Slash Boxes

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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by pnkwarhall on Wednesday March 04 2015, @06:38PM

    by pnkwarhall (4558) on Wednesday March 04 2015, @06:38PM (#153191)

    The thread started by AC and contributed to by infodragon is a long argument where no one brings up the whole "government email" thing. It's not a question of GMail vs Personal Server. It's a question of government supplied/maintained/secured email vs personal server. (I would hope that they have some security professionals securing the '' email service.) In fact, the fact that this is left out entirely makes me believe that a) neither of them knows what they're talking about, b) they're just really easily led down rabbit-holes, or c) they're actively trying to de-rail sensible conversation.

    Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @07:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @07:10PM (#153201)

    No, the .gov thing is orthogonal to infodragon's point.
    Its a given she already went without a .gov address. His theory is that going with a personal server over a commercial service proves mailicious intent.

    As for why she went without the .gov in the first place? The argument made is that the .gov system is a PITA to use for all the reasons government tools are typical far from state of the art. I'm sure there is some truth to that, nothing is ever black and white. The question is how many other truths are there behind the motivation to use a personal account.

    • (Score: 2) by infodragon on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:05AM

      by infodragon (3509) on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:05AM (#153304)

      It's not my theory. I'm trying to state that there are theoretical scenarios that can be malicious. When a pubic servant goes to such extraordinary efforts that allow circumvention (doesn't mean she did) then extraordinary scrutiny should be applied.

      However after the media hubub and all the back and forth it will be business as usual.

      Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:36AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:36AM (#153385)

        > It's not my theory.

        Yeah, sure.