Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumPic Of The Moment: Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email When Serving As Secretary Of State
Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules
That Story About Hillary Clintons Private Email Account Isnt as Awful as It Seems
Follow @demunderground
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Some people are not gonna like "overlooking this serious allegation"
riversedge
(70,306 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)gives the pukes ammo to play their stupid fucking little games and rile up their base and the media. They will leave no stone upturned. It sucks up all the oxygen in the room and gives the fucking pukes more cover to do NOTHING.
7962
(11,841 posts)her aides took no action to have her personal emails preserved, which is required of all officials under the Federal Records Act
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials correspondence be retained as part of the agencys record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)The article doesnt say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.
More...
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/story-hillary-clintons-private-email-account-isnt-awful-seems/
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Hopefully it will all get cleared up.
merrily
(45,251 posts)embodied. And the act has given machine readable material as a specific example of public business material since 1976. But that and things like books maps, etc, are simply some specific examples of how public business material may be embodied.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)regulations don't make law .Statutes do.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)government. And destruction of emails created a flap during Dimson's administration, well before Hillary took office, let alone before she left it. I'am surprised you don't recall that flap.
I am very comfortable that the statute is the law. (Duh.)
ballabosh
(330 posts)Statutes of this type instruct the individual agencies to install regulations that implement that law. The law says "These agencies need to implement these regulations," usually by a certain date.
It's up to the authorized agencies to come up with those regulations. What was the timeline in the original statute for federal agencies to have these regulations in place? That is where we'll know if anything wrong was done here.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The statute was amended in 2014, but statutory requirements of some kind and regulations of some kind have been in place for a very long time.
Here, maybe this will help. Check out the cornell.edu link There is some legislative history at that site, both the statute and the regs, though not extensive history
See also my reply to brooklynite on another thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141027729#post108.
I also did a post on this on this thread, Reply 151.
And this one. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026309078#post6
Unfortunately, umpteen threads are going simultaneously so my replies are to slightly different point.
However, it is true that regulations don't impose obligations that exceed the statute, nor can regulations eliminate obligations imposed by statute. Regulations go to implementation, procedure, specifics, etc.
MADem
(135,425 posts)to say that "electronic communications" is a synonym for "machine-readable material."
Yeah, because back in the dark ages, BEFORE computers, some genius who wrote the regulation "anticipated" them? If that were the case, there would be no need to update the regulation.
Examples of "machine read" material include, oh, SLIDES...overhead projections...and MICROFICHES! Not texts, not emails, not stuff created on a computer.
But hey--let's pretend that the Obama administration went to all the trouble to write a whole new reg about "electronic communications" just because they were noodges, or something...
Autumn
(45,120 posts)closely. Does that apply to her personal ones also from that account? I think it was extremely stupid of her to mix government and personal emails.
William769
(55,148 posts)Good!
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Have a nice day.
William769
(55,148 posts)You have a fine day also.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)riversedge
(70,306 posts)about Hilliary's emails --only a few about the BIG SPEECH (Which seems to be old news just an hour after it was concluded).
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)riversedge
(70,306 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)covering THAT inappropriate visit instead of whining about someone who broke NO laws, who complied with the requirements of the archivist of the United States...but who is so threatening to some of the Judy Miller types at NYT and elsewhere that she has to be used as a distraction---even when there's no THERE there!!!
NYT seriously damaged their credibility -- yet AGAIN. How many more hits before she sinks? Hell, Rupert Murdoch may as well buy that rag for all the credibility it has nowadays.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Oooh, I'm dyin'!
closeupready
(29,503 posts)you guys dismiss it. Shame on you.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)I think everyone here knows exactly what I mean.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)If I ate a bag of chips then, two years later, it became illegal to eat those chips, I didn't break the law when I ate them.
merrily
(45,251 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)The new regs apparently werent fully implemented by State until a year and half after Clinton left State. Heres the timeline: Clinton left the State Department on February 1, 2013. Back in 2011, President Obama had signed a memorandum directing the update of federal records management. But the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) didnt issue the relevant guidance, declaring that email records of senior government officials are permanent federal records, until August 2013. Then, in September 2013, NARA issued guidance on personal email use. A senior State Department official emailed me to say that in October 2014, a Department-wide notice was sent out which explained each employees responsibilities for records management. Consistent with 2013 NARA guidance, it included instructions that generally employees should not use personal email for the transaction of government business, but that in the very limited circumstances when it is necessary, all records must be forwarded to a government account or otherwise preserved in the Departments electronic records systems.
