Slash Boxes

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:

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This discussion has been archived.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 Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:32PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 30 2015, @02:32PM (#164252) Journal

    Bingo. My vote was cast for the candidate whom I felt LEAST LIKELY to start another war in which my sons might be killed. I didn't like anyone's policies very much, so I fell back on "Which one of these clowns is most and least likely to start a new war?" I did NOT vote for or against a black man, or a white man, or even a white woman. The policies dictated my choice among several poor candidates.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday March 30 2015, @03:21PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Monday March 30 2015, @03:21PM (#164294)

    And that seems to have been a wise choice, based on your motivations: A lot of people who wanted to become POTUS would have already sent your sons to fight in Iran.

    Although I suspect Dennis Kucinich, had he been any sort of factor and not just an also-ran, would have also kept your sons safe - his campaigns were defined by his opposition to the Iraq War and an attempt to impeach Cheney and Bush for starting it.

    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:37AM

      by dry (223) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:37AM (#164625) Journal

      Dennis Kucinich, isn't he actually left wing with libertarian tendencies? Totally un-electable. []

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:38AM

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:38AM (#164743)

        He's very left-wing, but frequently found himself on the same side of an issue as Ron Paul for entirely different reasons. I lived in what used to be his district for quite a while, have met the man and heard him speak, and his basic vision of America looks something like this:
        1. Equal rights for all adults, and reasonable protections for children. That also means punishing those with power who break the law.
        2. A very strong social safety net that ensures that nobody starves or is homeless or dies because they can't pay for health care.
        3. Strong unions and workplace protections. A much higher minimum wage.
        4. A military that is dramatically smaller than it is now. US foreign policy focused on peaceful dealings with foreign governments rather than threatening them with war.
        5. If cuts to the military are not sufficient to cover the strong social safety net, tax the rich to get the money.
        6. Government programs can and should compete with private corporations in providing services, because citizens can often get better service and pricing from the government entity.

        Points 1 and 4 are very compatible with libertarianism. Points 2, 3, 5, and 6 are decidedly not.

        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.