2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIn FOIA hearing, federal judge says Clinton violated government policy
Afederal judge indicated Thursday that he believes Hillary Clinton violated government policy by storing official emails on a private server when she worked as secretary of state.
During a hearing on a Freedom of Information Act case, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said the actions had complicated the State Departments ability to respond to requests for the agencys records on various topics.
We wouldnt be here today if this employee had followed government policy, Sullivan said, apparently referring to Clinton.
After Justice Department lawyer Peter Wechsler argued that FOIA normally doesnt allow for searches of government officials private accounts, the judge said he viewed it as an unusual situation because there was a violation of government policy.
Were not talking about a search of anyones random email, Sullivan added.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/judge-says-hillary-clintons-private-emails-violated-policy-121568.html#ixzz3jO0lxD2t
HFRN
(1,469 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Cherry Creek Native
(55 posts)The source.....
vadermike
(1,415 posts)It's either Bernie or we are toast ugh
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)There is no love lost between the Obamas and Clintons. They are also aware that she could be such a liability in the general that they may be thinking it better to go with plan B, Bernie, or Biden.
cali
(114,904 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)and exercised zero oversight.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)But could it now be a case of cya for the WH? As far as not wanting to risk losing appearance of integrity and perserving the legacy of the president? Just curious.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)like Clinton was allowed to do. Obama had a very hands-off approach with her, let her set up the State Dept. however she wanted with something like 60 of her loyalists (he drew the line at Blumenthal). I don't know if this is considered to be biting him in the butt, or if he really doesn't care and it's her problem, not his. It should be his problem--the WH clearly knew they weren't reaching her at .gov.
askew
(1,464 posts)Do you look at the email addresses of people who email you? I don't. I just see an email from Joe Schoe and respond. I don't take the time to see what his exact email address is.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)lunch soon", it wouldn't matter. More sensitive than that, and I'd want to know where my email is going, who's securing it, and who's seeing it.
askew
(1,464 posts)Most people would just see an email from Hillary Clinton came in and respond to it. And the onus should not be on the recipient to make sure Hillary was using proper email procedures. They would also have no way of knowing that she was exclusively using private email or that she was keeping an email server in her home. You can't tell that from an email address.
askew
(1,464 posts)basement and had private email accounts for her and her top aides.
You'll notice there is a complete silence coming from the WH and Obama's top team on the email situation. WH press secretary refers reporters to State Dept. and Axelrod, Plouffe, and others have all been mute on Hillary's emails. Other Dems have defended her but nothing from them. I'd guess they are pretty steamed about it. I seriously doubt they agreed to this setup ahead of time. If they did, Hillary would have already said so. But, she has never answered the questions about who signed off on her having a private server. She should have gotten permission from WH and ok from State's Legal and IT depts.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Her casual attitude toward using her private email rather than the government-based one.
Although it is true that some republican governors have utilized their own email accounts rather than state government based accounts, there is a world of difference between the situation with a Secretary of State and that of governor.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The first State Department Secretary to rely on State.gov email is .... John Kerry.
No one used it before because it sucked.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)But of course that's only where this all begins. She was supposed to have a government-provided/secured device to do the aspects of her job that were official and sensitive or secret. Her aides had them (now destroyed), but she didn't, from what I understand. She was also supposed to be turning over her work-related emails to State on a timely basis while she was at State. Not, you know, hoarding them on a private server that supposedly few knew about, until the FOIA's and congressional inquiries piled up, years after she left. And I haven't even gotten to the classified-mishandling yet.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Wasn't clear what you meant.
Aren't some of them still there. Isn't all official correspondence supposed to be archived for posterity? Surely everyone she corresponded with should have copies of the e-mails she sent from her Private Server if they had to do with DOS business. I've wondered if their correspondence will be turned over to go through also.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)if that's standard operating procedure or not.
4lbs
(6,756 posts)I used to work for a company that did government contracting work for the US military.
Part of the contracts involved dealing with classified data.
We had to set aside in our building a separate locked room, and separate networked computers to work with that classified data. Upon completion of the contract, the military took ownership of all network equipment, computers, hard drives, and even peripherals in that room, including printers.
