HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » Pic Of The Moment: Hillar...

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:22 PM

Pic Of The Moment: Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email When Serving As Secretary Of State



Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules

That Story About Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Account Isn’t as Awful as It Seems



122 replies, 8339 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 122 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pic Of The Moment: Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email When Serving As Secretary Of State (Original post)
EarlG Mar 2015 OP
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Mar 2015 #1
riversedge Mar 2015 #30
Autumn Mar 2015 #2
7962 Mar 2015 #8
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #11
arcane1 Mar 2015 #19
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #22
arcane1 Mar 2015 #28
merrily Mar 2015 #57
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #60
merrily Mar 2015 #63
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #65
merrily Mar 2015 #70
ballabosh Mar 2015 #109
merrily Mar 2015 #111
MADem Mar 2015 #116
Autumn Mar 2015 #13
William769 Mar 2015 #49
Autumn Mar 2015 #50
William769 Mar 2015 #55
Autumn Mar 2015 #56
riversedge Mar 2015 #32
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #37
riversedge Mar 2015 #53
MADem Mar 2015 #118
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #33
Autumn Mar 2015 #36
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #38
Iliyah Mar 2015 #43
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #3
closeupready Mar 2015 #4
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #6
closeupready Mar 2015 #10
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #12
merrily Mar 2015 #59
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #62
merrily Mar 2015 #66
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #67
merrily Mar 2015 #72
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #73
merrily Mar 2015 #74
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #75
merrily Mar 2015 #77
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #78
merrily Mar 2015 #80
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #81
merrily Mar 2015 #82
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #83
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #27
merrily Mar 2015 #61
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #64
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #68
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #71
smiley Mar 2015 #101
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #102
MADem Mar 2015 #117
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #122
merrily Mar 2015 #79
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #86
merrily Mar 2015 #87
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #88
merrily Mar 2015 #91
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #93
George II Mar 2015 #23
riversedge Mar 2015 #40
JDPriestly Mar 2015 #98
riversedge Mar 2015 #35
DeSwiss Mar 2015 #89
7962 Mar 2015 #96
Babel_17 Mar 2015 #99
7962 Mar 2015 #108
davepc Mar 2015 #5
BainsBane Mar 2015 #9
Act_of_Reparation Mar 2015 #14
BainsBane Mar 2015 #15
closeupready Mar 2015 #17
BainsBane Mar 2015 #18
closeupready Mar 2015 #20
BainsBane Mar 2015 #44
NCTraveler Mar 2015 #26
2naSalit Mar 2015 #76
Adenoid_Hynkel Mar 2015 #7
QuestionAlways Mar 2015 #34
DeSwiss Mar 2015 #95
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #115
Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #16
NCTraveler Mar 2015 #25
Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #97
liberal N proud Mar 2015 #21
JDPriestly Mar 2015 #42
NCTraveler Mar 2015 #24
WestSeattle2 Mar 2015 #29
BeyondGeography Mar 2015 #31
riversedge Mar 2015 #39
JDPriestly Mar 2015 #41
WestSeattle2 Mar 2015 #46
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2015 #45
WestSeattle2 Mar 2015 #51
William769 Mar 2015 #47
totodeinhere Mar 2015 #48
Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #52
Beacool Mar 2015 #54
ALBliberal Mar 2015 #58
tomsaiditagain Mar 2015 #69
SunSeeker Mar 2015 #84
Maedhros Mar 2015 #85
SunSeeker Mar 2015 #106
LineReply .
stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #90
yurbud Mar 2015 #92
w4rma Mar 2015 #94
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #100
Jester Messiah Mar 2015 #103
c588415 Mar 2015 #104
c588415 Mar 2015 #105
Java Mar 2015 #107
blkmusclmachine Mar 2015 #110
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #112
polynomial Mar 2015 #120
wordpix Mar 2015 #113
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #114
dolphinsandtuna Mar 2015 #119
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #121

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:28 PM

1. Uh oh....

Some people are not gonna like "overlooking this serious allegation"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:51 PM

30. like the Select Comm on Benghi--which cnn said would bring it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:35 PM

2. My understanding is the rule came in after she left. My problem is that it

gives the pukes ammo to play their stupid fucking little games and rile up their base and the media. They will leave no stone upturned. It sucks up all the oxygen in the room and gives the fucking pukes more cover to do NOTHING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:02 PM

8. Actually the rule was in effect while she was there, according to the NYT

 

her aides took no action to have her personal emails preserved, which is required of all officials under the Federal Records Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:04 PM

11. Quote the passage from the NY Times

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:28 PM

19. I think the poster is referring to this:

 

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.

