That Story About Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Account Isn’t as Awful as It Seems

[wyldwolf]

Here are some items that are either exculpatory or unclear in the NY Times article.

1. The article quotes a lawyer affiliated with the National Archives who set the tone for the outrage:

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

A nuclear winter! Interesting, because the article goes on to note that numerous other State Department and other government officials have used private email accounts, partially or exclusively, including Secretary of State Colin Powell who only used a personal email account.

Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business.

And…

Before the current regulations went into effect, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who served from 2001 to 2005, used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders.

That’s a lot of nuclear winters!

2) As you can see, the article notes that Powell used his private email before the law was changed. Indeed, that’s true.

Comparatively, the article makes it appear as if Clinton violated federal regulations.

Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them.

The article doesn’t say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.

More...

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/story-hillary-clintons-private-email-account-isnt-awful-seems/

[FSogol]

1. Three defensive email posts in a row. Worried about something?

[wyldwolf]

2. Responding to a handful of offensive posts in a row. Worried about something?

Maybe that another anti-Hillary screed is about to bite the dust?

I do love the smell of dashed 'progressive' anti-Hillary hopes.

[FSogol]

9. You are nuts. When have I ever posted an anti-Hillary post?

Your posts reek of rabid desperation. Last weekend when O'Malley finally hit the news, you started bashing him. The guy has 2% of the Democratic vote yet you acted scared and began attacking. HRC is way ahead in money and support yet you act like she is some sort of victim and 50 points behind.


I have close to 25k posts on DU, find a single anti-HRC one from me and I'll take everything back.

[wyldwolf]

10. When did I accuse you of posting an anti-Hillary post?

LOL. "Nuts."

[randome]

3. Defensive or not, facts are facts.

Clinton was not required to conduct all business using only public accounts. Case closed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[FSogol]

16. Sure, but the OP keeps starting thread after thread about it.

If his losing his mind over a pro-O'Malley article was any indication, we'll see 10 more of these threads in the next day or two.

[wyldwolf]

18. In response to thread after thread condemning her. Hey - problem? Alert me.

And your reply is the SECOND one FROM YOU taking a personal jab. I'd be careful.

[FSogol]

34. LOL, the election is still far away, you better pace yourself.

[wyldwolf]

36. Is that your bedroom?

[F4lconF16]

115. Gotta admit, it'd be a pretty awesome bedroom. nt

[wyldwolf]

118. he told me it comes with a pretty white jacket, as well.

[randome]

26. Fire spreads pretty rapidly, doesn't it? The pants-on-fire brigade sets everyone's pants on fire.

Well, not quite everyone. Yeah, we don't need to bring more attention to this topic than it deserves.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[FSogol]

38. I think those emails are here:

Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Edit: wrong image, not sure why. Deleting.

[treestar]

142. LOL

I didn't really know where the Cayman Islands were. Seems ironic they are that close to Cuba.

[pnwmom]

139. Yeah. For the effort to smear HRC for breaking a non-existent law. n/t

[Renew Deal]

4. It is bad practice to conduct business over personal email accounts

It's bad for business and it's bad for good government. It exposes the government to a security hole they can't manage. It thwarts oversight. It's just not the way business should be conducted. There is no way of knowing who else has access to that email account.

Jen was doing the same thing, but he tried to get ahead of the story by publishing his mail and it appears to have worked.

[WillowTree]

13. Did you mean Jeb?

[SunSeeker]

113. Yeah, "it worked" in revealing Jeb's constituents' private info.

[jwirr]

5. There was some suggestion that her staff deleted the emails instead of archiving them. That may

be some trouble for her.

[wyldwolf]

7. "some suggestion."

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

20. Agree with u wolf, a suggestion doesn't equal proof, and so we should wait for accredited news organizations- not Fux News fo sho - to look into whether emails were improperly deleted.

[wyldwolf]

23. FOX News-style "some would say" - "some are suggesting."

[leveymg]

99. The story is in the NYT: accredited enough for you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html

[merrily]

160. Baron, the guy the OP mentions, is probably THE greatest authority on this matter in the world.

Please see the links near the end of my reply 151,

[jwirr]

25. On Lawrence O.

[wyldwolf]

27. based on what?

[jwirr]

33. The witness he was talking to said this. Who knows if any of this is what they are telling us?

All of this came from those investigating Benghazi. I read all the posts in this thread and none of them mentioned it - we need to talk about everything they are accusing her of.

[wyldwolf]

35. Get us a name and a quote. Might make things clearer.

[jwirr]

42. Sorry. I gave you the program and I was only half listening to that. Are you saying that you were

listening and did not hear it? The info about this whole thing was originally reported out of the committee investigating Benghazi. Ask them.

[wyldwolf]

47. I didn't see the program.

All we have at this point is someone on LO said something about something or another.

