Hillary Clinton exclusively used personal emails at st dpt

[werepossum]

Not sure who all those previous SoS's would be.

A little googling indicates email didn't become widespread until 2001 or so (about half the US population had email at 2001). Not sure when the govt adopted it for use, but given the policy was drafted in 2005 I suspect it was around then (unless a previous version of govt email policy existed which would indicate earlier adoption).

Condoleezza Rice's aide says she rarely used it but all official State Dept email was on the govt server. (There is a quote to this effect in my Politico link above.)

I.e., I see no evidence that previous Sec State's ignored State Dept history.

Fern

Ah, my bad. I thought someone here had linked evidence that Powell and Rice had both done the same thing.

I actually thought email was older than that. I had email around '87 - '88 and that was living outside a very small (8k people) Tennessee town in a rural county, 59th largest IIRC in Tennessee.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Not sure who all those previous SoS's would be.

A little googling indicates email didn't become widespread until 2001 or so (about half the US population had email at 2001). Not sure when the govt adopted it for use, but given the policy was drafted in 2005 I suspect it was around then (unless a previous version of govt email policy existed which would indicate earlier adoption).

Condoleezza Rice's aide says she rarely used it but all official State Dept email was on the govt server. (There is a quote to this effect in my Politico link above.)

I.e., I see no evidence that previous Sec State's ignored State Dept history.

Fern

Not saying that I agree that its fine to use personal email but private email was used by the previous two.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-was-there-wrongdoing/index.html

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, it was against long established State Dept policy. See below.



The policy you seek already exists:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804.html



The manual: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf

See rule "12 FAM 544.3 Electronic Transmission Via the Internet" on page 5/7.

If you don't use the State Dept system at all you cannot possibly in compliance with the policy.

Fern

None of which makes it "illegal" at all, does it?

It's just the usual partisan Repub witch hunt, given the Bush white house near exclusive use of RNC servers.

 

[werepossum]

Not saying that I agree that its fine to use personal email but private email was used by the previous two.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-was-there-wrongdoing/index.html

That's what I was thinking, but reading that article it's an apparent Hilary water bearer article. It says that Rice had a personal email account, but that all State business was conducted on her State account, so clearly Rice did nothing similar to what Hillary has done. Powell is a bit less clear; he had a State account, but sometimes carried out what was presumably official business on his private account. (It's less clear because while there was contact with ambassadors, it's not apparent that the contact was business, even though the article clearly makes that presumption.) Additionally, both her predecessors were using publically hosted commercial services, whose backups were beyond their control, would be discoverable and subject to recovery against their wishes, and which would be perfectly suitable for use as private email accounts.

Then there is "There's no outright ban at the State Department on using a personal email address to conduct official government business." From Fern's link:

“It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [Automated Information System], which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information,” the Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual states.​

If there is a policy to do X, there does not need to be another policy to not do Y. One could argue that her using personal email for non-sensitive matters would not have been fundamentally in violation of that policy - that might well have been Powell's tact - but one cannot in good faith argue that the Secretary of State never handles sensitive matters. Same with arguing that we cannot know if she violated policy on sensitive matters - the only way this could be true is if she never handled any sensitive matters. (Or I suppose if she used a non-electronic method of communication for sensitive matters, such as perhaps carving messages into toddlers and stuffing them in overhead luggage bins.)

Then there is the gem about Hillary not being in violations of the Federal Records Act.

During the time Clinton was in office, the Federal Records Act required government employees ensure personal emails tied to government business was conserved "in the appropriate agency record keeping system."

That law was updated in 2014, requiring official emails sent from a personal address be forwarded to an official government email within 20 days. That law came after Clinton left office.​

So to Diamond and Labott, any emails anywhere are in compliance because they could at some future time be appropriately archived, and if instead they are deleted, well, then there is no evidence of foul play. Nice and neat.

That article needs to be reported as a donation in kind.

 

[Knowing]

So you are going to continue to stick by the story that the intelligence community knew who and what was going on but decided to blame a video?

Not only would you be wrong but in rice's meet the press appearance she left open the possibility that it was a terrorist attack AND it was possible that the video could have sparked the attack.

But I guess the truth isn't as appealing.

I don't recall the intelligence community holding any press conferences, but you're free to believe whatever some talking head said on TV that the intelligence community believed. Though I'd have to question your belief system if you dismiss the evidence that's sitting in front of you. That being said, the excuses for her behavior and everyone else with a (D) next to their name when they make an Honest Mistake™ never ceases to amaze.

