PDA

View Full Version : Hillary Clinton: You've Got Mail



JAD_333
10 Mar 15,, 06:48
What's your opinion about Hillary using a private e-mail account when she was Secretary of State? Although much of the initial furor has died down, the issue is sure to crop up in attack ads during next year's presidential election campaign. Below are links to articles tracing the story's development.

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/hillary-clinton.jpg?quality=65&strip=color&w=1100

The story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/politics/as-hillary-clinton-stays-quiet-about-private-emails-republicans-seize-moment-to-criticize-her.html?_r=0

The issue:

Hillary Clinton Private Email: Obama Knew Address But Not Details (http://time.com/3738386/obama-hillary-emails/)

Republicans not terribly excited about it

Hillary Clinton emails: Some in GOP resist overreach - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-republican-overreach/)

Chairman says there are gaps in e-mail chain:

Republicans in Congress Focus on Possible Gaps in Clinton Emails (http://time.com/3737517/hillary-clinton-emails-congress/)

Democrat defend Clinton on partisan blog; he makes a point, but doesn't address gaps:

Hillary Email Scandal Falls Apart As Democrat Reveals The Contents Of Clinton Emails (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/08/hillary-email-scandal-evaporates-democrat-reveals-contents-clinton-emails.html)

astralis
10 Mar 15,, 14:34
politically speaking, tempest in a teapot. absent her talking classified on an unclassified system, no biggie...

JAD_333
10 Mar 15,, 21:05
Asty, tend to agree with you. It's more the appearance of the thing. And being a Clinton, well...

citanon
10 Mar 15,, 22:37
Its a serious matter if she does not meet federal record keeping requirements. Sets a very bad precedent that erodes transparency and congressional oversight.

Blademaster
10 Mar 15,, 22:41
If I ever become an elected official, I would stay away from emails because they are now permanent records and have the potential to come back and bite me in the ass. If I do not want any permanent recordings, I would use phone calls and if necessary make appearances in person and discuss but not on email or computerized records. On paper, I have the option of shredding a piece of paper after I am done with the piece of paper and it would be gone for good and not worrying about it coming back and biting me in the ass.

citanon
11 Mar 15,, 18:18
A Claim of No Classified Emails in a Place That Classifies Routinely (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/no-classified-emails-by-clinton-some-experts-are-skeptical.html?_r=0)


WASHINGTON — Anyone who has tried to pry information from the federal government may have been surprised on Tuesday by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertion that in all her emails in four years as secretary of state, she never strayed into the classified realm.

After all, a consensus among Republicans and Democrats for many years has been that the government routinely overclassifies information, reflexively stamping “secret” on mountains of documents with marginally sensitive content. The government classified more than 80 million documents in 2013, according to the Information Security Oversight Office, which publishes an annual count.

“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference on Tuesday at the United Nations. “I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

But some secrecy experts and former government officials on Tuesday were skeptical, noting the interesting turnabout that had a former top official insisting, for once, that none of her exchanges were secret......

Fortunately, she has an out:


But Mr. Aftergood also noted that as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton was the top classification authority for the entire State Department, with broad discretion to determine which department documents were classified and which were not. “There’s zero chance that she’ll be charged with unauthorized retention of classified information, because she decides what’s classified,” he said.

Hillary's face: :biggrin:

JAD_333
11 Mar 15,, 19:33
The reasoning behind saving emails as part of official records is sound. It's the people using emails to communicate that have to learn to use the medium correctly, and they haven't yet, so it seems. People put stuff in emails they would never put on letterhead paper over their signature and send thru the mail or via interoffice delivery systems. If people understood emails are the same thing, they'd be more careful. The electronic world hasn't quite caught to the old culture of the paper world yet, but it will.

The real issue here is not content but process. Hillary's private email system allowed her to sequester her communications apart from State Dept records. That would be fine if she used it only for personal matters. If she used it also to discuss job-related matters, well then things get iffy, even if none of it was classified. It's the fact she had a private side channel that raises questions, not so much what she discussed.

Blade is right. If you want your communication to evaporate legally, do it verbally without recording devices either by phone or in person. Sometimes even those kinds of communication make it it into the official records. I know at DoD we sometimes did memos for the record after speaking to someone, but only to recall details we needed to do our job. Nixon, of course, secretly recorded phone calls. Ironically, that was illegal.

JAD_333
11 Mar 15,, 19:42
Filler news.

Hillary Clinton Email Mystery Man: What We Know About Eric Hoteham - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-email-mystery-man-eric-hoteham/story?id=29413827)

Wooglin
11 Mar 15,, 23:10
Its a serious matter if she does not meet federal record keeping requirements. Sets a very bad precedent that erodes transparency and congressional oversight.

This.

If there's no government email being archived then there's nothing to produce when the FOIA request comes in.

astralis
12 Mar 15,, 02:31
possibly quibbling, but that's not the most serious issue. plenty of other officials have done the same.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/235288-hagel-used-personal-email-on-the-job-report-says

most serious issue, given Clinton's numerous e-mails, is the possibility of classified on an unclass e-mail.

after all, AP didn't need no steenkin' FOIA request to do this:

AP sues State Dept. over Clinton e-mails (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/03/11/ap-files-lawsuit-to-force-clinton-email-release/70151508/)

JAD_333
12 Mar 15,, 03:02
Everyone backing Hillary is looking for other officials who had private email accounts.

We should be clear that this isn't about having a private email account, but about using it to discuss official matters.

Hillary deleted 20k some message she deemed personal and turned over 30k plus to the State Dept. I'll take her at her word that she didn't delete any official emails.

The AP is suing State for failing to respond to its FOIA requests, which so far have gone unanswered for 10 times the usual FOIA wait period at Treasury and CIA. If this is a molehill, someone is turning it into a mountain, doing Hillary a disservice.

