Hillary Clinton's Use of Personal Email Account (only) for Secretary of State Business

[4consideration]

I saw this story mentioned by Rachel Maddow as I was flipping through the channels last night.

I found the story today. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/u...il-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=1

It seems odd to me that someone so familiar with government would not see something wrong with having no established Secretary of State email address for governmental matters, and would instead use a personal email account for all her official email business.

According to the article it seems she has turned over 55,000 pages of emails, but that seems like it would mean she still has them, too. I'm not that comfortable with governmental employees continuing to have personal access to that amount of governmental data after they have left office.

What do you think?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Speaking as a somewhat reluctant Hillary supporter, I sometimes think that the Clintons have a disturbing and inexplicable sense of entitlement.

 

[Valjean]

Why complicate things by adding another account if you already have a perfectly serviceable account established?

Aren't there already a permanent, .gov e-mail address already established for the various government agencies in Washington? I'd expect a lot of Secretary of State correspondence would be found there.
Didn't she check her .gov e-mail?

 

[metis]

Speaking as a somewhat reluctant Hillary supporter, I sometimes think that the Clintons have a disturbing and inexplicable sense of entitlement.

Yes, and I think a bit of likely paranoia thrown into it, and I can see why this might be the case. However, imo, that's still not enough of an excuse to let her slide.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, that does it.....I'm not going to vote for Hillary!

 

[tytlyf]

Hmm, I'm hearing reports that the NYT jumped the gun on this. Possibly the law regarding emails didn't start until after she left SOS?

 

[YmirGF]

My guess is that this one is going to bite her on the backside. That is an awful lot of email to sweep until the rug. I wonder how many Heads of State and high ranking governement officials are now worried that they might be directly quoted by Hillary in future memoirs. Then again, how legal would it be for her to use them? Theoretically they are property of the US government.

 

[YmirGF]

Hmm, I'm hearing reports that the NYT jumped the gun on this. Possibly the law regarding emails didn't start until after she left SOS?

I see that as more of a separate concern. It is rather unseemly that she didn't see anything wrong with doing so. But then, at this point in time, what difference does it make, eh?

 

[4consideration]

Hmm, I'm hearing reports that the NYT jumped the gun on this. Possibly the law regarding emails didn't start until after she left SOS?

My concern isn't only whether or not the specific law regarding archiving emails was violated, but whether or not she treats and considers correspondence in her official capacity as a government official as her own personal property. It's not that some of her emails were through her personal account -- but ALL of them.

To me, it smells of a possible attempt to intentionally thwart scrutiny, or delay it significantly, by creating a personal property barrier to retrieval of any of that information she did not wish to reveal.

 

[4consideration]

My guess is that this one is going to bite her on the backside. That is an awful lot of email to sweep until the rug. I wonder how many Heads of State and high ranking governement officials are now worried that they might be directly quoted by Hillary in future memoirs. Then again, how legal would it be for her to use them? Theoretically they are property of the US government.

I do think the emails are, and should be, the property of the U.S., considering they were correspondence of an official of the U.S, in her capacity as a U.S. official. They do not belong to her, personally.

(I wouldn't argue that every single bit of correspondence ought to be done from an official email address, and think reasonableness might dictate sometimes a person use their personal email.) But...that she did not ever use an official email address bothers me. I don't think she's that dumb. My guess is that it would involve a conscious decision.

The way I see it, there is value in them -- Intelligence value, and who knows what else.

I don't think it's too far of a stretch to liken it to money, and I see it a bit like a person putting all the money received on behalf of a governmental agency into a person's own bank account, and not until being asked about it later, being the one to decide which dollars belong to them and which to the government.

 

[Revoltingest]

My guess is that this one is going to bite her on the backside. That is an awful lot of email to sweep until the rug. I wonder how many Heads of State and high ranking governement officials are now worried that they might be directly quoted by Hillary in future memoirs. Then again, how legal would it be for her to use them? Theoretically they are property of the US government.

Did you forget that she's a Democrat? I'll bet your skin tight superhero suit that the media would never allow Hillary to suffer from this. It's an uninteresting technical failing which would never interest the normal slack jawed mouth breathing voter.

 

[esmith]

One must stop and think why the Hillary has decided that she will get a campaign going sometime in April. Is it because there are many media sources that have reporters covering the upcoming 2016 presidential election and the only thing they have to write about when it comes to Hillary looks bad? Once she starts to run her flanks will be covered by the media sources that are biased toward her. But for now all they have is negative stories about her and the Bill.

 

[CMike]

In my not expert opinion, Hillary has a god complex.

 

[CMike]

I do think the emails are, and should be, the property of the U.S., considering they were correspondence of an official of the U.S, in her capacity as a U.S. official. They do not belong to her, personally.

(I wouldn't argue that every single bit of correspondence ought to be done from an official email address, and think reasonableness might dictate sometimes a person use their personal email.) But...that she did not ever use an official email address bothers me. I don't think she's that dumb. My guess is that it would involve a conscious decision.

The way I see it, there is value in them -- Intelligence value, and who knows what else.

I don't think it's too far of a stretch to liken it to money, and I see it a bit like a person putting all the money received on behalf of a governmental agency into a person's own bank account, and not until being asked about it later, being the one to decide which dollars belong to them and which to the government.

And now her cover up.

 

[metis]

One must stop and think why the Hillary has decided that she will get a campaign going sometime in April. Is it because there are many media sources that have reporters covering the upcoming 2016 presidential election and the only thing they have to write about when it comes to Hillary looks bad? Once she starts to run her flanks will be covered by the media sources that are biased toward her. But for now all they have is negative stories about her and the Bill.

I'm still not convinced that she's a shoe-in even for the Dem nomination, especially since a lot of people have Clinton-Bush fatigue, which could be terminal. If her poll numbers aren't very high in a couple of months, she may decide that the job of "grandma" may be more fulfilling and less contentious.

 

[Revoltingest]

In my not expert opinion, Hillary has a god complex.

Not devil?

Note to Satan:
Just kidding!

 

[esmith]

I'm still not convinced that she's a shoe-in even for the Dem nomination, especially since a lot of people have Clinton-Bush fatigue, which could be terminal. If her poll numbers aren't very high in a couple of months, she may decide that the job of "grandma" may be more fulfilling and less contentious.

Heard any whispers that someone is going to run against the supposedly anointed one? If so who?

 

[tytlyf]

My concern isn't only whether or not the specific law regarding archiving emails was violated, but whether or not she treats and considers correspondence in her official capacity as a government official as her own personal property. It's not that some of her emails were through her personal account -- but ALL of them.

To me, it smells of a possible attempt to intentionally thwart scrutiny, or delay it significantly, by creating a personal property barrier to retrieval of any of that information she did not wish to reveal.

I'm also hearing that this isn't anything new. Feel free to talk about it, but it's too early to assume anything.

 

[4consideration]

I'm also hearing that this isn't anything new. Feel free to talk about it, but it's too early to assume anything.

You're right. I don't want to make assumptions, or unfair accusations. So, perhaps it would be good to note that...from what I've seen so far...it does (edit: not) seem quite right. That doesn't mean there was anything wrong done.

 

[tytlyf]

You're right. I don't want to make assumptions, or unfair accusations. So, perhaps it would be good to note that...from what I've seen so far...it does seem quite right. That doesn't mean there was anything wrong done.

I like facts. This is just another phony outrage over nothing that others have done. But all of a sudden it's important now. Carry on.