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

[4consideration]

Surely everybody who ever emailed her knew that she wasn't using a .gov email address?

How many thousands would that be?

Speaking as an IT professional who over many years has had to deal with those who aren't, I'm entirely unsurprised that she didn't think about it; but very, very surprised that there isn't an appropriate policy in place & that nobody in the torrent of emails she has received in her time in government thought to suggest that an official email address might be considered sensible.

I don't think anyone "forgot" to issue an email address.

The spokesman for the White House says here (around 3:17)

that the responsibility for ensuring that agency records are preserved and maintained by various departments, in coordination with the National Archives and Records Administration, rests with that agency's officials.

With Clinton having been the head of The State Department, I think it's way too lenient to consider this as something some tech person should have thought of. If it's part of her duty to preserve the records of the agency, and she just didn't think about properly preserving her own official communications, in the appropriate location, for ready availability to the public, as certain records are required by law to be made available -- it seems to me more like dereliction of duty, or an abuse of power. She's an attorney, for goodness sake. I don't think it's an oversight.

 

[esmith]

The server wasn't "in her house." Breitbart is far right wing extremist. You should be careful about getting your information from the echo chamber.

Is this like the Breitbart lie that Clinton ordered documents to be shredded? Republicans are playing you people for fools.

Called it didn't I. I do believe that I said that by using Breitbart as a source it would cause the facts to be challenged and the phobia against any news source that disagrees with ones personal prejudices would cause a knee-jerk reaction. So you seem to have called out Breibart but have no issue with the Washington Post a left biased newspaper which said, and I quote from the source.

The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

So how say you now? Or do I hear the chirping of crickets?

 

[tytlyf]

Called it didn't I. I do believe that I said that by using Breitbart as a source it would cause the facts to be challenged and the phobia against any news source that disagrees with ones personal prejudices would cause a knee-jerk reaction. So you seem to have called out Breibart but have no issue with the Washington Post a left biased newspaper which said, and I quote from the source.

So how say you now? Or do I hear the chirping of crickets?

I feel the same way, Breitfart is claiming the actual server was in her house, which is not true and stupid for anyone to believe. The Wapo piece stated that the server was registered to the clinton address. There's a difference esmith..

 

[ShivaFan]

Funny... Just before leaving for work this morning I turned on the TV to catch some news and I just watched a video from 2009 of Hillary Clinton attacking outgoing Bush for using "secretive" private email accounts for government business concerning some Bush official who used personal email addresses to conduct such business. Then she personally did this herself.

I wonder what her emails that she is having deleted contain? More racially charged Team Clinton comments about Obama or even graphics?

 

[philbo]

I don't think anyone "forgot" to issue an email address.

I don't think I suggested that anyone forgot to issue an email address. The surprise for me is that nobody who sent an email to her address commented on it being a private one.

The spokesman for the White House says here (around 3:17)

that the responsibility for ensuring that agency records are preserved and maintained by various departments, in coordination with the National Archives and Records Administration, rests with that agency's officials.

With Clinton having been the head of The State Department, I think it's way too lenient to consider this as something some tech person should have thought of. If it's part of her duty to preserve the records of the agency, and she just didn't think about properly preserving her own official communications, in the appropriate location, for ready availability to the public, as certain records are required by law to be made available -- it seems to me more like dereliction of duty, or an abuse of power. She's an attorney, for goodness sake. I don't think it's an oversight.

I've done tech in legal offices where everyone logged in to their Netware network as Adminsitrator.. in prisons where the head of security had his username/password on a post it note on his monitor - I've stopped being surprised by people not realizing what their responsibilities are in a virtual world, even when they're precise past the point of pedantry in the real one.

I'm not disagreeing that it was her responsibility, and I kind of wish we had the same open government over here. But I'm really not surprised

 

[Politesse]

I would get in big trouble for doing this, and I'm just a lowly schoolteacher. I wonder how different the world would be if the powerful were held to as much scrutiny as the powerless.

 

[Koldo]

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?

First world problems such as this can be so amusing from time to time.

 

[4consideration]

First world problems such as this can be so amusing from time to time.

Yes. So can responses like this.

 

[4consideration]

I don't think I suggested that anyone forgot to issue an email address. The surprise for me is that nobody who sent an email to her address commented on it being a private one.

That's right. You did not suggest anyone forgot to issue an email address. Just wanted to acknowledge that. I put the word "forgot" in quotes, meaning to refer to that she didn't think about it.

I've done tech in legal offices where everyone logged in to their Netware network as Adminsitrator.. in prisons where the head of security had his username/password on a post it note on his monitor - I've stopped being surprised by people not realizing what their responsibilities are in a virtual world, even when they're precise past the point of pedantry in the real one.