I'm sure she wouldn't do anything to damage nat'l security, but come on let's air this thing out and set up some policy to avoid it happening again.

citanon
12 Mar 15,, 05:16
Hillary deleted 20k some message she deemed personal and turned over 30k plus to the State Dept. I'll take her at her word that she didn't delete any official emails.


:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::bigg rin::biggrin:

Shinytop
12 Mar 15,, 07:19
This brouhaha is only an issue because we believe HC is going to run for the presidency. The president is the leader of the country. While she was transacting official business on a private email server she was the leader of the State Department. One of the expected behaviors of leaders is to set the example in following rules. I would prefer a leader who knows what leadership means. In the Army I used to call these type of leaders Imperial Leaders. Those who are more knowledgeable of the privileges of rank than the responsibilities.

Wooglin
12 Mar 15,, 07:31
possibly quibbling, but that's not the most serious issue. plenty of other officials have done the same.

Hagel used personal email on the job | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/235288-hagel-used-personal-email-on-the-job-report-says)

most serious issue, given Clinton's numerous e-mails, is the possibility of classified on an unclass e-mail.

after all, AP didn't need no steenkin' FOIA request to do this:

AP sues State Dept. over Clinton e-mails (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/03/11/ap-files-lawsuit-to-force-clinton-email-release/70151508/)

From your link...


The Associated Press said Wednesday it has sued the State Department to force the release of government documents and e-mails from Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of State, an action taken a day after she defended her use of a private e-mail account to conduct business and after six formal attempts by the news agency to obtain records.


Filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the complaint says "AP seeks the records in question from the State Department to inform citizens both regarding the operation of their government and regarding Secretary Clinton's official actions as Secretary of State."

Beginning in 2010, AP filed six requests under FOIA to obtain records from the State Department[/B] regarding Clinton's tenure as secretary, including her calendars and schedules and records concerning the designation of Special Government Employee status given to her former deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin.


Since the first FOIA request was submitted, the State Department "has failed to respond substantively to five of the requests, and has only partially responded to one request" related to BAE Systems, according to the complaint

You should read your own source.

astralis
12 Mar 15,, 14:30
indeed. AP didn't get the e-mails via FOIA request, they are going to get it because they sued and won under the FOIA.

tuna
12 Mar 15,, 15:21
Standard Clinton scenario. Do something "not quite right", lie and make the deal even bigger, rely on the American people being as stupid as you thought.

Private emails - not that big a deal, but her lies to cover what could have been just a minor story have promoted this into a huge deal. This would have been the time to use the phrase "What difference does it make?" Assuming of course, that she gave up all her govt emails (which I doubt, but that is another issue).

This is like Bill smoking weed but not inhaling, then WHAT WERE YOU DOING? Say you smoked, don't anymore and be done! No one cares!
Bill didn't have sex with Lewinski, it was just a BJ. REALLY??? You think anyone (besides the American citizen) believes that? Just show a picture of Hillary and ask if we want to see a naked one - you're forgiven. Her naked is a reason to do weed - but no, you lie and insult our intelligence.

I have better reasons to dislike Hillary, and her husband, but no one wants to listen to REAL ISSUES, when we can make up crap about a stupid email.

Wooglin
12 Mar 15,, 15:39
indeed. AP didn't get the e-mails via FOIA request, they are going to get it because they sued and won under the FOIA.

Thus, my point. The State Department could not produce emails they don't have because she used a personal email and deleted over 30,000 of them. It's FOIA subversion.

Triple C
12 Mar 15,, 23:27
Mrs. Clinton is close to being a septuagenarian. My parents are nobody important and I can't convince them to follow any of my internet safety suggestions. Frankly the thought of so many technologically ill-informed people in positions of power who cannot be bothered to listen to policy guideline (which are no doubt repeated ad nauseum in State) on security protocols frightens me.

zraver
13 Mar 15,, 04:37
1. State Department guidelines required that any records deemed by the employee as personal be reviewed and approved as such. She did not do this.

2. Her personal email is an affront to FOIA.

3. She destroyed/ refuses to turn over 30,000ish emails that have not been cleared as personal as required.

4. She did government business on a less than secure server and account.

Officer of Engineers
13 Mar 15,, 05:56
4. She did government business on a less than secure server and account.To be fair, 99.9% of government bussiness including SECSTATE deals with non-class materials. Security ain't a matter on these issues. Do we really to know that Hillary asked the staff down two doors to bring donuts?

citanon
13 Mar 15,, 06:16
To be fair, 99.9% of government bussiness including SECSTATE deals with non-class materials. Security ain't a matter on these issues. Do we really to know that Hillary asked the staff down two doors to bring donuts?

Even if it's indeed 0.1% that would be dozens of classified emails. If it was, say, 1%, it would be hundreds.

Officer of Engineers
13 Mar 15,, 06:54
Even if it's indeed 0.1% that would be dozens of classified emails. If it was, say, 1%, it would be hundreds.I ain't spending $500,000 to protect/determine $200 of data.

Besides, 24-10 criteria rules. Can the material affect the outcome within the next 24 hours? If yes, spend 10 minutes to really collober it up. If not, send it through regardless.

The thing to judge is the attachements. Extremely few one page emails break the 24-10 rule

Triple C
13 Mar 15,, 08:32
4. She did government business on a less than secure server and account.

Z,
My problem is that any ordinary employee of government or public servant working on sensitive information and did this would be finished. This is something that she must have been briefed on repeatedly.

Doktor
13 Mar 15,, 10:39
To be fair, 99.9% of government bussiness including SECSTATE deals with non-class materials. Security ain't a matter on these issues. Do we really to know that Hillary asked the staff down two doors to bring donuts?

Is it a government biz?

I understand that the donuts were freaking delicious and that the fate of someone depended on them being delivered at once, but seriously, is it worth the e-mail when you can shout to your second deputy assistant :) ?

citanon
13 Mar 15,, 11:22
I ain't spending $500,000 to protect/determine $200 of data.

