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: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:14AM
Some interesting citations from Ollie's appeal: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19891360716FSupp644_11243.xml/U.S.%20v.%20NORTH [leagle.com]
18 USC 2071 totally calls into question the cannard -- "oh, HRC did what was legal at the time, but then the law changed." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 [cornell.edu]
HRC removed records from the official location by setting up an offsite mail server, and then she destroyed the records. This one is worth up to three years -- and disqualification from public office.
Of course, the neo-con HRC lovers will say: the emails never went to her public office so they didn't get removed, and feel all smug and moral. That still won't get her around paragraph (b) because she definitely had custody and she definitely destroyed them.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:37AM
Oh wow, Clinton is a neo-con. Someone should tell her; I think she's going for the Democratic nomination instead.
That statute appears to require a formal demand have been made. No such demand was made at the time she deleted her personal emails.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:53AM
TFS indicates there was a subpoena -- it doesn't get more formal than that.
Clearly though, you're a die hard HRC supporter. The facts won't matter. They don't matter to me either. She's a neo-con warmonger and deserves prison for that fact alone. As do Obama, GWB, Cheney -- basically the whole entire lot of them.
Anyway, it is my sincerest hope there was a subpoena and she gets to go the way of Ollie North.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:19AM
There was a subpoena for her official emails, not her personal emails. She claims she only deleted her personal emails.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:49PM
CHRIST.
She does not get to make the selection on her own.
Do you not comprehend Fox guarding the chicken house?
Imagine Debian.org sued MS for copyright infringement, demands source of a certain library. MS says "we looked -- there's no infringing code, we're not handing anything over." You'd be totally satisfied with that answer because MS would never lie. Right? You'd be 100% OK with that. That's the position you are taking and exists in no other litigatory or investagatory context. Applying your method to HRC is pure unadulterated favoritism and power fetishism.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:07PM
Discovery in a lawsuit is a completely different situation, and there are very complex rules related to it. By the way, most companies with, "you must delete all your emails older than X weeks" policies typically have those policies because they want to have nothing responsive in discovery when they're sued for anything.
"Fox guarding the chicken house" is a not a law. It's pounding on the facts, and the table, rather than the law. You're grasping for anything you can hold onto to try to impose a duty to preserve all her emails on her. You think what she did SHOULD have been illegal. I would, perhaps, agree with that.
But it wasn't illegal. Accept that, and move on.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:59PM
You keep pretending that a subpoena means nothing. In the context of a congressional investigation, FRCP 34 applies to the subpoena (via 2 USC 190m) and under that rule, it is a Judge, not the party, who gets to decide if something is discoverable.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/190m [cornell.edu]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_34 [cornell.edu]
Plus there is a law over 100 years old, the same one that got Oliver North prison time, that is a direct bar against what she did:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 [cornell.edu]
There is also an argument that 18 USC 1519 applies to this situation as I pointed out in this post: http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=6773&cid=164629 [soylentnews.org]
You need to accept the fact that "she did nothing illegal" is far from a settled matter and not something you can just propose as fact.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:44PM
Okay, you're just outright making shit up now. 2 USC 190m doesn't say anything like that. Once again, there's no discovery when there's no lawsuit. This isn't worth my time anymore.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:46PM
Sorry, that was a little harsher than I intended. Looking back, I've been kind of rude to you in this thread. I didn't intend to be, I've just been really busy. Let's just agree to disagree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:59PM
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a die hard HRC supporter. Its not that they're concerned with upholding the law and the constitution or anything, their sole opposition to you is purely that they worship HRC.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:35PM
I'm a hardcore bill of rights person. There is nothing in the bill of rights that even hints that destroying evidence sought in a subpoena is a protected action. The subpoena process and the associated court rules are due process, and those rules were broken by HRC.
Am I gleeful that she broke the law because I would wish that we could have a NOT-neocon-warmonger running in at least one side of the DNCGOP monoparty -- fucking yes I am. I would be gleeful over anything that might keep that warmonging HRC from polluting the next election. I certainly wouldn't advocate breaking the Bill of Rights, but that isn't an issue here at all and this could have been completely resolved if for example, a Judge was allowed to do an in camera review of the server and then say, these emails are in, and these are out.
Remember -- it was HRC's choice to commingle the data. She didn't have to make that choice, but having made it, she must suffer the consequences which are that she is not the final arbiter of whether things are discoverable. Not under the Constitution, the USC, or the FRCP.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 01 2015, @12:06AM
The judge and court disagrees with you. But they're just a bunch of morons anyway, you know the law and can do their jobs far better than them.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:01AM
Oh -- and you imply that Democrats (AKA: New GOP) aren't neo-cons. The Democrats haven't liberals for decades if you haven't noticed -- they're military industry tools, wall street tools, war mongers, surveillance junkies -- Jesus, if Nixon could have done half what Obama does, he'd be creaming his pants and laughing maniacally. Obama even got Nixon's health care plan passed. You Democrats are about as liberal as Pol Pot.