I'm not disagreeing that it was her responsibility, and I kind of wish we had the same open government over here. But I'm really not surprised

I see what you're saying. Good point.

 

[Wirey]

If your husband was a horrible man-****, you'd keep a secret e-mail account, too.

 

[ShivaFan]

Funny ... once again, wben I try to catch some news before heading out to work ....

... I find out on the news this morning that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told employees not to use personal email for security reasons while at the same time, Clinton conducted all government business on a private account. The memo was signed by Hillary.

So you would ask, why would she demand her "employees" to not use personal email accounts for their government "business" while she herself was doing so?

I got my answer when I got in my car and turned on an expert in such behavior and internals of the department.

The guest said, "Because Hillary wanted to snoop into the email of all her underlings to search for any disloyalty to her". When asked why he thought she would do this, he said so that if any disloyalty was found the person would be hit with a politically motivated IRS audit while being hounded out of their job.

"Sort of like Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler. Hillary is the Department, the Department is Hillary" ...

 

[ShivaFan]

AP Sues State Department, Seeking Access to Clinton Records - ABC News

The AP newswire is suing the State Department to get Hillary's emails while she is burning alive the hard drives containing over 30,000 emails she says are happy birthday emails to Chelsea, one or more of the two emails to Bill, relatives and funeral arrangements.

How she figured out which emails were State Department business or birthday base venues I have no idea, I guess everyone just needs to trust her good judgement, but the real issue here is will any of this cause her to drop out of the race?

The answer is absolutely not. And why?

Because she took multi-millions, even billions of dollars from foreign states and foreign operatives for the "Foundation" while in the State Department, and these foreigners fully expect a return on their money with her attempt to get the Presidency, so now she has to run no matter what or she might end up in front of the Kremlin or something.

Another b.s. coming from some of her "friends" is how this is all a Republican plot. I mean, yes, upfront and honest Republican candidates such as Rand Paul are going public on this, but there are other candidates who aren't going to say much or even defend her because, take the rumors on Jeb, they did the samething.

The down side to this scandal is the snakehead and Davis.

I can't believe the entire tailend of the 20th Century was wasted having to listen to those two wedges Lanny Davis and James "snakehead" Carville come on the boob tube and cover for the Clinton's and now with this latest crime of Hillary's, bank on it, we will have to all suffer these two toadies again paraded out to waste our lives with their stupid antics.

You know that Lanny Davis in one way is worse than that freak Carville and his war on women, because you would think he would know better. He's a Jew and knows very well of Hillary's ugly slurs against Jews, my God she kept calling former Bill Clinton campaign advisor and Presidential advisor Dick Morris that "Jew *******" so many times that Morris finally had enough, quit and has worked exposing them ever since

 

[4consideration]

It seems Hillary has deleted all emails from that server located on her property, which as this article points out, seems to make her and her attorneys/advisers team the one's with complete control of what is available for the public record. Hillary Clinton deleted everything on her email server - Yahoo Finance

'In his statement, Gowdy criticized the fact Clinton's deletion of the server left her team completely in control of which emails were turned over to the State Department.
"Not only was the secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server, ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest," he said.'

 

[Marisa]

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?

I think Hillary would make a decent POTUS, and I'm beyond ready for a woman behind the wheel, but Hillary's not my first choice. I'm guessing that this story is such a big deal because of her name. She's not the first SOS to use private email. Although I largely disagree with him politically, I respect the hell out of Colin Powell, and he seems to think this isn't a big deal. I'm inclined to defer to his judgment.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think Hillary would make a decent POTUS, and I'm beyond ready for a woman behind the wheel, but Hillary's not my first choice. I'm guessing that this story is such a big deal because of her name. She's not the first SOS to use private email. Although I largely disagree with him politically, I respect the hell out of Colin Powell, and he seems to think this isn't a big deal. I'm inclined to defer to his judgment.

The email escapades would've appeared differently to me a decade ago. Back then, we had a more printed document culture, so that email losses would be less significant. But there have been a couple changes since those days:
1) Government appears to be heading in a direction of greater secrecy, eg, federal persecution of whistle blowers is on the increase.
2) Email is taking greater prominence in documenting government operations.

I don't believe HIllary's actions are mere innocent & blase deletion. Why? She has staff handling her affairs to a great degree. With the volume of email traffic & the structure of her system, she'd have professionals managing them. They would've been acting knowledgeably & under her direction. Given the massive number of deletions & the lack of documentation of the process, this appears deliberate.
Is this important? I could understand that it poses no problem for people who are OK with how government runs these days. But if we value open government & accountability, it points to a foul trend.

