Baron of the illustrious credentials is CLUELESS.

He's saying he recalls no high-ranking official used personal email but most of them did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #95)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:10 AM

97. No. That was not alp's point and I responded to your non-point about Jason Baron upthread.

"your Jason Baron?" You're really on a maturity kick tonight pwnmom. Baron hater! LOL!

Keep flailing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #95)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:12 AM

111. Not totally clueless about electronic archiving but

I want to see his credentials/certificates/degrees in computer security as those relate to private servers, firewalls, coding, encryption and a whole host of other things related to the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread