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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @03:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @03:34PM (#164305)

    I said, very specifically, that if it's time for a female to run this nation, there are many women who are more qualified.

    Name some that you would vote for.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @04:19PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 30 2015, @04:19PM (#164333) Journal

    "Some" - Palin come readily to mind. She ain't real bright, IMHO, but her positions are positions that I can live with.

    Bachman seems maybe a little less bright than Palin, but again, her policies are policies I can live with.

    Rice, from Bush's administraion, is really to much of a warmonger for my taste, but even so, she is infinitely more qualified that Hillary.

    You will note that I'm naming conservative women. I hope that three are enough for you, I can find more.

    Hmmmm. Google "potential female presidential candidates". There are some that I hadn't thought of, some that I despise less than I despise Clinton, but none that I really admire. Well - no surprise there, really. We haven't had a male candidate that I could admire in just about forever.

    As for genuine QUALIFICATIONS, Rice beats them all, male or female, hands down.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:06PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday March 30 2015, @09:06PM (#164481) Journal

      Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman are the best examples you can think of? That's sad. Margaret Thatcher would do you proud; I would vote for her. But there is no woman on the Republican side of the aisle in America who is her equal, or who even approaches half her stature.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:29PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:29PM (#164804) Journal

        Come on now. Maggie was an old broad when I was still a young man - and that's been a long time. Is she an octogenarian yet? Sorry, I would have voted for her 30 years ago, but not today.

        • (Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 01 2015, @03:33PM

          by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 01 2015, @03:33PM (#165431) Journal

          She's dead [wikipedia.org] and received a state funeral in the UK nearly two years ago.

          --
          Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 01 2015, @03:43PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 01 2015, @03:43PM (#165438) Journal

            Well - I might vote for her after all if her name comes up on the ballot. Deceased representatives probably can't do any worse than some of the ones who still breathe.

            Pardon me for the brain fart. I was aware of her death, somehow I forgot that she had died.

            • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 01 2015, @04:54PM

              by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 01 2015, @04:54PM (#165466) Journal

              True :)

              And don't mind the brain fart, you weren't the only one and people in general are likely to keep continuing to make the mistake for years.

              --
              Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:11AM

    by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:11AM (#164585) Journal

    I said, very specifically, that if it's time for a female to run this nation, there are many women who are more qualified.

    Name some that you would vote for.

    As my daughter would say, now name some that you trust!

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---