So if these new regulations went into effect after she left State, then what rule did she violate, exactly? And, if this is true, why did the Times not share this rather crucial piece of information with its readers? No one could possibly argue that this fact isnt germane to the story. Its absolutely central to it. Why would the Times leave it out?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/03/hillary-email-scandal-not-so-fast.html
merrily
(45,251 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)In fact, the original version of that statute--which was the 14th statute ever enacted in the USA, applied specifically to the Secretary of State. Over time, the scope of the statute got broader, but there was never a version that did not apply to the Secretary of State.
The Clintons may think they are above the law, and therefore laws don't apply to them, but I didn't realize that was your position as well. Thanks for the laugh though.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)to the definitions in the 1950 Act and a link to the original version of the act.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)So is a basic understanding of the relation between a statute and regulations. Educate yourself.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)post.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)smiley
(1,432 posts)would rather muddy the water.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)statute and the IRS promulgates regulations under that statute. The regulations may make a statute clearer and they may be more specific than a statute. But regulations cannot be either more or less restrictive than the statute.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Whether you asked me specifically or not is irrelevant. You asked. I answered.
And, having gotten an answer, your sole response is that you are not going to get worked up over it, which comes as no surprise to anyone who has read your posts.
Characterize that anyway you wish.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....there has been a lot more said and done on this issue since yesterday. From what I saw, she and her aids complied with the rules.
And what is being discussed are RULES, not "laws".
riversedge
(70,306 posts)#p2 #UniteBlue
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)riversedge
(70,306 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)And the crookedest of administrations......
7962
(11,841 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)davepc
(3,936 posts)But since Hillary is a Democrat, you go girl!
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...were sending high-level state department communications from an unsecured email?
Did you seriously just ask that question?
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)1. That the communications were high-level, and 2) that the email was unsecured. How do you know that?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Since they control the playing field.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)It sounds like her staff did most of her emailing for her.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)This is merely one of thousands of internet message boards. He/she could be literally anyone, anywhere.
Regardless, I'm not trying to be argumentative. Rather, I am arguing that someone in a position of governmental authority MUST conduct their affairs so as to be absolutely above reproach and above any appearance of impropriety, no matter the cost or effort.
At best, HRC is very sloppy. How can voters be comfortable giving someone like that a nuclear football??
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Point made. The question I asked is why I should be concerned if a Republican had done the same thing. I have yet to receive an explanation that convinces me. Now it may turn out to be a big political scandal. Anything can. Swiftboat did. But no, I do not agree that she cannot be trusted with the nuclear football because she used private email.
Don't worry. There will be more dirt. Bill Clinton may well have sunk this for her with his incessant philandering so you can all celebrate that too. Naturally she's responsible for all of her husband's sins, because that is the lot of the lowly woman. Besides, there is always Benghazi. People have made clear their number one priority is defeating Clinton, not the GOP, not any particular cause, so I have no doubt they will do everything possible to make that happen.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)2naSalit
(86,794 posts)not-knowledge going on over this. It might interest some of you to know that many federal Gov't e-mail accounts ARE GMAIL!!!
I work for a government agency as a temp and all of our inter-agency as well as all of our intra- and extra-agency email is through GMAIL.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)this could be far more serious than you realize. She has a major problem here.
This reminds me of the worst of the Clinton years, where folks on the left were expected to run defense for the Clintons on all of their asinine fuck-ups (Lewinsky, Mark Rich, etc), while other issues took a back seat.
Sure the GOP put the country through impeachment, but imagine how much could have been accomplished had Bill kept his pants on in the first place.
This was stupid and inexcusable by Hillary, and simply posting a photo and saying "Look how how cool she is in sunglasses" doesn't take it off the table.
We seriously need another candidate, or it's going to be more of this kind of crap.
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)Not Warren, she has no interest in running
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Sheelanagig
(62 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Fucking awesome they are stooping to this level this early in the game. The smell of desperation is thick among the right and other trolls with this one.