Besides, 24-10 criteria rules. Can the material affect the outcome within the next 24 hours? If yes, spend 10 minutes to really collober it up. If not, send it through regardless.

The thing to judge is the attachements. Extremely few one page emails break the 24-10 rule

Sir that is for a military operation. A single missive from the sec state could reveal all manners of useful strategic information, such as intent, mentality, and objectives, which could give adversaries a vital advantage. Imagine if we could read sergey Lavrov's private notes. Could that help us manage the Russian situation?

Fine, Hillary gets a get out of jail free card on this aspect of the controversy because she's the one who got to decide what was and wasn't classified. But she should not be left off the hook so easily for the other issues of accountability and transparency. Senior government officials willfully ignoring the rules and hiding public record in private vaults is not something Americans ignore,not unless we want to become more like Putin's Russia.

And then there's the reason she gave: convenience. For convenience's sake she did something that would get more junior officials prosecuted and thought nothing about it. Does the flippancy of this excuse give her cover, or does it only highlight the callousness and arrogance of power?

tuna
13 Mar 15,, 15:16
If any SECSTATE is sending classifeid emails on an unclassifed system, that is a problem - period. It doesn't matter if she is using a .com or .gov email. The "secure" government email is only suitible to protect PII and FOUO. If she is sending anything real classified, it needs to be on a classified server - and if anyone in the government is getting classified emails on their unclassified systems they are just as wrong for not reporting it.

If Hillary is sending FOUO material that isn't properly protected, "what difference does it make"? If she's sending secret documents, then it should be Leavenworth time, for her and whoever got the email and didn't say, "Whoa, stop the presses, take the server offline, we've got a problem here!"

zraver
13 Mar 15,, 15:27
To be fair, 99.9% of government bussiness including SECSTATE deals with non-class materials. Security ain't a matter on these issues. Do we really to know that Hillary asked the staff down two doors to bring donuts?

Sir, the more unsecure business (government or personal) she did, the bigger the chance a hacker gets the account. The risks to the secure data go up with each request for donuts, text to friends about the grandbaby etc.

Albany Rifles
13 Mar 15,, 16:49
Z,
My problem is that any ordinary employee of government or public servant working on sensitive information and did this would be finished. This is something that she must have been briefed on repeatedly.

Don't bet on it.

Mandatory training for US Government employees is uneven at best.

Each Department has their own standards. They just have to be IAW FISMA and CIPSEA....and all are open to interpretation.

I can show you 2 different FY 15 Online Security courses....from 2 different Army commands...which contradict each other.

And the standards at the SES level, especially the political appointee SES level.....please!

Triple C
13 Mar 15,, 16:57
Looks like there's a big ragged hole where a SOP should be.

astralis
13 Mar 15,, 18:22
it's really too difficult for such an overarching SOP, though.

for instance, if I go to a certain East Asian country, I will not bring my electronics. how then do I send official written notifications home? I log into a gmail account...

Triple C
13 Mar 15,, 20:01
A four letter name starting with a C?

tuna
13 Mar 15,, 20:58
^^^

Reminds me of the old joke:

A bishop and a rabbi are sitting on a train, the bishop is doing a crossword puzzle.
He looks over at the rabbi and asks, "What's a four letter word for woman, ending in 'nt"?
The rabbi doesn't even look up from his paperback, "Aunt".
The bishop says, "Of course! Do you have an eraser?"

JAD_333
14 Mar 15,, 00:03
Tuna is right. This wouldn't be as a big deal if Hillary weren't a presumptive candidate for president. To be honest, speaking as a Republican, a hit on Hillary is okay with me. We didn't plan this. In fact, behind the scenes, it's likely Republican planners admitted as much to each other--no big deal, but we're not coming to the rescue.

But since we're among friends here, I have to admit the MSM and the attack dogs are overdoing it, particularly the security aspect. I am only speaking in Hillary's case. As Secretary of State she surely had a good sense of what was and what was not too sensitive for private email. The top dog always does. So secrets were probably not revealed. I suspect she just wanted to vent in private on personalities and freely use expletives without having them show up later in the official record.

So, what does State do? I can certainly see State looking over the emails she has so far released to them and saying we can't put this stream of consciousness out. Maybe they want to stonewall until after next year's election. What excuse can they make? If they use the national security dodge, they would be in effect saying what she did was definitely illegal, and the longer they stall, the more people will suspect that is the case.

She's not helping herself at all the way she's handling this thing. Holding back 20k+ emails because they contain personal info doesn't mean they also didn't non-personal information. So there's a black hole. And giving all the rest to State to vet for security' sake is almost like saying there may have been classified info in them. She might have been better off just saying it was a personal email account and there's nothing classified in them, which is the same right everyone has. Even a top dog has some right to privacy.

Sitting Bull
14 Mar 15,, 02:34
If the Republicans push this too far they run the risk of having one of their own shoot themselves in the foot in the same way. Outside of political circles I don't see the issue making that much of a ripple, particularly in a country where it's common knowledge that the state eavesdrops on e-mails.

gf0012-aust
14 Mar 15,, 10:06
the volume and content of the emails is garnering all the attention - but the main issue is about her mail server, its administration, how a single server was structured to be the same gateway for different levels of classified material - and more importantly, the bearer path

from a security and forensic perspective, the email content is just fluff as its visible evidence, its the other issues above which hold more weight if anyone is looking at running a proper investigation

if you are going to issue subpoenas and/or warrants for anything it would be against the server manager, server administrators and IT companies that built and maintained the platforms and associated supporting footprints. (you'd also be seizing far more than the server)

some of the public media commentary demonstrates that they either are clueless re the actual security issues or they're just in for the noisemaking ride. This is an iceberg issue, and focussing on the visible bit of the iceberg (email content) seems to me to indicate that this is more sideshow fury rather than seriously addressing the fundamentals

from a security perspective, I'd be ripping the wings off a lot of people in the delivery chain below her. from a security perspective, its borderline appalling. a lot of people in State are culpable in this as well

Triple C
14 Mar 15,, 11:01
^^^

Reminds me of the old joke:

A bishop and a rabbi are sitting on a train, the bishop is doing a crossword puzzle.
He looks over at the rabbi and asks, "What's a four letter word for woman, ending in 'nt"?
The rabbi doesn't even look up from his paperback, "Aunt".
The bishop says, "Of course! Do you have an eraser?"

