House Subpoenas Hillary's Emails

The House has subpoenaed Hillary Clinton's emails.

Use of a private email system wasn't against the law. There was no prohibition on using a private email account for official business, as long as the emails are preserved. There's no indication she reviewed classified information via email. There's no indication (unlike with Dick Cheney, Gov. Scott Walker, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and George W. Bush) any emails are missing, hidden or intentionally destroyed. During the Bush Administration, 22 million emails went missing.[More...]

When the State Department asked former Secretaries of State to turn in their emails, Hillary is the only one who complied. Her emails aren't missing. Any email she sent to someone at the State Department would also be on the State Department system.

Apparently, John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use the State Department's email system.

Hillary rivals and Republicans say "How can we be sure?" The answer is simple: There's no reason to believe she's lying. If you don't trust her, then by all means don't vote for her, if she runs. But unless someone can point to something she hid, or some law (as opposed to a recommended internal policy)she broke, give it a rest.

I still lean towards thinking she isn't running for President. It hardly seems worth the aggravation given the lightening rod she is to Republicans. The e-mail brouhaha is a good example. If she doesn't run, I sure hope someone other than Joe Biden steps in.

< Tsarnaev: Judy Clarke's Opening Statement | "Happy Snap" Taken by Indo Cop on Death Plane >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 07:50:01 PM EST
    the jihadis in the house are going to jump on this and I'm sure she knew it was coming. She didn't spend 8 years having Ken Starr pilfer around in her underwear drawers for nothing.

    Oh, and everybody (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 07:51:32 PM EST
    is a lightening rod for the GOP. They think they are entitled to the presidency.

    I know - every time I am so disgusted (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 09:38:49 PM EST
    that I don't want Hillary to run just because I can't take any more of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome, I remember the Birthers and all the other idiocies they came up with about Obama, and realize no one will be immune.

    Absolutely right (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 10:19:45 PM EST
    it doesn't matter who it is.  I think Hillary knows this.  Probably better than anyone.  And I think she is running.

    She is IMO... (none / 0) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 09:14:06 AM EST
    ...with quotes like this:
    "I suppose it's fair to say, don't you someday want to see a woman president of the United States of America?"

    But also agree that anyone running for President has to understand the right is going to tear them to pieces, even their own.

    The piece posted in another thread about Rand Paul getting grief over not clapping enough for Bibi, is a perfect example.

    How they can stay politically relevant is beyond me, but then again I see there postings here and it explains a whole lot.  


    I think she will run and win (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Jack203 on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 09:21:40 PM EST
    If for nothing else, to be the first women president.

    I thnk you are right (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 10:22:35 PM EST
    but not for that reason.  How could anyone walk away from such a possibility but I think she thinks she could be a great president.  And so do I.

    The more you think about it (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:57:03 AM EST
    the more ridiculous this "scandal" becomes. Even if you some how consider this some kind of skullduggery, where the heck was everyone when it she was committing these "transgressions"? Are you telling me that during her whole tenure no one noticed she was using her own account exclusively? Are you me telling that during the multiple Benghazi hearings, where she did provide many of said E-mails, that none of her detractors noticed and attacked her for it during investigations?

    Everyone in DC and beyond saw exactly what she was doing and no one called her on it until now. I call this a BS media hatchet job, enforcing the Clinton's "lack of transparency" narrative. I smell Jeb Bush's fingerprints all over this one.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 08:01:21 AM EST
    it seems that Sharia Bush is the one most people think is behind this one. He knows he's a loser in the general though and I think this is more about trying to get to not run than anything else.

    Sharia Bush....Yer killin me (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 08:08:16 AM EST
    Will we get T-shirts?  Ga6th is ready, gonna party like its 2016 :)

    My cousin made a Buck Fush stencil, all you needed was a shirt and a can of spray paint :)


    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 08:16:33 AM EST
    The shirts would need to say Jeb Bush practices Sharia but it would be the truth too. The closest thing the US has ever had to Sharia was practiced by Jeb during the Terri Schaivo debacle.

    A fishing expedition, I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 09:05:50 AM EST
    to get at all of her emails since she used a single address to send both private and government emails.

    How can we know we're not missing anything unless we have everything and check for ourselves.....?

    Using the press as a patsy under the guise of some FOIA bs.

    All this e-mail sniffing is a substitute (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 09:55:13 AM EST
    for the panty-sniffing the other side usually engages in.

    And, have you noticed that it's no longer sufficient for the person whose e-mails are being requested to determine their relevance?  Now apparently everyone has to look at all of them to make that determination.  We no longer believe anyone when they say they've complied with a request - those people have to somehow prove that nothing has been withheld.

    How do you do that, I wonder?


    My initial reaction (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    to the NYTimes article was that Secretary Clinton could not ignore the matter, and, indeed, needed to respond as quickly as possible.  

    The story did not deserve legs, but having been printed, its lower extremities needed to be cut off, fast.  This is even more important today, than it was in  the recent past.

    Firstly, the issue needed to be defined by Mrs. Clinton, not by the misplaced fervor of media spreaders.   It is a case of obtaining and retaining records for the archives--with which Mrs. Clinton was complying. A subsequent Amendment clarifying the record keeping requirements was not enacted until 2014, two years after her leaving office.  This was not indicated in the initial NYT reporting. An easy rebuttal.

     And, of course, there is no substantive law or regulation in question--private computer/servers could be used--the records needed to be retained.  

    Fortunately, the obsession of the Republicans on the dry hole of Benghazi, has provided time for a Clinton response, including a call for release of the emails provided to the public.  Bits and pieces of a response were presented by bloggers and friends. And, Mrs. Clinton is not yet a declared candidae.  But, I hope this is a reminder, if one is needed, that even 48hours may be too long in the social media age to stop stories from getting legs.  True, that the Republicans will never let go (cf. Benghazi) but it helps with the sane.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:50:28 PM EST
    important issues might in play but I don't know enough about the issues you mention and others to make any judgement.
    Which is why a response and possibly an explanation is needed.

    Actually, "anyone who bothered" (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 11:17:57 AM EST
    ... to actually read the section you're relying on (44 USC Section 2911) to support your silly claim would quickly realize it was enacted as part of the Federal Records Accountability Act of 2014, enacted Nov. 26, 2014.


    Time to put down that shovel and stop digging., huh?

    No need (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 12:24:46 PM EST
    Your effort to dig up some new citations on which to rely has also failed miserably.  Not sure what you're citing since you provided no link, although the editorial comment you left in there provides a clue.

    The 2014 amendment to statutory law merely recodifies previously existing requirements, establishes the 20 day limit and authorizes disciplinary sanctions for employees in violation. The requirement to disclose official communications from external accounts  and make them  available for internal agency storage email communications pertaining to government business has been the law ever since email began being widely used.

    Really?  Is that all it does?  Is this your learned opinion or some wingnut website?  Moot point - not sure which would have less credibility.

    But once again, there remains no evidence that HC violated those provisions, and it's absolutely not the certainty that you claim.

    The National Archives and Records Administration, the government agency that regulates the Federal Records Act, issued guidance in 2009 -- the same year Clinton took over at State -- that allowed agency employees to use personal accounts as long as they ensured "that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

    Before that, the archives agency said they did not "specifically address this issue.

    It wasn't until 2014 - when President Barack Obama signed an update to the Federal Records Law - that a timeline was set up to mandate how quickly emails had to be turned over by people who used personal devices.

    To sum up, there was no prohibition on using private email accounts while she was SOS and no timeframe for providing the emails, if they weren't already provided by sending to a .gov email address where they would automatically be archived.

    But keep trying to move those goalposts (hint- putting down the shovel might help).

    Hillary was against private emails (2.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    This is (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:33:56 PM EST
    precisely why this is going to go nowhere. The GOP did the same thing and they're going to say it's end of the world that Hillary did it? Are they going to retroactively string up Colin Powell and everybody else from the Bush Administration? You know they aren't. So essentially the GOP is going to stand in front of everybody and say Hillary doing it was wrong and everbody in the Bush Administration doing it was okay?

    There's a difference, or at least I think (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:45:46 PM EST
    there is, between the secret e-mail accounts the Bush administration used in connection with the US Attorney firings and Clinton using a personal account for communicating with State Department personnel.

    If Slado is looking for something nefarious, that would be an excellent place to start.


    There (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:03:07 PM EST
    is but this is so much overwrought drama. Truly if she is the nominee I do believe we are going to have to cart the GOP off to a mental hosptial. Because apparently they think that everything she does is some nefarious plot to control the world. You know it's all because of that evil Eve back in the garden...

    Well, (none / 0) (#184)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 12:33:19 PM EST
      John Kerry was attacked for supposedly embellishing his wartime service by people who used "every trick in the book" to avoid having any service to embellish.

      Perhaps Clinton will be more effective at the "pot/kettle" defense than Kerry was at the "never near the kitchen/kettle defense," but that hardly means this will go nowhere simply because some of the people going after her will look hypocritical.



    Hmmm . . . my understanding is (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 07:52:09 PM EST
    she turned these emails over a couple months ago when asked, so are they subpoenaing emails they already have?

    Probably (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 07:54:38 PM EST
    as seen by all their so called investigations over the years they aren't the sharpest tools in the tool box.

    hmm (none / 0) (#5)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 08:24:03 PM EST
    i thought i was the only one who was thinking Hillary won't run

    i have been thinking this for a while, & not for any particular reason - just a spidey sense

    i suspect we're getting a Republican president next time - that's usually what happens after one party has held the White House for two terms

    also, for a number of reasons, the Democrats have or are perceived to have a bench that is not deep

    maybe the "emerging Democratic majority" is not quite ready to emerge

    I've had that nagging feeling, too. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:00:56 AM EST
    And like you, it's been based on nothing more than gut instinct. But, now, my head is telling me that my gut is probably wrong. And I'll tell you what -- if she does run, I'll be there to support her, and I think she wins going away and will be a great president.

    But Democrats need to do so much more than focus on the White House. They must funnel support back into the rebuilding of state party organizations across the country, and start retaking state legislatures in advance of the 2020 census and its accompanying reapportionment and redistricting cycle.

    In 2014, the GOP outspent us at the state legislative level by a nearly 6-to-1 margin. We'll be locked out of congressional majorities for the foreseeable future unless and until we stop Republican gerrymandering. That's what enabled the GOP to take 13 of 18 U.S. House seats in Pennsylvania in 2012, despite receiving support from only 45% of the electorate statewide. That can only fixed by retaking control of the legislature in Harrisburg.