[jwirr]

48. Well I guess I will take my 73 year old ass off of Du just to satisfy you.

[wyldwolf]

51. your choice

[aquart]

77. Don't be surprised. It's crap on a cracker.

[Skittles]

162. you know wyldwolf, "some people say"

yup

[leveymg]

21. Anything that was on those servers can be recovered. Any deletions are a telltale map.

[jwirr]

28. Yes, I think that she handed over 55,000 to the senate during the Benghazi hearings alone. And

by the way it is the Benghazi hearing people who are reporting this whole thing.

[leveymg]

40. There's not going to be a bipartisan effort to squelch this one. This isn't Benghazi,

but Benghazi and the spread of ISIS is part of it.

[jwirr]

44. Exactly. It is important for only one reason - the Rs are going to use it.

[leveymg]

53. So could anyone who hacked into the system. That's another point that's going to be raised.

The closer you look at the risks and errors in judgement here, the worse this becomes. I'm not sure there are many Democrats in Congress, except HRC partisans, who are going to immediately run interference for this. Don't expect the same coalition of national security hawks to come together if there is indeed sensitive material in these emails. Everyone is going to want to look for themselves into this angle - and, that will reveal a lot of Hillary's thinking and intentions that she may not want to come out at this time.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. Let's find out 1st wat was deleted b4 reachin any conclusions, thats only fair. But, Hillary wud b wise 2 get out in front of this story b4 it really gets legs...Paging Lanny Davis.

[misterhighwasted]

81. maybe the rest of the posts were personal. family, friends, medical emails from drs..

Could be.

[jeff47]

93. No, they don't have to. You can configure a mail server to really delete the email. (nt)

[leveymg]

105. As we have learned, others can hack in, and the NSA keeps a complete record.

Besides, we've been told that Secretary Clinton and her staff were Luddites.

If the Director of CIA was having his personal email intercepted, so was Madam Secretary.

[jeff47]

107. Even luddites can find the "delete" button.

As for archive, I expect we'd get a more complete archive from China or Russia.

[leveymg]

110. Twice. Actually, those copies may be more secure and less likely to be released in this case.

Some of the State Department's own cables during the period through 2010 were released by Wikileaks. They were low-classified documents, and only a few were from the SoS.

[wyldwolf]

8. She didn't use a free email account. See how hyperbole starts?

[BlueCaliDem]

19. Aw, man! The knives are OUT for Secretary Clinton. I mean, if she did something untoward, then ok,

but just attacking her while she did absolutely nothing wrong - even fabricating or forwarding misinformation and "theories" to make her look bad - is just more desperate attempts to discredit her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. I'm willin to wait to see if somethin "untoward" happened, as u remark, but I think most here can @ least agree, in this case, Hillary exercised poor judgment.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. Actually, she hasn't. She hasn't done anything different than any other State Dept. Heads have done.

I'm certain you've already read the other posts here that have posted after your comment - even one from a State Dept insider. If you haven't already, you can read it here.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

116. Wow! So your defense is to refer me to a post by a State Department insider who basically admits what Hillary did is incompetent, not nefarious?...

(too funny) and I quote from your link:

"I'm not a big Hillary fan, but I can absolutely
understand why she would have stuck with a
system she already knew, and already knew
worked. That doesn't make it right, but it does
suggest it may not be NEFARIOUS. Hanlon's razor applies: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by INCOMPETENCE."

Okay then, I accept the premise that Hillary demonstrated incompetence in her decision to work around a supposedly broken, outdated email system, which decision very well could have compromised national security and, thus, demonstrated poor judgment on her part.

BTW, didn't Hillary, as the HEAD of the State Department, have a responsibility to put a system in place that reflected the competency of her agency under her leadership?

I mean, isn't Hillary's competency and leadership, including during her time as Secretary of State, one of the PRIMARY reasons she will be asking us to vote for her as President? And if that's the governing standard, by your own admission, and that of State Department workers under her control, Hillary has failed miserably.

Let's hope it really is nothing more than a matter of incompetence or Hillary is toast. Thankfully, we have Elizabeth waitin in the wings to take up the progressive cause.

And, one things for certain, if that does happen, you won't see these kind of "unforced errors" under Warren's leadership.

[brush]

41. It's opposition research

That's how it's done — she's the lead dem so wait for more.

Soon as the repugs get a frontrunner our opposition research can kick into high gear.

[aquart]

80. This is only the start.

Get a raincoat and wellies. We're heading into a shitstorm.

[BlueCaliDem]

87. It sure looks like it, aquart. Dark clouds are a-gatherin'. eom

[wyldwolf]

24. You mean like that other story?

The Clinton Foundation money one that, apparently, has lost steam?

We'll hear more, then people will abandon it when they see there's no meat on them bones.

