HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Hillary Clinton’s Use of ...

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:21 PM

Hillary Clinton’s Use of Private Email at State Department Raises Flags

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department.Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.

Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

109 replies, 16018 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 109 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton’s Use of Private Email at State Department Raises Flags (Original post)
choie Mar 2015 OP
merrily Mar 2015 #1
starroute Mar 2015 #29
arcane1 Mar 2015 #2
merrily Mar 2015 #5
markpkessinger Mar 2015 #56
cynzke Mar 2015 #73
aquart Mar 2015 #57
MADem Mar 2015 #3
merrily Mar 2015 #4
krawhitham Mar 2015 #6
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #38
roguevalley Mar 2015 #47
merrily Mar 2015 #50
brush Mar 2015 #61
merrily Mar 2015 #71
brush Mar 2015 #77
merrily Mar 2015 #83
brush Mar 2015 #97
merrily Mar 2015 #98
brush Mar 2015 #99
merrily Mar 2015 #100
brush Mar 2015 #104
7962 Mar 2015 #68
merrily Mar 2015 #87
roguevalley Mar 2015 #91
7962 Mar 2015 #90
merrily Mar 2015 #94
Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #7
OnyxCollie Mar 2015 #8
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #40
leveymg Mar 2015 #9
Kelvin Mace Mar 2015 #23
leveymg Mar 2015 #48
quadrature Mar 2015 #10
Romeo.lima333 Mar 2015 #11
postulater Mar 2015 #12
uberblonde Mar 2015 #32
Demeter Mar 2015 #64
warrant46 Mar 2015 #75
uberblonde Mar 2015 #13
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #14
uberblonde Mar 2015 #31
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #35
CANDO Mar 2015 #17
merrily Mar 2015 #51
DeSwiss Mar 2015 #45
Demeter Mar 2015 #65
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #15
CANDO Mar 2015 #16
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #18
jwirr Mar 2015 #19
CANDO Mar 2015 #21
uberblonde Mar 2015 #33
aquart Mar 2015 #58
CANDO Mar 2015 #70
Lurks Often Mar 2015 #72
Adenoid_Hynkel Mar 2015 #85
sunnystarr Mar 2015 #20
CANDO Mar 2015 #22
aquart Mar 2015 #59
thelordofhell Mar 2015 #62
leveymg Mar 2015 #76
thelordofhell Mar 2015 #82
leveymg Mar 2015 #86
merrily Mar 2015 #88
leveymg Mar 2015 #92
merrily Mar 2015 #95
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #24
uberblonde Mar 2015 #34
ripcord Mar 2015 #25
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #26
sadoldgirl Mar 2015 #27
merrily Mar 2015 #52
guyton Mar 2015 #28
CrispyQ Mar 2015 #79
Old and In the Way Mar 2015 #30
uberblonde Mar 2015 #36
Old and In the Way Mar 2015 #37
merrily Mar 2015 #53
uberblonde Mar 2015 #39
merrily Mar 2015 #54
DonCoquixote Mar 2015 #41
merrily Mar 2015 #55
Nuh Uh Mar 2015 #42
apnu Mar 2015 #69
Big_Mike Mar 2015 #43
karynnj Mar 2015 #80
DeSwiss Mar 2015 #44
merrily Mar 2015 #60
7962 Mar 2015 #93
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #109
Mz Pip Mar 2015 #46
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #49
Android3.14 Mar 2015 #63
CrispyQ Mar 2015 #81
brooklynite Mar 2015 #89
Android3.14 Mar 2015 #96
merrily Mar 2015 #108
Sancho Mar 2015 #66
riversedge Mar 2015 #67
KeepItReal Mar 2015 #74
Ford_Prefect Mar 2015 #78
Adenoid_Hynkel Mar 2015 #84
Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #101
elleng Mar 2015 #102
fredamae Mar 2015 #103
Android3.14 Mar 2015 #105
fredamae Mar 2015 #106
quadrature Mar 2015 #107

Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:24 PM

1. Out of tens of thousands of emails, only 55 000 were job related? Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:16 PM

29. But 55,000 *is* tens of thousands

What it doesn't say is how many there were in all. 60,000? 80,000? 100,000? It makes a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:24 PM