    So please, DNC members, as a state regional chair I beg you -- get rid of the DC-centric Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who's been an absolutely terrible party chair, and bring back Howard Dean, whose "50 state strategy" led us us majorities in both Houses of Congress, and control of a majority of state legislatures.

    We need someone who actually knows how to lead from the front, and won't be a doormat for Beltway political interests at the expense of state Democrats across the country.



    Donald (none / 0) (#33)
    by ragebot on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 08:04:03 AM EST
    I spent serious time using ESRI GIS products analysing local, state, and federal voting district boundaries.  Florida had one of the strangest House districts in the country.  It had been set up under a court order to prevent dilution of minority voters.  It contained a low income minority neighborhood, along stretch of I95, over 100 miles with no voters, and a section of a minority neighborhood in Jacksonville.

    The SC has ruled districts should be as contiguous as possible and not dilute minority voting power, sometimes conflicting goals.

    In the PA case you cite the Democrats win big in cities, but lose close in more rural areas.  The courts take a dim view of splitting a city in half and including more rural areas, but they also take a dim view of dilution.

    I suggest you get someone with ESRI experience to play around with the software and see how hard it is to come up with regular shaped contiguous districts.

    Not just in PA, but many other states as well, the Democrats are concentrated in small dense pockets in cities while the Republicans are spread out over a much larger sparsely populated area.

    Another problem is those densely populated areas with big Democratic majorities tend to increase there population faster than rural Republican majority areas resulting in an absolute population difference in district size that can only be corrected every ten years.

    Bottom line is a party neutral contiguous districts line drawing favors the Republican and it is the Democrats that need funny shaped districts.


    That's nonsense. (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 11:17:23 AM EST
    I've served on our State Reapportionment Commission, which is responsible for drawing electoral district boundaries down to the precinct level, and is independent of our state legislature. Even then, it's a very competitive process. Have you done anything remotely comparable? I think not.

    Increasingly over the last three decades, elected officials in most states have been choosing their own voters, not vice versa. That needs to stop.

    A priority of redistricting should be the creation of more electorally diverse and potentially competitive districts to the extent possible, and not the formation of safe districts for the benefit of either specific legislators or one of the two major political parties.



    Safe black districts (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    Will not be competitive.

    That's ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:59:32 PM EST
    there are plenty of hotly contested races in safe black districts, or safe white districts for that matter. No one that wants a seat in elective office just gives up because someone of their own race already has it.

    Safe black districts (none / 0) (#152)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 09:04:29 AM EST
    Are 100% safe Dem districts.  Name one safe black congressional seat held by an R.

    The emerging Democratic Majority (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 08:51:38 PM EST
    is based on demographics, so I would not over react to this email brouhaha....

    I will say that the press hits Hillary harder than anyone else.....


    my sense that Hillary is not running (none / 0) (#7)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 09:07:01 PM EST
    has nothing to do with these e-mails - as i said, i have had this thought for some time

    Could be, but every indication (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 09:29:37 PM EST
    is that she is running...

    i hope she does (none / 0) (#11)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 09:30:40 PM EST
    i said she wouldn't run shortly after chelsea got (none / 0) (#15)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 10:22:25 PM EST
    got married. Chelsea would get pregnant, and both hill & bill would want to stay home and be grandparents. the only part of my prediction that has yet to come to pass, is that she hasn't officially announced she's not running, first female president or not. she still has time to make the gop squirm, and she's enjoying every moment of it.

    Hmmm, haven't noticed that Hill and Bill are (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 11:17:32 PM EST
    staying home being grandparents now that the baby is here. Why would they? It's really not the norm as they haven't retired . . . . all 3 are working together, among other things . . .

    What Hillary's emails really reveal (none / 0) (#8)
    by Politalkix on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 09:18:16 PM EST
    Very troubling article... (none / 0) (#40)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 11:12:56 AM EST
    ...but that has nothing to do with Clinton.

    "According to the nonpartisan Public Interest Declassification Board, a single intelligence agency is producing a petabyte of classified data every 18 months, or the equivalent of 20 million four-drawer file cabinets. The National Archives estimates that, without new technology to accelerate the process, that information would take two million employees a year to review for declassification. Instead, there are just 41 archivists working in College Park, Md., to review records from across the entire federal government -- one page at a time."


    "Consider the example of the State Department's core Central Foreign Policy Files, the National Archives' first large collection of electronic records. We have no diplomatic cables for whole weeks from the 1970s. They were lost long ago -- nobody knows when, or why. Recently, archivists started to delete millions more cables and documents sight unseen because they did not have the staff to review them."

    By the time Clinton's SofS emails went through declassification so the right wing could comb through them for ammunition against her, would any of us still be around to read about it?


    She has to (none / 0) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 09:38:24 PM EST
    be running. She knows she is sucking up money and oxygen from all the other Democrats. At this point she has no need to be coy and stand in the way of other Democrats. Unlike the pack of grifters, demagogues and con-men on the Republican side, she has no need to prove anything to the world and she is certainly is set for life financially.

    I think HRC would make a decent president but I also  often  think

    It hardly seems worth the aggravation given the lightening rod she is to Republicans.
    she of course knows exactly what she is facing and seems to be energized rather then discouraged about it.

    she can give all that money to another (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 10:26:01 PM EST
    candidate, when she announces she's not going to run, and urge all her supporters to turn that energy to the actual democratic nominee. she's got a good 6 more months to play with the republicans, and see how many of them she can get to go publicly lunatic, before she realistically needs to pull the plug.

    hell, let her have her fun, she's earned it.


    Classified Emails (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 04, 2015 at 11:33:00 PM EST
    so our Secretary of State never sent nor received an email with classified information during her four years on the job?

    I only ask because she only used her personal email and never had a secure email setup for her according to what the State Department has said to this point.  

    YouTube - Harf answers questions at State

    So what was the system?  Did she let her staff and anyone she ever dealt with know that she could not receive these types of emails and if they would like to send them to her to send them to her assistant so they could be printed out and read to her later?

    Vice versa did she then dictate classified information to a staffer for them to email out for her with their properly secured email address? They also I suppose couldn't copy her.  

    Doesn't sound very efficient but maybe this didn't happen very often?  I mean she was only the Secretary of State.  

    That's all baseless speculation. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:08:21 AM EST
    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 04:50:50 AM EST
    not true. There was a secure set up but I don't expect the facts to change any minds.

    To me this just proves everything the GOP said after last November is a lie. They said they were going to pass centrist legislation and work to get something done. None of that is happening. It's more of the same mindless conspiracy laden "investigations" they've been doing for 22 years now. You know there gets to a point where you cry wolf so much that no one is going to listen to you but most importantly the GOP is proving to the electorate once again that they are incapable of governing. This kind of thing won't get the GOP any more voters and is more proof that the GOP doesn't need to be in the presidency.


    Sometimes I just have to wonder how (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:13:23 AM EST
    stupid people think someone like Clinton is...

    Has it occurred to you that she didn't use e-mail for classified communications?  I mean, there's no rule that says ALL communications must be made electronically, is there?  That's why people have telephones, it's why they meet in person, why they send memos.  It's why countless Secretaries of State either didn't use e-mail at all, or didn't use it for classified communications. John Kerry, for heaven's sake, is the first SoS to actually use his government e-mail account exclusively.  

    Again, Clinton used the personal e-mail account to communicate with her staff and co-workers.  Since those communications were going to the recipients' government e-mail accounts, those e-mails are all preserved and archived, which is consistent with the requirements at the time.

    Hillary Clinton was SoS from 2009 through early 2013.  Are you seriously going to tell me that in all that time, no one at State noticed that her e-mail address didn't end in "state.gov" or whatever the State Department's domain is? That her decision to use her own account, and house it on her own server, was never discussed or vetted to make sure that she was in compliance with whatever the policies were at the time?

    Everyone that I know who has an e-mail system at work knows that you don't say anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't be okay with the entire office/company knowing - that if you have something to communicate of any sensitivity you either do it in person or you pick up the phone.

    I can see you're not going to let go of this, but you're also apparently not going to bother to keep up with the actual facts - I don't understand this kind of approach, unless you really are that desperate for your assumptions and conclusions to be true.

    At one point, Slado, I had hoped that people offering the actual facts would put out a little of your Clinton-hate fire, but now it's clear that you are operating under the precepts of that well-known anti-Clinton M.O. known as "garbage in - garbage out;" TL is not, as you may have assumed, a garbage dump, so you might want to pack up your trash and go dump it somewhere else.


    I'm beginning (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:28:12 AM EST
    to think that the crux of this goes back to the GOP's problem with women and their basic fundamental belief that women are inherently evil and need to be controlled. Scott Walker is under a criminal investigation but yet they're touting him for president but nothing is going on with Hillary but they think it's a version of "resident evil". All they're doing is driving more and more women away from the GOP and yes, they think she's stupid because again, she's a woman. It's tiresome.

    If you want interesting speculation, (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:39:50 AM EST
    consider this, from Carter Eskew at the WaPo:

    One of the best practitioners of the political dark arts used to refer to the kind of story that appeared yesterday about Hillary Clinton using a personal e-mail account instead of an official one while at the State Department as a "Picasso." By that, he meant a masterpiece of his craft: placing, without fingerprints, negative stories that wind up on the front pages of a major newspaper and command the political news cycle for a few days. These stories are often months in the making and, at best, reinforce or create a new negative narrative about the target. So it is with this latest story on Clinton and e-mails. For Clinton-haters and skeptics, it underscores a pattern of deception and rule-breaking and threatens to become a chronic annoyance for her eventual candidacy. What e-mails are missing? What's in them? A congressional investigation, anyone?

    There's another interesting wrinkle to this story for those who follow the game within the game of political campaigns. Who might have been the source of the story? Which master of the craft of opposition research? Well, I don't know, but you don't have to be an expert in forensics to suspect the campaign of Jeb Bush. Bush, after all, released all of his e-mails from his years as governor of Florida, which seems less curious now. And his campaign communications director, Tim Miller, perhaps the best in the Republican Party, is the former head of the factory of Clinton opposition research, America Rising. If that's the case, the story could be a signal that Bush's campaign knows how to throw a fastball up and in.

    Yeah, I think it may be far more interesting to know who's behind getting the story out there, because I think the "story" itself is a big ol' nothing-burger.


    It does (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:55:55 AM EST
    sound like classic Bush. Since they know that the name Bush is toxic in American politics they try to drag everybody else down with them. At least Hillary and Bill know how to fight though. Jeb Bush has a ton of baggage his biggest one IMO is that he's the closest practioner of Sharia Law that the country has right now.