The items were promptly headed for DOD level wiping and then destruction.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)in the system and ready to go to National Archives when Hillary left and Kerry took over.
So...we don't know if the Blackberries being destroyed meant that the info was already ready and waiting for Nat. Archives or it was something else.
That's the problem. There are supposed to be strict protocols so that our Government is held accountable to preserve communications for Historians to be able to refer to (and in case there are any problems that need legal attention post administration) and yet it seems that if Kissinger could put a "Five Years after My Death" hold on his information that went to Archives that the system is broken. Many of us remember the JFK Assassination info that has been in a lock box long after it was to be released.
That does NOT give Hillary a pass because she wasn't a novice appointee for SOS. She was a Senator, former Two Term "First Lady" very involved with her husband's Presidency, Former First Lady of a Governor and a Yale Law Graduate. She is not a novice who wouldn't know "The System."
I think all this has legs....and the E-Mails will reveal and catch up people in the State Department not so qualified as Hillary who watched for cues from Her as to how they would behave because they figured she had enough experience she wouldn't be doing anything that would get her in trouble or her appointees, aides, etc.
Some of us have had experience with working for a Boss whom we thought was an experienced and "well thought of employer" who was maybe charming with incredible credentials...only to find out that they weren't quite what we thought they were--and when "push came to shove" they would throw their employee s "under the bus" rather than admit their own failings as they were hustled out the door for either "cooking the books" or making deals with someone who got them into trouble.
Hillary should not be immune from scrutiny considering her past history. And, especially given both Hillary and Bill's experience during his two terms with legal issues and misconduct while in office in the case of Bill.
Hillary likes to always pass the buck and pretend to be "the Victim" when if fact she has brought much of this on herself with her obsession over secrecy and her claims to just not understand "what all the fuss is about" until things have come undone.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Not "hoarding." When she hits SEND, she's archiving.
The communication would be on the state server AND on the hard drive of the employee.
I've said this before and I'll say it again--much material that the USG likes to pretend is "classified" can be found in daily newspapers in other countries. And I am not talking about "wikileaks" or Snowden leaks or any of that stuff. Some bozos like to go OTT when they put markings on stuff. It makes them feel important.
I once had to show a senior leader, in print, how something I was being wrongly accused of discussing outside of a "classified" space was on page three of a major middle eastern publication, with color pictures and diagrams. The individual was apppropriately chagrined.
Sometimes, the USG is slow on the uptake when it comes to de-classification. They need to get way better at that. Congress gets sloppy with that kind of info all the time, too, and the GOP are the worst--which is why it's ironic that they would try to make hay out of this matter. I think that what goes around might eventually come around.
In the case of HRC, if people were sending her classified material without appropriate markings, that's on them, not her, and to expect anyone to know the level of classification of every phrase or sentence absent visual cues is simply asinine--how many of the people who prepared these documents were careerists given their appointments by Bush, or Bush, or Reagan, I wonder...?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Of the emails she sent by the recipients govt accounts means it is much harder to pull together a complete archive of HRC email.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You're seriously not trying to suggest that it's impossible, in the 21st century, to do a sort by email address/date and come up with a lovely, chronological accounting?
I'm not buying these poutrage arguments, they're coming straight out of Breitbart and Daily Caller. I am not accusing you of going there, mind you, but whoever you're hearing this stuff from has gotten it from someone who is wading DEEP in those waters. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend--they want a Republican in the White House.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Neat way to hide shit, but the jig is apparently up. Edit to add: is the DOJ lawyer arguing FOR her? Why?
cali
(114,904 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)This is a suit by a private RW group against the State Department.
The DoJ defends suits against US government agencies.
Are you suggesting there is some other lawyers who should defend suits against the government?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)I suppose the State Dept. allowed the set-up, so it's State that has to defend it.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Is a campaign to go after Huma Abedin, in support of JW's theory that she is a secret radical Muslim infiltrator.
Ultimately, it is going to blow up in their faces, but timing is everything.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)having a special-exception status carved out for her at the State Dept. while also working for the Clinton Foundation and other side projects. It smells.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Here's what this suit is about...
Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request to the State Department for emails relating to Huma Abedin.
