The Plot Thins: State Dept regs require employees to decide what e-mails are preserved

Media Matters points us to State Dept Reg. 5 FAM 443.2:

E-mail message creators and recipients must decide whether a particular message is appropriate for preservation In making these decisions, all personnel should exercise the same judgment they use when determining whether to retain and file paper records.

We already know there was no prohibition until 2014 regarding the use of private e-mail accounts. We now know that, as a formal matter, even e-mails sent or received on State Department email account were not automatically preserved. Instead only those e-mails designated for preservation, by the determination of the individual holding the e-mail, would be preserved.

Hillary Clinton should have made these determinations in a timely manner. When she did not, after the effective date (in 2010) of the 2009 NARA regulation, she failed to comply in my opinion. (I do not accept her argument that she could rely on the determination of the recipient or sender from a .gov account.)

But in terms of laws and regulations, this has become "The Incredible Shrinking Scandal."

< Saturday Open Thread | Ferguson Suspect in Police Shootings Charged >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    From my perspective, (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    there is no constructive purpose to continuing the discussion of Mrs. Clinton's emails, other than for those who prefer to synthesize a scandal out of air and sawdust for political purposes.   After two-weeks of non-stop carrying-on, answers are proffered to uncertain questions. Laws, rules, suggestions, record-keeping, timely record keeping--seemingly unclear in the minds of even those who are trying to pay attention.

    No consistency of assertions or even, consideration, given to the criticism of the NYT's public editor of the initial article.  Mrs. Clinton's press conference's most serious analysis was a discussion of the UN backdrop of Picasso's Guernica, apparently indicating her hawkishness and her demeanor--was she too regal, was she ticked off?  

    However, the emails have given an opportunity to resuscitate old corpses so as to play into the she's a blast from the past/we need someone new is all we got Republican scenario. It has given the Republican non-candidates a look over there at that shiny object moment.   Even defenses of Mrs. Clinton serve no constructive purpose.  

    It is time to put a light on those Republican front-runners du jour. And, to look to what Republican governance looks like: Maureen Dowd, uses the Republican 47 treacherous senators' letter to their pen pals in Iran, as a parody on the Clinton emails and rips all things Clinton. And, signs it "America."  If a parody is needed, it is for that Arkansas foreign policy whiz who the Republican senators abdicate their gray matter,  but we only get a Cotton subsidy.  Not even Cotton parity.

    Clinton's emails... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by unitron on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:21:04 PM EST
    ...only matter to the right wing because they expect or hope or fantasize about being able to find some where she explicitly orders the murder of Chris Stevens and says don't screw it up like they did with Vince Foster.

    If they get one that links her to the production and distribution of the video that every Arab/Muslim country except Libya was rioting about at the time, that'd just be gravy.

    The slightly less insane and therefore even more amoral and cynical amongst them are only hoping for some emails that can be twisted and misinterpreted into something the public can be fooled into thinking equaled the above.

    The whole idea (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by CST on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 01:08:14 PM EST
    that an e-mail "scandal" which 90% of people would have trouble explaining what it's about (in other words, this ain't about sexting or some such nonsense) - is going to make a difference when it comes to the hard and fast lines drawn in American federal politics is pretty funny.

    This is such a non-story to everyone but the politicos who need something to write about.  The election hasn't even started yet.  No one is gonna care about an email "scandal" that they can't describe in 3 words or less.

    This is an idiotic (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 05:18:24 PM EST

    Having said that, what was she thinking?

    Huffpo has an hysterical article featuring fifteen year olds with Blackberrys showing how they had two email accounts on their phones and how easy it was and how they were "smarter" than Hillary.  

    And they were.

    It seems to me that sometimes these folks in the spotlight like to show that they have feet of clay - and that if we ignore that fact - well... they told us and so it is on us when they behave in a reprehensible way in the future...

    At this time, it seems to me as if we are in store for a Hillary-Jeb confrontation as our entertainment for the 2016 season.

    I will hide until its over.
    I guess I will root for Hill...
    Because Jeb is so ultimately repulsive...

    Bot Jeez Louise...

    Can't we do better?

    HuffPo proving they're idiots (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 05:37:24 PM EST
    The reason no 2 accounts on one phone or Blackberry was because of government rules, not technical reasons.

    My gawd what a joke HuffPo is.


    What (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 07:12:47 PM EST
    she said was that she used her own phone because she didn't want to carry two phones...

    It seems so stupid to me.

    I have a small business... and even I have a separate account for my business emails.


    I don't think this amounts to much.

    But I don't know what she was thinking... if anything.