[leveymg]

61. No. The difference is that she's not going to want to release all her email.

There are surely things in there -- if she showed any candor at all -- particularly about Mideast events, that are going to make her look like Pollyanna or Machiavelli, or both. This level of scrutiny of documentation is not good for any former Secretary of State who wants to be President.

Considering adverse outcomes of her policies, she's going to regret this decision to evade SOP that has the appearance of a cover up. Anything she has or will try to withhold will be used against her. Believe me.

[wyldwolf]

63. and then when 'progressives' latch onto the next faux scandal for a few days...

We'll hear how THAT one is different, too.

[leveymg]

75. Now, you're sounding desperate. Breathe.

Relax. This isn't going away anytime soon.

[wyldwolf]

78. You've just run out of things to say. 'Progressive' desperation. Breathe

Relax. You'll be ranting and raving about something else by next Tuesday.

[leveymg]

83. I'm not the one ranting here.

You are sounding awfully reactive. Take another tack - you aren't making headway or points.

[wyldwolf]

84. yeah, you're beside yourself that ONE MORE faux scandal isn't sticking

You are sounding awfully reactive. Take another tack - you aren't making headway or points.

[leveymg]

89. CAPS are the last recourse of the truly hysterical. Better watch that, it's a tell.

Calm.

[wyldwolf]

92. Who told you that, Mr. Rogers? Calm...

[roguevalley]

149. since when are 'progressives' ie liberals the enemy on this board?

damn. I feel like I'm in a shattered glass dimension.

Expecting better from someone who is what? Four or five heartbeats from the presidency isn't too much to expect. Its bush league to use unsecured servers and its criminal not to save your emails as the law demands. Its jaw droppingly stupid to use personal e-counts for this. She didn't even take ONE email addie on the state department server and tell me how different, hard, drastic would it be to use their email format over yahoos, or anyone else? This is just stupid. It was stupid for Palin and its stupid for her. Parsing what she did as different is hypocritical and what the other guys do. When our guys mess up, they need to stand up.

[wyldwolf]

167. since they started carrying Republican's water on Clinton.

[LondonReign2]

137. Yay, more progressive bashing from a faux Democrat Third Wayer

[annabanana]

12. tut tut tut. . . n/t

[DebJ]

95. Has anyone who has seen the 55,000 emails actually quoted some manner in which

she was discussing sensitive foreign affairs?

So far, the only 'charge' was that she didn't have a government email.

Sensitive information could have been transmitted via email using a staff member's government email,
or in all the ways people transmitted such information in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s...

[annabanana]

11. You'd THINK..

that these salient facts might have received even a slight mention during the pants-on-fire reportage this morning, but


No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

[leveymg]

14. Likely worse than you think. Private email is how they nailed Gen. Petraeus, remember?

The first thing people in business, government and law firms learn is that email is both insecure to hackers and that many commercial email companies retain a copy. If the company doesn't have a copy on it's server, the NSA does. In the event of a law suit or investigation, email is subject to discovery. There is practically no expectation of privacy. Expect subpoenas for anything that doesn't get released voluntarily, quickly. If Hillary discussed policy in the Mideast with any candor at all, this is going to create a firestorm.

That's why Hillary and Petraeus' use of commercial accounts is so surprising, and so potentially career ending. Recall, as well, I warned you - you won't like what they have on HRC.

[aquart]

88. Uh, it wasn't the email. It's what he did with it.

Your assumption that the endlessly investigated Hillary is full of crimes is ... stretchy. And ever so full of malice.

[leveymg]

96. Wrong. The email was a way to investigate and publicize the affair - per se violation of UCOMC.

The unauthorized release of classified data charge came later, but is rather weak considering Paula had a security clearance.

[KeepItReal]

15. No Information Technology professional would say what she or any predecessor did was acceptable

If she went to work for any corporation, she would get reprimanded for not using corporate email for work-related messaging.

Using her own domain or gmail or blackberry account for *all* of her State Department communications was just plain wrong.

[Fred Sanders]

17. I also wonder why some liberals are always so eager, evidence later, to assist in smearing other liberals?

TPot, meet Tempest.

[marmar]

50. " smearing other liberals?"

Hillary Clinton?

In what non-Republican universe is she a liberal?

[still_one]

64. let me see. Women's rights, civil rights, voting rights, etc.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[Lancero]

133. According to some members, those aren't real issues.

I think one member was kind enough to provide a list on, according to him anyway, the only 'legitimate' issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6239206

Just now looked over his account, looks like MIRT nailed em.

[still_one]

134. If Hillary runs, and is the Democratic nominee, if DU honors its original TOS a lot of the vitrol

being expressed here on Hillary should disappear I would think

[NCTraveler]

30. Shhhhh. They think this is bigger than Vince Foster.

Benghazi failed so now the righties are going to go with this.

