Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday March 04 2015, @12:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the one-rule-for-them dept.

The NY Times reports that Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, according to State Department officials. She may have violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record.

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. "It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business," said attorney Jason R. Baron. A spokesman for Clinton defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the "letter and spirit of the rules."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mmcmonster on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:05PM

    by mmcmonster (401) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:05PM (#153018)

    Is she the first secretary of state to do this? From what I heard on the radio, it was pretty common for Secretarys of State to use private email addresses and then just make sure all the pertinent emails were submitted to the government archive after they left their post.

    If this is true, I'm not seeing this as a big scandal, but more along the lines of: Let's just make sure they're not allowed to use personal email addresses in the future. Kind of like when the Alaskan governor did it a few years ago.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:23PM

    by ikanreed (3164) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:23PM (#153025) Journal

    I don't know if this is actually a politicized scandal. Or whether precedent matters. Apparently this Jason R. Baron is just an attorney whose expertise is discovery against the federal government, and he doesn't have a long history of being involved in partisan scandals, per se.

    My guess is that no one cared, and since no one cared, important rules were ignored. It's a bad thing that requires redress, but not necessarily a sign of corruption. An investigation wouldn't be unwarranted.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:47PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:47PM (#153034)

      I don't know if this is actually a politicized scandal.

      If it were not, it wouldn't be reported in America.

      I like the idea of it being an "anti NSA" hack. So either the neocons are full of BS because the NSA has a full record of everything, or the neocons are full of BS because they support the NSA having a full record of everything every human being on the planet has ever and will ever do. Either way, her opponents lose, which is too bad, because I personally feel she's a total sociopathic psychopath of a leader, just like her husband and exactly who we don't need in charge, but I can recognize a "won" battle when I see it. Her strategy is sound and it'll be effective.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:54PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:54PM (#153039) Journal

        I think you require a better term [nytimes.com] to describe people who are not Hillary [firstlook.org] Clinton [firstlook.org]

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:00PM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:00PM (#153097) Journal

          There is no question that HRC is neo-con warmonger. Just look at her prior to war in Iraq, frothing at the mouth to kill for no reason:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g [youtube.com]

          • 1:40 HRC enters room
          • ~ Code pink intro: war in Iraq will harm American and Iraqi families and cost a lot.
          • 6:30 HRC parrots the WMD arguments, blames the danger to Iraqis on Hussein, ignores harm to Americans, financial costs, and the fact that Iraq was not a threat to the US nor involved in 9/11.
          • 8:52 HRC lies about careful review of WMD info. HRC never even read the National Intelligence Estimate which while suggesting WMDs existed, also contained significant disagreements with that conclusion that a reader not interested in a particular outcome would have agreed called the whole thing into question.
          • 10:00 Audience member: not up to the US to disarm Hussein, up to the world community, Iraq has no connection to terrorism, not only are Iraqi people in danger, so are US people, and will harm the economy. It's reckless.
          • 11:14 HRC: The world community would not take on difficult problems without US forcing the issue. Goes on and on about Bosnia. Segues into how GWB tax cuts are a bad idea.
          • 13:29 Interesting note on the negative effect of the tax cuts: "Here at home, this administration is bankrupting our economy forcing us to make the worst kinds of false choices between national and homeland security, which they don't fund ..."
          • -- IOW, HRC would have preferred GWB raise taxes for more war and domestic surveillance. --
          • 14:12 HRC is given a pink slip
          • 14:20 HRC goes off: "I am the Senator from NY I will never put my people at risk ..."
          • -- Yeah, like Saddam had anything to do with 9/11
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by infodragon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:37PM

      by infodragon (3509) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:37PM (#153075)

      Check my comment

      http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=6376&cid=153068 [soylentnews.org]

      She also used a personal server at her residence physically protected by the secret service. This gave her a tremendous amount of legal leeway in dealing with control of email access.

      I think it's cool from a geeks perspective that a politician ran their own server. As a citizen being served by a politician going to extraordinary means to control the public record I become extraordinarily suspicious and expect extraordinary scrutiny.

      http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-server-homebrew-115745.html [politico.com]

      --
      Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:40PM

        by ikanreed (3164) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:40PM (#153076) Journal

        That's an important confounding factor, yeah.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @08:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @08:45PM (#153231)

        > I think it's cool from a geeks perspective that a politician ran their own server.

        You know she didn't run it right? It was handled by her staff, hell she may not even have been actively part of the decision to do it. It isn't like the secstate cares about or even really is aware of the mechanics of these things.

        For all we know she might have had a bad experience with the .gov servers when she was in congress, like excessive downtime, slow delivery, non-delivery, too much spam, arbitrary limits on the size of attachments, limited device compatibility, whatever and just told an aide "as secstate make sure I never have to deal with that bullshit."

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:13PM (#153102)

    Is she the first secretary of state to do this?

    Email use by secstate is relatively new and precedent is spotty at best.

    However, the one thing that does seem clear is it that her use of email was in contradiction to official whitehouse policy. [washingtonpost.com] That's not legally binding, but at best it creates the appearance of corruption and when it comes to politics the mere appearance is bad enough because it undermines the public's trust.