Name of an East Asian country, tuna! That said, the C word is the second oldest vulgarity on the book. :-P Baaack on subject.

citanon
15 Mar 15,, 05:23
Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton (http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/obama-adviser-behind-leak-of-hillary-clintons-e-mail-scandal/)

the connivery thickens like delicious barbeque glaze. :biggrin:

Wooglin
15 Mar 15,, 18:38
As I've been saying...

FOIA Expert: Hillary's Email Justification Is 'Laughable' | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/thats-hill-arious-foia-expert-says-clintons-email-justification-is-laughable/)

An expert on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is calling Hillary Clinton’s assurances about her use of a private email account “laughable.”

“There is no doubt that the scheme she established was a blatant circumvention of the Freedom of Information Act, atop the Federal Records Act,” Daniel Metcalfe told The Canadian Press.

Metcalfe is currently a professor at American University. Prior to that he served in the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy from 1981 to 2007 where he helped federal agencies understand and comply with FOIA regulations.

“What she did was contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the law,” Metcalfe said.

Besides using only a private email address, Clinton also used a private server registered to her Chappaqua, N.Y. home.

By having sole access to her emails, Clinton was able to avoid providing the records to FOIA requests. She also said Tuesday that she deleted more than 30,000 emails she claims were related to her personal life.

At least six FOIA requests were filed for records pertaining to Clinton’s emails or to any alias email accounts she may have operated.

But those were unfilled. While the State Department has failed to respond to some of the requests — something that the Associated Press is suing over — it has also completely rejected others claiming that no records could be found.

Those rejections should not have happened. Emails pertaining to official business must be turned over through FOIA even if sent through a private email account. Clinton only made her emails available to the State Department in December, nearly two years after she left office.

“You can’t have the secretary of state do that; that’s just a prescription for the circumvention of the FOIA,” Metcalfe told The Canadian Press. “Plus, fundamentally, there’s no way the people at the archives should permit that if you tell them over there.”

Clinton defended her use of the private account and her failure to convert her emails into records available to FOIA by claiming that a majority of them would have been archived as records because they were sent to others in the State Department or at outside federal agencies.

But that is a dodgy response, many have noted. It does not answer the question of how Clinton’s official emails to non-governmental employees — private corporations, her charity foundation, Bill Clinton, outside advisers — would have been captured.

Asked how he would have responded upon hearing that a federal official had set up a private email account while commandeering sole control over whether they would be turned over or deleted, Metcalfe told CBC, “I would’ve said, ‘You’ve gotta be kidding me.’”

“Her suggestion that government employees can unilaterally determine which of their records are personal and which are official, even in the face of a FOIA request, is laughable.”

Wooglin
15 Mar 15,, 18:54
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

Federal Records

There was not an explicit, categorical prohibition against federal employees using personal emails when Clinton was in office, said Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, where he administered implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. High-level officials like Clinton need the flexibility to sometimes use a personal email, such as responding to a national security emergency in the middle of the night.

So it seems she didn’t break a rule simply by using a personal email to conduct business. Rather, by using personal emails exclusively, she skirted the rules governing federal records management, Cox said.

A federal record is any documentary material, regardless of physical form, made or received by a government agency, according to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which oversees federal recordkeeping. Records are preserved as evidence of the agencies’ activities, decisions and procedures. Each agency is responsible for maintaining its records in accordance with regulations.

It would have been a violation of the NARA's rules in the Code of Federal Regulations for Clinton to use personal email exclusively, Metcalfe said. The code requires federal agencies to make and preserve records that duly document agency activity, so that they are readily available when needed -- such as for FOIA requests or congressional inquiries. Using personal email exclusively is contrary to proper record preservation.

"Anyone at NARA would have said you can’t use a personal email account for all of your official business," said Metcalfe, who held his position in part during former President Bill Clinton’s administration.

Had Clinton used a @state.gov email address, every email sent and received would have been archived in the State Department system. Clinton, who served from 2009 to 2013, has argued that her emails were archived in the system because she was in the habit of sending them to other government employees with .gov email addresses.

However, experts said this defense is insufficient. Under this practice, the State Department records management system would have captured emails from Clinton to a State Department employee, but it would not necessarily capture emails from Clinton to government employees in other departments or non-government employees, said John Wonderlich, policy director for the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for government transparency.

Although they may contain the same individual emails, Clinton’s outbox and other employees’ inboxes are considered two separate records, which is important for locating the records in response to specific requests.

For example, even if Clinton had sent every email to individuals with state.gov or other federal agency addresses, that procedure would hamper State Department compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests for Clinton’s emails, said David Sobel, who directs a FOIA project at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital freedom advocacy group. It would not be apparent to agency personnel conducting the search that they would need to search the accounts of myriad employees to locate all of Clinton's emails, he said.

"In fact, State likely would have argued that it would be unreasonable to conduct such a far-reaching search," Sobel said.

In 2013, Gawker filed a FOIA request to the State Department for emails between Clinton and long-time adviser Sid Blumenthal after a hacker had revealed emails that Blumenthal sent Clinton. Although the emails were already known to the public, the State Department told Gawker that no such correspondence existed. Gawker believes this shows that Clinton was able to use her personal email to thwart the FOIA process.