[still_one]

65. Righties hell, the Hillary haters on DU are peeing in their pants they are so excited

[misterhighwasted]

31. wyldwolf the dragonslayer! Thanks for posting the parts the press ..

..mysteriously forgot to include.

Of course this is only the beginning of the slinging.
If Mrs Clinton does actually choose to run for Pres 2016, we can count on more of the same.
Half truths, sorta maybe's, & plenty of gotcha moments as one by one they all try , in a frenzy, to be the one that finds the magic stone that deals the final blow to the head of Hillary Clinton.
It'll never happen in truth, only in a manufactured, made up scheme.
Thanks for the enlightening truth you posted.
Carry on

[leveymg]

45. Why do you automatically assume this is all "half truths, sorta maybe's," etc.?

Loyalty is nice, but if she went into substance and was candid about events in the Mideast during her tenure, release of this material is going to be devastating. Either she's going to look naive as hell, or shockingly cutthroat. A modern Pollyanna or Machiavelli. She surely didn't get outcomes right in Libya, Syria and Iraq - or, if she did, that's going to look even worse.

[wyldwolf]

62. The OP is certainly a start.

I mean, the omission by the Times article alone that this happened BEFORE it was illegal and the downplaying over other examples makes it a half truth. MIGHT explain why the author of the original article tried to walk it back a little.

[leveymg]

67. Do you seriously think that article went to press unless there's a reason for what was included and

what might have been omitted? That was an editorial judgement, and it may not simply be avarice by the Times, which when I last checked seems to be right in line with HRC on the policy level. I wouldn't be comforted by what you see as missing at this point. It's not just a matter of what might be technically criminal or a violation of regulations that is at stake here.

There's the question about what this shows about her judgement - it doesn't reflect well, at least at first impression - for a lot of reasons.

[wyldwolf]

69. do you seriously believe that 'journalists' don't intentionally omit facts to slant their pieces?

[leveymg]

72. This is a big story that has the scrutiny of top management at the NYT.

There's a reason for what was in and left out, and that shouldn't be chalked up to bias or ignorance of the publisher and editors.

[wyldwolf]

76. The top management at the NYT are notorious for these kinds of things

Go ahead, say they're not.

[leveymg]

85. Exactly, Judy That means one of two things: the NYT is invested in outcomes; or they have considered

the points you made, and decided for good editorial reasons to reject them.

That, too, will come out.

[misterhighwasted]

66. why do some automatically assume what they read is the entire truth?

Some truth to the story, yes. But the parts omitted as it was sent flying through the media say much about those jumping on the latest "positively damning" news about Mrs Clinton, President Obama, or anyone else that threatens the GOP.

Its how the media manipulates. Ever see a blatant print error in the newspaper that borders on illegal or harmful? Only to spot a wee official mea culpa tucked on the back page in smallest print?
Well that is the GOP's most common M.O.
Publicly say some damning sorta half truth. Their fired up constituents hold it as the absolute truth & offer the standard "sincere" apology a week later.
They do it all the time and it gets a reaction but by the time the meager apology comes the damage has been done.
And that's how they intended it to be.
Perhaps the media could have just googled the truth like wyldwolf did.
All I'm saying.

[leveymg]

79. When major media make a mistake of great magnitude, it's because they're

invested in an outcome. Hence, Judy Miller, the NYT, and Iraq WMDs.

I don't think that's the case here for the reasons I mentioned above.

[misterhighwasted]

90. "invested in the outcome" . Thanks for stating that.

Exactly what this is all about.
Invested in the outcome. Who is invested in the outcome of printing the sort of truth as to Sec Clinton's emails?
That's the question.

[fadedrose]

32. So it won't hurt HC

and it shouldn't if there was no law about personal emails used by govt officials until 2014. Good idea, that.

But it seems that anyone who used personal emails exclusively should be asked by reporters about why that was so. I for one would like to know the answers.

[Man from Pickens]

37. it should hurt her

It goes right to the heart of why she can't be trusted - she treats positions of public trust as if they are her own personal possessions.

[Orsino]

43. Except in providing one more excuse for Republican hand-wringing.

I had thought that the practice had been illegal for many years. Glad to see that Clinton wasn't flouting a law that didn't exist.

I guess the practice is still skeevy, but mot unusually so.

[snooper2]

46. As noted in the OP, this must be a pain in the ass to try to spin LOL

But we do have to give you credit for sticking by your woman....

Hillary or Noillary!

[wyldwolf]

59. Where was that noted in the OP?

[misterhighwasted]

94. Noillary??

Like the Gop & Teabillies saying Odumba.
Ok I get it.
Same mentality..different day.
You just stop by from Freerepublic?
Cute..