    I know, it's vile (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:41:34 AM EST
    Scott Walker honest crook (you wanna have a beer with him), Hillary Clinton conniving woman.

    Scott Walker IS the reason for this (none / 0) (#180)
    by Towanda on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    faux brouhaha about Clinton, I suspect, so as to create a false equivalency about the problem at the core of the investigations, convictions of his aides, etc.:

    That he approved a secret router in his own office, as county executive, to have his staff illegally work for his campaign for governor, on county time.

    That is illegal in Wisconsin.  But state law did not bind Clinton.  No matter, when it's yet another maneuver by the Walkerites in the GOP, in anticipation the day, if ever it comes, when the national media expend even a few minutes to figure out the investigations of Walker in Wisconsin -- which, by the way, will be before the state Supreme Court soon.  Unfortunately, the Kochs bought the court, even before they bought Walker, so as to rubber-stamp all that he does.


    I don't see (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 01:09:19 PM EST
    how this helps Walker. His screeching jihad of a speech that is recorded is enough to kill him off as serious presidential material. Too bad you guys in Wisconsin can't fulfill his wish and parachute him into the middle of ISIS. He definitely showed he's a third rate player and an amateur with that speech.

    What you seem to be missing (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    Since those communications were going to the recipients' government e-mail accounts, those e-mails are all preserved and archived, which is consistent with the requirements at the time.

    are any emails she sent to other people - such as heads of state, dignitaries, business people, fundraisers, or anyone else will not necessarily be preserved or turned over.

    The emails she already turned over were selectively hand picked to be turned over by HRC and staff members.  They are in no way, ALL of her emails. (And no, no one cares about her wedding planning with Chelsea - THAT'S what her personal email should have been used for).

    It really isn't a difficult concept at all to understand as to why people may be upset and questioning her judgment.  What's more difficult to understand are those who want to employ the "Nothing to see here" strategy.


    So. Clinton has not been SoS for (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:53:02 PM EST
    two years.  So, in six years, there has not been one peep, one eyebrow raised, no anonymous sources spilling the beans on this personal e-mail account, no hint that any classified information has fallen into the wrong hands, nothing.  You want us to believe that this exceedingly intelligent, politically experienced person, was completely off the reservation for four years, telling God-knows-what to God-knows-whom because she didn't give a flying fig about policies, rules, or the protection and preservation of classified information, right?  the woman who has had nothing good to say about Edward Snowden would think nothing of playing fast and loose with State Department business, right?  Because those would be premier qualities we'd want in someone who was head of the State Department.  

    Why now, jb?  Does that matter?  Does it even pass the smell test that two years after hanging up her Cabinet responsibilities, this is just now coming to light?  In DC, where nothing is ever really a secret?  Where there is always someone willing to sell you out for the chance to be the nightly reference to "anonymous sources?"

    [The only thing I have some question about is whether maintaining a personal e-mail account puts those e-mails out of reach of any public records requests.]

    Finally, I just have to say that I find the selective outrage of Republicans whose president managed to "lose" upwards of 5 million e-mails - maybe as many as 22 million - and whose Bush administration members maintained personal e-mail accounts for the purpose of hiding what was really going on, so hypocritical that the response from Clinton should be, "you first."

    I'm not a Clinton fan, but I'm even less of a fan of this kind of clearly political black-ops crap, and I don't have much nice to say about people who eat it all up with a spoon.  Just as those behind it are counting on.


    To answer your one question (none / 0) (#72)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:19:33 PM EST
    Because she used a private email she would control what emails are turned over to a FOIA request.   The AP has been waiting 4 years for information.  

    US News

    Critics have maintained that this was the purpose all along.  By doing as she did she could muddle up any inquiry into events that occurred during her tenure.  

    Or if you want to take a more favorable view it'd be a way for her to combat a right wing witch hunt like Benghazi.    

    Unfortunately the email story is breathing new life into the Benghazi show


    More (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:29:39 PM EST
    Benghazi? wonderful. We can listen to a third rate neoconfederate prosecutor expound more conspiracy theories.

    Benghazi was always going to make a comeback because the GOP wrongly thinks screaming Benghazi is going to make up for all their shortcomings. No shortage of Benghazi hoaxers looking to fleece naive Republicans out of their money either.

    I mean when even Mark Halperin no fan of the Clintons said the GOP screaming about Benghazi look like a bunch of idiots you would think they might sit up and take notice.


    Fundraisers? Really? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 12:42:56 PM EST
    And I do not assume she privately emailed dignitaries and heads of state.  As stated before, communications with other nations is done via the completely isolated State Department classified cable system.  That's what I assume.

    The point is (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 12:44:37 PM EST
    You, or anyone else, has no idea whom she was emailing.

    Kinda the point.


    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 12:46:40 PM EST
    You are just pulling junk out of your junk trying spur outrage.

    Yawn (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 12:49:32 PM EST
    Talk to me when you want to not make excuses for politicians just because you like or agree with them.

    As a Hillary supporter - in 2008 and now, this absolutely p!$$es me off.  This is just stupid on her part, even if nothing comes of it and she and her team should have known better.


    Yawn (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    Talk to me when you care to understand the communication parameters that surround people in and out and around classified communications.

    This is a fabricated crisis and you are a water carrier.


    I would hope no Cabinet Secretary (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:45:07 PM EST
    or the President or Vice President would have any email account at all for official business.

    I would feel better if they did not personally use email for any government business.  

    Aides, Chiefs of Staff, Secretaries should all serve as buffers....It is unnerving to think that people would have such direct access.....The potential for scams and breaches of security are large....

    Keep the sensitive conversations oral over the phone.  If there is a need for a written directive from the President, prepare and vet a memo....


    The military has the same rule all SOS (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:16:32 PM EST
    Now must abide by, but when Clinton served they did not.  And I just heard your comment discussed recently.  Emails can be used for case building now.  Someone wasn't paying enough attention to an issue..they are negligent, or they are paying too much attention...now they're witch hunting.  The answer, lots and lots and lots of meetings.

    I asked a question and you (none / 0) (#60)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    didn't answer it.  Instead you went on a very entertaining rant.

    Per the video I linked it's clear that other people at the State Department use email to discuss classified information because as the spokeswoman Said she and everyone else has two emails.  One for and one not for classified information.   So it would seem that others find it necessary to use email for this purpose just not the person at the head of it.  

    You also bring up another good point which is how can the WH act all surprised now when she clearly used a non .gov email for four years?  Did she never send them important emails?  Did she always use a staffer?

    I just don't understand why she is immune to these obvious questions Anne and why if I and others ask them we are doing anything other then asking for more details.   Her use of and setting up of her own personal email server is to say the least unusual and all the personal attacks thrown at me doesn't make it not so.  


    Because you're not just ... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:34:40 PM EST
    I just don't understand why she is immune to these obvious questions Anne and why if I and others ask them we are doing anything other then asking for more details

    ... "asking for more details" - you're making accusations in the form of questions because you have no evidence.

    Exhibit A -  

    You also bring up another good point which is how can the WH act all surprised now when she clearly used a non .gov email for four years?  Did she never send them important emails?  Did she always use a staffer

    You don't even hide your disbelief to these "questions" for which you have no information.  You realize that one of her immediate predecessors (Condoleeza Rice) barely/rarely used any email.  Another Bush predecessor (Powell) also used a personal email account and never used it to discuss classified matters, another one of your "questions".


    I would hope she would always use a (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    staffer....Much better way to go....

    Some big shot (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:46:59 PM EST
    corporate types always dictate emails to secretaries who send what few emails they send.

    Maybe so (none / 0) (#69)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:55:28 PM EST
    if that is the answer then no harm no foul.  

    I was stunned by the sheer number (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    of personal emails of both Jeb Bush and Hillary.  I hope they are not spending (wasting) time reading all that stuff.  I am assuming the "personal" account is just an account to dump all the daily debris into.

    People in high level executive positions should not be mired in the daily muck reading all that minutia and petty complaints, etc.....I get dozens of garbage emails a day....I could spend a couple of hours a day just reading that stuff....It would be exponentially worse for someone like Hillary.  


    It's really not about (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:31:47 PM EST
    junk mail.  She did not have an official government account.   That raises a lot of questions starting with security assuming she was discussing secret type stuff at least occaisionally.  There was some attempt made to learn the type and level of security the server used.  And it appeared that it was using the one that came with the server which the instructions for the server specifically said should be replaced before using for secure communication.
    This is an example of the kinds of questions that need an answer.  They are not unreasonable questions. I expect they have answers.  I would like to hear them.

    My point was broader than junk mail (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:53:49 PM EST
    Just the daily chit chat of staff....and all kinds of stupid requests....

    There is a reason the cheeses have chiefs of staff, and having an email account that in effect by-passes senior staff defeats the purpose....


    I would have thought that everyone learned (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:13:30 AM EST
    From the Manning case that all classified State Department information is transferred via their own independent cable service. duh

    So many "questions" (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:42:30 AM EST
    So few facts.



    Doesn't the Department of State... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 11:17:04 AM EST
    ...have an encrypted and encoded cable (kinda like a telegram) system (where even the to and from headers are not in plain text) that long predates email and the internet (by a century or so)?

    Two words (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 12:51:05 PM EST
    Colin Powell.

    Oh yeah! (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:19:53 PM EST
    Hillary owns her server! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:15:59 AM EST
    Hilary Clinton For President!  Because She Isn't a Red Hot Blazing Fool!

    I'm just glad (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 10:17:07 AM EST
    I'm just glad that they aren't already stooping to calling her girly-girl names...and only a few are saying that she's "scaring off viable male candidates".  Mean old Hillary.

    Today I read that she asked state to release her emails, so many be they haven't already been released.

    I won't vote for her even if she runs this time.  I don't vote for people who destroy my life so I don't vote for Democrats or Republicans (I'm an Obamacare loser if you haven't noticed.  No insurance and a big tax increase for me.).  

    But it sure will be fun to sit back popcorn in hand, and watch the show.  I do hope she runs, so I can show my niece how Hillary was always the smartest guy in the room in debates.  And that, my friends, is the scariest thing about her.

    As an Obamacare "winner" (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 11:18:41 AM EST
    I would be interested in hearing the details of the reasons you have no insurance.

    Your point being? (none / 0) (#44)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    You can call her "mean old Hillary" or "the smartest guy in the room",  but you are glad no one else is calling her names? Is Obamacare only partly responsible for destroying your life with other Dem and Rep policies contributing?  

    Since when has being smart been "scary", especially when we are looking at our potential leaders?