    This will blow over.
    That's for sure.

    But we are stuck with the fact that she features a very right wing view on foreign policy.

    I am a leftist.
    For some reason, that doesn't seem to be a very popular position to take here...


    I guess I didnt explain this clearly (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 07:21:34 PM EST
    You say "she said was that she used her own phone because she didn't want to carry two phones...
    It seems so stupid to me."

    She would have needed to phones because she cold not have, wait for it, 2 email accounts on the same device because of GOVERNMENT POLICY.

    Not because she couldn't have 2 accounts put on 1 device as a technical matter.

    Thus HuffPo is idiotic.

    Understand now?


    Never in a million years did I think (none / 0) (#11)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 08:55:28 PM EST
    e-mail would ever be this "interesting."

    Here are my questions:  was it that she couldn't have 2 e-mail accounts on the same phone, or that she couldn't have other e-mail accounts on a government-issued phone?  Or couldn't have a government e-mail account on a personal phone?

    Is there some reason Hillary smartest-woman-in-the-room Clinton couldn't lay this off to anything other than "convenience?"  On some level, it makes her sound like she thought she was special and didn't deserve to be inconvenienced.  

    In reality, after reading through the regs that govern the preservation of e-mails, I don't know why anyone would ever want to use it.

    God, sometimes I think I've lost my mind that none of this makes any sense to me.  


    It doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense, (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Zorba on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 01:08:04 PM EST
    that's for sure.  But Mr. Zorba works for a government agency (not the State Department) and it's true that he cannot have a private email account on his government-issued phone.  Plus, he cannot access his government-issued email account on a non-governmental phone or any privately owned computer, laptop, tablet, etc.
    Not a big deal for him (although it's still kind of stupid) because he has, besides his government-issued phone and his computer at work, his own laptop (oh, and he also has a government-issued laptop, which he uses when he telecommutes), our desktop computer, and he can use my iPad whenever he wants.  He doesn't use his private email all that much, anyway, since I'm the one who does the vast majority of email correspondence with friends and family.  So he feels no need to have a separate cell phone.  Really, he seldom has it on, and mainly uses it to check his work email and to occasionally call someone about work-related stuff.  (Okay, for a scientist, he's also somewhat of a Luddite.)
    You wouldn't believe all the various regulations that the government has for employees, some of them truly breathtakingly petty and stupid.  The rule book would probably rival or exceed the thickness of the New York City telephone directory.

    Convenience can also mean (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 10:32:50 PM EST
    efficient etc when referring to something like email/work. I doubt it would have really inconvenienced her in the "put off" sense that would make her think she's special. As one who moved all of her email to one main account, there are def advantages (or conveniences if you will!) and I can now boast that I never send an email from the wrong account :P Nor do I have any personal emails on anyone else's servers . . .  I think for anyone  who has a job that has email flying all over the place (figure of speech, not always literally), trying to find a system that works for you is key. If it isn't against work regs, what's the big deal if it makes you more organized/whatever? Most anyone getting massive amounts of work email learns how to sort/organize or else you would just drown in the sh!t.

    OK (none / 0) (#12)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 09:11:31 PM EST
    Huffpo is idiotic.

    No problem there.

    But is she kidding?

    As I said... I have a small business. It has its own email address. Personally, I like to separate my personal emails ... say about a daughter's wedding for instance... and emails about, say, a potential war with North Korea...

    But hey.

    That's just me.

    No problem.

    Hillary can do whatever she wants.
    Who cares.

    This is a tempest in a tea pot... But why she leaves herself open for this idiocy is fodder for a psychiatrist.


    My money says that there (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 12:42:12 PM EST
    would be equal brouhaha amongst the media and the GOP if Clinton had used two email systems, one private and one official. Trey Gowdy would still be screaming for all the emails, all of them I say.

    And the media stories would be excitedly speculating about whether the personal email account was the REAL account and the official one just a cover. Just what is Hillary hiding in that private account?!

    And anyone who thinks that we can escape the GOP/media madness by nominating and/or electing a different Democrat is delusional. Let us not forget we have spent the last several years ruled by a commie, Kenya-born socialist muslim.

    Let's face it, the Republican Party and all its minions went around the bend, over the cliff, and down the rabbit hole many years ago.


    Precisely (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 12:44:08 PM EST
    They are insane and when you're dealing with insane people this is how they act.

    THIS is fodder ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:38:09 AM EST
    This is a tempest in a tea pot... But why she leaves herself open for this idiocy is fodder for a psychiatrist.

    ... for a psychiatrist.