[snooper2]

97. celery?

yellow sticky drunk on pens dancing along tiger granite-

[closeupready]

49. Sure, not a big deal if you are already either a fan or "Ready For Hillary".

But this is yet another chink in her armor if you are on the sidelines.

[Cryptoad]

52. Papa Paul Whores work is never done! nt

[Savannahmann]

55. So yet again our answer to a scandal is...

We suck, but they suck way worse man.

Seriously? Can't we come up with a different answer just once? I mean, it's hard to say keep the crooks out of the White House when the best we can offer is our crooks are not quite as bad as their crooks.

[marmar]

74. Yup. That's what it's come to. Sad.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. !!!

[fredamae]

57. It's Ratings & Corporate Media

it isn't news.

When will We stop buying into their "hair on fire" rhetoric? When will "we" stop allowing Them to shape the facts, conversations and opinions For us?
There is no reason to believe a freeking thing any of them say on this And it is important to listen to tonal inflection...and understand the Direction they want us to think on this...at This time.
Do they allow for reasonable doubt over the content as they speculate her offenses?
Do they admit or agree that this whole thing might be BS" That the whole story just might become a "no news ooopsie we over-reacted" sorta thing? lol...

Plus...so many behind the curtain in MSM Really don't want HRC on the stage and IF they can end that Now? All the better.

I'm waiting for facts from a credible source......and I'm not one to sing HRC any praises at this juncture...but I at least...want Real and Factual information Before I make my final decision. I must say...my curiosity is peaked...because If they're going after her this hard This early....maybe she's not as "wall street money friendly" as many of us believe?

My vote is to let this back-fire on MSM Corp Money-unless and until we get Factual damning evidence that Is Credible.

[Fred Sanders]

60. Hair on fire is the new intellectualism. And the media is always on the spot with accelerant.

[fredamae]

98. We need to do a better job recognizing

it and stop letting Them decide what we believe...on our behalf, no?
It's always easier to believe the bad stuff.
Corporate appreciates our willingness to cooperate.

[GoneFishin]

58. Who cares? I'll worry about her email indiscretions when the 5 million Bush/Rove emails are un"lost"

[GoneFishin]

111. I love good snark, but I don't get which way my snark-o-meter is supposed to go on this?

[GoneFishin]

117. I see what you are saying. If there are indicators that she did this to cover up immoral acts then

Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)

I will begin condemning her for it. I would rather see her condemned for sleeping with Wall Street or wanting to gut the middle class by supporting TPP. So far this just strikes me as the Republicans calling her a poopy-pants or saying she littered.

But I get what you are saying.

[frylock]

138. water seeks its own level i guess

[LiberalArkie]

68. I don't care if Jesus Christ used personal email instead of the corporate email

It is wrong. Point 1. You get a virus or trojan from your person email and you attach to your corporate (.GOV) lan and spread it all over the place. When I worked for a large phone company years ago, one of the top corporate person did exactly that and shut down the e-mail for 3 days while they purged if out of every computer in the system, at that time 65,000 employees in 25 countries.

But wheels don't ever think about that. They don't think about security, they just don't want a peon to know anything.

[KeepItReal]

73. Agreed.

eom

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

121. And all this time, I've been getting my Trojans at CVS. Who knew?!

[BlueMTexpat]

170. DUzy potential, LOL! eom

[Calista241]

71. Colin Powell isn't running for President.

It was a dumb decision.

We're going to have to listen to weeks of news on this crap now.

And pundits will be opining endlessly on what this might tell us about her character. Especially since the chances of her coming out and defending this / explaining herself seem to be slim.

Hillary is not in control of the news that's released about her, and that's a very bad place to be.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

125. It's VERY bad and that's precisely the point: we need a candidate - like Elizabeth - who exudes competency and good judgment 24/7 with no days off.

[BlueMTexpat]

82. The brouhaha about this created crisis is just an opening salvo of

what we will see over the next couple years. Now it's Hillary's turn because she is the likeliest Dem candidate. But, believe me, the faux scandals will be trumped up against any decent Dem candidate for Prez.

The facts show that Hillary was not alone in this practice, nor was it actually against the law until recently. When it was primarily done by white males, no one made an issue of it.

Instead of Obama Derangement Syndrome, we'll be seeing a LOT of Hillary Derangement Syndrome. Both stem from the same vicious, fevered and delusional mindsets.

[Iliyah]

104. Non-stop here at DU which will flourish into downright spitting of every venom

known to mankind, all of earth and countless universes.

[jeff47]

91. Actually, it's much worse than that.

Private email services aren't up to the task of resisting attacks by other nations. Just like private security guards are not up to the task of resisting invasion by other nations.

Using private email means at least China and Russia were reading her email. Probably several others.

