SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
Privacy Policy: We don't track anyone except on this site, so DNT requests aren't relevant and are ignored. We don't collect any personally identifiable information from you except your email address, which: you can change at any time, never has to be real in the first place, is only used to contact you if necessary or requested, and we share with nobody.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:06PM
Is the legality of the behavior really relevant?
Let's see how things should have worked out.
A top ranked public officer should not use personal email, or if done, should produce in a matter of hours all public correspondence in the name of transparency. Failure to do so is a bigger failure than breaching the law because it shows incompetence and/or malice.
It reminds me of a guy called Berlusconi who defended himself from the accusation of bribing tax officers with: "I didn't know about it, my employees did everything". Oh well, so he admit having employees happily breaching the law and still thinks he can lead a country?
Don't mistake this for political propaganda: the status quo changes the politician, not the other way round, so what party they belong to is scarcely relevant.