2. It was a big deal here when the Bush administration was caught using personal email addresses.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:30 PM

5. Yes, but that's VERY different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:51 AM

56. Seems as if there are a lot of things that were a big deal when they were done by the Bush admin ...

, , . but when HIllary or Obama do them, not so much. Funny how that works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #56)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:11 AM

73. OF COURSE THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG DEAL!

Wait till you hear from Trey Gowdy and Mr. Car Thief! Dare we say the "B" word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:18 AM

57. Might have been what they did with them.

You know, like some people buy Sudafed to cook meth and some buy it to relieve the New York Sinus Condition. But a law was written and now everybody can only buy one box, the tablets aren't loose and have to be fought for with stubborn foil, and you have to present a drivers license to identify yourself.

Sometimes the punishment doesn't fit the non-crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:28 PM

3. Everyone in the Bush administration had YAHOO accounts. They don't have ANY of that stuff.

They used their own computers, too.

It's not the first time and it's unlikely it will be the last that a government official does this kind of thing. Her people were sloppy, though--they should have been insistent about segregating those documents, even before "a new State Department effort."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:29 PM

4. Her people? What? She never heard about the Bush thing or the law?

BTW, this not a matter of which computer was used, but which email address.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:33 PM

6. The Clintons are above the law, everybody knows that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:42 PM

38. Yup yup, nothing to see here - be a good Democrat now and move along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #38)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:34 AM

47. Palin did this and we crucified her. Clinton doesn't

get a pass. An expert on Lawrence is saying the encryption didn't exist probably because its terribly hard and where are the emails? She's toast on this. She deserves it. What a lame brained thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #47)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:28 AM

50. I don't think this will make her toast.

That is the beauty of an anointing. It's forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #50)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:04 AM

61. I don't know about that

Hillary is about to get hammered mercilessly and endlessly by the media and the milking repugs. If this is true we'll be hearing about this astonishing bit of poor judgement throughout the rest of the campaign.

How, as Secretary of State does this happen?

I didn't know how but I've always felt she would blow it again like in 2008.

We might get Warren after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #61)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:08 AM

71. Republicans and media hammered Benghazi without affecting either her desire to run or her anointing.

And that involved several dead Americans and accusations of lying to America,

I wish people other than Warren and Sanders would become part of the primary narrative. O'Malley. Merkley, Wyden, Feingold, Klobuchar, Murray Cantwell, Gillebrand, etc. and some more Governors, esp. women.

This idea that primaries are undesirable sucks for us, IMO.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html#ixzz3TAVO0MoF

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #71)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:48 AM

77. I'm definitely open to others throwing their hats in the ring.

Since there will be no incumbent both parties will have a primary so the negative aspects of that may be a wash.

As far as Hillary getting hammered on Benghazi endlessly and that not stopping her annointing, she's still not the candidate as the Benghazi milking will continue, not because there's something there but because it's done to damage the perception of her competency and to stop her from getting the nomination and the White House.

This new email revelation, I feel, is just the beginning of the repugs' opposition research campaign that's beginning to unfold against her.

I agree with you, let's get some others out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #77)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:06 PM

83. Did you happen to read the story at the link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #83)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:49 PM

97. I did read it but went back . . .

and read it again and look at the photos of all the potential candidates.

Thanks for posting that, it gives one an idea of the possibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #97)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:51 PM

98. Wasn't it an article in which Schumer was saying Democratic primaries are undesirable? Only his pic?

Did I post the wrong link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #98)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:15 PM

99. Yeah, that was the one

Schumer doesn't want a primary. It also had slide show of the other potential dem candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #99)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:20 PM

100. Really?? I didn't see any slide show of pics of Dem Presidential hopefuls at that link.

Not sure how you missed Schumer during your first two passes at the article, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #100)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:35 PM

104. There's a link in the middle of the copy to click on. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #50)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:49 AM

68. And there's the problem. How much leeway will the press give her as more of this happens?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #68)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:26 PM

87. If she remains the anointed, she will be the nominee regardless of what the press says because

she will be, for all practical purposes, unopposed. So a media barrage--and I believe there will be one regardless off anything Hillary does or did--will affect her, if at all, only in the general stage, not at the nomination stage. And that will be too bad for our Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #50)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:54 PM