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&_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:38 PM

22. This has been clarified to mean this:

The article doesn’t say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.

More...

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/story-hillary-clintons-private-email-account-isnt-awful-seems/



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:51 PM

28. Thanks! Seems that there is a lot of ambiguity still.

 

Hopefully it will all get cleared up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:32 PM

57. Irrelevant. The Act covers public business, regardless of the form in which it is

embodied. And the act has given machine readable material as a specific example of public business material since 1976. But that and things like books maps, etc, are simply some specific examples of how public business material may be embodied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #57)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:34 PM

60. the dailybeast just knocked the wind out of your sails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #60)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:36 PM

63. Not really. The statute is the issue. And Hillary knows how to read a statute.

regulations don't make law .Statutes do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #63)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:37 PM

65. Apparently you're the only one interpreting it that way. Good luck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #65)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:40 PM

70. Not really. A lot of writers and commentators are, including Lawrence O'Donnell, who worked in

government. And destruction of emails created a flap during Dimson's administration, well before Hillary took office, let alone before she left it. I'am surprised you don't recall that flap.

I am very comfortable that the statute is the law. (Duh.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #63)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:26 PM

109. Not exactly

Statutes of this type instruct the individual agencies to install regulations that implement that law. The law says "These agencies need to implement these regulations," usually by a certain date.

It's up to the authorized agencies to come up with those regulations. What was the timeline in the original statute for federal agencies to have these regulations in place? That is where we'll know if anything wrong was done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ballabosh (Reply #109)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:49 PM

111. Regulations were in place, just not the particular one people are going on about.

The statute was amended in 2014, but statutory requirements of some kind and regulations of some kind have been in place for a very long time.

Here, maybe this will help. Check out the cornell.edu link There is some legislative history at that site, both the statute and the regs, though not extensive history


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

I also did a post on this on this thread, Reply 151.

And this one. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026309078#post6

Unfortunately, umpteen threads are going simultaneously so my replies are to slightly different point.

However, it is true that regulations don't impose obligations that exceed the statute, nor can regulations eliminate obligations imposed by statute. Regulations go to implementation, procedure, specifics, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:10 AM

116. What's hilarious (or should I say HILLARIOUS) is that some people are desperately trying

to say that "electronic communications" is a synonym for "machine-readable material."

Yeah, because back in the dark ages, BEFORE computers, some genius who wrote the regulation "anticipated" them? If that were the case, there would be no need to update the regulation.

Examples of "machine read" material include, oh, SLIDES...overhead projections...and MICROFICHES! Not texts, not emails, not stuff created on a computer.

But hey--let's pretend that the Obama administration went to all the trouble to write a whole new reg about "electronic communications" just because they were noodges, or something...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:06 PM

13. If true her aides not taking action to have her emails preserved should be looked at

closely. Does that apply to her personal ones also from that account? I think it was extremely stupid of her to mix government and personal emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:22 PM

49. I know that this must stick in your craw..

Good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Reply #49)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:25 PM

50. If a personal attack is all you have william. It shows a lot about you.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #50)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:28 PM

55. Let's just say you get what you give.

You have a fine day also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Reply #55)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:31 PM

56. Yes one does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:53 PM

32. It sucked up the WH press conf today for the most part. LOTS of questions

about Hilliary's emails --only a few about the BIG SPEECH (Which seems to be old news just an hour after it was concluded).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #32)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:57 PM

37. You noticed that as soon as Obama responded the media dropped the Huge Speech coverage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #37)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:27 PM

53. actually have been away from tube for a while -had to shovel some snow. thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #32)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:16 AM

118. Trying like hell to distract from Bonehead's buddy Bibi--imagine if all the energy had gone into

covering THAT inappropriate visit instead of whining about someone who broke NO laws, who complied with the requirements of the archivist of the United States...but who is so threatening to some of the Judy Miller types at NYT and elsewhere that she has to be used as a distraction---even when there's no THERE there!!!