[Android3.14]

100. Sounds like someone finally caught HRC

The apologists are scurrying darn fast.

The only acceptable response is for HRC to release her email correspondence, apologize and start following the law.

She just better hope there is nothing in those emails.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

101. Hey,...that flies in the face of the "dumb blonde" talking point the Republicans want to tell.

[riversedge]

102. Poster to pass around...

Remain objective: @DavidCornDC … #p2 #UniteBlue

[Calista241]

132. So what? Nobody's advocating throwing her in jail

She worked for the State Department for years and never even had a work email address? That just doesn't sound legit, and can be interpreted many ways.

Unfortunately it's now up to our opponents and talking heads to determine why she did it.

[AgingAmerican]

103. If the story is true is it a stupid mistake by Hillary

And if it is true, it won't go away.

[Gothmog]

106. Thanks for posting this

[Aerows]

108. Who on DU

has been responsible for an email server, knowing the regulations and implementing the journaling of said email?

I have. And you can bust out a torrent of bullshit but it doesn't change the facts. I was angry when Bush and Cheney did it, so I'm going to go ahead and be angry when Hillary does it.

I can't even believe that I have to explain that a Democrat needs to obey the law just like a Republican needs to obey the law on DU.

[misterhighwasted]

112. and some are just angry at anything Hillary "does".

Just sayin

[Rex]

126. Some "Dems" hate democracy and they say it here over and over and over again

here. This one is so special, after the Nov 4th election he/she came in here yelling at all of us...out of the blue. Not once have I seen the OP post anything factual. Just attack after attack. Now they play CYA for HRC and brush aside any wrong doing.

I personally will never trust a "DUer" that has such flexible morals, but that's just me.

[Aerows]

128. I especially

like the people telling me, who administrates mail and DNS servers for a living, what the law is regarding archiving. I couldn't possibly know what the fuck I'm talking about since I've only been doing it for over a decade.

No, no. Pay no attention to me, I have no clue about the business I am in, and Hillary Clinton, a lawyer, has no idea about laws, either.

It's preposterous that I might know something political pontificators do not regarding email servers.

[Rex]

130. I hear ya same here kinda

I run two commercial servers with exchange. Most of the company email accounts never even get used lol. People are so stuck to their 7 year old yahoo mail accounts. I even have one lady that still uses her prodigy account! Didn't even know they were still around!

Okay short answer - HRC fucked up (or her IT team did), but like her blind loyal fans...mistakes only happen to the other guy. HRC is perfect and that is how the bullet points go out to be used. Personally I like people with flaws, people that make mistakes and apologize. It shows the human side.

Also, this is not like Iran-Contra. This is so minor compared to something like her vote for the IWR (as far as my vote goes), that it surprises me to see the CYA legion out for this one.

I guess she is not the shoe in I thought she was. Or these folks just like to freak out over something sorta minor.

[titanicdave]

109. Big Deal........

In the words of Clark Gable many, many years ago.........."frankly my dear, I don't give a damn".......case closed

[Rex]

119. Your opinion has been noted.

Thank you for your concern over this matter.

[wyldwolf]

120. your confusion of "fact" and "opinion" has been noted.

Thank you for your concern over this matter.

[Rex]

122. Nothing you ever post has once single fact in it.

Thank you for the laugh of the day. Your opinion is as meaningless as everyone else, sorry if that gives you a sadz.

Have a great day!

[wyldwolf]

124. So what you're saying is Obama DID NOT sign H.R. 1233...?

... TWO YEARS AFTER Clinton stepped down?

And that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who served from 2001 to 2005, DID NOT use personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders?

I've always said "progreeeessssiiiivvveeesss" have a different definition of fact. Bookmarking your reply as a prime example.

[LondonReign2]

140. And I've always said, faux Third Wayers have a different definition of Democrat

Apparently it means "right of 1980's Republicans and advocating moving further right".

[merrily]

166. There are some facts and some links in my reply 151. Turns out, a minimum of googling

shows the guy mentioned in the OP, the one Wyldwolf says started the "firestorm" is probably the world's foremost expert on this stuff.

But, what he says is an inconvenient truth about Hillary, so Wyldwolf thinks he (Wyldwolf) knows better. Oh, yes and Ed Shultz definitively trumped Baron's 25 years experience litigating for the National Archives by calling this Benghazi II. I guess that somehow also proved I'm a Republican.

It's hilarious, really.

[Doc Holliday]

123. "A stupid mistake" is one way

to characterize this...from a certain perspective.

So why is everyone bending over backwards to turn this into some kind of deal-breaker for her candidacy?

[Recursion]

127. Yeah, it's still pretty bad

I work at State. We have rules about what can pass where. Obviously a Secretary of State can use their own communications when need be. But literally having no available communication? That's kind of troublesome.