91. isn't that the truth, merrily

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #47)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:53 PM

90. The GOP will make a big deal, but it will just look like politics to the general public

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #90)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:58 PM

94. The media has a way of riling up the general public, esp. rw radio and it's internet counterparts.

They could make this sound like Rosenbergs redux.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:36 PM

7. So sick of this shady crap no matter who does it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:41 PM

8. Well, when you're putting pressure on the Haitian government

 

to keep slave wages for workers on behalf of the big money donors to your foundation, you wanna keep that on the down-low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:07 AM

40. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:44 PM

9. Isn't that how they nailed Petraeus?

Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Personal email carries no expectation of privacy anymore, does it? NSA has every word, doesn't it? So, might as well release it now before it gets subpoenaed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:01 PM

23. NASA?

 

Methinks you meant the NSA. 😋

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:38 AM

48. Damn auto correct. NSA it is.

The first thing people in government and law firms learn is that email is both insecure to hackers and that many commercial email companies retain a copy. If the company doesn't have a copy on it's server, the NSA does. In the event of a law suit, email is subject to discovery.

That's why Hillary and Petraeus' use of commercial accounts is so surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:49 PM

10. Payola will be the bigger issue... nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:52 PM

11. i hope it irritates the right into an eye-bulging spittle-flying tic-riddled frenzy

 

i'll go fire up the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:02 PM

12. This is what the Walker John Doe was about. He set up a private router system in his office.

He used it to communicate among his campaign and his county government office.

This will legitimize Walker's activities. He just gained a step on Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to postulater (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:24 PM

32. So you're assuming criminal activity?

Don't do the right wing's job for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uberblonde (Reply #32)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:45 AM

64. You know, violating the "rules of the job" is at least unethical (corrupt)

 

and when it is a political, high-level job, yes, it can easily be criminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to postulater (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:22 AM

75. Scott Wankers activities were all on persoonal E-Mails

And a Judge issued an order preventing the discovery. A sad situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:04 PM

13. Has it occurred to anyone..

That if this was her exclusive email account, that the president must have known and possibly agreed to it for some reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uberblonde (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:26 PM

14. Yes, the Obama administration knew about it. They would have to, in order

to communicate with her via email. Time to start asking them questions. How many other officials are using personal email for official agency business? How is security guaranteed? What is someone trying to hide by avoiding official government accounts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:22 PM

31. One reporter said his Chuck Hagel FOIA request was kicked back.

DoD reported he did not use government email.

Neither did Colin Powell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uberblonde (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:27 PM

35. Then they all need to figure out why, and look into it.

The former Labor Secretary I believe used personal email for some DOL business, as well. Edit--looked it up, I think it was the EPA secretary Lisa Jackson who was attacked for using personal email. As far as SecDef, I don't know if it's normal for them to use a lot of email, personal or .gov, considering that much of their communication would be sensitive or classified and the military uses its own secure network for communications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uberblonde (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:30 PM

17. The POTUS' gov't email account

 

Should've been used to communicate with her private account. Doesn't make sense for POTUS to be ok with her using a private acct unless..........? This is going to be a big deal for the President as well as HRC. This is potentially violating FEDERAL LAW! How does the POTUS not know that his Sec of State is violating federal law by using private email for ALL her communication, including with the rest of his administration? It appears to me this could swallow POTUS up as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CANDO (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:32 AM

51. If she needs a Presidential pardon, she'll probably get one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uberblonde (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:11 AM

45. ....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uberblonde (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:47 AM

65. Just because a President agrees with something, or doesn't raise objection

 

doesn't mean it's right OR legal!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:26 PM

15. More tempests, more teapots...better put in another order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:27 PM

16. Put a fork in her political career...

 

Because it's done. Over. I suspect if this is all true, she has committed an unpardonable breach of security. National security. She will not be our nation's historic first woman POTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CANDO (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:32 PM

18. How do you conduct State Dept. business on non-government, unsecured

servers? How does that happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CANDO (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:33 PM

19. I don't know but Lawrence O seems to think that this is big.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #19)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:48 PM

21. Yeah, I'm watching Lawrence also.

 