    BTW - Is you business connected via Blackberry to government servers in 2009?


    I'd be willing to bet that you do not have (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 01:09:24 PM EST
    a phone that is locked to one account due to employer security software pre-installed.
    comparing State Dept issued phones to some teenager's phone is just ridiculous. It is not the same thing at all.

    Before you read HuffPo on flash drives (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 05:54:34 PM EST
    and why didnt Clinton use them instead of printing out her emails:

    Until technology allowing archival capabilities for long-term electronic storage and retrieval of E-mail messages is available and installed, those messages warranting preservation as records (for periods longer than current E-mail systems routinely maintain them) must be printed out and filed with related records.

    Plus, don't get me started on the (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 01:12:41 PM EST
    security regulations surrounding flash drives. You might as well try to connect a direct line to Iran on your government issued computer.

    The Stuxnet virus (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 01:33:57 PM EST
    was spread using flash drives.

    The Next Assault

    To get their weapon into the plant, the attackers launched an offensive against computers owned by four companies. All of the companies were involved in industrial control and processing of some sort, either manufacturing products and assembling components or installing industrial control systems. They were all likely chosen because they had some connection to Natanz as contractors and provided a gateway through which to pass Stuxnet to Natanz through infected employees.

    To ensure greater success at getting the code where it needed to go, this version of Stuxnet had two more ways to spread than the previous one. Stuxnet 0.5 could spread only by infecting Step 7 project files--the files used to program Siemens PLCs. This version, however, could spread via USB flash drives using the Windows Autorun feature or through a victim's local network using the print-spooler zero-day exploit that Kaspersky Lab, the antivirus firm based in Russia, and Symantec later found in the code.

    Yup. Also I know of a case in which a (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 02:29:51 PM EST
    company from an allied country which shall remain nameless passed out thumb drives containing stealth spyware as gimmes at a trade show. We don't do business with them anymore.

    Skimming over the regs, it seems like (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 05:28:10 PM EST
    it would be so much easier to preserve everything than to spend time deciding whether an e-mail met the guidelines for what should and shouldn't be preserved.

    d. For example, just like paper records, E-mail messages that may constitute Federal records  include:

    (1) E-mail providing key substantive comments on a draft action memorandum, if the E-mail message adds to a proper understanding of the formulation or execution of Department action;

    (2) E-mail providing documentation of significant Department decisions and commitments reached orally (person to person, by telecommunications, or in conference) and not otherwise documented in Department files;

    (3) E-mail conveying information of value on important Department activities, e.g. data on significant programs specially compiled by posts in response to a Department solicitation, if the E
    -mail message adds to a proper understanding of Department operations and responsibilities.

    And then, there's how to preserve them:

    For those E-mail messages and attachments that meet the statutory definition of records, it is essential to ensure that the record documentation include the E-mail message, any attachments, and essential transmission data (i.e. who sent themessage, the addressees and any other recipients, and when it was sent). In addition, information about the receipt of messages should be retained if users consider it necessary for adequately documenting Department activities. If transmission and necessary receipt data is not printed by the particular E-mail system, the paper copies must be annotated as necessary to include such data. Until technology allowing archival capabilities for long-term electronic storage and retrieval of E-mail messages is available and installed, those messages warranting preservation as records (for periods longer than current E-mail systems routinely maintain them) must be printed out and filed with related records. Instructions for printing and handling of Federal records for most of the Department's existing E-mail systems have been prepared and will be available through bureau Executive Offices

    I mean, is it any wonder government moves as slow as molasses?  Who has time to manually keep up with all the preservation?  

    Is each person, regardless of rank, expected to do his or her own preservation?  Is it a delegatable responsibility?

    Anyway, I guess what this is starting to look like is that even if no laws were broken, and even if no regulations were violated, there may be some questions of judgment.

    Overall, though, I'm just appalled, really, that the system itself is so antiquated and cumbersome.  

    Welcome to the federal government. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 05:44:09 PM EST
    With most departments, you can't download a fillable PDF file of the SF-424 form, which is a universal form required of all recipients of federal funding. Rather, you have to first print it out, and then fill it out by hand or by typewriter -- provided, of course, that you so happen to still have an old Smith-Corona or IBM Selectric lying around the office.

    Further, since each department is apparently responsible for its own technology, it's hardly a surprise that federal programs performing public / private surveillance are often way ahead of the curve, while those agencies which interact mostly with the general public are just as often anything but user-friendly.



    As Anne points out, it is (none / 0) (#6)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 07:00:21 PM EST
    more complicated than preservation according to what the sender or recipient determines. There are applicable rules and principles to be followed.

