Chuck Todd: "Convenience" WAS NOT The Reason Hillary Clinton Had A Private Server

[Segami]

MSNBC's Chuck Todd comments on Hillary Clinton's attempt to triangulate an effective counterstrategy to Donald Trump, while trying to explain away the revelations about her private email server.

"If she said she did it because she was trying to make it harder for Congress to do what they always do -- she could have made it political... and said that was wrong. But admitting that that was the reason, making it harder to do investigations, she could have spun it, saying they'll come after me on anything."

"By trying to come up with other reasons, that doesn't make sense. What was the most logical reason to do this? Convenience isn't it. It is not a convenient thing to have a server in your house. Nor is making it so it is outside the reach of the federal records law, that is the only logical reason to do it."

Andrea Mitchell: "And Freedom Of Information Requests (FOIA)



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/27/chuck_todd_convenience_was_not_the_reason_hillary_had_a_private_server.html

[Segami]

1. Was Hillary Clinton trying to shield her SoS email...

... from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actions ?

What are the legal penalties?

[Press Virginia]

5. There are no legal penalties. I think it's a civil law

[LiberalFighter]

7. Personal email is not subject to FOIA.

Only email related to her job.

[Segami]

8. My mistake...

corrected.

[-none]

16. All E-mails on government servers/computers are subject to FOIA

It doesn't make any difference whether they are personal E-mails or not. If they are on a government computer, they are subject to federal rules and regulations. Rules and regulation based on the law.
Since Hillary used her private E-mail server for her SoS job, outside the overview of the government, she broke several laws and breached national security because of the nature of the information in the E-mails and other documents, pertaining to her job as SoS, sent to and from her private server.
Security on E-mail servers are a full time job, usually employing several or more people. There is no evidence Hillary had anyone making sure her private sever was secure at all times.
If the federal government has problems keeping unauthorized people out of their computers, Small, private, stand alone servers stand no chance.

[LiberalFighter]

18. You are of course mistaken.

She didn't break any laws. And the only records available through FOIA from State are those identified and pertain to State business.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) generally provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information except to the extent the records are protected from disclosure by any of nine exemptions contained in the law or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions.
The FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government agencies.

[-none]

21. I retired from OCIO/ITS and I think I know a bit more than you do about this.

If it resides on a government computer/server, it is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

[scscholar]

22. Sounds like you weren't paying attention, and...

Hillary was. She had experts on her staff that OKed deleting the personal emails.

[-none]

24. What does that have to do with security, beside nothing?

Deleting your personal E-mails that reside on a government computer is one thing. Deleting job related government E-mails is something else entirely.

[LiberalFighter]

25. FOIA specifies what information is subject to requests.

By your logic any personal phone numbers including cell phone numbers that might be on a government computer would also be subject to FOIA. Data that might be available to make it easier to contact employees when they are away from work. Neither are agency or government records. If you were involved in FOIA and released personal data that would call into question your actions.


PHS Freedom of Information Officer. If the records you seek are exclusively records of the Public Health Service or if the records you seek involve more than one health agency of the Public Health Service, including its records in the regions, only the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health (Communications), who also is the PHS Freedom of Information Officer, may determine whether to release or deny the records, except as follows:

CDC and ATSDR Freedom of Information Officer. If the records you seek are exclusively records of the Centers for Disease Control and/or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, only the Director, Office of Public Affairs, CDC, who also is the CDC and ATSDR Freedom of Information Officer, may determine whether to release or deny the records.
i. FDA Freedom of Information Officer. If the records you seek are exclusively records of the Food and Drug Administration, only the Associate Commissioner for Public Affairs, FDA, who also is the FDA Freedom of Information Officer, may determine whether to release or deny the records.
ii. NIH Freedom of Information Officer. If the records you seek are exclusively records of the National Institutes of Health, only the Associate Director of Communications, HIH, who also is the NIH Freedom of Information Officer, may determine whether to release or deny the records.
v. HRSA Freedom of Information Officer. If the records you seek are exclusively records of the Health Resources and Services Administration, only the Associate Administrator for Communications, HRSA, who also is the HRSA Freedom of Information Officer, may determine whether to release or deny the records.
ADAMHA Freedom of Information Officer. If the records you seek are exclusively records of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration, only the Associate Administrator for Communications and Public Affairs, ADAMHA, who is also the ADAMHA Freedom of Information Officer, may determine whether to release or deny the records.
i. IHS Freedom of Information Officer. If the records you seek are exclusively records of the Indian Health Service, only the Director of Communications, IHS, who also is the IHS Freedom of Information Officer, may determine whether to release or deny the records.

SSA Freedom of Information Officer. If the records you seek are exclusively records of the Social Security Administration, including its records in the regions, only the Director, Office of Public Inquiries, SSA, who also is the SSA Freedom of Information Officer, may determine whether to release or deny the records.
HCFA Freedom of Information Officer. If the records you seek are exclusively records of the Health Care Financing Administration, including its records in the regions, only the Director, Office of Public Affairs, HCFA, who also is the HCFA Freedom of Information Officer, may determine whether to release or deny the records.

[-none]

27. You have no idea what I think or know.

Your post is spin and deflection anyway.

[LiberalFighter]

10. The problem was that technology did not keep up. Along with budget constraints.

[XemaSab]

2. "I was lazy"

That's her defense.

Who wants a lazy president?

[msongs]

3. oh dear you stated this as fact when its only an opinion. duh nt

[dchill]

9. Who are you addressing?

Chuck Todd?

[.99center]

15. "Chuck Todd: "Convenience" WAS NOT The Reason Hillary Clinton Had A Private Server"

Oh dear, you worked yourself up to the point that you failed to read the first two words of the title. "Chuck Todd:" duh

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

[Samantha]

4. It is also what one might do in order to run a rogue State Department (eom)

[NanceGreggs]

11. And when did Chuck Todd ...

... become a reliable source of information?

[babylonsister]

12. I think that might be his opinion-

we're all entitled to one, informed or otherwise.

[NanceGreggs]

13. But there's no mistaking the fact ...

... that when Chuck Todd - or anyone else - says something anti-HRC, they suddenly become credible journalists who should be listened to.

[JoePhilly]

14. After Rachel Maddow went under the bus.

[NanceGreggs]

17. I forgot about that.

The poor woman has been tossed under there and retreived so many times, I lost track of her current status.

[madamesilverspurs]

19. Welllll......

There was this bit today, about where Chuck's wife works:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107147288

[NanceGreggs]

23. One of those things ...

... that makes you go hmmmmm ...

Hmmmm?

[Marr]

20. She was essentially selling her services as Secretary of State.

Playing a loose sort of pay-for-access game with the Clinton Foundation's coffers as a middle man. She's corrupt and arrogant, and it occasionally makes her look stupid, but she isn't.

[tandot]

26. Darn. .. this is awful

I just can't find rthe beating a dead horse smiley

Maybe this will do