    Question (none / 0) (#45)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 11:47:11 AM EST
    Are there technical mean to prove all emails were turned over, or is this a matter of trust?

    Would it matter? (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    There are still a substantial number of wingers who would deny facts/reality - see birthers, "secret muslim", climate deniers, etc.

    Her private server, assuming it still exists, (none / 0) (#58)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:13:50 PM EST
     could be subpoenaed and subject to a forensic examination. It may or may not be possible to: discover all emails were turned over; retrieve emails not turned over or to discover markers showing messages (but not necessarily messages subject to required archiving) had been deleted and the drive wiped.

      Issues of executive privilege could come into play even though she is at present a former executive branch officer and the server was her private property. Of course, if this is really nothing more than partisan  witch hunt who would have any interest in resisting such a subpoena?

      I am at a loss to understand the knee jerk defense of Clinton.   Even the most adoring and trusting of her sycophants must surely be able to grasp why this is not a matter that has no bearing on important matters.

      If we don't trust Republicans to preserve  communications  we should and have a legal right to  have preserved and are understandably suspicious or at least skeptical when they flout procedures intended to ensure proper preservation of such materials, what principled basis do we have for arguing the same thing doesn't apply to Clinton?


    "knee-jerk" defense??? (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:40:49 PM EST
    Look ... without more (substantially more), this is the classic "scandal" of nothing there.  No allegation of illegal behavior; nothing different than the apparent norm at State until department rule-changes took effect; and--as even Politico now points out--the kind of approach favored by several potential Repub opponents like Jeb Bush (btw, he only recently released his email records that were on private accounts during his Florida governorship ... what fortuitous timing, indeed:)) and Rick Perry and Chris Christie and Scott Walker.

    Look #2 ... it would have been better, in retrospect, if Hillary Clinton (and all her forerunners as well as the Repub opponents) would have gone the extra mile in the way of transparency if that was the more secure avenue.  But, lots of things look different in hindsight ... for everyone.  IF this were anything other than a drummed-up issue on a matter that has been known by the Washington cognoscenti for about 2 years, then my response wouldn't be so set for anyone.  Yet, other than for those Repubs and some here that seem "so concerned" ... well, to you I say that you might want to lighten up with a look-see at Jon Stewart's take on the matter yesterday.


    Because the ends justify the means (none / 0) (#62)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:43:48 PM EST
    Hillary supporters are personally invested at this point in her being the next president and any criticism of her will be immediately shouted down as right wing craziness or sexist or the MSM having it out for the Clintons.  No need to question the Clintons, she will be great as president so we should all just get on board.

    I'll add that a certain percentage of the left or progressive base feels like she got unfair treatment last time when she went up against BHO (and I'd agree with them) and they don't want to see that happen again so they are particularly sensitive to any criticism.


    Criticism is perfectly fine (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:28:10 PM EST
    Specious accusations phrased as "questions" ... not so much.

    Man that is total BS (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    As a supporter I'd be pissed if she blew her shot because of a screw up like this. The fact is, the regs at the time allowed her to do what she did. Unless and until any of you outraged people can point to some guideline on timeliness requirements to turn data over to the archive people, there is nothing to see here.

    That she only wanted to carry a single device for multiple email accounts is not unusual. State couldn't accomodate that, hence her own server.

    Stop talking about hacking and emailing heads of state with seedy plots to overthrow the gov't. What you guys really want to know is whether she used her role as SoS to improve the lot of the Clinton foundation, you can admit it, we know.

    What roils is these eat your own types who are indeed aquarians carrying water for another dare I say it, witch-hunt.


    As a supporter (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:40:50 PM EST
    What I know-
    She was apparently doing what every other SoS has done since email was invented.
    That said
    There was apparently a change in the rules in 2009 which she apparently ignored.  Is that a big deal?  Probably not. I saw a supporter last night repeatedly asked why she did not follow the rules and they had no answer.
    I'm the first to agree that the level of hysteria is ridiculous.  That is not to say there are not some questions that deserve an answer.

    The "change in rules" ... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    ... was to the Federal Records Act in 2014 - and included provisions dealing with the use and retention of emails from non-governmental email systems.

    No idea what 2009 change they're claiming.


    the rule (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:59:24 PM EST
    That appears to be an end-run around federal government regulations as of 2009. It has immediate political resonance because the details animate an existing storyline about Bill and Hillary Clinton: They live by their own rules and are always hiding something.

    Here is the rule: According to the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration regulations in effect when Clinton took office, "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

    Yeah - heard all the storylines" (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    If that's the actual text of the regulation, how did she violate anything?  It puts an obligation on the Agency to preserve private emails that fall within the definition of Federal records..

    "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

    If you have heard them (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:23:24 PM EST
    why did you say you had no idea?

    I said I had "no idea" ... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 04:31:59 PM EST
    ... what 2009 rule change they were talking about.  If that's the regulation she's accused of breaking, the regulation applies to the Agency's obligation to preserve private emails.

    The "story line" you were discussing was Bill and Hillary Clinton living "by their own rules and are always hiding something".


    who (none / 0) (#119)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 04:49:57 PM EST
    Was in charge of "the agency" and responsible for ensuring rules were followed?

    That might br the lamest excuse or rationalization yet.


    So you're well-versed ... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 05:25:26 PM EST
    ... in these regulations?  I'm guessing not, since you start with a "question", although your second sentence suggests you think you know the answer.

    FYI - I worked for a state agency which was also required to archive their own records and respond to public records requests.  The Agency regulations delegated responsibility for archiving and responding to the OPRA requests not to the head of the agency, but with a "custodian" who was an officer of the Agency (and an attorney).  So if you're assuming (as your reply suggests) that HC was responsible for archiving the government records as SOS, it would be great if you could share a link to answer your "question".

    I won't be holding my breath.


    You may exhale (none / 0) (#151)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 08:59:02 AM EST
    44 USC § 2901 (14)

    (14) the term "Federal agency" means any executive agency or any establishment in the legislative or judicial branch of the Government (except the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Architect of the Capitol and any activities under the direction of the Architect of the Capitol);

      See full text

      See regs promulgated under act

       You will note that "archivist" is used when the law refers to the powers and duties of that specific agency and "agency" is used refer to unsurpisingly the agencies including the Department of State.

      You are doing very poorly if you are trying to refute my suggestion you are grasping at straws.


    The overarching (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:43:51 PM EST
    hysteria coming from the GOP is going to turn it into nothing because by the time they get done weaving their conspiracy theories there's going to some basic answer and they're going to look like they're crazy. Lather Rinse Repeat. They never learn.

    Yes, the rule to which you refer (none / 0) (#92)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:59:09 PM EST
    Since 2009, NARA's regulations have stated that "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."


    That's why I referred to timeliness.  Again, the only way one believes there is an issue here is if one believes (absent any evidence to indicate such) that she was shady on the side.  Emails sent to state employees would be preserved.  Emails sent on her behalf would be preserved.  Any others can be turned over.  


    I agree (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    i just think the response so far has been a bit lame.  

    You are referring to Lawrence O'Donnel's (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:16:37 PM EST
    interview of Jennifer Granholm on MSNBC last night.

    Although O'Donnell had a point, I was surprised by the vehemence and hostility he had towards Hillary.


    He was upset (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:19:08 PM EST
    because he had a point and she kept digging the question.

    Dodging (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:20:19 PM EST
    the question

    Which btw as a supporter this (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    is mostly what bugged me.  The are not new at this.  The question was coming.  Have a damn answer.  SOME answer.  Don't just keep trying to change the subject.

    And, Jennifer Granholm. (none / 0) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:54:11 PM EST
    O'Donnell did not give Granholm a chance to explain her initial statement--just launched into a fit of exasperation.  Since that is not the first time that a guest contributor has been indirect or dodging, it came across to me as his fear of a lost chance to point out the rules "violation" to which he subscribed.   And, taking on both women in that way, Granholm and Clinton,  seemed inappropriate.

    No argument (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    LD is a d!ck.  I'm not sure why I was watching.  It must have been early in the show.  Still.  It was clumsy.  And a missed opportunity.

    Hey! no need to cast aspersions (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by sj on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:45:20 PM EST
    What roils is these eat your own types who are indeed aquarians carrying water for another dare I say it, witch-hunt.
    And anyway, Aguarius is an air sign.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:55:50 PM EST
    but Aquarius is also known as the water carrier.  I know, I've married two, and as a Pisces, I know water.

    Oy (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:06:19 PM EST
    You really don't know much about astrology, do you? Maybe your problem with Aquarians is Pisces related.

    I was joking at first, but you tried to be clever and screwed up and then doubled down. So now I'm bored.



    So, whom do you favor for (3.50 / 2) (#67)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    the Repub nominee for president in 2016? I'm trying to find out what your investment is in the Repub talking-points that you appear to be using? It is always nice to be open, of course ... and, since you have a strong POV, surely you are leaning toward a candidate that mirrors your POV? You can be transparent about it. It's ok.

    That's pure deflection (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:36:53 PM EST
     An issue is not illegitimate merely because it is raised by an adversary. One of the main reasons we desire a competitive system is the increased likelihood undesirable conduct will be exposed and stopped and the persons responsible held accountable if we have  an opposition.

      Second, it is simply WRONG to suggest only the opposition or people out to get Clinton should "care." Everyone should care, and while reasonable minds can disagree about the proper sanction for such conduct, no thinking person should argue it should be ignored.

      The very stridency of the complaints about this coming to light tends to reinforce, to anyone remotely objective, that these fanboy protests that this matter is not worthy of inquiry are motivated by fear of political consequences not a genuine belief public officials should get to choose which of their communications on behalf of the public they have a duty to preserve.


    Where the starting position is (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 04:47:42 PM EST
    usually says a lot ... the "where are you coming from" is and always has been legitimate in taking the measure of a debate/argument, etc.  Arguments about politics, which is what a discussion about any presumed political party nominee inescapably & realistically is, do not exist in a vacuum.  
    Some may pretend they do--that a protagonist, for example, has no political POV influencing that person's position--but, the reality is that political background plays a role ... whether you or others want to hear that or not.

    IMO, it is much easier to debate/discuss an issue tinged with political aspects if those heavy into discussing the topic disclose any campaign/candidate preferences at the outset because it saves time (and effort) to disclose and honestly acknowledge whether or not you are persuadable.  Otherwise it is nothing more than an interesting choreography ... and, at times, not even interesting.  Persons who directly state their political influences in a political matter at the outset can be more effective in an open give & take than those that seem to camouflage intent.  