    "Principal categories of materials,
    including E-mail, that are to be preserved are:

    records that document the formulation and execution of basic policies and decisions and the taking of necessary actions;

    records that document important meetings;

    records that facilitate action by agency officials and their successors in

    records that make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress or other duly authorized agencies of the Government; and

    records that protect the financial, legal, and other rights of the
    Government and of persons directly affected by the Government's actions."

    Anne's post gives specific examples, but the above rules and principles are to be followed--even if the sender/recipient is apparently allowed to decide what should be kept. The question is whether Hillary followed these rules and principles.


    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 07:18:28 PM EST
    she handed it all over to her lawyer to handle and decide.

    Anyway none of this matters in the scheme of things. It's just a bunch of nitpicking.


    Agenda, agenda, who has the agenda (none / 0) (#10)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 08:49:31 PM EST
    It almost hurts--either from laughing or slapping one's head--to read the BS that this so-called email issue is. Namely, it doesn't even rise to /sink to the level of a "so-called scandal" anymore.  All this jazz was to do the pre-campaign test ... who has the chops, the control, etc. So, other than saying that something would have been the better avenue, what the heck is this all about other than the typical Repub opponents, the positioning for control media, and the pushback supporters (like me) to act out for a few days.  What a load of nothing.

    Ta-da ... on to the next test or whatever of pre-campaign strength.

    I'm not so sure this "scandal" (none / 0) (#24)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 12:37:30 PM EST
    is gone or will go away. My view is that considerable damage has already been done in the press/media/internet, and that impression will remain with many. I think the Repubs will continue to bring up the issue during the campaign.

    Just because supporters, partisans and those willing to look hard at the issue and facts, are becoming comfortable or confident that there is no significant substantive issue, doesn't mean that swing voters and the less informed will have the same view. The Clintons have considerable suspicion following them, some for good reason and some not.  The impression among many is that HIllary was and is hiding something, including on things like Benghazi. This non-scandal will likely play right into that suspicion. The issue is made for simple political ads.

    Also, alot of Dems have not exactly jumped up to support Hillary on this matter.

    Again, I believe damage has been done and it will be a continuing issue. Don't know why the Hillary team didn't have a better explanation/defense ready from the start. It seems that there are various good explanations, including the subject of this thread. Also, the fact, apparently, Kerry is the first Sec of State to use the government email system (read that, but don't know if it's accurate).


    There are (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 12:55:46 PM EST
    only 7% of the population is even following this and no it's not change anything other than make people who formerly were lukewarm about her run to her defense because they are sick of this BS. The only people who think this has does anything is the GOP and mostly it's wishful thinking on their part. And they're the ones who are so obsessed with this yet they are people that would never vote for her. The GOP is going to continue to talk about it and the clown car is going to go into overdrive.

    Poll on Clinton Email Issue (none / 0) (#28)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    "Prior to her press conference, a poll by YouGov found 53 percent of respondents were following the email story somewhat or very closely. Since the press conference, that number is up to 65 percent."

    "On this issue, independents seem to be tracking more closely with Republicans. Last week, 47 percent of independents said the issue was very or somewhat serious. This week, that figure is up to 55 percent."



    Breitbart?? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 04:35:09 PM EST
    ROTFLMAO. The email was probably only sent out to breitbart's email list.

    Looks like the far right is getting played once again. Great fleece the rubes operation he's got going there.


    You guv (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 04:31:57 PM EST
    is an internet poll. This was a poll done by Meet the Press and by a pollster and it was 7%. You do realize that you guy sends you an email wanting you to respond to a poll don't you? It's not a random poll.

    7% is a completely bogus number. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:52:24 PM EST
    Jeez, be realistic. Look around. Look at the other polls. Use some common sense. The Repubs all are over this. Congressional committees are starting to push for getting access to all of her emails and server, for Benghazi reasons.

    "A new Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters finds that half - 49 percent - of likely U.S. voters `believe Clinton's use of a private, non-government e-mail provider for issues at the highest levels of the U.S. government raises serious national security concerns." Link.

    "A Pew Research Center survey released Monday finds that just 17 percent of Americans are closely following the controversy over Clinton's emails. That leaves it behind the U.S. economy [24%],..." Link. Note that 24% are closely following the economy and 17% closely following the Clinton email stuff.

    Rasmussen Reports also says that 57 percent of the respondents are concerned about the potential for conflict of interest raised by the failure of the private Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation to get government approval for some large donations it received from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State." See above link.