[Rex]

131. Hard to believe she doesn't have an IT team or the government

doesn't have one specially for the SOS. That is kinda an important role to fill and hard to believe no communications at that level.

[Major Hogwash]

168. But, not really, really bad. Kinda sorta bad, but not the kinda bad that would get one jailed.

However, I'm not interested in the excuses that it was not illegal.
Nor am I interested in the excuses that "the Republicans did it, too!"

Sometimes, people let you down when you least expect it.
And this was one of those times.

[nichomachus]

129. Isn't as awful

but still awful.

She used a very hackable email account, intermingled personal email with sensitive government email, and has not maintained copies -- as was was required long before the 2014 law went into effect.

She or her staff should turn over all her emails - and let the government -- not her handlers -- decide which are pertinent.

Or, failing that, we could just ask any major power -- Israel, Britain, Russia, Pakistan -- they surely have copies of all her sensitive emails sent over a non-secure service.

Thank you, Shady Lady

[Iggo]

136. ...and therefore people should quit twisting themselves into pretzels trying to excuse it.

[DeSwiss]

141. !

[center][/center]

- Naw, it's not that bad. At least she left no stains or terrible trade agreements behind......

[JustAnotherGen]

143. I've seen a few posts on this subject today

And I'm supposed to be horrified over this email thing when I live in NJ and my governor is Christie -

The most unethical, cheating, scheming, S.O.B. in America? Get back to me when those emails get tied to Bridge Gate or hold something in them that can bring Christie down and not one moment before.

[Iggo]

144. Hey! Christie! That's a new one.

So far it's been okay because Jeb Bush did it, then because Colin Powell did it, then because DimSon and Cheney did it. But this is the first I heard it's okay because Chris Christie did it.

That's some list. Jeb, Powell, Dubya, Cheney, Christie, and Clinton.

[JustAnotherGen]

145. No - you misunderstand

Calm down and chill out - I know you guys are all over Senator Warren as the great savior of all things leftist but I would defend her in a similar situation. . . Even though I'm hostile to anyone who was support Boehner back in 1994 (Warren was a Republican back then).

I would support anyone with a D after their name in the PRESENT time - when the Koch brothers will do anything and everything to take down any Democratic Party member.

Don't forget - we've heard so much bullshit about the Clintons over the years - a lot of us have grown immune to it and automatically believe it's just ginned up bullshit on the right.

Clinton = 's Bullshit Right Wing Drama.


I do not believe for one minute whatever tipped off the NY Times on this non issue came from the Left. This has Rove written all over it.

Just don't be a sucker and fall for the Right's bullshit.

Today it's Clinton, tomorrow it's Warren.

[Iggo]

148. I'm completely calm.

It's the deflection that the knee-jerk defenders are engaging in where instead of saying "Yep, she screwed up", they just keep pointing to other people who also screwed up.

That "Oh Yeah But Look At This Other Asshole Who Did The Same Thing" list I gave you is just from this morning, and just from Democratic Underground.

[JustAnotherGen]

150. Welcome to America

Its what we are!

Just remember - some of us are holding our noses at Clinton, Warren, and Sanders . . . Their supporters at DU are leaving us hostile to all three.

Sooner or later there is going to be catnip theown into the cat fight for the other two - and you will see it directed at them.

It's only a matter of time.

[Vinca]

146. About half the population can't tell you who the sitting Vice President is.

If they happen to know Clinton was the Secretary of State, they are good sheep and will hate, hate, hate her no matter when the law was enacted. Sad, but true. I'm counting on Hillary to keep us from President Walker, so I hope this is a minor fiasco.

[William769]

147. Kick & highly recommended.

[merrily]

151. The language you highlighted in your post says federal LAW, not federal regulations.

This is the language you highlighted in your OP.

Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them.

He says nothing about regulations.

The Federal Records Act is a statute, or law. Earlier today, I linked you to the definition of "records" in that statute, but you claimed it was irrelevant. You were mistaken. That statutory definition does say that things created and received by federal officials (that relate to public business) are federal "records," which is exactly what Baron claims the law says (again, not the regulation, but the statute..

Other parts of the Federal Records statute specify what officials must do with things that fall under the definition of federal records.

A statue passed by Congress is federal law. It is "higher" federal law than a federal regulation that a federal agency adopts to make a statute more specific. A regulation CANNOT lawfully require anything that the statute does not require. So claiming that the regulation created a new requirement that did not exist under the 1950 statute shows a lack of understanding of the relation between statutes and regulations.

The regulation may clarify the statute, but, again, no regulation can lawfully require more than the statute does. If it does, a court will strike down the regulation as invalid. So, either this newer regulation is simply making the requirements of the 1950 act more specific, or it is an invalid regulation. Either way, 1950 is the relevant date, not the date some particular regulation was adopted.