    So, no, it is not deflection ... rather, the goal  is "You know where I start from (Hillary Clinton supporter) and I accept where you start from (e.g., stated preference) ... now, can we agree on any salient points in a matter?" That kind of approach is a lot less likely to go in circles; but, it requires a high degree of honesty for a compelling discussion.


    pfffttt (none / 0) (#121)
    by sj on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 05:01:06 PM EST
    So, no, it is not deflection...
    Maybe, maybe not. But is your usual passive-aggressive irrelevance. Ignore or respond, I don't care. But your ritual quest for "bona fides" of some kind from those with whom you disagree is childish and tiresome. And anyway, based on past patterns, you're just going to attempt to use it as a "gotcha" in the future. Albeit, maybe not so successfully.

    All that word salad notwithstanding.


    Baloney. (none / 0) (#122)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 05:21:33 PM EST
    BTW, that statement says as much as can or should be said about your tendency to turn your disagreement into something else. Knowing motivation can be quite important in any debate/discussion ... not a quest, but quite practical and essential to any real discussion. Cards-on-the-table are useful not only in avoiding the circular trot with commenters like jim (as so many have pointed out in so many ways)but also productive of certain agreements.

    I see your pfffttt and send it back with all due speed.


    LOL (2.00 / 1) (#125)
    by sj on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 05:31:51 PM EST
    It just goes to show that self-delusion can survive on any part of any divide.

    sj: I'm surprised (2.00 / 1) (#127)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 05:46:03 PM EST
    that you admit to that malady.

    Why be surprised? (2.00 / 1) (#166)
    by sj on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:22:24 AM EST
    I know this about all mankind. I consider myself one of their number. But you really seem to think that what one says leaves no echo.

    In any case I know most of my assets as well as my flaws. I deny neither. Do you?


    Yes, I know my good & bad points (none / 0) (#181)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    As I keep saying, it is key to understand starting points for others ... as well as for ourselves.  

    LOL (2.00 / 1) (#188)
    by sj on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    I heve always (none / 0) (#153)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 09:14:23 AM EST
     been very upfront about my utter disdain for the Clintons. (Granted, I doubt everyone cares so much about my personal preferences that they have them committed to memory, so perhaps I am remiss in not prefacing every comment I make with:

      I do not trust Hillary Clinton. I have zero faith in her integrity. I believe she embodies most everything wrong with the Party, and politics in general. I would only vote for her in the extraordinarily unlikely scenario where she was the Democratic nominee and I truly was concerned my failing to vote for her might enable the election of whatever horrible candidate the Republicans nominate. If I feel confident the Republican will lose regardless of my vote, I will undoubtedly cast a "protest vote"  for a third party candidate.

       Feel free to save that statement and put it in a reply to any comment I may make in the future in case you worry anyone else might not be aware of my lack of regard for Clinton.

      That said, I think all officials, regardless of how I may feel about them, should be held to the same high standard.


    Reconstructionist: Your forthrightness (none / 0) (#158)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 09:49:26 AM EST
    is quite appreciated.  

    It won't surprise you to know that I (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 10:51:20 AM EST
    very much hate this tactic of yours, this kind of purity test you try to force people to take before you decide whether someone has any credibility.

    You can't have been reading here all these years without noticing that many of us have become much more issue-oriented, ending the reflexive practice of supporting without question whichever candidate has the (D) behind his or her name.  Granted, there's a lot more thinking involved in that method, but it really does seem more meaningful and more honest.  It's put us in a position of having to choose what's important, what the deal-breaker issues are, to wrestle with the possible consequences of either not voting for a particular office, or choosing a third-party candidate.

    In all honesty, I'd much rather take the time to wrestle with those kinds of decisions than use that time to find more and more ways to justify and explain away and excuse actions and policies I really don't agree with just so I can convince myself that the automatic (D) vote is always the best choice.

    But let me ask you this: why does any question about or criticism of a Democrat always have to mean that the person asking the question or being critical is really a supporter of the GOP?  You do this all. the. time.  And it's beyond annoying.

    It's clear that you consider yourself to be a Democrat of the highest order - I don't know, is there some kind of medal you were awarded? points attained?  No matter, really, it's just that I don't remember taking any kind of loyalty oath when I registered as a Democrat, and I feel like you disdain those you regard as less-than-loyal by your standards.

    In my opinion, if more people questioned, there's a chance - I don't know how much of one - the party might be healthier, and the people running as and elected as Democrats might be more responsive, and inclined to be more accountable.

    But in the meantime, it would be nice if you would stop testing everyone's commitment and turn the bright light of your inquisition onto the Democrats who want our support.


    All I can say (3.00 / 3) (#183)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 12:23:33 PM EST
    is that: I understand that you disagree.  It would be a nice re-starting point for us, Anne, if we could respect each others differences ... our starting points.  

    Motivation in argument is important. Believe me when I say that my focus on that is not a "tactic" by any means.  I actually find discussion/debate more worthwhile when there is minimal camouflage in intent.  A good part of that is who I am and have always been; and, a significant part reflects the majority of my work as a negotiator and, later work in mediation, where I came to find that conflict resolution became less difficult as the "cards were put on the table."  From a personal standpoint, a weak or strong point or both (depending on the circumstances) is my decided tendency to push hard against one who purports to represent one thing but whose every other action or statement is to the contrary ... for a number of reasons (in professional circumstances, playing that game is typically a waste of time; in personal back & forth, well ... it pushes personal buttons for me.) Bottom line: It is not a gotcha set-up for me ... it is approach mixed with style as each of us has our own style.

    BTW, Anne, I really do regard your comments as rather straightforward ... so that, even when there is disagreement, I do respect your direct approach.  


    Classified material (none / 0) (#46)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 11:53:16 AM EST

    It is beyond belief that no one ever sent the Secretary of State an email containing classified information.  

    That would be on the sender. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 12:43:52 PM EST
    Anyone who deals with classified information is responsible for following rules and protocols for giving anyone that information.  Plus, there are technical solutions to make it difficult to do what you believe must have happened.

    I have an email account at a health care organization.  If I put something that looks like patient information in an email that would be transmitted via the intertoobs, it gets diverted to a secure system. If the recipient is known, and has a secure account, they get notified.  If the recipient is not known to that system, the person who administers my contract is notified. (Employees' managers would be notified.)

    The algorithm parses any attachments, and it tends to err on the side of security.  They've been using this sort of system since before the turn of the century.  (The Kennedy-Kassebaum Act, signed by our first President Clinton, was probably the impetus.)

    It is beyond belief that The Department of State does not monitor outbound email to prevent the escape of classified material.


    State does not monitor non-state email (none / 0) (#154)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 09:20:05 AM EST

    There is no way a foreign sender would know that the Sec of State's email server was not secure.  Leaving attachments aside, the text of emails describing classified matters are not caught by algorithm.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 09:37:28 AM EST
    Bahaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!

    Clinton email server not secure (none / 0) (#81)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    According to some security experts.


    I'm no cyber guy so I'll leave it to others to critique this article.  

    I'm sure there is a counter narrative but if this link is valid it is troubling that Clinton would run a system so poorly in terms of security.

    Why start now? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sj on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:48:16 PM EST
    I'm no cyber guy so I'll leave it to others to critique this article.  
    You're not a security guy either and yet you are "critiquing" the handling of maybe/maybe-not secure or classified information.

    heh (none / 0) (#94)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:00:17 PM EST
    Not sure your point (none / 0) (#128)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 05:58:52 PM EST
    a set of computer nerds is saying that her server was poorly secured.  I am not versed enough to say they are absolutely correct so I put it out there as the opinion of experts.  

    If someone has other experts to counter I'd love to hear from them.  So far all I've heard is the State Department was hacked so this move by Hillary was actually a good thing.  

    That seems a pretty weak position when you have no idea how secure Hillary's system was.   It could have been worse it could have been better.  If we knew more we could answer that question definitively.


    You are getting (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by sj on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    sloppy at pretending that you have an open mind and that you aren't just pushing the Next Thing from the RW playbook.

    This is what I saw yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:49:02 PM EST
    its a problem. Am I setting what little hair I have on fire, no.  But there are some real questions in there that probably need to be addressed.  As far as I can see the worst you can say is it was dumb if it's true.

    I guess you've forgotten that (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 02:55:44 PM EST
    the State Department's own computer and e-mail systems have been hacked:

    The State Department has taken the unprecedented step of shutting down its entire unclassified email system as technicians repair possible damage from a suspected hacker attack.

    A senior department official said Sunday that "activity of concern" was detected in the system around the same time as a previously reported incident that targeted the White House computer network. That incident was made public in late October, but there was no indication then that the State Department had been affected. Since then, a number of agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service and the National Weather Service, have reported attacks.

    And given how that hack was handled, I really do have to ask how much less secure and under control the server used by Clinton could possibly have been (and yes, I'm aware that this breach took place after Clinton left her Cabinet position):

    Back in November, we learned that the State Department's unclassified networks had been hit by an unidentified group of hackers, causing the department's email and websites to go offline, and prompting some awkward conversations with the IT guys. And according to a WSJ report, the State Department still hasn't managed to clean up the mess.

    The report quotes "people familiar with the investigation", who claim that the agency's network (and probably a side helping of government efficiency) has made the clean-up difficult. Apparently, they don't know how much (if any) of the network is hacker-free, and parts of the system still go offline from time to time. Investigators are also playing a cat-and-mouse game with the intruders, with new attacks being made with slightly-altered versions of the original exploit.

    Is there any possibility, do you think, that Clinton believed her use of a personal account on her own server would be more secure than what the State Department could provide for routine, intra-agency communications?

    Oh, wait - you're not a cyber guy, so you will only have an opinion based on, well, what, exactly?


    I admit that (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    I was grinning a little yesterday at all the seeming assumptions of security just because it's run by the gubment.  That said I do think they probably have a higher level of security than what we know at least so far about the security of clintonemail.com

    I don't speculate (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    about movies' special effects.
    That said I do think they probably have a higher level of security than what we know at least so far about the security of clintonemail.com
    I don't think you should speculate about computer security as it relates to government business.

    I'll just say that the decision makes sense to me.


    As a matter of fact (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:16:54 PM EST
    i do know that the govt servers she would have used have live people monitoring them 24/7. Did hers have this.  It's a fair question.  

    IT security is not my field but I am not entirely unversed.  And to tell you the truth this story is a little shocking to me.  


    Not to me (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    And to tell you the truth this story is a little shocking to me.
    At some point one chooses to minimize risk, knowing one can't eliminate it. And you realize, don't you, that there is a lot of inertia in government policy?