    "But a new Pew Research Center poll shows that only 16 percent of Democrats are actually following the story that has engulfed the political world since it broke last week -- and Americans are actually paying more attention to last week's other big stories.

    Even more astounding is the fact that a minority of Republicans are following the story -- just 34 percent, according to the poll." Link.


    Why (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 06:11:55 AM EST
    is that number bogus and yours not? Because you want to believe it? And the GOP only caters to the  far right. Yes, the GOP is screeching but it's what they do. They've ceased to be a political party and are now an apocalyptic cult. Just because some news are reporting it doesn't mean that people are paying attention. Most of the people paying attention are republicans. So yeah, it's a big deal to them but the people paying the least attention are independents.

    The 7% is bogus because (none / 0) (#44)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 09:25:42 AM EST
    it is completely out of step with every other poll of any sort that I could locate, and it's not even close to what the other polls are saying. All of this is already distracting Clinton as she starts to launch her campaign.

    "Representative John Boehner, the top Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, plans to announce a new investigation this week into Hillary Clinton's use of email when she led the State Department, ABC News reported on Sunday."

    "She sent and received 62,320 emails while at the State Department and after a review process, 30,490 were provided to the department at its request, a Clinton spokesman said last week. The remaining 31,830 were private and personal records, the spokesman said."

    "Republican Representative Trey Gowdy, the head of a special House committee examining Benghazi, has said he would like Clinton to testify about her email practices before Congress by April.

    Gowdy told "Fox News Sunday" that the panel received eight emails when it first made its request to the State Department for Clinton's correspondence related to Benghazi in August 2014. The panel received another 300 emails in February.

    "But who gets to decide what's personal and what's public? And if it's a mixed-use email and lots of emails we get in life are both personal and some work, I just can't trust her lawyers to make the determination that the public is getting everything they're entitled to," Gowdy said."

    Link, for all of these quotes.


    Yes (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 09:30:20 AM EST
    the GOP is going to show the entire country that they cannot govern. What else is new? This is all they are capable of doing. The polls just came out showing her trouncing the entire GOP field. So I guess the GOP has basically given up and is now dropping down to their lowest common denominator BS. This is what they do. No one should be suprised. And too boot I'm sure they'll put Huckleberry Hound the third rate neoconfederate prosecutor on the job. They never learn. They'll beat a dead horse forever.

    The GOP and some in the media (none / 0) (#46)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 09:47:42 AM EST
    are going to hound and distract Clinton, probably make her look evasive, try to catch her in little lies, and say/show that she can't be trusted--with the email issue. It is going to be a significant and continuing issue, as well as distraction, for her.

    Read this recent WaPost fact-checker article. Look at the all the questions and inconsistencies. Feel free to come back and tell us that you believe everything that Hillary said in the press conference is accurate and complete in all material respects.


    Also keep in mind that if the election were held today, I would vote for Hillary. It's early in the process. I haven't look carefully at any of the candidates, but I believe Hillary has more experience and competence than all of the other candidates.


    So what? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 09:52:22 AM EST
    What else is new? This is really more about trying to divide and conquer than anything else. It's what the GOP does.

    People are going to move on. Even the press is going to get tired of this story and move onto something else. They always do.

    It looks like the GOP is going to try to do a repeat of the Bob Dole 1996 campaign. Good luck with that. Hillary has been in the public eye for a long time.


    And the Wa Po (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 09:53:14 AM EST
    gave her ZERO pinocchios. If you think that helps make your point then you're really out there.

    Actually, (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 10:20:28 AM EST
    What they said was:

    At this point, given the fluid situation, we are holding off on issuing a Pinocchio rating but we may do so in the future

    It's not "Zero Pinocchios" - they are withholding a rating at this time.

    They also said this:

    "I fully complied with every rule that I was governed by."

    This appears increasingly debatable.

    The Fact Checker covered most of these rules in our timeline about the Clinton controversy. Certainly, the law became clearer after Clinton stepped down. But even when Clinton was secretary, the State Department emphasized that a personal e-mail account was not a preferred mode of communication -- and that it was the responsibility of officials using a personal e-mail account to make sure that "federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system." A cable was even issued under Clinton's name that warned: "Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts."

    The White House has said Obama issued "very specific guidance" that officials should use government e-mail accounts for official business.

    It was (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32:53 AM EST
    "not preferred" my they've stepped down already backing off their previous stuff. This is all a big nothingburger and since they also said that Jeb violated national security with his emails I guess they're going to move on but I'm sure the GOP will not.