If this were Bush's SoS, we'd have been going ballistic on DU. Anyone thinking this is nothing(if true), is delusional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CANDO (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:26 PM

33. No offense...

Right now, we have one pitchfork and a couple of torches. Wait for facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CANDO (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:29 AM

58. My, my, my what a quick little evidence-free bunny of condemnation you are.

No innocent till proven guilty in this space.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #58)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:05 AM

70. My my my....

 

You missed the part where I said "if this is all true". Try comprehending what people are saying before you jump in all snarky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #58)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:16 AM

72. "Innocent until proven guilty" here on DU? Oh please

 

Regardless of the person or the topic, people are always viewed as guilty before all the evidence is available.

Having said that, I don't find this story especially unbelievable and any government employee or politician failing to use government e-mail for work related business, which has more stringent safeguards then regular e-mail, should be at best fired and depending on what they sent out under their personal e-mail, prosecuted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CANDO (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:09 PM

85. Time to get someone else to run

 

Warren likely won't do it - so who's left?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:39 PM

20. Something is off ...

First this:

“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."

Then this:

"Before the current regulations went into effect, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who served from 2001 to 2005, used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders."

There has to be another truthiness operating here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sunnystarr (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 10:53 PM

22. Apparently HRC used private acct exclusively.

 

I wonder if Colin Powell's were exclusively private? And now it's a federal offense to not use a secure gov't acct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sunnystarr (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:32 AM

59. WHEN did the "current regulations" go into effect?

Before or after Hillary left State?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:10 AM

62. 2 years after she left

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thelordofhell (Reply #62)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:25 AM

76. BS - the gov't email for official biz requirement predates the Bush Admin. It's a law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #76)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:53 PM

82. The law did not get updated to include e-mails until after Clinton left

Please stop falling for this "gotcha" BS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thelordofhell (Reply #82)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:17 PM

86. The 1950 Act has been interpreted to include machine readable messages since the 1970s.

We went through this when it was learned the Bushies didn't comply. The problem with the Act has always been that there are no specific criminal penalties attached, but violation may form the basis for departmental charges. Now, exactly who is going to fire the former SoS?

Unlawful, but no stated penalties for violation by the head of the agency. http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/fed-agencies.html#unlawful

§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records

(a) FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION.—The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.

(b) ARCHIVIST NOTIFICATION.—In any case in which the head of the Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

§ 3107. Authority of Comptroller General

Chapters 21, 25, 27, 29, and 31 of this title do not limit the authority of the Comptroller General of the United States with respect to prescribing accounting systems, forms, and procedures, or lessen the responsibility of collecting and disbursing officers for rendition of their accounts for settlement by the General Accounting Office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #86)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:47 PM

88. The statute has covered federal records since the 1950s. The definition was probably broad enough

then to include anything that was a federal record including emails, even though the technology did not exist then (that I know of). However, as technology developed, more specific examples were added to the definition. In the 1970s, machine readable material was added to the definition. Emails are machine readable.

The statutory definition or records in the Federal Records Act (per the latest version shown at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3301:

As used in this chapter, “records” includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data in them. Library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes, extra copies of documents preserved only for convenience of reference, and stocks of publications and of processed documents are not included.


As can be seen, the definition is based on the anything made or received by a federal agency in connection with the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form. The specific things mentioned, like books and maps, do not limit that broader concept.

If you click on the notes tab, you find that "machine readable materials" was added in the 1970s. Again, though, the specific form in which data is embodied is not important.



Here is a perhaps ironic tidbit about the very first federal Records Act.


The Records Act, also known as an Act to provide for the safe-keeping of the Acts, Records and Seal of the United States, and for other purposes, was the fourteenth law passed by the United States Congress.

The first section of the bill renamed the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of State. The next section charged the Secretary of State with receiving legislation from the president for safekeeping. Five subsequent provisions governed the creation, custody and use of the Seal of the United States.