    Unless you're the NSA and don't really care about things like legality and compliance.


    Ok getting silly (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:37:48 PM EST
    imo you do not minimize risk by using the default out of the box security - which you are specifically advised to not do - For secure communications.   And as far as I can see the only questions about legality and compliance are for Hillary.

    I would be done now.  I hope a reasonable explanation is forthcoming.  But to tell you the truth if there was one we probably would have heard it.  Fortunately for Hillary her enemies are going to make any question look pointless and partisan.


    You misunderstand (none / 0) (#120)
    by sj on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 04:53:36 PM EST
    I am not addressing the legality issue. I am addressing this:
    That said I do think they probably have a higher level of security than what we know at least so far about the security of clintonemail.com
    And I was being facetious somewhat. Classified systems can be so hardened that "responsive" and "dynamic" and "useful-for-anything-contemporaneous" aren't even in the same photo album much less in the same picture.

    In any case, I am perfectly happy to let expire any clearance I may or may not have.


    Here's the thing (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 05:23:56 PM EST
    based on what my techie FB friends were saying yesterday, and this IS speculation since we do not in fact know how "hardened" the servers were when she was SoS, but based on what we know now it's possible that the servers could have been hacked and everything taken from them they would never know.  That seems unwise for the communications of the SoS.  Just saying.
    And there is the opening for the charge, true or not, that this entire operation was to have the choice of ignoring FIOA requests if she wanted to.  It's all very unfortunate IMO
    I am not in a lather about this.  I do not think it will or should have any effect on any political aspirations she may or may not have.
    It is not a non issue.  

    So I guess this means hackers (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 06:40:07 PM EST
    could have learned that there was going to be cake for Joe at 3:00 pm in conference room 9A...

    My understanding is that the personal email account and the Clintonmail domain were being used for unclassified communication and all the classified stuff went over SD cable system.

    I don't know - to me it just defies logic that Clinton would be sending or receiving classified info via her dedicated server.

    This has political black-ops written all over it, probably from the Jeb Bush Cabal of The Corrupt and Craven.


    It does defy logic (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:10:55 PM EST
    but here's the thing, this is the first line of the times piece-

    WASHINGTON -- Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said

    Exclusively.  She apparently did not have a government account.  Therefore it's hard to imagine that some of the information, if not classified, was privileged.

    I'm not up to arguing about this any more but as far as I can tell the right wingers are fanning the flames but they had nothing to do with the original story.  In fact I read that the so called select committee has known about this for many months and did or said nothing until the times wrote the story.


    You knwo what though? (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:34:49 PM EST
    It wasn't just her. It was the entire Obama Administration that did this according to the article I linked to in the other open thread. It was standard practice for all the higher ups in the administration. So why the hysteria now and why only Hillary? The original story broke 18 months ago.

    Assuming that is a rhetorical question (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:39:01 PM EST
    the hysteria is because it's Hillary.   That said, it was freakin stupid.   I don't care who was doing it.   And to tell you the truth I can see why the communication of the SoS might require a higher level of security than the HHS secretary.

    Probably (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:45:14 PM EST
    but the senstive stuff is not sent through email. Anyway when the 55,000 emails are released I guess we'll find out.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:52:44 PM EST
    i could care less about however many thousand emails are now released.  I am making the point that this was unwise, charitably.   It's done.  We will probably never know what information was passed.  I hope it sparks a debate about this area of communication within the administration and future administrations.

    Yes (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 08:02:42 PM EST
    until 2013 it seems everybody was allowed to do their own thing but two with all the government shut downs and such I wonder how that would affect things.

    Let me explain (2.00 / 1) (#137)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 08:02:15 PM EST
    it was always there, when it was there no one seemed to care. "Secret" emails were flying like snowflakes in  Boston and no one cared. Now some crack NYT reporter has uncovered the there that was always there that no one cared about. Now that this there has shown to be there we must all now care.

    If this not make sense reset your wingnut decoder rings to the Benghazi! settings.


    This is a ridiculous comment (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 08:59:56 PM EST
    and I am little tired of the smarmy innuendo.  I did not know about this, nor did all the hundreds of reporters writing about it until the times story.  People care because it could very well be a massive breech of security.  This is not a right wing story.  If you bothered to do a search you would see the sources writing about it are pretty a who's who of the liberal media from mother jones to VOX.

    If would like to keep your head up your butt and ignore the implications of this go for it but kindly stop suggesting people like me have Benghazi decoder rings.  I thnk I have made my opinion pretty clear about both this incident and Hillary.


    One more thing (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 09:33:31 PM EST
    the reason the left is writing about this story is because of the implications, quite apart from the security questions I have been talking about, for transparency in government.  Something liberals are supposed to care about.  
    Many of the stories are about how this shielded her communication from anyone and everyone and that was the point.  Yes it's true everyone dies it.  That is exactly the point and the problem.

    Breach of security (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 09:44:55 PM EST
    That would seem doubtful to me.....

    I would question the judgment of anyone placing sensitive material in an email.....

    And, others here have talked about the secure communication network that was separate from email.


    Wow (none / 0) (#155)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 09:22:39 AM EST
    I sure touched a nerve there. Maybe I should apologize for my Dr. Zeuss like silliness, but I will stand by my argument that this is a media manufactured scandal. Apparently these e-mail "transgressions" were not uncommon in the Obama administration. The fact is that they were happening in plain sight.
     I did not know about this, nor did all the hundreds of reporters writing about it until the times story.
    If this is truly as scandalous as some would make it out to be then obviously some of the 100's of reporters and various other critics had their head up butt while it was happening right under their noses.

    They can have email for personal use but (none / 0) (#145)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 10:29:34 PM EST
    in 2011 Jay Carney when asked said all Obama officials used government emails for work.  Hillary was one of those at the time.   Which begs the question how could Jay not know this?

    ABC News


    Sorry, not apparently (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 07:27:24 PM EST
    the first line of the second paragraph-

    Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department.



    Hillary is too smart to send (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 09:42:28 PM EST
    any super sensitive stuff in an email.   A phone call....and message through an intermediary....

    Cake for Joe in the conference room....Yep, that is probably the tenor of the emails....  


    Okay, so, are personal e-mails (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 10:56:28 PM EST
    permitted to be sent or received from/to government accounts?  [can you even imagine the sniping about that?]

    If I had to toggle back and forth between my work e-mail and my personal e-mail all day and into the night, I don't imagine it would be long before I'd inadvertently screw up and use the wrong account to communicate with someone I should be using the other account for.

    It just seems to me that if the right protocols were in place, if State's IT people vetted the arrangement to verify the integrity of the system, it had to be infinitely more efficient for Clinton to have one account through which she conducted unclassified government business.  Properly filtered, firewalled, virus-protected and monitored - and given that State's own e-mail system is not hack-proof, I just fail to see where the scandal is.

    If all her government e-mails were being sent to state.gov addresses, they are all archived and preserved.  If she was responding from her personal account to e-mails sent by her people from their personal accounts, as long as someone at either end of the chain was forwarding or copying those e-mails to a state.gov account, again - archived and preserved.

    I really think this has NOTHING to do with security and transparency and everything to do with knocking her out of contention, and convincing her that years and years of battling this crap in her future isn't worth it.


    As I said before (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 08:30:05 AM EST
    i don't think it will or should have any effect on any future political plans she may have.  The public doesn't care.  The republicans are going to do what they do.   No one takes them seriously.

    But as far as the ridiculous hysteria, I agree with you that's what's it's about.  


    NY Times (none / 0) (#144)
    by Politalkix on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 10:11:08 PM EST
    From the NY Times link

    And Mrs. Clinton used this private address for everything -- from State Department matters to planning her daughter's wedding and issues related to the family's sprawling philanthropic foundation.

    It seems her intent was to create a system where she could personally manage access to her communications," said John Wonderlich, policy director of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates transparency in government.

    "Given all the power she had as secretary of state, a lot of that work would be jumbled together," Mr. Wonderlich said. "Her presidential ambitions and the family foundation would be wrapped up technically in email."

    Mrs. Clinton's allies have maintained that she followed protocol in the use of a private email address. A spokesman declined to elaborate on Wednesday about her use of clintonemail.com for matters related to the Clinton Foundation, which has received millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments. The foundation ceased to accept most donations from foreign countries while Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department but began the practice again after she left office in February 2013.


    Do you realize that (4.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 08:28:35 AM EST
    "state department business" is probably we're having a meeting at ten o'clock on Tuesday?

    So now the goal posts are being moved yet again to say that there would be too much going on in one email address.

    Obama knew about all this and apparently was fine with it.


    fine (none / 0) (#126)
    by sj on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 05:33:46 PM EST
    carry on.

    Privacy and Security (none / 0) (#136)
    by Politalkix on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 08:01:59 PM EST
    This article takes a stab at the topic link

    Lets see, (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:35:11 PM EST
    A. HRC is a cold calculating, power hungry politician hiding her devious manipulations on her own server.
    B. HRC is dumb enough to hide all her devious devious manipulations on an unsecure server.

    I would posit that these two are mutually exclusive positions. I guess scandal mongers got to monger. I just wish they would be more consistent with their attacks.


    The article critques itself (none / 0) (#97)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:04:15 PM EST
    We don't know, of course, if the current state of Clinton's servers is representative of the security precautions that were in place while she was using it as Secretary of State. The system could have previously been hardened against attack, and left to get weedy and vulnerable after she left government. We don't know

    We don't (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    but its not unreasonable to want to.

    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:34:56 PM EST
    but I wouldn't be surprised if we don't find out everything.  We are talking about a former SoS, first lady, who lives w/a former president and Secret Service.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the security was top notch, but as I don't know....speculation.


    I doubt we will (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 03:40:43 PM EST
    i expect they will just let the detractors immolate.   As usual.   And I would tend to agree with the last part.  But how hard is it to just say that and be done with it.

    If that hypotheis were true (none / 0) (#157)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 09:44:35 AM EST
      it would not ameliorate the degree of her negligence. If after leaving office she retained government agency related (and this is the STATE DEPARTMENT, for God's sake) related communications on a server that she permitted to then become more vulnerable to intrusion, that would, to any neutral observer, be another reason why it is an extremely bad idea to have such communications on a private server in the first place.

      This discussion would be utterly unbelievable if one didn't accept the premise that some people are incapable of being rational when discussing someone for whom they have political hots.