    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:19:33 AM EST
    "Waaah! Look at the other guy!  They do it too!" is not a good way to get people to vote for you.

    You missed the (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:25:04 AM EST
    point. They have started backing off after it was found out that Jeb violated national security. I personally don't think either email situation is going to be a deciding fact. Jeb has way worse problems than his email.

    I don't care about Jeb Bush (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:39:59 AM EST
    He hasn't been in office in years and he v was the governor of a state.  What I DO care about, is the fact that Hillary Clinton, whom I have always supported, did something so stupid when she is so smart - giving unnecessary fodder to the press and any Republican opponent, when it was easily avoidable.

    But, whether Pew or other reported surveys, (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 04:00:30 PM EST
    most people don't care (exception: Repubs.)  As for the other-guy-does-it-too aspect, that may not work in a very formal sense and, strictly speaking, in law.  But, in politics, what is seen or becomes recognized as obvious practice during a contemporaneous period tends to neutralize any advantage that the protagonist may have sought.  Out here, for example, general comments from non-politicos seem to follow a well-was-there-anything-bad-that-happened <because it looks like they all were doing the same thing.>  

    But then, people will believe what they want to believe. I'm surprised that HRC appears to be moving thru the early hit so quickly for whatever reason ... perhaps, the fact that everything got so muddled for even the Washingtonians after the changing claims when the initial overreaching claims of legal violation started to disappear. That blurred lots of things; and, the stage now for non-politicos may be "exactly-what-is-so-goll darned-wrong" anyway?!

    In the meantime, get used to the hits leveled at HRC ... there will be one every few weeks in attempt to render her defensive (tho, any Democratic candidate would face similar attacks later) earlier than usual as well as to find the wedge among Dems.  But then, the Repubs can only delay the obvious nasty free-for-all awaiting them in their primaries soon enough.


    While I agree with some/much of what (none / 0) (#74)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 04:15:38 PM EST
    you said, Christinep, Bush isn't going to have Congressional hearings going on regarding his emails, and it looks like Hillary will. The hearings will keep the Hillary email in the press, and elevate the noise from time to time--even if nothing of note comes out of them.

    And how well (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 04:23:59 PM EST
    has that worked with Benghazi? Not atl all.

    Hysterical much dude?

    The GOP has done this stuff over over for almost a quarter of a century and it hasn't worked yet but they're slow learners.

    It's not going to make one iota of difference and they especially look stupid talking about this when they are touting Scott Walker for President who is actually under a legitimate criminal investigation in Wisconsin.


    Emails in the press equals (none / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 05:42:50 PM EST
    lack of any actual work getting done by the GOP led congress . . . . also in the press.

    What do they plan on running on when they have done nothing to help the American people, but found the time and resources to investigate Hillary for the past several years (and found nothing)?


    The Roman Games (none / 0) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 06:21:08 PM EST
    Theory of politics .Maybe their constituent realize that these clowns won't do anything to make their lives better so they demand entertainment.

    The Jeb Bush situation is different. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:51:59 AM EST
    And he's wasn't the Secretary of State or a federal official. Most reasonable analysis and media is saying the Clinton situation is considerable worse than the Bush situation.

    The WA Post did not say Jeb Bush "violated national security". It said that he used personal email to to discuss security and military matters like Middle East troop deployments and security for nuclear plants. Now compare that to what Clinton presumably discussed via her emails in her years as Secretary of State. While I have not followed the Bush email stuff closely, are there any allegations that his use of personal email violated any rules? I haven't noticed anything. While there are some similarities in practices between Clinton and Bush personal email use, Bush was apparently open about using his personal email account and Florida didn't have any rules preventing or discouraging the use of personal email accounts. Nevertheless, Bush does have a smaller email issue too, in my view, and it will also dog him to some extent.


    Here (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 12:18:43 PM EST
    But security experts say private e-mail systems such as the one used by Bush are more vulnerable to hackers, and that details such as troop movements could be exploited by enemies.

    And his brother was president at the time.

    What a joke he is.

    It took Jeb Bush more than SEVEN years to follow the law in Florida on this kind of thing. So he broke state law according to the reports.

    But like I said this email thing is going nowhere with either one of them and trying to make excuses for Jeb Bush doesn't make your case any better. Jeb has much bigger problems than breaking the FL law on email.


    So (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 12:47:04 PM EST
    When I Google "Jeb Bush" and "National Security", hundreds of articles and links pop up.  Should we say this too, is just a media creation or should we be consistent and say. "Nothing to see here"?

    I have said (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 12:51:16 PM EST
    numerous times that the email stuff is not going to matter. It's not going to matter for Bush and it's not going to matter for Clinton.