"Using a personal email account exclusively is a potent prescription for flouting the Federal Records Act and circumventing the Freedom of Information Act," Metcalfe said. "And there can be little doubt that Clinton knew this full well."

In response to a State Department request last year, Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of emails and documents from her private email server, leaving out emails and documents that she said were of a personal nature, like wedding and funeral plans. She later said she deleted these personal emails.

Cox said the fact that Clinton’s staff -- rather than a State Department federal records officer -- chose which emails to destroy is "honestly breathtaking." Her private employees don’t have the authority to decide what does or doesn’t count as a federal record. Further, when she was making these choices, she was acting as a private citizen, not a government employee.

In Clinton’s defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.

Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.

"Unless she violated a rule dealing with the handling of classified or sensitive but unclassified information, I don’t see how she violated any law or regulation," said Bass, who is now executive director of the Bauman Foundation. "There may be a stronger argument about violating the spirit of the law, but that is a very vague area."

Security

Whether or not Clinton’s email address complied with security regulations is a harder question. Clinton argues that she never emailed classified information, instead using other secure methods of communication approved by the State Department.

However, in 2005 (before Clinton took office), a State Department manual said information that is "sensitive but unclassified" -- a broad category that covers anything from meeting schedules, to visa applications, to ordinary emails to other federal agencies -- should be emailed through servers authorized by the department.

We also don’t know if the State Department had signed off on Clinton’s private server or if the server met government security standards, though the State Department was aware of the server. At the press conference, Clinton said the server was set up for former President Bill Clinton’s office and that it had "numerous safeguards."

The State Department has said there is no indication her account was breached.

"Her assurance that there was no security breach is an empty assurance, because there’s no way to know that for sure," Wonderlich said.

As we found in a prior fact-check, Clinton’s office sent a memo in 2011 to State Department staff that said they should not use personal email accounts for department business. The memo went to diplomatic and consular staff worldwide in response to a warning from Google that hackers had targeted the Gmail addresses of government workers. While the memo encouraged staffers to avoid using personal email accounts, it fell short of prohibiting their use.

In sum, Clinton’s exclusive use of private email makes it difficult to know with certainty whether she complied with rules governing transparency, recordkeeping and security. We may never know what emails she deleted. Additionally, we may never know the details of her conversations with the State Department officials who briefed her on records management and security, and why they agreed to let her use a private email exclusively.

Metcalfe pointed to Clinton’s use of the word "allowed" and "opted" throughout her press conference, when referring to her decision to use private email. He said both words give the false impression that the law and its proper implementation presented her with a choice. She might have been "allowed" to use only a private email account in that no one stopped her, Metcalfe said, but that’s not the same thing as lawfully complying with rules.

Blademaster
15 Mar 15,, 19:07
Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton (http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/obama-adviser-behind-leak-of-hillary-clintons-e-mail-scandal/)

the connivery thickens like delicious barbeque glaze. :biggrin:

Probably payback for the judas thing pulled off by former SecDef Panetta criticizing Obama in Syria and Iraq which was sanctioned by Hillary and her gang.

JAD_333
15 Mar 15,, 19:23
As I've been saying...

FOIA Expert: Hillary's Email Justification Is 'Laughable' | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/thats-hill-arious-foia-expert-says-clintons-email-justification-is-laughable/)

An expert on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is calling Hillary Clinton’s assurances about her use of a private email account “laughable.”

“There is no doubt that the scheme she established was a blatant circumvention of the Freedom of Information Act, atop the Federal Records Act,” Daniel Metcalfe told The Canadian Press.

Not to defend Hillary here, but Metcalfe cannot possibly know what her motivation was for setting up the private email account. It might have begun as a way for her to communicate personal matters so they wouldn't be captured by the official email system and morphed into a way to communicate job-related comments. We just don't know.

While Metcalfe may be right, he'll need a smoking gun to prove it.

The FOIA request delays are more serious than her motivation. Up to now she has maintained that her emails do not include classified info. The only way to prove that and lift black cloud of suspicion is by honoring the FOIA request. State's stonewalling may be an attempt to avoid revealing that some of her emails did indeed contain classified or sensitive information, in which case Hillary would truly be in legal hot water. Another reason State be stalling is that the emails contain harsh language about certain people that would embarrass her and the US.

Hillary keeps digging a hole for herself. State is too. What State should do is cull out any emails it believes would be detrimental to the US and stand on that reasoning to deny the FOIA request and release the rest. That is a perfectly reasonable response. FOIA is not meant to be an open track for discovery of everything communicated within government. Most FOIA requests deal with documents about matters that are no longer current. The government is not obligated to provided everything requested, but must cite a reason when a request is denied. The problem here is that State is well past the timeframe allowed for denying or fulfilling requests.

IMO we should not wholesale release her emails if they contain compromising information. We don't want another Snowden/Manning moment.

Albany Rifles
15 Mar 15,, 21:31
As governor, Jeb Bush used e-mail to discuss security, troop deployments - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-governor-jeb-bush-used-e-mail-to-discuss-security-troop-movements/2015/03/14/0d7fae16-ca49-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html)

Just sayin'....

This was a common practice by many politicians until last few years when the laws changed.

Remember, bad practicies are not illegal.

That said, I'd rather to see the shortfalls mentioned than to look to the "leaders" as mentioend in the following editorial.

It's 2015 for crissakes!!!!


Offline and out of touch in the Senate - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/offline-and-out-of-touch-in-the-senate/2015/03/12/d2509956-c8f2-11e4-aa1a-86135599fb0f_story.html)

JAD_333
15 Mar 15,, 22:24
I love the way the technical elite criticize old fogies for not using e-mail. E-mail isn't always the best way to communicate; telephone is far better. Nuanced communication is difficult in e-mails. And e-mailers tend not to think things through. You write it,you send it, and lt's gone. With a letter or a phone call you can elaborate or take a second crack at it.