    Unfortunately worded (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 09:54:20 AM EST
    by true.  IMO. It's odd that some of the people who yelped the loudest about the Obama cult of personality are now busily at work building one around Hillary.
    I disagree with you about the Clintons.  I am and have always been a Hillary supporter.  That does not mean I am going to put on my political blinders when I think she does something stupid.  This was stupid.  That is an entirely apolitical statement.

    why? (none / 0) (#139)
    by thomas rogan on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 08:25:17 PM EST
    Why exactly would she use her own email account instead of a department of state account for state department business?  Is there a GOOD reason for this?

    ABC News Reporting (none / 0) (#146)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 05, 2015 at 10:45:08 PM EST
    that by maintaining a separate email account Hillary was in violation of State Department policy for 6 years.  

    ABC News

    Guess when you're the boss the policies don't apply to you.

    She may also have violated FAM regulations if any of her emails had " sensitive" information in them and again we are trusting the 55,000 emails she handed over are all there are.  The 10% held back were strictly personal and are none of our business.  

    Next thing you know this server is going to get Lois Lernered and self destruct.  Sorry, couldn't help myself.

    Also she was in violation of (none / 0) (#148)
    by Slado on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 01:56:57 AM EST
    the NARA 1995 regulations regarding separate email accounts being used for government business.


    This was later clarified in 2009 and again in 2014.  Clintons people are trying to use the 2014 date as a way to say the rule wasn't around while she was at state but the 1995 regulations make it clear that it was and she broke those rules when she did all of her work on her personal email and server and didn't back them up on the governments system as required by the above document.


    Jonathan Karl (none / 0) (#185)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 12:41:29 PM EST
    'Clicked on the story ... saw that it was written by Repubs go-to-boy J. Karl and that some anonymous senior official at State told him this ....

    'Think I'll wait for any official report with any official finding.  Truthfully, based upon the slow step-by-step back-off by the major papers regarding any direct statement of violation of anything, waiting makes sense and is the most prudent thing to do (unless you are pushing a conclusion without all the facts.)

    'Caught a brief interview with Frank Luntz on CBS Good Morning show today, wherein he pointed out that his recent focus group on Hillary Clinton was a bit surprising in that participants' positions as to the presumptive nominee had not changed in the past 3 or 4 years ... even including the words used to describe her (most favorable, btw.) Luntz is a great focus group mediator--because the questions and subject matter are open-ended, and he refrains from putting himself in the center and/or leading.) In the past, he primarily works in the major Repub's employ (yet, I respect his approach and accuracy.) If I heard him correctly: The focus group does have degrees of concern about dynastic components of another Bush v. Clinton ... tho, not too strong.


    Although the choice of photo (none / 0) (#160)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 10:19:32 AM EST
     is suggestive of anti-Clinton bias, the Atlantic is not widely viewed as a right wing crazy  publication.

     A Hillary Clinton Email the State Department Couldn't Find

      Would not this be precisely the type of communication that should not be conducted on outside systems so that we the people have a record of what is being said by and to those we entrust to do OUR business?

    What is a "freelance" intelligence (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 10:58:22 AM EST

    Was she soliciting these reports, was Blumenthal just sending them to her on his own?  How did this come to be?

    Is it at all possible she didn't consider this "official business?"

    I don't know the answers, but it does seem this is going to get worse before it can or does get better.  Whatever "better" means.


    Sure, it's possible. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:07:16 AM EST
      She'd be wrong, of course, but I don't claim to be able to read her mind.

      I suspect she's somewhat smarter than to believe it's not government business when a SECCRETARY OF STATE is receiving communications  containing information that would have bearing on  decisions to be made AS SECRETARY OF STATE.

      If I'm wrong,  I don't think admitting  she's so clueless  is  a helpful tactic to defuse the situation.


    None of this makes any sense to me. (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:28:33 AM EST
    Which I'm pretty annoyed about.  More because I'm sick of having to mentally hack through the kudzu that instantly springs to life and overtakes the landscape to the point where kudzu is all I can see - and nothing gets rid of it.

    Truth?  No one knows what it is, no one believes it when they hear it, no one accepts it.

    And the really, deeply funny thing is that we - the people - are still deluding ourselves that anything we might think about all of this matters to anyone.  I feel like this endless kabuki is being put on for the powers that be, the money guys, the lobbyists, each other, and we're supposed to believe this is the democratic process?

    Knowing that we have some 21 months of being in the middle of someone's scandal 24/7 just makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.


    elephant in the room (none / 0) (#171)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:35:32 AM EST
    There must be Democrats with clear integrity as well as good policy positions and ideally experience actually running something (the only policy Hillary ever formulated was the health care police of the 1990's, and that was a fiasco).  Can't the Democrats do better?  

    That was (none / 0) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:26:50 AM EST
    the part of the article that hit me too. Exaclty what is a "Freelance intelligence report". Is it just nothing, something you can get off the internet by anybody? I mean if that's the case then it's not even worth talking about and would fall under the category of personal correspondence.

    I've seen worse photos of Hillary (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 10:39:59 AM EST
    in the last few days.  I hope people look at this link.  As you correctly pointed out its not Red State.  And it's exactly what I meant when I said the whole thing is very unfortunate.  Whether or not there was any wrongdoing, intentional or not, it looks bad.  And it seems like a totally unforced error.

    To (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:24:23 AM EST
    me that article misses the issue. How was Blumenthal emailing "independent" stuff. And isn't Blumenthal a private citizen?

    I'm beginning to think that she put this info out there to get it all out before she runs considering the responses from her have been almost nil.


    Ya think???? (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:43:28 AM EST
    this is my biggest problem.  Her response.  When, for example, Jeb faced a similar issue he got out in front of it and released the information.  They have known that the select committee has had this private email stuff for months.   And have been in fact in negotiations with them about it.  How on gods earth can they be so completely unprepared.  I find this single question most troublin.  Be be honest it speaks to a kind of arrogance.
    As to your previous comment about what is a Freelance Intelligence Report, to quote someone we all know, what difference does it make?
    I agree wiith you Anne, none of it makes sense.  IMO she needs to get her butt out there and start helping us make sense of it.

    I understand (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:46:28 AM EST
    that. Being slow on the uptake is normally not what the Clintons do. It's the way Obama operates though so I don't know what the deal is.

    Slow on the uptake is one possibility (none / 0) (#182)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 12:21:25 PM EST
     If we assume two conditions to be true, then the response such far is puzzling:

     1) All communications that should have been preserved were preserved (just in a "technically" improper manner) and all such communications can now be delivered intact and no "real harm" will be found in terms of "missing" communications.

    2) None of the communications she possesses cause her to worry that they  will be publicly disclosed  and  damage her career or legacy.

      If we don't assume both those conditions to be true then we might speculate the response is not merely an example of being clumsy at PR


    Well (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 01:07:34 PM EST
    then probably number 2 then. Whatever.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 01:14:15 PM EST
    Btw (none / 0) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:47:16 AM EST
    she put this all out there

    Yes she did.   Now after knowing this was coming for months.   She put it out there now and State says it will take months to go through it.

    Get used to the story.   It's not going away.


    No (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    it will go away because the press is going to get bored with it. They're already starting to get bored with it. They are not going to talk about this for months while the state department plows through everything.

    Jeb released his info after (none / 0) (#186)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 12:46:13 PM EST
    push-back (sound similar?) and, as I recall, fairly recently (in time to get it out there before this "interesting" story.)

    He was a private citizen (none / 0) (#173)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:45:07 AM EST
     She was not. Obviously a great deal of communication between a private citizen and a government official can be private and a great deal can be related to the recipient's position as a public official.

     If you are a public official and a friend and former colleague communicates with you about his family or invites you  over to watch a ballgame or any number of things, the communication would not relate to the conduct of government business.

     If, however, a friend communicates to you information concerning matters which relate to your duties as a government official, the fact he is a private citizen and your friend does not render the communication "private."

      I think the bigger point is the extreme unlikelihood that a small number of communications between Blumenthal and Clinton represent the only communications that the law requires to be preserved by the agency which were not. As the article explains it was just fortuitous that someone had previously learned such communication took place and requested them from State. State responded that it had no record of any such communications. This obviously raises the very legitmate and important question of what other communications to which Clinton was a party and should have been collected and preserved by the government were not. It raises the thornier issue of what assurances do we have such communications can now be obtained and properly preserved if Clinton does not want to that happen.


    Well (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:49:57 AM EST
    that's my point. How does an independent intelligence report relate to your job? You're assuming it's some sort of classified information but no one actually seems to be able to say exactly what it was and you can't even say for sure if it relates to her job. If someone sends you a suggestion about banking and you're a banker does that mean it relates to your job but it's more or less just junk? You really can't even say whether it does or not unless you know exactly what an "independent intelligence report" is. From everything I have googled on the internet with regards to that they seem to all be business related like stock market suggestions.

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:58:58 AM EST
    did you read the story-

    "According to those screenshots, Blumenthal was regularly sending Clinton what appeared to be freelance intelligence reports--including information and advice about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya

    How does it relate to your job?  Is that a serious question?


    No (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    I missed the part about the countries but it's not like she didn't have all the lastest and greatest information through the intelligence agencies and you would have to assume that these reports were superior to what she was already getting. Anyway it makes no sense as to what Blumenthal was doing because everything would have had to have gone through Obama unless you think he was sending those reports to Obama too.

    Do you really not think (none / 0) (#179)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 11:59:40 AM EST
     it is a legitmate matter of public interest that "Private Citizen X" was seeking to influence public policy? Does the public have no right to know in what direction X sought to influence policy? What he asserted in his effort to influence policy? Whether he was successful in influencing policy? And on and on.

      The contortions people are performing here are amazing.


    No cortortions (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Just saying you're ASSUMING influence and I am not. And was it any information that was new or stuff that was already known? Don't know. I mean it's not like Hillary didn't have all the latest and greatest on those countries already.

    No (none / 0) (#192)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 01:12:29 PM EST
     I'm not assuming influence. Perhaps his attempt to influence was unsuccessful.

      But it is ludicrous to even suggest he was not attempting to influence. When ANYONE attempts to influence a public official to perform his duties in a certain manner that is by definition a matter of public interest.


    Okay (none / 0) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 01:16:59 PM EST
    Well, now you're making it sound like Blumenthal is the problem here.

    who knows? (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 01:41:48 PM EST
      Isn't that precisely the freaking point???????????

     How do we determine if there are problems, what they are who is causing them and why, if we submit to  the notion our public servants are actually out masters and get to decide what about their dealings may be concealed?


    Here's the problem (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 02:06:43 PM EST
    As long as there is a war going on we apparently are not going to be able to find out much. Obama stupidly promised transparency but has been horrible at it. We need to figure out how to do transparency and make it work for everybody. I'm entirely sure there is probably too much that gets classified so maybe that needs to be changed. How do you suggest we do this?

