Hillary Clinton used personal email for work while at State

[Hand]

If she used a personal email account, then those "classified" communications could be floating around in the hacker community already. I wonder how many of them have made it to wikileaks?

Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.

source

Edit: It appears that his was only recently addressed in law: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...ouse-bill/1233

[SF_BHT]

That is referring to archiving records and was an amendment to cover more clearly the requirements.

I can tell you that DOS, DOJ and many other Federal Government agencies have had requirements to use official .gov e-mail services when doing your work. They are trying to put up smoke screens and for the average citizen they may buy it but she broke federal regulations by doing her job using a private e-mail service.

Just think about all her sensitive e-mails as the Secretary that were held on private servers. You think that someone would not be able to get to them. I guarantee that a foreign Intel service has exploited this open door.

Just another screwed up Democrat Politician that is opening our country to exploitation by our enemy's.

[Sigaba]

MOO, it is noteworthy that the New York Times broke this story and that on line edition of The Atlantic has posted a similar piece here.

IMO, if Mrs. Clinton's most vigorous critics on both sides of the aisle can curb their enthusiasm, this emerging scandal is a good opportunity for a non-partisan discussion about government transparency, the accountability of public officials (elected and appointed), technology and the modern workplace, and historical preservation.

YMMV.

[Streck-Fu]

IMO, if Mrs. Clinton's most vigorous critics on both sides of the aisle can curb their enthusiasm, this emerging scandal is a good opportunity for a non-partisan discussion about government transparency, the accountability of public officials (elected and appointed), technology and the modern workplace, and historical preservation.

What conversation needs to occur?

Clinton, like Lerner at IRS used private email to circumvent the required archiving of communications. That is all that needs to be known to determine that they were acting in a partisan manner to be deceptive.

Criminal at a minimum.

Why does that require more 'bipartisan' discussion? What would be outcome of that discussion? Acknowledgement that this administration, after declaring itself on day one to be the most open and transparent in history, has at every possibility done the opposite of that declaration?

[Hand]

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

Just think about all her sensitive e-mails as the Secretary that were held on private servers. You think that someone would not be able to get to them. I guarantee that a foreign Intel service has exploited this open door.

Thank you for your clarification.

It appears that she opened the 13 Jan 2009 right before her confirmation hearings.

I wonder what encryption method she used (if any).

IMO, if Mrs. Clinton's most vigorous critics on both sides of the aisle can curb their enthusiasm, this emerging scandal is a good opportunity for a non-partisan discussion about government transparency, the accountability of public officials (elected and appointed), technology and the modern workplace, and historical preservation.

Do you think any progress will be made? Why would the corrupt in high places be even remotely concerned with being more transparent and accountable? WE can have non-partisan discussions till we turn blue and pass out, WE can't change anything that the government does.

It's a dark day when the only power the people have left is banding together and marching on Washington.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

IMO, if Mrs. Clinton's most vigorous critics on both sides of the aisle can curb their enthusiasm, this emerging scandal is a good opportunity for a non-partisan discussion about government transparency, the accountability of public officials (elected and appointed), technology and the modern workplace, and historical preservation.

YMMV.

Sorry Sig, I'm plunging my non-partisan, metaphorically speaking, sword into her bosom!

And no Joker, not that sword!

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

What would be outcome of that discussion?

Historians have long been concerned with the way .GOV handles documents that may be of interest for future research. For example, members of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations have been concerned over some of the DoS's editorial decisions with recent volumes of Foreign Relations of the United States.

Historians and others are concerned about the best way to archive digital materials given the rapid turn over of technology.

Moreover, not all corporations that use IT have mature policies or "best practices" when it comes to using personal devices for doing work.

My thought is that broadening the conversation in a non partisan environment will encourage more Americans to think about issues beyond the latest scrum in the Beltway. Is GOV the best guardian of America's increasingly digital past or should it be outsources (in part or completely) to private firms such as Google? What are the implications for America's institutional memory if there are multiple sensibilities and standards informing its preservation?