The act also directed the Secretary of State to ensure that every bill enacted or vetoed was published in at least three newspapers, making it the nation's first freedom of information law, though its provisions would later be used to justify the withholding of information from the public.[2]

In 1875, the law was incorporated into 5 U.S.C. section 301, the Housekeeping Statute.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_Act




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #88)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:57 PM

92. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #92)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:59 PM

95. You are welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:01 PM

24. Who thought this was a good idea? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:27 PM

34. Clearly...

Obama did. This was the account she used to communicate with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:05 PM

25. We don't need this

But there is going to have to be an investigation into this situation, hopefully will turn out not to be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:07 PM

26. I want to wait to hear more before making a judgement but you can see the glee of some.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:08 PM

27. Mind you, she has not been my favorite

for a long time, but, yes this is big for two reasons:

a) This came out from the newest Benghazi investigations, and
the Repugs will milk it for all they can

b) This seems to have been not only illegal, but also possibly
causing a serious problem for national security due to insufficient
inscriptions.

I can understand that she may not have known all the details
about those regulations, but - for heavens sake - were there
no lawyers in the state department to instruct her?

This looks really bad, especially if the POTUS knew about it,
and I doubt that it will disappear.

By the way do Senators have similar rules?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:34 AM

52. Senators all have official emails. Reps, too.

They are all reachable by constituents via house.gov and senate.gov.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)


Response to guyton (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:26 AM

79. "I was expecting it to be hrc@goldmansachs.com"

Thread win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:18 PM

30. You care about this if

We had the same level of outrage when Republicans used private e-mails to communicate. Hell, let's investigate that guy's( gop.com) untimely muder. Remember when Ken Blaclwell published the official rexSlts of OHIOl under the auspices of the gop.com server?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:29 PM

36. Please note.

The Jeb Bush emails he recently released were from his private email account. He was criticized for the same thing as Governor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uberblonde (Reply #36)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:40 PM

37. Didn't give his stupidity a second thought. That was his problem with his constituents.

M y problem is making Democrats have to play by rules that Republicans have shit on for decades. Hold these people accountable first, then we will foolow the rules. But when I know that they circumvent the public rules of disclosure, I won't handicap my side from using the same rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #30)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:35 AM

53. Actually, there was a lot of outrage from Democrats when similar news about Bushco hit. Palin, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Mon Mar 2, 2015, 11:50 PM

39. The latest is that the law governing this...

was signed only four months ago. Anyone know the details?

uPDATE: http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2014/2014-06.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uberblonde (Reply #39)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:38 AM

54. Doubtful. Official emails = federal record. The Federal Records Act was signed in 1950.

Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:18 AM - Edit history (1)

ETA: In 1976, the definition of records was amended to specify machine readable material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:10 AM

41. this is not fatal

but it IS stupid from someone who, if she did not know better, should have people on her payroll who do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #41)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:42 AM

55. She is a lawyer and I am sure new federal hires get notice of this.

Besides, you trying going to court pleading ignorance of the law.

I am sure it isn't fatal anyway because, as I posted upthread, anointing, like a diamond, is forever and she's very obviously been anointed.

Besides, laws are for people like you and me. As First Lady, Hillary ignored a subpoena (documents) for a solid year and nothing happened to her. Let's you and I try that and see what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:11 AM

42. 16 Benghazi hearings

and we're just hearing about this now? Is this the new standard to measure incompetence? Hillary shouldn't be the focus, it should be the Republicans who never thought to look at her email before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuh Uh (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:01 AM

69. That's because they all use private email.

I work with document retention regulations. I run into this issue all the time. It happens on the small level and on the large level.

If the GOP held 16 hearings and missed this golden opportunity to nail her, then they are just as guilty of records retention violations as she is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:28 AM

43. What really chaps my ass is the whole "One rule for thee and another for me"

Whether is someone with a (R) after their name or a (D) in that location, if they are a high level adviser, they get a pass. But let some poor mid-level manager or low-level clerical type make a mistake and they get slammed for years. Uh, Chelsea Manning come to mind? After Sandy Berger did essentially the same thing with documents rolled up in his pants leg? Yeah, right, they were all duplicates that he didn't want officially shredded...believe that and I have a bridge over some swampland you may be interested in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Big_Mike (Reply #43)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:28 AM

80. Manning did almost the opposite of what Berger did.

Manning leaked State Department cables indiscriminately (his release of the Iraq video was another thing, but that could have been defended in the court of public opinion.)