NYT seriously damaged their credibility -- yet AGAIN. How many more hits before she sinks? Hell, Rupert Murdoch may as well buy that rag for all the credibility it has nowadays.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:55 PM

33. The oxygen gets sucked out of the room and no air time left to take a look at the GOP Congress..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #33)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:56 PM

36. So just like Jebs this will all be over tomorrow?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #36)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:58 PM

38. No air time left to discuss Obama squishing Bibi like a bug.....with impeccable Spock -like logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #33)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:08 PM

43. It will be something new next week for HC - "I don't like her because" crowd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:39 PM

3. WHAT??@?@? You're siding with the Clintonistas and DLC third way corporo-fascists?!?!



Oooh, I'm dyin'!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:40 PM

4. Nope. Sorry. I will not 'deal with it'. Hillary disrespects federal laws, and

 

you guys dismiss it. Shame on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:54 PM

6. What federal law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:04 PM

10. Oh, I see. Now we're going to play semantic games.

 

I think everyone here knows exactly what I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:06 PM

12. Laws are laws. This isn't semantics. The only game here is the one you're playing

If I ate a bag of chips then, two years later, it became illegal to eat those chips, I didn't break the law when I ate them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:33 PM

59. In this case, it's been illegal to eat those chips since at least 1950.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:35 PM

62. but that isn't the case.

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. A senior State Department official emailed me to say that “in October 2014, a Department-wide notice was sent out which explained each employee’s responsibilities for records management. Consistent with 2013 NARA guidance, it included instructions that generally employees should not use personal email for the transaction of government business, but that in the very limited circumstances when it is necessary, all records must be forwarded to a government account or otherwise preserved in the Department’s electronic records systems.”

So if these new regulations went into effect after she left State, then what rule did she violate, exactly? And, if this is true, why did the Times not share this rather crucial piece of information with its readers? No one could possibly argue that this fact isn’t germane to the story. It’s absolutely central to it. Why would the Times leave it out?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #62)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:37 PM

66. Yes, it is the case. Please see Reply 63.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #66)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:38 PM

67. No it isn't. Please see reply 65

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #67)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:43 PM

72. Your position is that a statute enacted in 1950 had no effect until after Hillary left office? LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #72)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:46 PM

73. Your position is some statute enacted in 1950 has something to do with Hillary? LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #73)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:50 PM

74. Yes. It has something to do with everyone in federal government, including Dimson and Hillary.

In fact, the original version of that statute--which was the 14th statute ever enacted in the USA, applied specifically to the Secretary of State. Over time, the scope of the statute got broader, but there was never a version that did not apply to the Secretary of State.

The Clintons may think they are above the law, and therefore laws don't apply to them, but I didn't realize that was your position as well. Thanks for the laugh though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #74)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:51 PM

75. Link with relevance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #75)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:53 PM

77. I gave it to you on another thread. Once should be enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #77)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:54 PM

78. No link with relevance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #78)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:58 PM

80. according to you. I linked you to a post of mine that contained a link

to the definitions in the 1950 Act and a link to the original version of the act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #80)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:59 PM

81. Still no link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #81)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:01 PM

82. Whatever. I am not playing your endless repitition game again. Google is your friend.

So is a basic understanding of the relation between a statute and regulations. Educate yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #82)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:01 PM

83. No link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:49 PM

27. Which law?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:34 PM

61. The Federal Records Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #61)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:37 PM

64. I saw that the regulations governing this didn't go into effect until 18 months after she left the

 

post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #64)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:39 PM

68. merrily thinks they went into effect in 1950.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #68)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:40 PM

71. The nyt piece should have made it clear.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #71)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:34 PM

101. I think the NYT...

would rather muddy the water.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smiley (Reply #101)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:35 PM

102. Agreed! They want to create an issue.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #71)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:11 AM

117. The NYT was trying to take a little of the shade away from BIBI IN CONGRESS, I think. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #117)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:51 AM

122. Agreed!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #64)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:57 PM

79. Regulations are promulgated pursuant to statutes. For instance, the Internal Revenue Code is the

statute and the IRS promulgates regulations under that statute. The regulations may make a statute clearer and they may be more specific than a statute. But regulations cannot be either more or less restrictive than the statute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #79)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:03 PM

86. Well i am not getting worked up about it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #86)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:08 PM

87. I didn't think you would. But, if its not important to you, why even bother to ask questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #87)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:09 PM

88. I didn't say it was unimportant and I did not ask you anything.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #88)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:20 PM

91. You posted a question on a thread. You didn't ask another poster in a pm.

Whether you asked me specifically or not is irrelevant. You asked. I answered.

And, having gotten an answer, your sole response is that you are not going to get worked up over it, which comes as no surprise to anyone who has read your posts.

Characterize that anyway you wish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #91)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:24 PM

93. I am very predictable.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:44 PM

23. She didn't, and peopole here do not "dismiss it". The story was incomplete....

....there has been a lot more said and done on this issue since yesterday. From what I saw, she and her aids complied with the rules.

