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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:00AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:00AM (#153325)

    Telling someone to go prove your argument for you is indeed an admission of error.

    So I guess it's a good thing that infodragon did not say that then. Look, infodragon has a point of view contrary to yours. Perhaps even contrary to many others. Perhaps even contrary to the facts. Suggesting that you are ill-informed is not any sort of admission to error. Presumptuous, perhaps. But not an admission of error. Also, being ignorant is one thing. Being stubbornly, wilfully ignorant to the point of refusing to do your own investigative research is quite another. Why is it that you refuse to take the time to educate yourself? If the facts are on your side wouldn't it be quite easy to give infodragon a few links to prove your point? Frankly, right now you appear to me to be merely posturing.