Anyway, all these revelations about other officials having private e-mail accounts are beside the point. It's not having an account that matters, but about the legality of using it for job-related communications.

All the rest is conjecture. Most of the technical and legal experts weighing in on the issue are talking out of their ass. They have no clue about the different levels of communication between officials and their confidants, or the need for this informal chatter. To know what I mean all one has to do is join the embassy and private cocktail party circuit in DC and listen to the chatter (if you can). Even better are internal gossip and closed-door meetings within departments and agencies. Let the media try to find out what's being said, but they have zero right to know.

E-mail came along as another way of engaging in let-your-hair down chatter. Now we're seeing it morph into something sinister. Well, I suppose we had to go through this soul-searching phase about whether e-mail is a good way to do this. Apparently, it isn't; so back to the telephone, private written notes, and face to face chats. Let the media try to get those through FOIA.

gf0012-aust
16 Mar 15,, 05:33
I love the way the technical elite criticize old fogies for not using e-mail. E-mail isn't always the best way to communicate; telephone is far better.

VOIP and ROIP are being recorded as well on the higher networks

I'm just gobsmacked that any material related to your duties is allowed to be carried on private email. that is an absolute no-no in a number of countries

the press still can't see the forest for the trees. this is way beyond an issue of content

Julie
23 Mar 15,, 04:27
Ahem, from a woman's perspective, there was no way Hillary could have communications with her personal aide Huma, and turn that over for review. I mean really. Weiner, the scandalous and embarrassing husband. Huma paid as a full-time government employee while still a full-time employee at a consulting firm. Speaking of which, has anyone seen Weiner accompany his wife to any events the last 9 months, or even been seen in public? No, cuz he is now an official house bitch and probably wont see the sun for years to come.

If Hillary was to turn over all the cover-up baggage for review and public scrutiny, she would be dead in the water by the primaries.

Nixon is probably rolling over in his grave by now. Must be nice to be above the law.

JAD_333
23 Mar 15,, 05:07
Julie, Weiner is apparently quite active and yes he and Huma have been seen out on the town for dinner and at weddings. He does op eds now and then for local papers and is trying to open a healthy foods restaurant. But that aside, your point is well taken. Hillary is not going to let her emails to Huma go public. Decent of Hillary not to toss her out when her husband's naughty Tweets went public, and for her to stick by her husband is commendable.

astralis
23 Mar 15,, 15:21
also given the fact that Republican oppos don't seem to be going crazy right now, this would indicate that there's really not a lot of meat to be found here. there was a half-hearted attempt to link this to Benghazi but her e-mails on the subject were duly turned over...no surprises.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/us/politics/in-clinton-emails-on-benghazi-a-rare-glimpse-at-her-concerns.html

JAD_333
23 Mar 15,, 15:40
yeah, this affair mostly serves as a cautionary tale in how to handle off-the-grid e-mails. Back to the good old telephone where conversations evaporate into thin air legally.

Still, this episode will be added to the list of Hillary 'lies' whether deserved or not, creating a nugget of doubt in some voters' minds.

zraver
24 Mar 15,, 14:00
also given the fact that Republican oppos don't seem to be going crazy right now, this would indicate that there's really not a lot of meat to be found here. there was a half-hearted attempt to link this to Benghazi but her e-mails on the subject were duly turned over...no surprises.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/us/politics/in-clinton-emails-on-benghazi-a-rare-glimpse-at-her-concerns.html

Actually the fact there is not a lot of meat to found is an indictment of her. Anticipatory obstruction of Justice... really hope she gets hammered by Congress even though the Justice Department will quash any actions by US Attorneys to bring criminal charges on what would be an open and shut case.

Albany Rifles
24 Mar 15,, 16:30
Anticipatory obstruction of Justice....really?


Direct quote:

Prosecutors charging violations of Section 1519 must still establish both of the following:

The accused knowingly directed the obstructive act to affect an issue or matter within the jurisdiction of any U.S. department or agency.

The accused acted at least “in relation to” or “in contemplation’” of such issue or matter.


Good luck with that.

A conviction of treason is easier to find.

Julie
25 Apr 15,, 20:13
Now for Russia and the Uranium issue....hmmm....Benghazi may look like a Sunday picnic compared to what was really on those personal e-mails.

citanon
26 Apr 15,, 00:04
over $100 million for Bill Clinton in "speaking fees" since 2001. fees doubling and tripling since Hillary became sec state. just beyond the pale. the Clinton's are out doing the PRC leadership in questionable business and personal transactions.

DOR
26 Apr 15,, 05:20
Benghazi is code for birther . . . the longer the right wing nuts stay focused on that issue, the less time HRC and her team will have to spend on countering any meaningful opposition.

JAD_333
26 Apr 15,, 05:28
It's all appearances, but they count for a lot in politics. Looks like another email fiasco brewing now with Russians hacking into Obama's unclassified emails.

Dor, Benghazi is not another code word for birther. It's a legitimate issue for Congressional investigation, perhaps overworked, but that's politics. Congress never took up the birther issue. Besides if the shoe was on the other foot, the Dems would have milked Benghazi for all it was worth.

Julie
26 Apr 15,, 05:42
There is a term "conflict of interest," and laws in effect to avoid such conflicts of interest. Many potential candidates have removed themselves from Boards of companies because it is a "conflict of interest" to remain in such positions with those companies, while seeking office. The position of Secretary of State is a high position, and it seems that the Clintons carried on with business as usual. Now either the Clintons are complete idiots in believing they had done nothing wrong, or they believe they are above the law.

Senator Mendez in New Jersey has just been indicted for about the same in comparison. The Governor in Virginia was prosecuted for less.

Am I wrong?

citanon
26 Apr 15,, 05:48
It's all appearances, but they count for a lot in politics. Looks like another email fiasco brewing now with Russians hacking into Obama's unclassified emails.