    Jeb Bush has worse problems than breaking the law on emails in Florida.


    Ga6, where is your support (none / 0) (#71)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 03:17:16 PM EST
    for saying the Wa Post said that Bush violated national security laws?

    Everyone knows that all email systems are vulnerable to hacking and security problems, to varying extents. I don't know whether Bush's or Clinton's systems were more or less secure. I can't imagine that there wasn't alot more important US and national security information going through Hillary's personal emails than through Bush's, as she was the Secretary of State.


    Read the entire (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    article and then there's the NY times article stating that Jeb Bush broke the law. No one is even stating that Hillary broke the law.

    Nevertheless Jeb is a moron who's biggest problem is his love of Sharia Law.

    Jeb Bush's email problems grow more serious


    Ga6, where's your support for Bush (none / 0) (#72)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    having violated the law? You keep saying this, but I have not noticed any support whatsoever for your statement.

    Of course (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 12:49:08 PM EST
    since it's a Clinton
    Now compare that to what Clinton presumably discussed via her emails in her years as Secretary of State.
    we most all presume the worst.

    My understanding is that their situations regarding the use of e-mails are fairly similar, neither one of them directly violated any laws or regulations, but they both took advantage of loopholes and they both dragged their feet with regard to releasing them. You claim Bush was "open" about using his personal account, probably so, but Hillary never made any attempt to hide her use either, somehow you and the rest of her detractors infers she was.


    While there are similarities, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 03:13:23 PM EST
    there are also differences. The Bush situation has far fewer issues. He was not the Secretary of State. The Florida laws and rules are not the same as the US laws and rules. Bush was providing some, but not all, of his emails during the time he was governor, I believe.

    You are still (none / 0) (#76)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 04:24:41 PM EST
    The Bush situation has far fewer issues.
    It is quite possible that the state laws/rules in effect during Bush's tenure were more specific then the federal rules during Clinton's.

    Nope (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 04:38:29 PM EST
    all indications are that Bush broke the law in Florida regarding emails. All emails were supposed to be handed in upon leaving office. There were no such laws governing Hillary only some guidelines. The law that covers all this did not go into effect until 2014 a year after Hillary left office.

    Dude at least get your facts straight. Being a Bush apologist doesn't cut it and Breitbart is leading you down a rabbit hole.


    It's hard to (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    take them seriously, when use "Pinocchios" as the metric. Just sayin'



    It's nicer than (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:40:53 AM EST
    Calling them outright liars.

    I suppose (none / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 12:23:55 PM EST
    I don't know how I could follow anything else (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 05:42:02 PM EST
    When this is the only thing being covered in the news.

    Did you know that marchers marched again from Selma to Montgomery after Bloody Sunday's 50th birthday?  No much for coverage of important news.


    Well (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:04:42 PM EST
    if you watch cable news there you go. It merited one day on the front page here in Atlanta and now it's gone to somwewhere else if anywhere at all.

    Hillary drives ratings though. You mention her and your ratings shoot up.


    Everyone is the National Enquirer now (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 07:01:04 PM EST
    Life is so much more enjoyable (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:37:02 PM EST
    without cable news :D

    HRC email mentioned (none / 0) (#14)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 11:55:33 PM EST
    at the Washington Gridiron Dinner by the President

    "Nine years after he made his Gridiron Club dinner debut as a fresh-faced young senator, President Obama took the podium again Saturday night, sounding wistful about the passage of time.

    "Just a few years ago I could never imagine being in my 50s," he mused. "And when it comes to my approval ratings, I still can't."

    No, seriously, folks. Remember, he told the white-tie crowd of elite journalists, when he was considered the tech-savvy hipster in the executive mansion? But now, "Hillary has a server in her house!" he exclaimed. "I didn't even know you could have one of those. I am so far behind.""

    Sometime prior to 2008, (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 02:02:38 AM EST
    a California state agency informed me work email generated or received by its employees was not retrievable after x no. of months.  No can do. But, when queried, the IT guru stated it was retrievable. He did so and I had the task of reviewing the printed emails for purposes of preparing a privilege log and turning over the unprivileged material to plaintiff's counsel. Big job.

    This anecdote is likely irrelevant, as HRC has already turned over her emails to the State Department.

    Sometime prior to 2008, (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 02:02:51 AM EST
    a California state agency informed me work email generated or received by its employees was not retrievable after x no. of months.  No can do. But, when queried, the IT guru stated it was retrievable. He did so and I had the task of reviewing the printed emails for purposes of preparing a privilege log and turning over the unprivileged material to plaintiff's counsel. Big job.