Sheelanagig
(62 posts)it because it looks shady.
liberal N proud
(60,346 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And I don't usually rush to her defense. In fact, last night I thought this was bad news. I'm not so sure today.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Their level of mental gymnastics never ceases to amaze. BENGHAZI!!!!!!
WestSeattle2
(1,730 posts)one is, public records are owned by the public. No public business should be conducted "offline". I don't care if you're the A/P clerk at the local utility, Secretary of State, or President. I believe Ms. Palin was busted for similar actions. Did DU stand behind her as well?
BeyondGeography
(39,380 posts)Fair or not, at the end of the day, this kerfuffle will be spun as one set of rules for Hillary, another for the nobodies who are supposed to vote for her. If she and her team are smart, they'll come up with something better than, "Deal with it."
riversedge
(70,306 posts)come up with that?? Just curious.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Maybe not all the people she worked with at the State Department were trustworthy. Maybe she was quite aware that there were people on her staff who could get access to a State Department e-mail and who would use that access and her communications to undermine her as Secretary of State.
What do you think?
We know how the CIA works. So does she.
WestSeattle2
(1,730 posts)make public records secret. If something in an email is embarrassing or potentially embarrassing, pick up the phone. Most CEOs learned that lesson years ago, senior government officials should have as well.
My intent is not to sound snarky; it's the attitude that I find disturbing. Operating in secret leads to profound problems - and when the secrets are discovered, the cover-ups and lying start, inevitably turning minor events into major distractions.
History is replete with such events. Hillary is not stupid. This is what confounds me. Transparency should be a priority for her.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)WestSeattle2
(1,730 posts)believes in open government, in a transparent government accountable to the people, should be concerned about any government employee - at any level - conducting government business "offline".
If they don't want to be transparent and operate openly, than don't work in government. I'm not arguing for secrets to be displayed for all to see; public records can be stamped classified and/or redacted. But everything public employees do on the job, are public records. Gmail is not public.
William769
(55,148 posts)totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)the nomination she does need to be treated fairly and this is unfair.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)DU thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11071930#post1
Link to the Daily Beast
Well, this might be the explanation: The new regs apparently werent fully implemented by State until a year and half after Clinton left State. Heres the timeline: Clinton left the State Department on February 1, 2013. Back in 2011, President Obama had signed a memorandum directing the update of federal records management. But the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) didnt issue the relevant guidance, declaring that email records of senior government officials are permanent federal records, until August 2013. Then, in September 2013, NARA issued guidance on personal email use.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)From the second post:
' "Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them."
The article doesnt say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.
The bipartisan law was passed in response to the IRS scandal and the use of a private email account by Lois Lerner. Now, to be clear, this law isnt explicitly mentioned in the Times article (good job?), so its possible however unlikely another law is being referenced in the report.'
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/story-hillary-clintons-private-email-account-isnt-awful-seems/
ALBliberal
(2,344 posts)No one can say she is naive or ignorant (of her position's responsibilities). I feel confident she had a good reason for this and I believe President Obama signed off on the decision. I await her explanation. No I am not a huge Hillary fan. But I do believe she was a good SOS and she fulfilled her duties lawfully with concern for the country and her legacy.
tomsaiditagain
(105 posts)Now the right wing freaks on the tube and on the radio have something to whine about for another year. YES!!
SunSeeker
(51,715 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)bypasses any Legal Records Hold placed by the Administration in case of pending legal action.
For someone placed as highly as Secretary of State, this is highly problematic. To pretend that it is a minor infraction is to be purposely naive.
SunSeeker
(51,715 posts)Litigation holds are just as applicable to private email accounts. It is the sender/recipient and subject matter that governs whether the hold applies.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)If it's routine business, who cares.
If it was something she wanted off the record that should have been on the record, that's something else.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Because she never asked for, nor received, a government e-mail? Which, it is my understanding, is an exception to the rule that everyone else in government has to abide by?
But, I'm also to understand that she used a personal, unrecorded, email for *everything* while she was holding the very important office of Secretary of State?
Just keep her far away from the Presidency, is all I ask, folks. There are hordes of Democrats with better qualifications and less ethical issues than her.