I didn't say they didn't arrange their weasel words because they clearly hedged their bets, my claim is that they buried the lede. Mostly because that's what the evidence indicates - unless you have any evidence at all that the video had anything to do with the "protest" that despite being tiny is somehow impossible to differentiate from technicals with militia markings and mortar attacks.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't recall the intelligence community holding any press conferences, but you're free to believe whatever some talking head said on TV that the intelligence community believed. Though I'd have to question your belief system if you dismiss the evidence that's sitting in front of you. That being said, the excuses for her behavior and everyone else with a (D) next to their name when they make an Honest Mistake™ never ceases to amaze.

I didn't say they didn't arrange their weasel words because they clearly hedged their bets, my claim is that they buried the lede. Mostly because that's what the evidence indicates - unless you have any evidence at all that the video had anything to do with the "protest" that despite being tiny is somehow impossible to differentiate from technicals with militia markings and mortar attacks.

Don't take my word for it, read the fucking report yourself

https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf

Forth, the committee concludes that after the attacks the early intelligence assessments and the administrations initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attack were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks has evolved out of a protest in benghazi; but it also found contrary evidence which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed it's initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012, (two days after ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing it's interviews with public U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

 

[ivwshane]

Now we are finding out that she used a second email address off the private server for government related work.

Of course this was conveniently forgotten to be mentioned.

Plus she handed the State 30,000 pages of documents. she wants those turned over to Congressional committee but State needs to redact them.

State say it will take up to 6 months; she wants them right away.

Ignoring that she did this to herself; trying to be slick by removing electronic searches is now prolonging the evaluation.

Of course the shit you post has been debunked! Did anyone think it wouldn't?

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/cl...ter we changed the name of the email account.

 

[Bowfinger]

Of course the shit you post has been debunked! Did anyone think it wouldn't?

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/clintons-secret-email-accounts/

Your link is garbled. Here's a good one: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/clintons-secret-email-accounts/

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course the shit you post has been debunked! Did anyone think it wouldn't?

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/cl...e that. Truthiness rules the True Believers.

 

[werepossum]

Your link is garbled. Here's a good one: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/clintons-secret-email-accounts/

From your link:

This doesn’t prove, of course, that Clinton did not have more than one @clintonemail.com address while secretary of state. All four experts told us the only way to know for sure how many @clintonemail.com accounts Clinton had while in office is to conduct a forensic examination of her mail server. (Clinton has said she will not make her personal server available to the government or an independent third party.)​

I don't particularly care either way, but let's not lose sight of the central issue here - Hillary used her own server to give herself total control over what the world sees. Either you feel that is a good thing in a Presidential contender, or you do not.

 

[ivwshane]

[URL="http://<br /> <br />
From your link:

This doesn’t prove, of course, that Clinton did not have more than one @clintonemail.com address while secretary of state. All four experts told us the only way to know for sure how many @clintonemail.com accounts Clinton had while in office is to conduct a forensic examination of her mail server. (Clinton has said she will not make her personal server available to the government or an independent third party.)​

I don't particularly care either way, but let's not lose sight of the central issue here - Hillary used her own server to give herself total control over what the world sees. Either you feel that is a good thing in a Presidential contender, or you do not.

Unless there is actual proof of wrong doing I don't see a problem.

The investigations can continue but baseless accusations will just keep being baseless.

 

[werepossum]

Unless there is actual proof of wrong doing I don't see a problem.

The investigations can continue but baseless accusations will just keep being baseless.

Then you must really admire the Hildabeast for making sure there can be no "actual proof of wrong doing".

 

[nickqt]

[URL="http://<br /> <br />
From your link:

This doesn’t prove, of course, that Clinton did not have more than one @clintonemail.com address while secretary of state. All four experts told us the only way to know for sure how many @clintonemail.com accounts Clinton had while in office is to conduct a forensic examination of her mail server. (Clinton has said she will not make her personal server available to the government or an independent third party.)​

I don't particularly care either way, but let's not lose sight of the central issue here - Hillary used her own server to give herself total control over what the world sees. Either you feel that is a good thing in a Presidential contender, or you do not.

I'm sure you're all in favor of the US SoS's correspondence being a matter of public record.

lol

 

[werepossum]

I'm sure you're all in favor of the US SoS's correspondence being a matter of public record.

lol

I'm certainly in favor of it being on government servers and properly backed up. Being a matter of public record depends on whether it's classified or sensitive material.

 

[ivwshane]

Then you must really admire the Hildabeast for making sure there can be no "actual proof of wrong doing".

Yep, to a fucking idiot, she's the greatest criminal mastermind ever!

 

[dali71]

.

 

[dali71]

She'll be POTUS in 20 months.

FYI.

Quoted for posterity.

[Placeholder Bump]

Sorry (not sorry) for the necro...