Dor, Benghazi is not another code word for birther. It's a legitimate issue for Congressional investigation, perhaps overworked, but that's politics. Congress never took up the birther issue. Besides if the shoe was on the other foot, the Dems would have milked Benghazi for all it was worth.

JAD, all appearances, seriously? A $500,000 speech in Moscow?

Let's think about it this way. IF this wasn't Bill and Hillary Clinton, and was instead Senator Menendez, how many years and how many counts do you think the DA will be going for?

citanon
26 Apr 15,, 05:53
Senator Mendez in New Jersey has just been indicted for about the same in comparison. The Governor in Virginia was prosecuted for less.

Am I wrong?

Julie, my thoughts exactly. Menendez was indited for a few million worth of campaign contributions to help his friend import girlfriends from South America. Clinton has $100 million dollars for, among other things, helping the Russian government buy up control to 20% of US uranium mining. Not even to CGI, which got much, much more. $100 million for Bill directly.

It's not a bribe if he gives a speech.... sure.

Julie
26 Apr 15,, 06:09
Lots o smoke and the fire would be in those e-mails. 3-1 nothing happens about it. They should subpoena Bill's e-mails. ;)

citanon
26 Apr 15,, 06:57
Lots o smoke and the fire would be in those e-mails. 3-1 nothing happens about it. They should subpoena Bill's e-mails. ;)

Even if emails were incriminating as hell, I would be surprised if charges are filed. For Bill and Hillary it's plausible deniability while in office, plausible legality while out of office. :)

Julie
26 Apr 15,, 07:02
So that reset button Hillary had in her hand costed us $100 million. Wonderful. She is a champion alright.

DOR
27 Apr 15,, 05:17
JAD_333,

Actually, Benghazi reminds me more of Whitewater than the birther nonsense. It has the same, “first investigation came up with nothing; launch a second one, and then a third until we find something . . . anything!” feel to it.

And, no, Democrats don’t play games with national security to win partisan political points. We’re not GOPers.

= = = = =

citanon,

I have been personally involved in organizing conferences with extremely high profile speakers. US$500,000 for a former US president is not out of line.

Julie
27 Apr 15,, 05:25
JAD_333,

Actually, Benghazi reminds me more of Whitewater than the birther nonsense. It has the same, “first investigation came up with nothing; launch a second one, and then a third until we find something . . . anything!” feel to it.

And, no, Democrats don’t play games with national security to win partisan political points. We’re not GOPers.

= = = = =

citanon,

I have been personally involved in organizing conferences with extremely high profile speakers. US$500,000 for a former US president is not out of line.I would say the Secretary of State making a kickback deal with Uranium, with of all people, RUSSIA, IS a dangerous game with national security. But, you just hold that thought, and we will bump this thread later when it sticks.

OOE2_test
27 Apr 15,, 19:00
And, no, Democrats don’t play games with national security to win partisan political points. We’re not GOPers.Kosovo War.

An irresponsible war started by an irressponsible SECSTATE, sanctioned by a desparate POTUS trying to distract from his Monica affairs, commanded by an irresponsible General appointed by that very same POTUS, who issued an irresponsbile command that nearly started WWIII.

Reference: General Wesley Clark's order to British General Jackson to take Pristina Airport away from the Russians - with force if need be.

OOE2_test
28 Apr 15,, 00:40
What's more, the fuck ran for President under the Democrats!

Julie
28 Apr 15,, 02:59
DOR:

Bill Clinton is a high profile figure, BUT the amount he was paid for the Moscow speech was 5 times more than his usual and/or normal speeking fee.

DOR
28 Apr 15,, 03:43
Here’s what I gather are the accusations:

State Department approval was required for foreign investment in a uranium company. People involved made donations to the Clinton Foundation. Therefore, ipso facto, Hillary personally profited from a decision she made in her capacity as Secretary of State.

What’s the Washington Post say about this one? “What’s the evidence for that allegation? There isn’t any, at least not yet. Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn’t have been possible for her to do it on her own.” [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/27/back-to-basic-facts-in-latest-hillary-clinton-scandal-story/]

.

Next up, Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, serves on the board (actually, an “advisory board,” as per the WaPo below)of a mining company that scored a coveted and lucrative “gold exploitation permit” in Haiti. The US government was pouring money into Haiti in the aftermath of its devastating earthquake. Therefore, ipso facto, Hillary’s personal decision to provide aide to Haiti was solely based on her brother receiving a mining license.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/role-of-hillary-clintons-brother-in-haiti-gold-mine-raises-eyebrows/2015/03/20/c8b6e3bc-cc05-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html

= = = = =

OOE2_test,

From what I read (I wasn’t there, unlike some people), The Kosovo Liberation Army ramped up its attacks in 1995-97. Albania collapsed in early 1997, which opened up access to large amounts of military weapons.

The Lewinsky scandal broke in January 1998, but wasn’t big news for several months.

= = = = =

Julie,

Nah, no more that 50% higher. I've talked to people who negotiated for his services for other events.

Julie
28 Apr 15,, 03:58
The fact the Clinton Foundation is now spontaneously filing amended returns for the last 5 years because they made some "errors" in reporting foreign donations together with government grants. That, to me, is like getting caught with your pants down and scurrying around trying to pull them back up. Lots of smoke but no fire? All circumstancial. Maybe.

It's just a bit too coinky dinky to me, and a helluva lot of a conflict of interest to say the least.

citanon
28 Apr 15,, 04:29
JAD_333,

Actually, Benghazi reminds me more of Whitewater than the birther nonsense. It has the same, “first investigation came up with nothing; launch a second one, and then a third until we find something . . . anything!” feel to it.

And, no, Democrats don’t play games with national security to win partisan political points. We’re not GOPers.