    This anecdote is likely irrelevant, as HRC has already turned over her emails to the State Department.

    Did she or did she not sign (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:22:35 AM EST
    and comply with OF-109

    1. I have surrendered to responsible officials all classified or administratively....


    Let me know when that is answered.

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:32:53 AM EST
    According to you (funniest qualifier ever), she violated the law if she signed it or if she didn't.

    You're funny.


    et al (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:12:02 AM EST
    What I may or may not have said or done or written has nothing to do with the question.

    And you or worried or you wouldn't be trying to change the subject.


    It's not what you MAY have said (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:35:22 AM EST
    It's what you actually said - and it has everything to do with your "question", because your "question" isn't a question at all.  Just another specious, evidence-free claim in the form of a "question", which is what you always do when you have no facts to back up your silly theories.

    The moon is made of blue cheese (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    or maybe cheddar.

    Now. What does that have to do with the question:

    Did she sign or didn't she?

    Quit trying to hide.


    File a FOIA reques (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 01:05:33 PM EST
    and then you can tell us the results.

    Otherwise, passing on the latest Roger Ailes/Brietbart  talking point does you no credit.   That's like asking , "Have you stopped beating your spouse? Answer yes or no!"

    Keep up the good work!


    A FOIA has already been filed (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 07:22:28 PM EST
    But tell me.

    Why should that be necessary??

    I mean Obama promised us the most transparent administration in history.

    He wouldn't lie to us, would he??

    I mean if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.


    He apologized for that mistake (none / 0) (#82)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 08:08:03 PM EST
    but then you're Mr. Perfect, so you've never had that experience, apparently.

    People aren't going to give a sh*t about this a year from now.


    WMDs (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 08:17:09 PM EST
    The war will pay for itself.

    Mission accomplished.

    Etc. etc. etc.


    Don't forget his BFF (none / 0) (#85)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:24:57 PM EST
    Telling the Secretary of the Treasury that "deficits don't matter".

    No idea - just like you (none / 0) (#83)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 08:15:59 PM EST
    OTOH - I'm not the one making accusations in the form of questions because I have no evidence to back them up.

    You want to find her guilty of something (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:27:28 AM EST
    with less evidence than is present in a parking ticket, Jim.

    You don't have any evidence either way (none / 0) (#18)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:28:57 AM EST

    Timing is key (none / 0) (#32)
    by thomas rogan on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 05:50:21 PM EST
    A lot of posters simply say, "I'd prefer Hillary to Jeb" and ignore the Nixonian aspects of all this.  This is not July 2016.  This is the time to pick a better Democratic nominee.  
    Resume of HRC:
    1.  Eight years as wife of a president, only policy "achievement" was the fiasco of a health bill.
    2.  Eight years as a senator from a safe seat she carpetbagged into from New York.  No committee chairs or notable legislative achievements.
    3.  Four years as secretary of state.  No clear major administrative or diplomatic achievements during that time.
    4.  Scandals from Whitewater to Rose Law Records to the way she enabled the trashing of Monica Lewinsky ("a troubled women") to State Department emails.

    Is there really no one better who can be chosen?  There is a year to pick another nominee.  

    What are your suggestions? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:03:19 PM EST
    Just curious and as far as stuff they all have it. Good grief the GOP is touting a candidate who is under criminal investigation.

    Which one? (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:40:06 PM EST

    Eight years as a Presidents wife (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:54:25 PM EST
    When the Republicans screamed over and over agin she wasn't elected to anything.  Can't imagine what you are referring to with she was allowed to do with Tricare as everything she did do has been changed.

    8 Yrs as a Senator, sat on the Armed Services Committee, visited Iraq during the first year.  Did not wear Kevlar to an Iraqi market while pronouncing Iraq on the cusp of becoming a tourist destination.  Challenged David Petraues on selling the surge.  And the only thing the surge did was give us enough breathing room to credibly leave the burning apocalypse we created. So she was right, David Petraeus was ultimately full of $hit, but you couldn't publicly sell the surge as killing enough people to stun the power struggle long enough for us to leave.  That just sounds heinous, but our only option.

    Served as Secretary of State during some of the most foreign policy challenging times in our nation's history.  Served honorably and extremely successfully.


    I don't favor (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by sj on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    a run by HRC. Having said that, your attempts at diminishing the "resume" of this very accomplished woman is laughable.

    What candidate would you (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 07:11:37 PM EST
    like the Democratic Party to pick, Joe Manchin.