Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
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:

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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by negrace on Monday March 30 2015, @01:13PM

    by negrace (4010) on Monday March 30 2015, @01:13PM (#164210)

    It does not matter what the candidate's policies are. They are _promises_ that are promptly abandoned. Until the campaign promises are made legally binding or something like that, the whole system does not make much sense.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday March 30 2015, @06:16PM

    by davester666 (155) on Monday March 30 2015, @06:16PM (#164399)

    Hell, awhile ago [maybe 15 years ago?longer?] the Liberal party put out "The Red Book", a book that they promoted during their election campaign about all the things they would do as soon as they were elected. They get elected, then it was "Oh, now that we're in charge, we realize we can't actually do ANYTHING that we promised [the primary thing was they were going to cancel the national GST [a sales tax].

    Course, we re-elected them the following election as well.

    • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:41AM

      by dry (223) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:41AM (#164628) Journal

      Considering the choices.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @07:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @07:56PM (#164451)

    The bureaucratic machinery that surrounds the president seems to quickly convince new presidents that there is no bridge between the current state of affairs and the state of affairs envisioned in their campaign promises. People underestimate the monstrous political inertia that stymies the people nominally in charge of the government.

    Generally the President can start new things, to an extent, but stopping something already in motion is more difficult.