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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @07:10PM
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
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
> It's not my theory.
Yeah, sure.