so yes, records that needed to be preserved among those would be on State Dept. servers.

This gesture is virtually meaningless.

I doubt that this whole incident has changed many people's views of her.

to disagree with her. This incident is for me an example of really, really bad judgment. It matters to me. Its my opinion that to expect better judgment from a Secretary of State in a world where even Target gets hacked isn't too much to expect. IMHO of course.

As in move someone from supporter to not supporter? Unlikely to get that change I suppose.

But change that re-inscribe/underscores whatever sentiment existed, I suspect very probably.

The wording of the announcement might be construed to mean -she- isn't handing over anything, rather she's expecting that the State Department will somehow flag and deliver all email coming from her system that were received by State department accounts.

As you say that wouldn't appease people looking for fault.

The one thing that is true seems to be an inordinate amount of time and treasure is going to be wasted running 'worries' to ground.

that were ignored by Bush and Crew. I can read the conservatives like a cheap book - Benghazi.

Haters gonna hate.



Sid

Will it be all the emails, or just the select ones sent to other State Dept officials?

see my post upthread with reporting by the NY Times

I can see them for example not releasing any that have sensitive or confidential information as that just makes sense.

and fake new will somehow already have their usual bullshit spin going. Cnn with "Breaking News" plastered, and every corporate media so called news station will be having a frenzy. Internet sites as well, including DU.

incoming and outgoing emails. You can't recreate a deleted email, but you can know that person A sent person B an email at a particular date and time. If an email doesnt exist but the log indicates it was sent/received, you know that the items were cherry picked.

And I don't see anything indicating that she has offered the logs from her server (if it is even setup to keep logs)

This is a Microsoft Exchange SMTP protocol log snippet


note the send and to email addresses are blurred to hide the actual addresses as are the last two parts of the IP addresses. But you can tell who emailed who.

This is a Microsoft Exchange Message Tracking log snippet


This is from an older version of exchange. But even in this version, you can see the sender and recipient's email address the server IP, recipient IP and various other info.

This kind of data is kept on both sides. You only have to have the logs from one end to see all of the metadata of items transacted between both sides.

How does the whole thing not have the stink of deception on it?

she knew that. A person who is on the road or at least working from someplace out of their office 95%+ of the time in a situation where there is essentially no remote access to their email system is going to have to find an alternative. And apparently this was a common thing at state until after the email and remote access system was fixed in the 2011-2012 time frame.

Besides, Obama has been cited as an example of exemplary compliance. So, the system the top people in govt use can't be all that unworkable.

Im just guessing here.

and I run a fish and chip shop, comparatively speaking.

It does sound a bit off.

using a 300 baud terminal (later a much faster 1200 one!) to remotely access the AT&T computer that was used by the department I was in. When in, I could do anything I could do from my desk at work. (Many of us ran long running programs from our homes at night when the computer was less busy.)

Obviously, this was a time when the PCs were primitive and well before smartphones or laptops.

Seriously, email has not been the height of computer technology for decades.

Not to mention, her solution was not something that allowed her to get/store/organize/archive her mail with greater ease. This is seen IMPLICITLY because it took until near the end of last year to give the SD the emails they agreed AFTER EXTENSIVE NEGOTIATIONS to give the SD in August. It also meant that she was running a server. The argument that this was for convenience, ease or simplicity is ridiculous.

Consider this possibility. What if HRC had decided that because the SD system did not meet her needs, that she wanted an executive server, that would handle email just for her and her close aides - run and maintained by the SD IT department. It could be custom designed - and could look exactly like the one that she had in NY. Further, it could have added a process that contemporaneously passed her emails to the archives.

The only downside for HRC I can see is that she would need 2 (blackberries or phones) one for work and one private. Now, it so happens that describes exactly what my husband did for years - and he was not in a government job. He and others in the management at the company he worked for had blackberries which they used for company email only. He also had his own cell phone. Frankly, it was never a problem.

It would be good for some to know how all this works. Just because some don't understand doesn't make it a criminal activity. Besides, guess how many other political figures and government officials did and still do this very same thing.

Seems like HRC has targets tattooed on her temples and whenever she blinks, there's somebody there to point an accusatory finger in her direction along with all the accompanying disrespect she's had to deal with for nearly the last quarter century.

Now that she has asked for State to release all her private emails, I hope it shuts up the peanut gallery for a little while.

i thing this is nothing more than a phishing expedition... it only works on haters and those who don't get how the gov't email systems work. It's not like private accounts that we can get or use. The person who posted about State computers is correct and I wish people could get their heads wrapped around how they are being played rather than this foolishness.

Sure, it saves time to have all her emails in one place. It's emails she sent to people who do not also work for the federal government that might be missing.

That would lead me to believe that the State Department releasing emails would refer to those that used the State Department server, not these secret emails on her own domain on her own server.

That Tweet is pretty vague.

Here, from Time Magazine:

Below, a screen grab of emails from Sid Blumenthal to Hillary.

And why was Clinton apparently receiving emails at a non-governmental email account? The address Blumenthal was writing to was hosted at the domain "clintonemail.com" (we're not going to publish everybody's email address!), which is privately registered via Network Solutions. It is most certainly not a governmental account.