Okay, so I read some more and I've found out that the law wasn't in place while she was Secretary of State. So, the "story" is that Hilary didn't comply with a future, yet to be maybe implemented, law. Jeeze.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-times-deceptive-suggestion-that-hi/202726
I still don't want her as President, though.
But, wait, again. Apparantly the NYT 'gotcha' story was trying to get her for the law that was passed after the left office, but since she was head of a department (The State Department) she was required by a 2012 law to keep those records public, and apparently she agrees since she is apparently in the process of releasing her personal emails from during that period of time.
http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/fed-agencies.html#unlawful
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)Where's the SARCASM emoticon?
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)c588415
(285 posts)c588415
(285 posts)Java
(82 posts)Email correspondence is to be done through government email accounts which offer both user authentication (to prevent spoofing), encryption (security), as well as archival tapes. Email used to communicate official business is considered to be Government records which are Government property and are subject to security screening procedures as well as being considered for Freedom of Information Act Requests.
By using her private email, Hillary's emails lacked authentication as well a encryption and were sent over relatively insecure networks.
I believe a court ordered search warrant authorizing record seizures of the email server which contains Hillary's account to be the proper legal procedure, as well as a forensic examination of hard drives to determine what emails (government records) have been destroyed. And whether or not proper procedures were followed with respect to destroying government documents.
This is not a partisan issue. This is a legal issue, and if Hillary gets a pass on this, then it will set a precedent for the next time the Republicans get control of the White House. Now...we certainly do not want to see that happen in the future, do we?
Laws and policies are to be obeyed by both sides, otherwise we end up with a very bad situation where politicization is transmitted throughout Government agencies, not to mention security breaches.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Besides, what she does in Gov. isn't any of the voting public's business.
Besides, cut her some slack, she's still getting used to the whole idea of the accountability to the public, not just rich people.
Besides, you can't hack those private yahoo accounts.
Besides, she'll do better as president.
polynomial
(750 posts)This way to the laughing place, or down the rabbit hole we go. Just the other day ABC news described the scandal about General Petraeus.
The new young news Journalist David Jason Muir coming across informing as a Murrow/ Cronkite formula of Thats the way it is like it or not.
ABC news is rewriting the absolute center piece of corruption in the Bush era war with profiteering and torture, mass murder by mercenaries totally under reported, now money making secrets shared with a whore, only one?
The Bush profiteering wars where Petraeus facilitated a least a two trillion dollar tax payer sink hole down played into a simple fine. This is insane and likely the reason we should talk about Hillarys emails.
In another time a general like Petraeus should be charged with treason facing the death penalty with a firing squad. Along with his whores.
I wonder what former governor Blagojevich thinks about that after sounding off in just telephone messages just talking about bribes, gets fourteen years in the slammer.
At least Blagojevich didnt create the inner product of so much culture of corruption that leads to veterans committing suicide at the rate of twenty two a day.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)'nuff said except for: READY for WARREN
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)dolphinsandtuna
(231 posts)According to the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/using-private-email-hillary-clinton-thwarted-record-requests.html
this regulation was in effect in 2009, and the result of Hill's not abiding by it was that freedom of information requests about her records most of the time came up empty.
Subsequently her staff has provided some emails to the feds for record searches, but, of course, besides a day late and a dollar short, who knows what they haven't provided, since unlike a government email account, the feds have no access to it unless they send the NSA after it.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)The NY Times piece quite plainly says:
"But since 2009, said Laura Diachenko, a National Archives and Records spokeswoman, federal regulations have stated that agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.
Heres the timeline: Clinton left the State Department on February 1, 2013. Back in 2011, President Obama had signed a memorandum directing the update of federal records management. But the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) didnt issue the relevant guidance, declaring that email records of senior government officials are permanent federal records, until August 2013. Then, in September 2013, NARA issued guidance on personal email use.
In October 2014, a Department-wide notice was sent out which explained each employees responsibilities for records management. Consistent with 2013 NARA guidance, it included instructions that generally employees should not use personal email for the transaction of government business, but that in the very limited circumstances when it is necessary, all records must be forwarded to a government account or otherwise preserved in the Departments electronic records systems.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/03/hillary-email-scandal-not-so-fast.html