= = = = =

citanon,

I have been personally involved in organizing conferences with extremely high profile speakers. US$500,000 for a former US president is not out of line.

Were these Presidents named Clinton?

A former US President and the spouse of a sitting Sec State taking money from foreign entities is way way way out of line and possibly illegal. That may not apply to other high profile speakers, but there are special ethical considerations when you are not a private individual.

citanon
28 Apr 15,, 04:32
Julie,

Nah, no more that 50% higher. I've talked to people who negotiated for his services for other events.

DOR, this is post Hillary Sec State. His speaking fees went up at least 2X when she went into office.

Also, comparing Bill Clinton on one occasion to himself on other occasions is like saying armed robbery is not that bad since it's only a little step up from grand larceny. ;)

citanon
28 Apr 15,, 04:38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hc6ESwRf8c


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m9gz1sM4j4

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/



True
Schweizer
"Of the 13 (Bill) Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state."

— Peter Schweizer on Sunday, April 26th, 2015 in his book "Clinton Cash"
Fact-checking 'Clinton Cash' author on claim about Bill Clinton's speaking fees

By Lauren Carroll on Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 6:42 p.m.
Will "Clinton Cash" Consume Hillary’s Campaign?
Bloomberg
John Heilemann weighs in on the publishing strategy for Pete Schweizer’s “Clinton Cash” and the Hillary Clinton operation’s reaction to the controversy.
'Clinton Cash' author Peter Schweizer.

Did foreign interests curry favor with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by paying huge speaking fees to her husband?

That’s the question raised in the forthcoming book Clinton Cash by author and political consultant Peter Schweizer. On the Sunday shows, Schweizer said that while his research uncovered no proof of a quid pro quo between foreign interests and the 2016 Democratic frontrunner, the evidence does suggest a troubling trend.

In an April 26 interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace highlighted a claim from Schweizer’s book.

"You have an interesting point that I want to put up on the screen that seems to demonstrate exactly the point you're making," Wallace said. "Between 2001 and 2012, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches, 13, for which he was paid $500,000 or more. Eleven of those 13 speeches were at least eight years after he left the presidency while his wife was secretary of state."

Schweizer responded, noting that Bill Clinton’s speaking fees "dramatically" went up when Hillary Clinton, now a presidential candidate, took office in 2009.

"When you have one or two examples, it's a coincidence," he said. "When you have this many, to me it's a trend."

We aren’t going to dig into the truthfulness of Schweizer’s overall thesis here. But we are interested in Bill Clinton’s speaking fees while Hillary Clinton was at the State Department. His book says,"Of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state," according to the New York Times, which has an advance copy.

By the millions

In 2014, before Clinton Cash was in the public eye, the Washington Post analyzed Clinton’s speaking fees and found he made at least $104 million in speaking fees between 2001 through 2012 -- more than half of that income came from speeches in foreign countries (though he gave more speeches within the United States).

To find out more about Clinton’s speaking fees, we turned to Hillary Clinton’s federal financial disclosure forms, made available by the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group that tracks money in politics. Because Hillary Clinton held federal positions from the time they left the White House in 2001 through 2012, her financial information as well as Bill Clinton’s is available for all those years.

Schweizer didn’t respond to our requests for comment, but income information on the financial disclosure forms supports his claim.

Here’s a list of all the speeches for which Clinton received a fee of $500,000 or higher, including the year, location, host and actual fee:

2003 -- Japan, $500,000 Sakura Asset Management (Japanese finance corporation) (A note: This speech was canceled, but the fee went to Clinton’s presidential library foundation);

2008 -- California, $500,000, Power Within (life coach Anthony Robbins’ brand);

2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian finance corporation);

2010 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Novo Nordisk (Danish pharmaceutical company);

2011 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);

2011 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);

2011 -- Netherlands, $600,000, Achmea (Dutch finance corporation);

2011 -- China, $550,000, Huatuo CEO Forum (business conference);

2011 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (international environmental information organization);

2011 -- Hong Kong, $750,000, Ericsson (Swedish multinational communications technology company);

2012 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);

2012 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);

2012 -- Italy, $500,000, Technogym (fitness equipment manufacturer).
......
Schweizer said, "Of the 13 (Bill) Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state."

We're not checking Schweizer's suggestion that the increased speaking fees were part of a plan to curry favor in his wife's State Department. But on the specific numbers, Schweitzer is correct.

OOE2_test
28 Apr 15,, 05:00
OOE2_test,

From what I read (I wasn’t there, unlike some people), The Kosovo Liberation Army ramped up its attacks in 1995-97. Albania collapsed in early 1997, which opened up access to large amounts of military weapons.So you never questioned why we went to war in Kosovo? Just took Clinton at his word? Why because he was a Democrat?


The Lewinsky scandal broke in January 1998, but wasn’t big news for several months. We've fucken nearly started WWIII because of the shit your Democrats did!!!

Get off your fucken high horse!!!

zraver
30 Apr 15,, 16:44
Get off your fucken high horse!!!

He can't, he's emotionally invested so the rational part of his brain has atrophied.

TopHatter
01 May 15,, 16:37
The personal attacks and flaming need to stop immediately.

OOE2_test
03 May 15,, 04:45
I do apologize for my language, David. However, the question stands! Will you acknowledged your Democrats nearly started WWIII for ego!!!. From Albright to Clinton to Clark, all were Democrats! Your fucking party nealy started WWIII for ego!!!!!!!

Unless, of course, your ego is bigger than Clinton's!!!!

TopHatter
03 May 15,, 15:08
I do apologize for my language, David. However, the question stands! Will you acknowledged your Democrats nearly started WWIII for ego!!!. From Albright to Clinton to Clark, all were Democrats! Your fucking party nealy started WWIII for ego!!!!!!!

Unless, of course, your ego is bigger than Clinton's!!!!

Sir, the flaming stops right now.