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: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:23PM
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
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
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
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]
(Score: 4, Informative) by infodragon on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:37PM
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
That's an important confounding factor, yeah.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @08:45PM
> 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."