Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday March 30 2015, @09:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the of-course-there-are-no-backups dept.

Anyone who follows American politics will have heard of Hillary Clinton's email server. Rather than using an official State Department address, she chose to use a private server for her official email. Federal law requires all official email to be archived on government servers. Armchair lawyers have pointed out that it doesn't require the use of government servers to send and receive the email, but the archival requirement is clear. This requirement was clearly violated in this case: in response to a subpoena, Hillary Clinton's private staff extracted emails from her private server and turned them over to the government. The contents of the server itself were never made available to the government, and now she has had the server erased:

Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.

As Popehat tweeted:

@Popehat
I ask you, who among us hasn't wiped a server clean after its contents were requested by subpoena?

I naively wonder why she isn't in jail, but that's just me. Comments and views from those interested in American politics?

 
This discussion has been archived.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: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @12:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @12:36PM (#164200)

    With this pointless right-wing drivel, it's bye-bye Soylent. Good idea, gone bad.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=2, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:30PM (#164217)

    One has to wonder WHY so much AMERICAN news is here.
    Oh ya, cause it's AMERICAN.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:40PM (#164222)

    > With this pointless right-wing drivel, it's bye-bye Soylent. Good idea, gone bad.

    This isn't right-wing, it is accountability. Based on the submitter's posting history I am totally willing to believe that for him personally its all about scoring points. But, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The well-known right-wing cheerleader Jon Stewart skewered Hillary for it saying, “I think the concern there is that the aides are the ones that get to decide which emails are appropriate to be shared as opposed to an independent arbiter. That is why Doritos doesn’t get to decide which ingredients consumers need to know about, or why you don’t get to tell the cops which pocket to search.”

    • (Score: 1) by HystericalLinguist on Monday March 30 2015, @01:57PM

      by HystericalLinguist (4069) on Monday March 30 2015, @01:57PM (#164228)

      It is less the "right-wingedness" of the post that bothered me, than its "drivel" aspects. [And the rather extensive drivel it got in the comments.] No Tech site should accept an argument of the form: (1) one is obligated to archive all official email by Federal law; (2) this law is clearly violated in this case because "the contents of the server itself were never provided to the government". (1) makes no reference to "the contents of" any "server".

      The law as written, like most American laws, is pure theatre: pretend to require openness, while requiring nothing. My reading of Jon Stewart's complaint is that he was unhappy that THE LAW allowed Hillary to decide what emails were "official". But that's the law (because if it required an independent arbiter, it would actually have teeth, and no one wanted that), so all the discussion of "why isn't Hillary in jail" is absurd.

      And sorry to what I know are perfectly reasonable people around here who left *that other site* to find a better home, but I won't wade through this kind of crap for my news. So, now, really "bye".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @02:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @02:14PM (#164240)

        There are two issues:

        (1) Failure to archive according to an ambiguous law
        (2) Failure to preserve in the face of a subpoena

        WRT (1) it is outrage and publicity like this that get laws changed
        WRT (2) wiping the server was utterly transparent but she'll probably get away with it
              - however if (1) is fixed, then (2) won't be an issue the next time

        • (Score: 2) by TLA on Monday March 30 2015, @03:08PM

          by TLA (5128) on Monday March 30 2015, @03:08PM (#164287) Journal

          in the case of (2), failure to preserve in the face of a subpoena is destruction of evidence (AKA spoliation), which in the given case is one step below treason. We're talking official communications here, not Facebook posts. That server should be physically seized immediately; if the erasure was a simple MFT wipe, then the files will still be on the drive and intact. Even the attempt to erase that data should be seen as intent and punished as such. This isn't a shot-in-the-dark data grab in case something was amiss, we know what was amiss and we know the content of that data, that she tried to get rid AFTER being served shows intent to break the goddamn law and compound it by breaking it AGAIN.

          --
          Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @02:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @02:55PM (#164276)

        This is not a tech site. Glad you found out in the end.

    • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday March 30 2015, @07:41PM

      by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 30 2015, @07:41PM (#164443) Homepage Journal

      Dunno...maybe it looks that way, because the Democrats have been in power for as long as Soylent has existed. However, if you go look on the other site (same user name), you'll find that I was no fan of Bush/Cheney back in the day. I object to corrupt politicians who think they are above the law, whatever party they claim to belong to.

      --
      Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:39PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday March 30 2015, @09:39PM (#164502) Journal

      It's not right-wing. It's common sense. I am not right wing at all. I would once, under Teddy Roosevelt, have been considered Republican, and would have later been considered Democrat. I am currently without a political home. But demanding public accountability is not partisan. It is a hallmark of democracy. Anyone who claims any less is an enemy of freedom and democracy.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:41AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:41AM (#164591)

        But demanding public accountability is not partisan.

        Selectively demanding public accountability is about as partisan as it gets.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:22PM (#164402)

    Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!