So, your pointing out that he doesn't say which federal regulation was violated misses the mark.

(This in itself, is not to say that Hillary violated the Federal Records statute, only that the statute has covered all federal records since 1950, regardless of the form in which they are embodied and, yes, the 1950 statute did apply to the Secretary of State and still does.)


But, as far as we know, Hillary did retain the records. She did not, however, either segregate the records or archive them (or see that that happened). However, as long as she did not destroy the records, all else can be remedied. So, in the end, nothing much is going to come of this anyway.

Of course, the agency most responsible for federal records is the National Archives and Records Administration. And you and various others are contradicting the man who used to be in charge of lawsuits by and against that agency. He is now with a 160 year old law firm of over 600 attorneys, which numbers both suggest some degree of success on the part of that law firm. That kind of success doesn't come from hiring people who don't know what they are talking about.

Here is the write up the law firm where Baronn now practices shows for him. Among many other things, it shows 25 years experience with the agency in charge of federal records and a particular expertise with electronic communications. I recommend reading at least the first few paragraphs.

http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/news/headlines/2013/jason-baron-us-archives-joins-drinker-biddle

I don't think professional media writers and commentators, even if they have law degrees, can think a quick look at a statute or a regulation can possibly trump the knowledge this man has on this subject. If I have to choose between what this guy says about this particular law and what some guy at mediamatters says after contemplating the matter briefly, I'm going with Baron. And I recommend the same to others.

[wyldwolf]

152. you're the only one still pushing this '1950' meme. Must be lonely.

[merrily]

153. Really? Has Baron retracted?

FYI, legal analysis is not a popularity contest. You either know administrative law and the Federal Records Act or you don't. Baron knows both. Clearly, you not only know neither you don't know enough to take the word of someone who knows both.

[wyldwolf]

154. Oh, sorry. You and Baron - giving the finger to facts.

Every other Clinton-hater on the left back in 'progressive' headquarters dreaming up the next faux outrage.

[merrily]

155. Dude you need to read the stuff I linked in my first post. If you think you or some reporter

knows more about the relevant facts and law than Baron, I would like to tell you about the lovely Charlestown Bridge. It's a great investment.

[wyldwolf]

157. You don't stand alone. You stand with 'Baron.' And Walker. And Rubio. And Jeb.

[merrily]

158. You can attempt a cheap smear, or you can try to educate yourself, as I suggested to you earlier

today.

Find something wrong in what I said about the relation between a statute and a reg and refute what I posted in my first post on this thread. And, if you can't or won't do that, then at least explain to me why you know more than the lawyer who was in charge of litigation at the National Archives, who worked there for 25 years and who is now probably pulling down maybe a million a year or more on account of his knowledge.

Either one of those would be ever so much more impressive than implying I am a Republican when any DUer with half a brain knows I'm not.

You're welcome for the time I took to try to help you understand issues that you refuse to even try to understand because you'd rather not.


Ignorance of the law is one thing. Willful ignorance is quite another. Enjoy your choice.

BTW, I doubt any of the Republicans you mentioned even tried to explain the issues, so I am standing on facts and legal analysis and with Baron, who,, unlike you, actually understands this stuff.

[wyldwolf]

159. As Ed Shultz called it today: Benghazi Fever II

[merrily]

161. And how long did Schultz work with the Federal Records Act and the National

Archives? Which law firm hired him lately?

BTW, Schultz was actually once a Republican because, as he put it "I wanted to make money. I've never been a Republican.

It's obvious why you'd prefer to take Schultz's word on this while rejecting the word Baron, who has actual knowledge and experience, not just some MSNBC catch phrase and a career that depends on defending Democrats on TV. (I happen to like Schultz, but he is no legal expert on this.).

As I said, it's obvious which choice you've made. It's not the best one, but enjoy it.

[wyldwolf]

163. So now your excuse is Ed was once a Republican. lol

[merrily]

164. Um, no. I need no excuse. Please try to read for comprehension.

In one post, you make a shameful attempt to link me to Republicans, although I've never been one, because you are desperate to discredit what I posted in Reply 151. In the next post, however, you cite a silly catch phrase from a former Republican who is now an MSNBC showman, as though it somehow proves me, and more significantly, attorney and electronic federal records expert, Baron, wrong. It was all about your, um, logic, and tactics, not about me or even Schultz.

I'm done kicking your thread for you. Also done trying to explain anything more about this to you. Post as much additional nonsense as you wish on your own. And good luck on the bar exam.

[wyldwolf]

165. So Shultz defended Clinton because he used to be a Republican and Clinton broke a 1950 law.

[ARMYofONE]

169. Legal or not, she likely did this to avoid FOIA disclosure.

Not surprising, given the Clintons well documented troubles with the transparency and truth.