SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 4, Informative) by hendrikboom on Monday March 30 2015, @02:39PM
Congratulations. This seems to be the first post with even a semblance of facts instead of partisan mudslinging.
What I've heard elsewhere is that the law wasn't yet enacted when she was using her private email server and that she handed over the official emails when required. Sorry, I don't have any references on this, but I suspect a diligent search can find them.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @03:53PM
She appears to have followed the law that was in effect at the time. She is not required to provide bait for a fishing expedition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @07:07PM
Exactly. She complied with the law at the time, those pesky 4th and 5th Amendments protect her from here-on. She's no saint and I'm not defending her, but fishing expeditions like this are unconstitutional; the people pushing for these are only serving to further erode the US Constitution, and will seriously regret it when the precedents they're trying to set are used against them.