Berger was accused of removing documents from the archive (which he claimed were just copies that would be destroyed.) In a sense, where Manning was giving the world access to everything he could, Berger and Clinton POTENTIALLY could be removing things from the historical record.

I agree that the rules shouldn't differ from one person to another, but the three cases are all different - even if described in the worst way:
- Manning leaked secret material
- Berger removed material that was at an archive
- Clinton created a situation where AFTER EVENTS PLAYED OUT she was able to determine what emails sent to foreign leaders and others not in the State Department she would send in to the SD.

Note that it almost takes a conspiracy theory mindset to get what Clinton did to raise anywhere near to where Berger was. However, what this does is to open the possibility that she hid something (unspecified) and the SD really can't defend her on that.

The worst way to look at this is that from the moment she became SoS, she wanted to retain control of her email. At that point, there was nothing to hide as she was starting new. It does seem that the then law did not preclude using private email, but it did include the provision to retain all work emails and that was not done until the State Department privately requested that she give them the emails. This allowed the Clinton people to sift through the emails to separate the work from the private. Even if she would have created a private just for work email -- it would be easier to defend.

I am not a lawyer, but I doubt there are any legal problems. Politically I do think this creates some problems and only time will tell how significant they are. Two observations neither clear in impact-

1) This could give undeserved credence to the Benghazi nonsense or any other foreign policy issue where they could say damning emails are missing.

2) It reopens the Hillary lack of transparency meme that stretches back to her being the one angriest about Whitewater questions, her lack of responsiveness in producing her Rose Law firm records etc. In both those situations, the unwillingness to at least appear open led to a huge amount of bad PR --- not completely corrected when she was not shown to have done anything wrong when the records ultimately were produced.

3) The Republicans might use this to suggest that she was not prudent on national security as the government server would have been less subject to hacking. Here, the fact that she headed the State Department makes this unlike most other positions.


The argument could be made that as the SD said, Kerry is the first SoS to have immediately set up a government id and used it for his work. Hillary is also likely not the only cabinet head to have used her own email rather than the government one. This would have been more acceptable had she put a process in place - like at the end of every year, the emails were archived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:09 AM

44. You people just don't understand!

 

- It's not like SHE has to follow the law or anything. Duh. I mean geeze, she gave us all the stuff that we needed to see! Okay? What more would we want!?!?!


Laws are for little people........

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #44)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:42 AM

60. That's a funny graphic.

Must have used a very old photo of Hills, though. Or a lot of photoshop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #44)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:57 PM

93. Oh, man, thats gonna piss off a few folks!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #44)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:33 PM

109. You win the US Internet!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:28 AM

46. This went on for years.

And no one noticed? Seems strange that this never came to anyone's attention, given there were thousands of emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mz Pip (Reply #46)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:58 AM

49. I think it would be proper to ask if it's the Obama administration who prefers

to avoid hashing things out in official emails, or if they just leave it up to each cabinet member's preferences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:16 AM

63. Gee, a warmongering corporate schill fails to comply

 

And we are surprised?
This is just another reason she is an inappropriate candidate for Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #63)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:54 AM

81. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #63)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:51 PM

89. You did know those weren't the laws in place when she was in office?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #89)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:27 PM

96. Do you know when someone is manipulating you?

 

The "those laws weren't in place" line is untrue.

"Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records."

From the NYT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #89)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:20 PM

108. Yes and no. The law was in place since 1950 (actually much, much earlier, but we are now working

off the 1950 statute, as amended). That would be the Federal Records Act.

The Federal Records Act statute covers federal "records," regardless of the form in which the "records" are embodied. That is the main concept. However, the statute also gives some specific examples, such as books, maps, etc. These are only examples, though. The main concept is bolded below.

As used in this chapter, “records” includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data in them. Library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes, extra copies of documents preserved only for convenience of reference, and stocks of publications and of processed documents are not included.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3301

In 1976, an additional example was added, namely machine readable materials (that term is in the section quoted above.) That certainly covers emails. However, even without that additional example, the language of the statute that is bolded above would cover emails.

Other provisions of the statute specify that federal records are to be preserved, etc.

This act is within the province of the National Archives.