FOIA law can get pretty complicated, particularly when someone is looking for material relating to an employee.
JW is claiming that the State Department did not turn over all FOIA-able emails, because they did not turn over the ones on her own system, which was not a government system.
The State Department has responded to that by saying that, of course, things that aren't on State Dept. systems, and on someone's own private system aren't subject to anything the State Department can or has to turn over under FOIA.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)while she was also still at State, while she was also doing outside "consulting" work for Clinton-tied organizations. She most certainly had a special arrangement made for her.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Those were changed after Dubya's administration personnel 'disappeared' millions of emails and used an off-site RNC server as well as Yahoo mail to communicate.
The Department of Defense --and JUST DoD (and all the dot mils that reported to them) have their own rules.
State had their own rules, too, and her set-up was neither 'illegal' nor against any policy established by State. Those rules were updated in 2014--after Clinton was long gone.
askew
(1,464 posts)while working for Clinton Foundation and another company as well. There is an outstanding lawsuit asking where the agreement for her employment is and State Dept can't find one. They also can't answer what her access to classified material was. It's a total mess.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)and "some sort of special government employee status" is not particularly helpful in finding whatever rule or statute applies.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)On Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:44 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Oh, I think she's going down, and it will be well-deserved. Something totally hinky about her
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=534071
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This post accuses Huma of being a secret Muslim government infiltrator. Do we really allow this crap on DU?
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:59 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a pointless squabble over a pretty benign post.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ridiculous assertion by alerter. Get a thicker skin!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post says nothing about "Secret Muslim Government Infiltrator". Please stop abusing your ability to appeal a post. Trying to censor a post because you don't like it with outrageous claims like this one isn't doing your side any good.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yeah the post smells, but it's getting argued out. If that was the direct claim I would hide it as "otherwise inappropriate"
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I thought the ONLY thing the FBI investigated were crimes or possible crimes.
Who knew that it was just a ruse? Something new every day I do learn.
askew
(1,464 posts)who knew about the set-up ahead of time and what clearances did she get to use this set-up.
I can't believe that State's Legal or IT depts would sign off on this. She brought in her own IT guy from her campaign to set it up and maintain it.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)and that none of her emails were ever being saved or archived. Hard to believe that could happen without permanent employees not knowing.
askew
(1,464 posts)Hillary was their boss. They couldn't really do anything to stop her and her aides from ignoring procedure. What is going to matter is if Hillary didn't get WH, State's Legal and IT to sign-off ahead of time. And the way they are dodging that question, I'd guess they didn't get any sign-offs ahead of time.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It can be "government policy" to not bring hot drinks into the situation room--no one is going to jail if someone wanders in there with their cocoa, though.
Amazing how some people are so quick to leap.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)private account makes no difference with regard to FOIA's.
http://www.fosterswift.com/publications-FOIA-E-Mail-Public-Record.html
The FOIA does not exempt those using private computers from the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. If an e-mail meets the definition of public record, then it may be subject to the FOIA regardless of the location where the e-mail originated.
AppalachianLeftist
(40 posts)Leaving no time for the mediocre accomplishments one usually gets from an establishment President.
The poorest regions of America can't afford a Clinton presidency.
Time to bow out, Hillary.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)OR,
"Death by 10,000 email-paper cuts"
Darb
(2,807 posts)and give the Hillary attacks a week off for fucks sake. It ain't your goddamned job to carry Repubic water, so quit fucking doing it. You're being too obvious, FYI.
cali
(114,904 posts)AppalachianLeftist
(40 posts)Just a wild guess.
cali
(114,904 posts)Hillary did this to herself and it is a legitimate story.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)There are judges who think that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry and judges who thought the aca should be repealed. Do/did we entertain their thoughts?
The judge also says he doesn't know how Clinton violated government policy
cali
(114,904 posts)saturnsring
(1,832 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)saturnsring
(1,832 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)aren't resonating. A laundry list of what's wrong (like no one knows) , coupled with pie-sky proposals that won't pass Congress, aren't getting the desired response. All that's left in the toolbox are the right wing website slams. It's a shame when DU looks more like Breitbart than Breitbart, but what can ya do...?
