home

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

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections
Posted on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 05:03:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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:
    The Plot Thins: State Dept regs require employees to decide what e-mails are preserved | 86 comments (86 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    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
    "scandal"...

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Whatever.

    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...

    Parent

    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?

    Parent

    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.  

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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?

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.


    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.




    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    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
    office;

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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).

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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."

    Link.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.


    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Fact-checker.

    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.

    Parent

    So what? (none / 0) (