Hillary's emails 'not technically illegal'

[applegrove]

Hillary's emails 'not technically illegal'

By Julian Hattem at the Hill

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/234487-hillarys-emails-not-technically-illegal

"SNIP...................



Hillary Clinton's exclusive use of a personal email account to conduct official business as secretary of State caused seems to have stayed within the law, experts say.

“What she did was not technically illegal,” said Patrice McDermott, a former National Archives staffer and the head of the Open The Government coalition, a transparency group.

However, “it was highly inappropriate and it was inappropriate for the State Department to let this happen,” she said.

The New York Times on Monday reported that Clinton did not use an official government email account while serving in Obama’s Cabinet, nor did she back up the messages to a government server.


...................SNIP"


State: No classified emails sent through Clinton’s personal account
18155

By Julian Hattem at the Hill

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/234484-no-classified-emails-sent-through-clintons-personal-account

"SNIP..............



Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never sent any classified emails through her personal email account during the multiple years that she was in office, the State Department said on Tuesday.

“We have no indication that Secretary Clinton used her personal email account for anything but unclassified purposes,” department spokeswoman Marie Harf said during the department's daily briefing.

Clinton’s habit of using her personal email account for official business instead of an official department email account caused a firestorm Tuesday after it was revealed in a New York Times story.
In addition to concerns about erasing history, critics have worried that the use of a private email account might make the messages vulnerable to hackers, since it is not clear whether Clinton employed any type of encryption or digital protection of her messages.


.............SNIP"

[Man from Pickens]

2. Hillary '16!

She's not a crook, technically

[bigwillq]

4. Bwah!

[dogman]

3. So they were legal?

Strange phrasing seems to mislead. Propaganda at its best.

[rickford66]

8. Like using "not unlike" instead of "the same"

[Rex]

5. Were is a lawyer when you need them!? Someone explain 'technically legal' to me in lawspeak.

I'll leave out the double negative weasel wording.

TY for your time.

[msanthrope]

17. It's what a prosecutor says when your client is innocent, but the DA needs to

save face.

[Rex]

21. I C thank you. nt

nt

[OnyxCollie]

6. All the better to work on secret trade deals. nt

[bigdarryl]

7. Tell thst to Lawrence O'Donald he's going bonkers over this on his show

[marym625]

9. impropriety is impropriety

However, if you read some of the posts and threads here

You are not allowed to say anything or vote for anyone that doesn't fit certain people's criteria. You're a divider, not a true Democrat, ridiculous, among other things, if you dare question the policy and agenda of certain Democrats. Even people who dis others and refuse, repeatedly to answer a simple question are filled with their pious, holier than thou morality and lecture and berate if you dare to disagree. To not follow their lead. You know, people who bitch and moan that people are dividers then jump down your throat, even when you agree and compliment them but have the audacity to question the choices of their queen. Their queen they must know personally otherwise it would be disrespectful to refer to her as "Hill" 

I feel like I am reading the conservative cave the way they're attacking fellow DUers on multiple threads. They're cheap, nasty, liars and refuse to respond to civil, serious questions. I could get this shit on Facebook or discussionist. I have never seen such outright, blatant, nasty crap from "fellow Democrats" anywhere before. This safe haven for us is anything but if you dare to disagree with certain people. . 

They are the dividers. Makes no difference what their politics are. They're just fucking nasty. 

Daily kos works well I understand.

[hugo_from_TN]

10. It damn well should be illegal.

[msongs]

11. sorry,there appears to be NO CRIME here, just perfectly legal behavior. disappointed? nt

[hugo_from_TN]

12. Yes, disappointed that a Democrat would try to subvert public records acts

[DrDan]

20. yep - and we criticize rick scott for the same use of personal email accounts

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article4151920.html

[djean111]

13. I am not on any "illegal" bandwagon, but I have a little trouble with having staffers pick and

choose exactly which emails are made public. Isn't that the purpose of using an official email account, so that all emails are stored/presented, not just the ones that staffers deem okay to see?

I am a million times more concerned about the TPP and Wall Street cronyism than I am about emails, because, I guess, I assume that the government lies and obfuscates anyway.

[HereSince1628]

15. But such choices by agencies are expected by the national archives

The archives only wants documents that meet criteria of federal records...that's defined on the archive's websites.

Agencies of the federal government are supposed to create policies and procedures to ensure that such documents are identified, maintained, and ultimately submitted to the archive. I would guess the work of identifying would be done by staff or contractors, either writing software filters or by actually sorting through emails. It's not the type of thing I would expect a manager/ administrator to do.


Would it be easier to meet that by using a government email system that captures everything? A priori it would seem so.

[djean111]

18. That's all I'm saying. I have no illusion that anything damaging to any politician would

stick around in a government email system, either. Just looks less iffy.

[Vattel]

14. She didn't do anything illegal period. No need to qualify that with "technically."

[Vinca]

16. Something is either legal or illegal.

Since the rule was enacted after she left office, I can't imagine how anything is "technically" illegal. If I operate the car at 60 MPH and next week the speed limit is changed to 55, I didn't break the law.

[B Calm]

19. It's just more Republican drama over Benghazi.