And what is being discussed are RULES, not "laws".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:00 PM

40. yes, here is when the LAW came into effect....



… #p2 #UniteBlue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #40)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:36 PM

98. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:56 PM

35. poster here..

… #p2 #UniteBlue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #35)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:16 PM

89. So ''technically'' she's NOT GUILTY!!!

 

- And besides, everyone knows how hard it is to get Washington to change. She acted in-concert with the deepest traditions of that fine city.

And the crookedest of administrations......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #89)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:15 PM

96. That link only flashes on for a second, then its blank.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Babel_17 (Reply #99)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:00 PM

108. Thanks!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:51 PM

5. I'd be outraged if a Republican was using g-mail for official government business

But since Hillary is a Democrat, you go girl!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davepc (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:03 PM

9. Why would you be outraged if a Republican was doing it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:08 PM

14. Why would you be outraged if a republican...

...were sending high-level state department communications from an unsecured email?

Did you seriously just ask that question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:12 PM

15. Several assumptions there

1. That the communications were high-level, and 2) that the email was unsecured. How do you know that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:15 PM

17. Burden will ALWAYS be on authorities to disprove that communications were NOT high level.

 

Since they control the playing field.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:20 PM

18. Did you read this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6304514

It sounds like her staff did most of her emailing for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:34 PM

20. Yes, I did. What someone on DU claims about themselves and HRC is really not news.

 

This is merely one of thousands of internet message boards. He/she could be literally anyone, anywhere.

Regardless, I'm not trying to be argumentative. Rather, I am arguing that someone in a position of governmental authority MUST conduct their affairs so as to be absolutely above reproach and above any appearance of impropriety, no matter the cost or effort.

At best, HRC is very sloppy. How can voters be comfortable giving someone like that a nuclear football??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:08 PM

44. Obviously you're thrilled about the news because you despise Clinton

Point made. The question I asked is why I should be concerned if a Republican had done the same thing. I have yet to receive an explanation that convinces me. Now it may turn out to be a big political scandal. Anything can. Swiftboat did. But no, I do not agree that she cannot be trusted with the nuclear football because she used private email.

Don't worry. There will be more dirt. Bill Clinton may well have sunk this for her with his incessant philandering so you can all celebrate that too. Naturally she's responsible for all of her husband's sins, because that is the lot of the lowly woman. Besides, there is always Benghazi. People have made clear their number one priority is defeating Clinton, not the GOP, not any particular cause, so I have no doubt they will do everything possible to make that happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davepc (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:49 PM

26. She was using g mail? nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davepc (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:51 PM

76. Seems to me thatv there's a lot of

not-knowledge going on over this. It might interest some of you to know that many federal Gov't e-mail accounts ARE GMAIL!!!

I work for a government agency as a temp and all of our inter-agency as well as all of our intra- and extra-agency email is through GMAIL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:55 PM

7. this is dismissive and out-of-touch of you, DU

 

this could be far more serious than you realize. She has a major problem here.

This reminds me of the worst of the Clinton years, where folks on the left were expected to run defense for the Clintons on all of their asinine fuck-ups (Lewinsky, Mark Rich, etc), while other issues took a back seat.

Sure the GOP put the country through impeachment, but imagine how much could have been accomplished had Bill kept his pants on in the first place.

This was stupid and inexcusable by Hillary, and simply posting a photo and saying "Look how how cool she is in sunglasses" doesn't take it off the table.

We seriously need another candidate, or it's going to be more of this kind of crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adenoid_Hynkel (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:55 PM

34. So who is that candidate?

 

Not Warren, she has no interest in running

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adenoid_Hynkel (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:49 PM

95. Shhh.....

 

- [font size=1]You're giving it away......[/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adenoid_Hynkel (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 01:50 AM

115. +1 I do not believe her arrogance is a virtue



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:15 PM

16. She's the one going to have to deal with it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheelanagig (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:48 PM

25. The nut jobs at FR and other trolls are going to have to deal with it.

 

Fucking awesome they are stooping to this level this early in the game. The smell of desperation is thick among the right and other trolls with this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:19 PM

97. Sorry but Clinton deliberately bypassed the State Dept. email system. She deserves to be called out

 

it because it looks shady.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:37 PM

21. What's the stink about it? I am sure the NSA was monitoring it all along

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:07 PM

42. Very true. I think that she may have had good reasons for doing this.

And I don't usually rush to her defense. In fact, last night I thought this was bad news. I'm not so sure today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:45 PM