 

[YmirGF]

How many people would even contemplate setting up an email server in their house/office and not use an existing one at their place of employment? Doing so and pretending it is nothing is alarming. She didn't trust her own government to handle her emails? Seriously? ... and took the matter into her own hands? Seriously? ... and no one thought this was a problem?

 

[4consideration]

I think Hillary would make a decent POTUS, and I'm beyond ready for a woman behind the wheel, but Hillary's not my first choice. I'm guessing that this story is such a big deal because of her name. She's not the first SOS to use private email. Although I largely disagree with him politically, I respect the hell out of Colin Powell, and he seems to think this isn't a big deal. I'm inclined to defer to his judgment.

I would be happy to see a woman appropriate for the job in such a position. I would be horrified if it was Hillary Clinton -- mostly because she seems to operate as though the rules that apply to us peasants do not apply to her, as being a type of political royalty.

I like Colin Powell well enough, but I'm not deferring to his judgment on this. I'm not sure what he's saying about it, quite frankly, but there's far to much that seems out of sorts for me to think it's no big deal.

The information we're seeing indicates she did not turn go through and turn over communications, until nearly two years after leaving office, and after it had been requested of her...and had her own attorneys as advisors in the process...and then she wiped everything off the server. Her position as SOS required, and allowed opportunity for, lots of power and contact with representatives of foreign governments, and people in the US with business interests on foreign soil, none of which would have .gov email addresses.

I think it's a huge deal.

 

[Marisa]

The email escapades would've appeared differently to me a decade ago. Back then, we had a more printed document culture, so that email losses would be less significant. But there have been a couple changes since those days:
1) Government appears to be heading in a direction of greater secrecy, eg, federal persecution of whistle blowers is on the increase.
2) Email is taking greater prominence in documenting government operations.

I don't believe HIllary's actions are mere innocent & blase deletion. Why? She has staff handling her affairs to a great degree. With the volume of email traffic & the structure of her system, she'd have professionals managing them. They would've been acting knowledgeably & under her direction. Given the massive number of deletions & the lack of documentation of the process, this appears deliberate.
Is this important? I could understand that it poses no problem for people who are OK with how government runs these days. But if we value open government & accountability, it points to a foul trend.

The basic disagreement I'm going to have with is that I don't think it's possible to have a completely transparent government. It's simply a necessary evil. I'm disturbed by the prosecution of whistle blowers because I also recognize that any institution run by human beings will never, ever, be perfect and simply will make mistakes. I'm extremely reality oriented in this. Despite the fact that I disagree to a large degree with how our government currently functions, I do not possess a inherent distrust of it. So in light of those realities, and recognizing my own dearth of knowledge, I'm comfortable relying upon the opinions of those whom I feel have more knowledge than myself. Kinda like you do in assessing Ted Cruz' intellect as superior to Obama's (I'm listening to the Toobin interview you suggested, BTW).

 

[Marisa]

I would be happy to see a woman appropriate for the job in such a position. I would be horrified if it was Hillary Clinton -- mostly because she seems to operate as though the rules that apply to us peasants do not apply to her, as being a type of political royalty.

Inasmuch as she is far more loyal to big business and wall street than she is to the cherished middle class, I see little difference between her and most conservatives. What separates them seems to be social issues, and the pronouns they choose when giving speeches.

I like Colin Powell well enough, but I'm not deferring to his judgment on this. I'm not sure what he's saying about it, quite frankly, but there's far to much that seems out of sorts for me to think it's no big deal.

Okay.

The information we're seeing indicates she did not turn go through and turn over communications, until nearly two years after leaving office, and after it had been requested of her...and had her own attorneys as advisors in the process...and then she wiped everything off the server. Her position as SOS required, and allowed opportunity for, lots of power and contact with representatives of foreign governments, and people in the US with business interests on foreign soil, none of which would have .gov email addresses.

I think it's a huge deal.

I'm not trying to assert that Ms. Clinton didn't handle the situation poorly. But I'm not sure it's a "huge deal". I'm sure it is to some, but then I question the motives of many of those who do see it as a huge deal. I'm aware of how she's handled by a media that's far more fascinated with her genitalia and whether she wears skirts, and a political party that would just as soon crucify her as look at her, and thus I can empathize with how she makes some of the choices she makes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

'In his statement, Gowdy criticized the fact Clinton's deletion of the server left her team completely in control of which emails were turned over to the State Department.
"Not only was the secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server, ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest," he said.'

Do they really believe those emails are gone forever? Deleted emails and text messages are known for being pesky things that may come back and haunt people.