In 2014, a group of amendments was passed to specify that emails were federal records. However, that does not mean that emails were not covered by the above bolded language anyway. The amendments also made other changes to the 1950 law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_and_Federal_Records_Act_Amendments_of_2014

However, one cannot simply say that those amendments passed in 2014, so Hillary had no responsibilities at all with respect to her emails. She had all the responsibilities the Act contained at the time she was Secretary. To know exactly what those responsibilities were, you have to go back and read the Act as it existed while she was in office.

Or, you could just take the world of Jason R. Baron, now of the law firm Drinker Biddle, est. in 1849, which now employs over 600 attorneys. More on Drinkeer Biddle: http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/about-us Baron is the one who said Hillary violated the Federal Records Act.

Here are just the first bits of his cv.

Jason R. Baron is a member of Drinker Biddle’s Information Governance and eDiscovery practice.

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.


That is not all of it. More at http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/people/attorneys/baron-jason-r

I think he knows the Act as it existed when Hillary was in office well enough to know if she violated it. And probably knows it a hell of a lot better than anyone discussing this in media this week. And if he doesn't know, probably no one does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:05 AM

66. Benghazi, Benghazi!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:31 AM

67. moring joe hasbeen talking most of the hour about this. Many

times he sounds like a Fox reporter. Not good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:17 AM

74. This looks bad for her, State Dept IT, and the administration

State Dept should have (and probably did) establish an official email account for Sec. Clinton when she came aboard.

For some reason she opted out of using it. Someone in the administration (or her staff) should have stepped in and advised Sec. Clinton to stop using non-government email for State Department business.

Apparently Sec. Colin Powell did the same thing as well.

This makes everyone involved look amateurish at best.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:55 AM

78. For a Candidate in waiting this has the appearance of some serious baggage.

Not the worst but hardly inspiring material all the same. Certainly meat for the RW to flog to their paranoid base.

You do have to wonder who gave her advice about using the account. I've worked in government under federal rules about IT usage and they are pretty straight forward about who can use what and who owns the content.

Of course we are talking about an executive who would expect to receive some kinds of preferential treatment as regards the rules. Executives generally seem to see themselves as bound by different standards whether in or out of government, just ask Mitt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:08 PM

84. We're on track to get a seriously, seriously flawed candidate

 

Forget the Ben Gazzie nonsense and the nonscandals FOX obsesses on, there are still tons of real issues in this woman's past that will come back to haunt her, most of it indefensible (the Mark Rich pardon and her sibling's efforts to get one from Bill, etc)

This was just an asinine mistake, and there's no excuse for it.

It's time for either Elizabeth Warren to change her mind, or Dems to look elsewhere for someone better (Sherrod Brown maybe?), but I'm no longer convinced Hillary isn't going to implode in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:23 PM

101. Daily Beast proves this story is false. See links below.

DU thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11071930#post1

Link to the Daily Beast

Well, this might be the explanation: The new regs apparently weren’t fully implemented by State until a year and half after Clinton left State. Here’s the timeline: Clinton left the State Department on February 1, 2013. Back in 2011, President Obama had signed a memorandum directing the update of federal records management. But the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) didn’t issue the relevant guidance, declaring that email records of senior government officials are permanent federal records, until August 2013. Then, in September 2013, NARA issued guidance on personal email use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:26 PM

102. except for the facts set out by a state dept employee:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:28 PM

103. HRC broke No Laws

at least as we know about at this time.
The "laws" Corp Media are Soooooo concerned about....did Not go into effect until 4 or 5 months ago.
HRC did the Same things..as Rice, Albright, Powell etc.

At least keep it real?

I'm not singing HRC any praises buuuut it Is crap like this that'll get me paying a lot more favorable attention to her.
If "they're" going to these lengths Now....then Perhaps She Is the One! I'm voting for whomever "they're" going hardest against
If they can't find crap that is real, credible and with supporting evidence.......there is no "there-there".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #103)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:19 PM

105. Wrong

 

The "those laws weren't in place" line is untrue.

"Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records."

From the NYT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #105)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:34 PM

106. Do we know they were Not

preserved..the same way Powell, Rice and Albright did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:15 PM

107. will the 55K emails have a 'sequence' number ? ...nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread