Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 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:

@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This discussion has been archived.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: 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