    How about we stop using (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 02:42:27 PM EST
    private email services and start following the rules for archiving and transparency.  Its honestly amazing that you are trying to make this about Obama.  
    He stupidly promised transparency?   They made rules changes in 2009 that might have helped and she ignored them.
    Obama has several press avail abilities coming up.  It's a pretty sure thing he is going to get questions about what and how much he knew about this and when.  What he says is going to be very interesting.
    Today I've been reading that the White House did not know in spite of the many statements to the contrary here.  There was apparently a Hillary @ State email that press used that seems to not have gone to Hillary but aids.  Did the White House use the same email?

    There is a lot more to know.  


    Well first... (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 02:42:37 PM EST
     you have to make sure the records are properly preserved and  available to be vetted and classified in whatever category, or it doesn't matter what the  classifications rules are or  how faithfully they are  followed down the line.

      To the extent we are rightfully concerned that government officials might ignore rules, create pretextual grounds to  shoehorn documents into established disclosure exempt or delayed classifications or otherwise conceal information that should be available, we first have to be concerned documents don't even get subjected to the process.

      The best process in the world won't work if it can't be applied.


    Things ain't what they used to be (none / 0) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 02:15:38 PM EST
    Studying your adversary has branched out and grown.  We will have the Pentagon arguing to classify everything till Hell freezes over.  They would if they could classify this exchange because it says something about Americans, how we think, what we prioritize, and it exposes our exploitable weakness.

    Maybe he wanted a job. Maybe (none / 0) (#198)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 02:29:02 PM EST
    she gave him no encouragement, and out of an abundance of politeness and discretion did not suggest he take a hike.

    I don't know.

    What seems to be developing, though, is a case of demanding the she be able to prove a series of negatives, and we all know the problem with that.  Part of me suspects Clinton's adversaries are all too happy to tie her up trying to prove those negatives...

    I suppose this whole sh!tshow is why I have been over all-things-Clinton for quite some time.  As much as I dreaded what would ensue when she got into the 2008 race, I did support her in the primary, but that was pretty much the end of it for me.  

    The woman is weighted down with baggage, and it doesn't even matter that all the stuff has been dealt with, that no laws were broken, still, whenever she makes an appearance, the bags come out, they have to be pawed through, the linings have to be razored open, the secret compartments turned inside-out.  And - she has to prove she doesn't have a secret cache of baggage in an undisclosed location.

    I know she's smart.  I know she has a lot of public-sector experience.  I appreciate many of her positions on domestic issues.  For the love of God, though, isn't there someone else out there with similar qualifications who doesn't have to bring a container ship-sized vessel to house all her baggage?



    Here's the (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    problem: it doesnt matter about the baggage. Obama was supposed to be superior for that reason back in 2008 and it hasn't worked out well. The GOP will create baggage even where there is none, they'll make up stories, they'll do anything because they are desperate, desperate, desperate. However, they don't seem to think it's a problem that their candidates have major baggage. Scott Walker is under criminal investigation but yet no problem!! The reason she has to prove everything is because she's an evil conniving woman in the mind of these idiots and every woman is going to get the same treatment because every woman is evil and coniving.

    It matters to me - not for what it is or (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 02:48:05 PM EST
    isn't, but because it sucks all the oxygen out of the room and takes away from the actual substance of policy and position and vision that we all need to assess as we go through the elections process.

    Some people have real baggage - stuff they don't want people to pay attention to, or consider as they make their decisions.  But the price we pay for exposing it is having to have everyone else get out their old baggage for us to look at once again, so we can see that it's still the same nothing it was the last 5,000 times we had to look at it.

    This is like married people or family members who don't know how to have a fight that actually gets them anywhere or resolves anything - the only thing they know how to do is flog each other with their baggage, over and over and over.

    It matters for what it keeps people from dealing with, so please stop saying it doesn't matter.


    You as usual mak very good points (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    she tried to hire Blumenthal at state and was stopped by the whitehouse.

    I don't disagree with a word in your comment but honestly, don't you have to admit that this is a totally self inflicted thing?


    That comment was for Anne (none / 0) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 02:47:40 PM EST
    In the Blumenthal situation (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 02:58:37 PM EST
     there is no "proving a negative" involved. The communications took place and that was learned because his AOL (yes, really) email account was hacked.

      The State Department already has replied that no records could be found on its internal system.

      I think I have spent enough time explaining  why such communications are required to be preserved. If she has in fact preserved those communications on her servers and turns them over, then we have the lesser (but not trivial) matter of improper storage and delayed delivery for proper storage. If she doesn't have them then that's a bigger problem and we will also need an explanation for why she doesn't have them.

       The other thing to consider is that a server is a physical object. The actual server could be turned over and searched to find any documents it stores, and at least some information could be obtained through a forensic examination as to whether and when certain actions were executed to remove data.


    Now THIS is a reason (none / 0) (#164)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 10:59:56 AM EST
     for using private email when you work for the people.


    Sorry, Reconstructionist (none / 0) (#206)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 06, 2015 at 08:33:25 PM EST
    You'll need to try harder to support your suggestion that the SOS is responsible for storing records at the State Department.  The regs you link to say no such thing.

    Still not holding my breath.

    BTW - No need to "refute your suggestion", since it's just a specious, fact-free "suggestion".

    you are being absurd (none / 0) (#207)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 07:58:46 AM EST
     First of all the SOS is responsible for EVERYTHING at the State Department.

     Second, we are not talking about records relating to things done by her subordinates of which we she might not have had personal knowledge.

     We are talking about   RECORDS SHE PERSONALLY GENERATED (IN TERMS OF HER EMAILs) AND PERSONALLY (and quite possibly exclusively) POSSESSED in terms of emails sent to her account.

      When you plummet to these depths of silliness, it's time to take a step back and ask why.

    Shoter version (none / 0) (#208)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 08:15:37 AM EST
    Oops!  Those regs don't say what you claimed they did.

    Embarrassing, huh?

    Yes they do (none / 0) (#209)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 08:28:28 AM EST
     and that much is not even remotely debatable.

    You really should  stop digging. Credibility is like money, the more you waste it the less you have.

    No, they don't (none / 0) (#210)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 09:17:47 AM EST
    If they did, you would cite the specific reg, rather than just linking to an entire set of generic regs.  If they did, you would cite the specific reg you think was so clearly violated.  But you don't ...

    ... because you can't.

    I pasted the specific reference to the definition of "agency" because your lame gambit at that point was trying to argue that the State Department was not an agency within the meaning of the statute. Because I thought it would helpful I linked the statute and the regs so those interested enough could read them for themselves.

    Anyone who bothered would find this:

    § 2911. Disclosure requirement for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts

    (a) IN GENERAL.--An officer or employee of an executive agency may not create or send a record using a non-official electronic messaging account unless such officer or employee--

    (1) copies an official electronic messaging account of the officer or employee in the original creation or transmission of the record; or

    (2) forwards a complete copy of the record to an official electronic messaging account of the officer or employee not later than 20 days after the original creation or transmission of the record.

    (b) ADVERSE ACTIONS.--The intentional violation of subsection (a) (including any rules, regulations, or other implementing guidelines), as determined by the appropriate supervisor, shall be a basis for disciplinary action in accordance with subchapter I, II, or V of chapter 75 of title 5, as the case may be.

    (c) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:

    (1) ELECTRONIC MESSAGES.--The term `electronic messages' means electronic mail and other electronic messaging systems that are used for purposes of communicating between individuals.

    (2) ELECTRONIC MESSAGING ACCOUNT.--The term `electronic messaging account' means any account that sends electronic messages.

    (3) EXECUTIVE AGENCY.--The term `executive agency' has the meaning given that term in section 105 of title 5.

    Try again (none / 0) (#213)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 11:43:48 AM EST
     1995 version of regulations:

     60 Fed. Reg. 44641 (1995)

    § 1234.24 (a)(4)

    (4) Agencies with access to external
    electronic mail systems shall ensure that
    Federal records sent or received on
    these systems are preserved in the
    appropriate recordkeeping system and
    that reasonable steps are taken to
    capture available transmission and
    receipt data needed by the agency for
    recordkeeping purposes.

    2009 version:

    § 1236.22

    (b) Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.

    (d) d) Except for those electronic mail records within the scope of paragraph (c) of this section:

    (1) Agencies must not use an electronic mail system to store the recordkeeping copy of electronic mail messages identified as Federal records unless that system has all of the features specified in §1236.20(b)(see below)  of this part.

    (2) If the electronic mail system is not designed to be a recordkeeping system, agencies must instruct staff on how to copy Federal records from the electronic mail system to a recordkeeping system.

    The 2014 amendment to statutory law merely recodifies previously existing requirements, establishes the 20 day limit and authorizes disciplinary sanctions for employees in violation. The requirement to disclose official communications from external accounts  and make them  available for internal agency storage email communications pertaining to government business has been the law ever since email began being widely used.

    §1236.20   What are appropriate recordkeeping systems for electronic records?

    (a) General. Agencies must use electronic or paper recordkeeping systems or a combination of those systems, depending on their business needs, for managing their records. Transitory e-mail may be managed as specified in §1236.22(c).

    (b) Electronic recordkeeping. Recordkeeping functionality may be built into the electronic information system or records can be transferred to an electronic recordkeeping repository, such as a DoD-5015.2 STD-certified product. The following functionalities are necessary for electronic recordkeeping:

    (1) Declare records. Assign unique identifiers to records.

    (2) Capture records. Import records from other sources, manually enter records into the system, or link records to other systems.

    (3) Organize records. Associate with an approved records schedule and disposition instruction.

    (4) Maintain records security. Prevent the unauthorized access, modification, or deletion of declared records, and ensure that appropriate audit trails are in place to track use of the records.

    (5) Manage access and retrieval. Establish the appropriate rights for users to access the records and facilitate the search and retrieval of records.

    (6) Preserve records. Ensure that all records in the system are retrievable and usable for as long as needed to conduct agency business and to meet NARA-approved dispositions. Agencies must develop procedures to enable the migration of records and their associated metadata to new storage media or formats in order to avoid loss due to media decay or technology obsolescence.

    (7) Execute disposition. Identify and effect the transfer of permanent records to NARA based on approved records schedules. Identify and delete temporary records that are eligible for disposal. Apply records hold or freeze on disposition when required.

    (c) Backup systems. System and file backup processes and media do not provide the appropriate recordkeeping functionalities and must not be used as the agency electronic recordkeeping system.