24. Republicans can't deal with it.

 

Their level of mental gymnastics never ceases to amaze. BENGHAZI!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:51 PM

29. This is disturbing. I don't care what level of bureaucrat

one is, public records are owned by the public. No public business should be conducted "offline". I don't care if you're the A/P clerk at the local utility, Secretary of State, or President. I believe Ms. Palin was busted for similar actions. Did DU stand behind her as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:52 PM

31. Let's double down on entitlement!

Fair or not, at the end of the day, this kerfuffle will be spun as one set of rules for Hillary, another for the nobodies who are supposed to vote for her. If she and her team are smart, they'll come up with something better than, "Deal with it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:59 PM

39. umm.. did her team

come up with that?? Just curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:06 PM

41. Although I do not want her to run for president, I have to defend her on this one.

Maybe not all the people she worked with at the State Department were trustworthy. Maybe she was quite aware that there were people on her staff who could get access to a State Department e-mail and who would use that access and her communications to undermine her as Secretary of State.

What do you think?

We know how the CIA works. So does she.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #41)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:15 PM

46. I don't believe the response to that issue, if in fact it is an issue, is to

make public records secret. If something in an email is embarrassing or potentially embarrassing, pick up the phone. Most CEOs learned that lesson years ago, senior government officials should have as well.

My intent is not to sound snarky; it's the attitude that I find disturbing. Operating in secret leads to profound problems - and when the secrets are discovered, the cover-ups and lying start, inevitably turning minor events into major distractions.

History is replete with such events. Hillary is not stupid. This is what confounds me. Transparency should be a priority for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:12 PM

45. So did Colin Powell. Another fake scandal for fake outrage.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #45)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:26 PM

51. I think outrage would be fake; but concern is not. Anyone who

believes in open government, in a transparent government accountable to the people, should be concerned about any government employee - at any level - conducting government business "offline".

If they don't want to be transparent and operate openly, than don't work in government. I'm not arguing for secrets to be displayed for all to see; public records can be stamped classified and/or redacted. But everything public employees do on the job, are public records. Gmail is not public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:20 PM

47. Hell yes! Thanks EARLG!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:21 PM

48. Of course this is much ado about nothing. While I do not favor Clinton for

the nomination she does need to be treated fairly and this is unfair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:27 PM

52. Daily Beast proves she did not break the law or regulations.

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 EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:28 PM

54. Hmmm, verryyyy interesting...........

From the second post:

' "Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them."

The article doesn’t say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.

The bipartisan law was passed in response to the IRS scandal and the use of a private email account by Lois Lerner. Now, to be clear, this law isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Times article (good job?), so it’s possible however unlikely another law is being referenced in the report.'

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/story-hillary-clintons-private-email-account-isnt-awful-seems/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:32 PM

58. Alot of things can be said about Hillary Clinton but

No one can say she is naive or ignorant (of her position's responsibilities). I feel confident she had a good reason for this and I believe President Obama signed off on the decision. I await her explanation. No I am not a huge Hillary fan. But I do believe she was a good SOS and she fulfilled her duties lawfully with concern for the country and her legacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:40 PM

69. WhoopTFuckindo



Now the right wing freaks on the tube and on the radio have something to whine about for another year. YES!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:02 PM

84. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:03 PM

85. Bottom line: using personal email, intentionally or unintentionally,

 

bypasses any Legal Records Hold placed by the Administration in case of pending legal action.

For someone placed as highly as Secretary of State, this is highly problematic. To pretend that it is a minor infraction is to be purposely naive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #85)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:31 PM

106. How does it bypass a litigation hold?

Litigation holds are just as applicable to private email accounts. It is the sender/recipient and subject matter that governs whether the hold applies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:19 PM

90. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:20 PM

92. how important this is depends on WHAT'S IN THOSE EMAILS

If it's routine business, who cares.

If it was something she wanted off the record that should have been on the record, that's something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:27 PM

94. Wait. Am I to understand that she didn't conduct *any* public business on a government email?

 

Because she never asked for, nor received, a government e-mail? Which, it is my understanding, is an exception to the rule that everyone else in government has to abide by?

But, I'm also to understand that she used a personal, unrecorded, email for *everything* while she was holding the very important office of Secretary of State?

Just keep her far away from the Presidency, is all I ask, folks. There are hordes of Democrats with better qualifications and less ethical issues than her.