My opinion is that the political party that presents better policies in response to today's issues is going to set the agenda for the half century while the political party that spends the most time pointing fingers is going to find itself irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Hand

Do you think any progress will be made?

Yes, provided the discussion is not encouraged to become another example of two echo chambers competing to see which one can be the loudest.

Originally Posted by Hand

It's a dark day when the only power the people have left is banding together and marching on Washington.

I do not share your sense of disillusionment nor do I believe that mass protests in the nation's capitol is the only remaining option.

My $0.02.

[Streck-Fu]

Historians have long been concerned with the way .GOV handles documents that may be of interest for future research.

So you are not concerned with methods of intentional deception to enable extra-legal shenanigans as long as history writers can Google the information later?

[Joker]

Originally Posted by MR2

Sorry Sig, I'm plunging my non-partisan, metaphorically speaking, sword into her bosom!

And no Joker, not that sword!

Brother the only sword she gets is the Claymore.

No encryption on her emails, BTW.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

So you are not concerned with methods of intentional deception to enable extra-legal shenanigans as long as history writers can Google the information later?

Given the fact that you have been a member of this BB for several years and you have read my posts on the current president as well as on the importance of keeping secrets secret, it is my conclusion that you are trolling.

As I am forbidden to engage in exchanges of snark on this BB, I will simply point out to members of this BB that my position on the current administration as well as Mrs. Clinton as well as the importance of secrecy, can be viewed through the use of the search button.

FWIW, it is my view that traction will follow if historians are asked questions along the lines of "How do you, as a historian, feel about the executive branch's current approach to email? How does it impact your ability to do your job?"

Moreover, it is my view that, given the relationship between military/naval policy and the study of history, the historiographical concerns that I outlined in my previous post should not be taken lightly.

[MR2]

Good job Sig.

[Joker]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Given ... should not be taken lightly.

I agree.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Given the fact that you have been a member of this BB for several years and you have read my posts on the current president as well as on the importance of keeping secrets secret, it is my conclusion that you are trolling.

As I am forbidden to engage in exchanges of snark on this BB, I will simply point out to members of this BB that my position on the current administration as well as Mrs. Clinton as well as the importance of secrecy, can be viewed through the use of the search button.

FWIW, it is my view that traction will follow if historians are asked questions along the lines of "How do you, as a historian, feel about the executive branch's current approach to email? How does it impact your ability to do your job?"

Moreover, it is my view that, given the relationship between military/naval policy and the study of history, the historiographical concerns that I outlined in my previous post should not be taken lightly.

I am not trolling. I would like a simple, non-academic, answer to the question, "Do you think there will be meaningful consequences for Lerner and Clinton within a reasonable time frame such that those consequences will serve as a deterrent to other executives in policy management positions in this administration?"

Historians being able to write books in future may not be able to reverse this acceleration of executive branch power grabbing.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

FWIW, it is my view that traction will follow if historians are asked questions along the lines of "How do you, as a historian, feel about the executive branch's current approach to email? How does it impact your ability to do your job?"

Moreover, it is my view that, given the relationship between military/naval policy and the study of history, the historiographical concerns that I outlined in my previous post should not be taken lightly.

Let us not mix current avoidance of published law and after the fact historical access.

Hillery's actions were directed to avoid published federal rules and laws (I'll let the 2L's give details,, if it get that far)

She did not use a personal server to deny historians access.

She did it to hide it from everyone. I read this AM that the server she used was in her private home. I can not envision a "secured" server of any worth in a private home.

She also directed her CoS and others to use this same server.

This is the antithesis of transparency..

I think it is criminal...

We should ask Julian Assange when & who will publish for HRC??

My $00.0002

[glebo]

I believe it was Billy-L-Bach that stated on another forum that all those upity levels know a lawyer can stop access to private email where it could be accessible for prosecution through .gov email. (or something alongthose lines)

I guess the civvy emails could be subpeoned but most likely they'd be "Lerner'd" by then