LuvLoogie
(6,855 posts)It's really palpable. I'm really looking forward to voting for Hillary. This site is so insular.
Here's a breath of fresh air, props to Tom Harkin:
MADem
(135,425 posts)He won like ninety percent of the caucus as a favorite son candidate against (guess who) Bill Clinton in his first run for POTUS~!
LuvLoogie
(6,855 posts)That's an endorsement with some heft.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's DU policy to not be rude to fellow posters, not shop rightwing memes, help elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans, etc. .... but no one goes to jail if they don't observe those conventions.
So too will no one go to jail for not observing some "government policy" that the judge "thinks" just "might have" been violated.
He probably should have a good look at "State Department policy." HRC was coloring within the lines according to that "policy." The White House had a much stricter policy after they realized that the Dubya administration made MILLIONS of emails, all on an off-site RNC server, as well as using YAHOO email accounts, completely disappear. POOF.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)This is about hoarding four years' worth of email materials as SOS on a private server, and how it relates to FOIA requests not being honored. At least that's my take on it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)too hard.
Since the overwhelming bulk of the communication was WITH people at State, the "hoarding" charge really doesn't hold water. The act of sending the email ensured an archived copy.
That argument is a canard.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)HillaryClinton'sHomeServer.com. (The aides also had their own .gov accounts.)
MADem
(135,425 posts)turn to them and talk.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)No parking in government property. A violation is not a crime or breaking the law!
Will the wonders of tunnel vision never cease.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)
He offered his own personal quip/opinion on Clinton's actions, not an official government response. But, hey, any judge saying she did something wrong in any context is likely to make the news.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)At the hands of Hillary. Because that's where GDP is headed.
randome
(34,845 posts)...that you imagine will be magically transformed into a mountain.
This truly sounds like it will amount to nothing. But the gleefulness is embarrassing to watch.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)It's pretty disgusting to see so many jumping on this witch hunt.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Democratic unity (what will they do if they shut that door with harsh words?) or about their own reputations.
When dealing with Republicans, the enemy of my "enemy" (and a Democrat should not be anyone's "enemy" on this board) is not my friend. Republicans are interested in screwing us over and taking the White House, and any "gifts" they hand out to partisans should be regarded as poisoned.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)kacekwl
(6,994 posts)Seems like everyone and their mother had private email accounts when working in their gov. Position including. previous SOS Colin Powell. Shame her in public and scold her if you must and let's move on. NOBODY care about millions of emails gone missing under Bush Corp. or any other official who did / does the same. People will make up their mind at the polls.
BlueMTexpat
(15,349 posts)Colin and Condi did. IOKIYAR as we know well.
frylock
(34,825 posts)at least around here.
BlueMTexpat
(15,349 posts)Period.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I'm sure I'll be hearing it a year from now. This isn't going away. This isn't Gowdy's or Issa's shit show. The FBI is now involved.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I remember when Larry Klayman was a crazy old wingnut fuck because of his obsession with the Clintons.
How things change.
DURHAM D
(32,596 posts)Politico is lying AGAIN. The reference was not about Hillary, it was about Huma.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)How does FOIA apply here? If the information is classified, nobody without the appropriate clearance AND a need to know gets to see it. If released to satisfy a FOIA request, the information has to be edited to omit sensitive information. It makes no difference whether or not anyone violated policy or procedure, or even the law.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)boo hoo. One of the best things about seeing the Clintons be president again will be the reaction of the press at the inaugural.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/634438304985935872
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/20/hillary_email_senior_obama_administration_official_jail_classified_material.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Bremmer
Senior Obama Admin official (to me): "If I did what (Hillary) Clinton did, I think I'd be in jail."
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)is that even lonely little old me in my workaday position in the big corporation I work for have to take an annual ethics course where they teach us that it is of paramount importance to avoid not only a conflict of interest but THE APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. Someone playing in the big leagues like the Secretary of State can't think that they're immune to basic ethics, can they? Sheesh.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The more of them you have the lower you are in the organization...think janitors who are trusted entering, moving around, offices and all the personal and company items of value...
The higher you are in the corporation you are, the fewer keys you carry, and the more exempt you are from serious supervision of the ethical characteristics of your behavior.