Okay, so I read some more and I've found out that the law wasn't in place while she was Secretary of State. So, the "story" is that Hilary didn't comply with a future, yet to be maybe implemented, law. Jeeze.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-times-deceptive-suggestion-that-hi/202726

I still don't want her as President, though.

But, wait, again. Apparantly the NYT 'gotcha' story was trying to get her for the law that was passed after the left office, but since she was head of a department (The State Department) she was required by a 2012 law to keep those records public, and apparently she agrees since she is apparently in the process of releasing her personal emails from during that period of time.
http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/fed-agencies.html#unlawful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:06 PM

100. It's OVAH!!!!!!

Where's the SARCASM emoticon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:55 PM

103. Somebody fetch my clutching pearls and fainting couch! [nt]

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:09 PM

104. Hillary Clinton stiill has my vote!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:12 PM

105. Hillary Clinton still has my vote!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:55 PM

107. Government policy on Email

Email correspondence is to be done through government email accounts which offer both user authentication (to prevent spoofing), encryption (security), as well as archival tapes. Email used to communicate official business is considered to be Government records which are Government property and are subject to security screening procedures as well as being considered for Freedom of Information Act Requests.

By using her private email, Hillary's emails lacked authentication as well a encryption and were sent over relatively insecure networks.

I believe a court ordered search warrant authorizing record seizures of the email server which contains Hillary's account to be the proper legal procedure, as well as a forensic examination of hard drives to determine what emails (government records) have been destroyed. And whether or not proper procedures were followed with respect to destroying government documents.

This is not a partisan issue. This is a legal issue, and if Hillary gets a pass on this, then it will set a precedent for the next time the Republicans get control of the White House. Now...we certainly do not want to see that happen in the future, do we?

Laws and policies are to be obeyed by both sides, otherwise we end up with a very bad situation where politicization is transmitted throughout Government agencies, not to mention security breaches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:29 PM

110. Hillary was texting her pal Rev. Doug Coe of "THE FAMILY."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:52 AM

112. I hope she wasn't trading secrets on gmail like famous Gen. Petraeus

Besides, what she does in Gov. isn't any of the voting public's business.

Besides, cut her some slack, she's still getting used to the whole idea of the accountability to the public, not just rich people.

Besides, you can't hack those private yahoo accounts.

Besides, she'll do better as president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #112)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 08:24 AM

120. Petraeus should be charged with treason

This way to the laughing place, or down the rabbit hole we go. Just the other day ABC news described the scandal about General Petraeus.

The new young news Journalist David Jason Muir coming across informing as a Murrow/ Cronkite formula of “That’s the way it is” like it or not.

ABC news is rewriting the absolute center piece of corruption in the Bush era war with profiteering and torture, mass murder by mercenaries totally under reported, now money making secrets shared with a whore, only one?

The Bush profiteering wars where Petraeus facilitated a least a two trillion dollar tax payer sink hole down played into a simple fine. This is insane and likely the reason we should talk about Hillary’s emails.

In another time a general like Petraeus should be charged with treason facing the death penalty with a firing squad. Along with his whores.

I wonder what former governor Blagojevich thinks about that after sounding off in just telephone messages just talking about bribes, gets fourteen years in the slammer.

At least Blagojevich didn’t create the inner product of so much culture of corruption that leads to veterans committing suicide at the rate of twenty two a day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:57 AM

113. the repugs would love to get their eyes on her personal emails

'nuff said except for: READY for WARREN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 01:17 AM

114. Oh, Republicans do it too? I guess the two parties are closer than it seems. My bad.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 05:25 AM

119. 2009

 

According to the NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/using-private-email-hillary-clinton-thwarted-record-requests.html

this regulation was in effect in 2009, and the result of Hill's not abiding by it was that freedom of information requests about her records most of the time came up empty.

Subsequently her staff has provided some emails to the feds for record searches, but, of course, besides a day late and a dollar short, who knows what they haven't provided, since unlike a government email account, the feds have no access to it unless they send the NSA after it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dolphinsandtuna (Reply #119)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:47 AM

121. No it doesn't

The NY Times piece quite plainly says:

"But since 2009, said Laura Diachenko, a National Archives and Records spokeswoman, federal regulations have stated that “agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.”

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.

In October 2014, a Department-wide notice was sent out which explained each employee’s responsibilities for records management. Consistent with 2013 NARA guidance, it included instructions that generally employees should not use personal email for the transaction of government business, but that in the very limited circumstances when it is necessary, all records must be forwarded to a government account or otherwise preserved in the Department’s electronic records systems.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread