General Discussion

pnwmom

(108,952 posts)

74. You are implying that Hillary should open all her personal emails

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:48 PM

Mar 2015

for inspection. Not because she broke a law or is accused of doing anything else criminal. Just because.

And you don't seem to understand that even today, when Sen.Kerry sends an email, he decides whether to send it through his .gov account, or through a personal account.

Why is it that he would be trusted to make that decision before hitting the send button -- but if the emails had been mingled in one account, he wouldn't be trusted to make the decision (splitting the emails into "personal" and "work related&quot afterwards?

Although in his case, of course, there is a new law in effect that wasn't when Hillary was SoS.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

143 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Clinton's lawyers didn't read the 30K emails they deleted. They just hit a button. [View all] leveymg Mar 2015 OP

ctrl f works like a charm. JaneyVee Mar 2015 #1

You have to hit it twice - too labor intensive for Hill's team. leveymg Mar 2015 #2

"it's her turn." So I guess the email thing doesn't matter anyway n/t BP2 Mar 2015 #104

My own emails are boring enough. Benghazi! immoderate Mar 2015 #3

If it didn't contain the term "Benghazi" the message was automatically deleted as "chocolate cake." leveymg Mar 2015 #6

Can't see how it makes a difference. immoderate Mar 2015 #21

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to read to whom the emails was addressed or Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #4

That wasn't the actual critera, apparently. It was either "Benghazi" or into the memory hole. leveymg Mar 2015 #12

Is the Clinton Foundation official mail? A smart person would know if email was from the Saudi Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #17

A lot of grey. That's why a real human (lawyer almost qualifies) should have done the selection. leveymg Mar 2015 #26

The official has the right to delete personal emails, they are not required to have Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #30

Right. And even those using a .gov account have the right do decide pnwmom Mar 2015 #72

Oh, do you think they will allow Hillary make the decisions or will the Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #75

The Clinton Foundation is not part of her job in the State Department. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #65

So I would say the emails would be personal unless she was soliciting funds Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #68

There is no evidence that she was doing that, and we have laws protecting pnwmom Mar 2015 #71

I don't think she ever intended to break the rules. I also think her server is as safe as the state Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #76

Not true. It was a list of names and other key words. The name of the Saudi pnwmom Mar 2015 #64

You do realize the Old Navy thing was satire, right? KamaAina Mar 2015 #13

So, if it was so easy, why didn't they assign the emails to someone to go through? leveymg Mar 2015 #19

Why should they? The computer can do that just as well, pnwmom Mar 2015 #63

Computer search is only a tool for e-discovery and disclosure. Lawyers actually read documents leveymg Mar 2015 #126

Yes, I posted there also but again a smart person would realize the from Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #24

Seems to me the email issue is only an issue if someone is alleging she purposely deleted randys1 Mar 2015 #51

Exactly. This was an objective, efficient way to do the sorting. pnwmom Mar 2015 #62

Really? Wat if Hillary was helping US companies like Old Navy penetrate foreign markets? Such assistance apparently was part of her job as SoS. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #114

And This is a Big Deal why? bobalew Mar 2015 #5

Because deputizing the task to lawyers would indicate a different standard of review. Yo_Mama Mar 2015 #8

A judge won't be involved because she broke no law pnwmom Mar 2015 #66

There are multiple court cases re FOIA requests right now. Yo_Mama Mar 2015 #83

And the State Department will respond to them, based on pnwmom Mar 2015 #86

Right. The emails the State Dept. has. The emails that Hillary's team took first cut at. morningfog Mar 2015 #88

They're not entitled to her personal emails, either by the old law or the current law. pnwmom Mar 2015 #89

Not exactly. Had she used a .gov account, then State would possess all her emails and would be the morningfog Mar 2015 #92

Had she used a .gov account, she would STILL be the only one to determine pnwmom Mar 2015 #97

She was Secretary of State, and she does have a staff and outside lawyers who have staffs. leveymg Mar 2015 #14

Why? For example: JaneyVee Mar 2015 #16

If Chelsea were still four, that shortcut might work. leveymg Mar 2015 #23

I see ur point. For argument's sake, Chelsea, for example, cudve been soliciting foreign govts for contributions to the Clinton Foundtion InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #106

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Mar 2015 #7

Any message to .gov gets archived. JaneyVee Mar 2015 #18

so what? you think all official SoS business goes through only a .gov address? wow. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #73

+1, No kidding. Marr Mar 2015 #27

It's amazing that so many here are proclaiming her guilty of SOMETHING pnwmom Mar 2015 #77

I currently see no basis for questioning Hillary's statements made at her press conference. Besides, they should be easy to verify. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #107

A la Nixon's secretary and the missing minutes. ha ha oldandhappy Mar 2015 #9

It was called the "Rosemary Wood stretch" to hit the erase on the tape while sitting at her desk. leveymg Mar 2015 #15

Oranges and apples. Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #25

They both come in crates and stink if left unopened long enough leveymg Mar 2015 #35

Was Nixon at liberty to erase any of the tapes? Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #37

The Presidential Records Act wasn't enacted until 1978. This is covered by the 1950 Federal Records leveymg Mar 2015 #40

This is the information I found Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #58

Yes, but oranges have thicker skins than apples, allowing them to last longer without spoiling. Fact... InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #108

Privacy for me but not for thee Ron Obvious Mar 2015 #10

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see how or why this is relevant. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #11

She absolutely was NOT required to preserve her PERSONAL emails on State Dept pnwmom Mar 2015 #60

It's from a strange and unusual source. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #84

That is one of the more egregious editing errors in the NYTimes report. pnwmom Mar 2015 #85

You continue to misstate her obligation as SOS to preserve emails on gov't servers. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #91

The significant words are "codified by law." The previous law had no time limit pnwmom Mar 2015 #98

No, it's irrelevant and does not negate her obligation to PRESERVE EMAILS ON GOVERNMENT SERVERS. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #100

The head of the Archives disagrees with your interpretation of the law pnwmom Mar 2015 #101

What she did was against protocol and not okay, and speaks to her proclivity for secrecy. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #105

I thought Democrats believed in privacy of personal emails. pnwmom Mar 2015 #110

That's why they shouldn't be comingled with official records in single accounts. leveymg Mar 2015 #127

It's relevant because . . . Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #87

A valid point. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #93

Hadn't thought about that...Excellent point! InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #115

If she says she had 31k pirate emails, then she had 31k pirate emails AngryAmish Mar 2015 #20

... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #22

Best reply of the day!! n/t MANative Mar 2015 #28

Thank you, friend. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #29

You're welcome, friend! MANative Mar 2015 #33

Just a few days ago, we were all assured that, since she'd revealed 50k emails, there was Marr Mar 2015 #31

I expect Democrats to complain about Republican peccadilloes and Republicans to complain about... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #32

I expect hypocrisy from party loyalists, too. Marr Mar 2015 #41

I do have universal standards. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #43

keep gazing into that abyss frylock Mar 2015 #45

and you keep following me around DU, frylock./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #49

don't flatter yourself frylock Mar 2015 #103

It is what it is./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #116

a figment of your imagination frylock Mar 2015 #124

... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #125

If you openly admit to just barking whatever bullshit makes your leader look best... Marr Mar 2015 #46

If you don't believe Democratic inspired legislation... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #48

What a deceitful response. Marr Mar 2015 #52

I wear your ad hominem attacks the way my old man wore the Purple Heart he was awarded in WW ll DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #54

It's obvious that these questions are far more complex Trajan Mar 2015 #56

They might have an argument on that score if the primaries were over. Marr Mar 2015 #57

Maybe my concerns are too plebeian for some. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #79

We have not a single declared sadoldgirl Mar 2015 #44

Where did I declare a victor? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #53

Yes, I heard Joe Scarborough saying he wanted to read all of her emails, classy huh. Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #38

Who gives a shit about Joe Scarborough? Marr Mar 2015 #42

Just saying, he apparently represents the GOP side. I am more interested in Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #69

You are implying that Hillary should open all her personal emails pnwmom Mar 2015 #74

Ping pong paddle peddlers in Paducah. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #99

My question: howzit possible that Hillary had as many personal emails as work-related ones as the agency head in charge of tens of thousands of employees? InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #109

Maybe Chelsea REALLY could not decide between seafoam green and apple green TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #111

The numbers just seem off. But, time will tell; let's wait n see what develops...Thankfully, we always have Elizabeth waitin in the wings. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #112

That doesn't seem strange to me thesquanderer Mar 2015 #119

No doubt the Teapubbies were up to no good; can't say that bout Hillary based on what we know so far. InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2015 #113

Good one! leftofcool Mar 2015 #34

BTW, Jeb didn't comply with Florida's stringent "Sunshine Laws" when it came to his e-mail DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #36

... MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #121

I ain't got no worries. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #122

Oh well. ellie Mar 2015 #39

put that on a bumper sticker frylock Mar 2015 #47

that's exactly how we got today's GOP BTW MisterP Mar 2015 #96

it's ok I'm sure the media-email hackers already copied what they will use against her next year Sunlei Mar 2015 #50

I'd say I'm surpised... 99Forever Mar 2015 #55

So vaguely worded missives like Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #59

That sounds like an objective way to make the decision. If the key words pnwmom Mar 2015 #61

Not too late for the Dem leadership to rethink their unanimous support for Hillary2016 Dems to Win Mar 2015 #67

I don't really care. The Tealiban is so insane in persecuting Hillary I hope she got rid of every OregonBlue Mar 2015 #70

47 traitors and you bring up OMG Hillary had a private e-mail shit! B Calm Mar 2015 #78

+ 100000. Well Stated. Like paparazzi following the kardashians. misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #80

... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #81

So, as a non Hillary fan, my take rufus dog Mar 2015 #82

Oh God no!! Beausoir Mar 2015 #90

I'm already storing up with food and planning for the Apocalypse./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #117

Seems legit. TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #94

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #95

I do the same thing. napi21 Mar 2015 #102

I managed email for a large public university belcffub Mar 2015 #118

Of course no one personally read 62,000+ emails. randome Mar 2015 #120

In e-discovery, a team of half a dozen lawyers and staff could do it in about two weeks. leveymg Mar 2015 #123

Do you think Hillary sent an e-mail to the Benghazi Terrorists to attack the embassy? B Calm Mar 2015 #128

No. But, that's not the issue, as you are likely aware. leveymg Mar 2015 #130

It's all connected to the made up Benghazi scandal. B Calm Mar 2015 #132

And as was pointed out in the other thread, there is no 'discovery' being undertaken. randome Mar 2015 #129

This is a case where she treated documents in a politically non-intelligent way by deleting them in leveymg Mar 2015 #131

I bet everybody in congress has at the least one private e-mail address. This whole scandal B Calm Mar 2015 #133

Congress exempted itself from rules about saving records. leveymg Mar 2015 #136

LOL +1 of course they did, their finger pointers. . B Calm Mar 2015 #138

Right. Listen to AP and the others. They are only trying to help! randome Mar 2015 #134

Their motives are beside the point. It stuck to the wall. leveymg Mar 2015 #135

I've been on those teams, and I concur in your judgment. amandabeech Mar 2015 #141

Hillary wouldn't of course Bradical79 Mar 2015 #139

One normally doesn't hire lawyers to do routine purging of personal emails. randome Mar 2015 #140

Who here doesn't want a third and fourth term for Obama? Michelle Obama, of course. leveymg Mar 2015 #142

so, law broken or not? Bradical79 Mar 2015 #137

So she has no idea if they were personal or not CanadaexPat Mar 2015 #143