Staffers in the Bush White House famously used private email accounts to conduct government business as a way to circumvent the Presidential Records Act, which mandates that all official communications be archived. Republicans are suspicious that the Obama White House is continuing the practice; Rep. Darrell Issa is currently investigating it. Clinton's emails are also subject to the Freedom of Information Act. While it's not strictly a violation of the PRA and FOIA for Clinton to conduct official business on a non-government account, the law requires that those emails be archived along with her @state.gov communications. And there seems to be little reason to use a different account other than an attempt to shield her communications with Blumenthal from the prying eyes of FOIA requesters. Neither the State Department nor the White House would immediately comment on whether the White House knew that Blumenthal was digitally whispering in Clinton's ear, or if the emails were preserved as the law requires.

And if, as it appears, Blumenthal's emails contained information that was classified, or ought to have been treated as such, it could be a major security breach for Clinton to have allowed it to be sent to her on an open account, rather than through networks the government has specifically established for the transmission of classified material. Why, someone could hack into it. You never know.

Through his son Max, Blumenthal declined to comment.

http://gawker.com/5991563/hacked-emails-show-hillary-clinton-was-receiving-advice-at-a-private-email-account-from-banned-obama-hating-former-staffer

Why else would she install a private server in her home around the time of her nomination?

you might suspect. Many government workers who have .gov email accounts also use private accounts, we have to have certified training about it and ethics training regarding their use... since 2012. I don't see a big problem here with HRC's way of getting beyond an inferior system when she needed something more sophisticated. If the Congress is going to defund everything that they feel isn't to their liking in order to kill it or severely hamper its functionality, then this may well have been the work-around.

Look at the headline tonight about how they want to stifle funding for the FCC because of the net neutrality decision, for example.

If they could drown HRC in a bathtub, it would be happening... they keep trying but I don't see anything but a lot of nasty smoke from burning tires.

That tweet could refer to as few as two email messages, when you parse it for actual meaning.

The key problem here is that she broke the chain of custody - there's no telling what messages are being withheld. The setup she had going speaks to the direct purpose of giving her sole control of that information. Even if message logs are released, there's no telling whether they'd been edited to remove emails she doesn't want seen. In short, she gave herself the power to edit the publicly known history of her own tenure at State.

So, if she, say, used her position primarily for the purpose of advancing the goals of corporations which would then donate generously to her foundation, fund her campaigns, pay six-figure speaking fees, etc., she would be in a position to prevent the evidence of those activities from seeing the light of day. And damn, she got very rich very fast, didn't she?

President Hillary Clinton. Get used to it.

#1 No, she didnt "break the chain of custody" and (#2) we can easily tell "what messages are being withheld". See my posts here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6314929 and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6314957 and (#3) no, she can't edit logs on the state.gov side "emails she doesn't want seen"

And no, she doesn't deserve for you to call her a liar "This is a Clinton we are talking about That tweet could refer to as few as two email messages, when you parse it for actual meaning." because her husband was being questioned about something he should never have been asked about and dissembled.

correct? Isn't she supposed to have a verifiable account of all of her business emails, whether or not they involved someone from the State department? If I have read this correctly, that is not the case.

email. He could also email someone to their personal email from his personal email. Hillary's exclusive use of personal email is no different from that.

some of which went to State and is therefore tracked, much of it though was not to State and is not tracked.

Kerry would have to make an exception to his email policy by sending it from a different account, a highly questionable if not illegal practice when it involves State Dept. business, whereas Hillary did that with everything, and apparently is making only the emails to State accounts available.

then Kerry, too, would be violating the law.

Just as they would not know if he wrote on a napkin, called on the telephone, or made a comment while standing in front of a urinal.

Emails sent in an official capacity will be preserved on government servers since they would be sent to government employees.

That it's okay for Secretaries of State to violate federal law as long as no one finds out?

And would that include Republican Secretaries of State, too, or only Democratic Secretaries of State?

Jaysus.

there is nothing that can be done about that.

What violation of federal law is being alleged?

check her trash!

for everything he does relating to his work. The ONLY time I have seen anything different was an anonymous HRC aide complained that Obama and Kerry were using both -- implicitly making the argument you make. The SD spokesperson made the point that he did this from day 1. On this, it is genuinely impossible to equate their actions.

This also fits who they are - Kerry, even though he was first known for protesting, is and always has been someone who follows rules, who is more than anything ideological a proponent of good government, and is known for his integrity. The Clintons have often had a very cavalier approach to rules. It is disgusting that some here, to defend HRC, are willing to smear Kerry for something there is absolutely no proof or even reason to suspect that he did anything remotely like what she did. (In fact, he, unfortunately, is in a common Democratic position - cleaning up messes of the Clintons)

Not to mention, it goes beyond what email was used. The fact is that Clinton had no process designed to give records that should be kept by the SD on a timely basis. Note that this meant that ALL inquiries and FOIA - that should have covered her email - didn't, because the SD did not have it.

This is a HRC mess, not a Kerry one.

Call Ken Starr right f'ing now... I think we've finally got a smoking gun!!!

I posted this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6314249

pwnmom replied:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026309078#post55

If you really want to laugh, keep following the subthread.

As my reply 19 on that thread says, this is a RELATIVELY trivial matter, yet it has generated so much bs from both sides it isn't funny.'

And then people wonder why the 99% can't have nice things.

This kind of defensive, reactive behavior is a prime example of why she's a lousy candidate.

But anyone who doesn't want to support her can say "but we don't know if the state department has all of her emails since they weren't in control of the email server".

This also puts the state department in a tough situation. What if the recipient (foreign diplomats) or Kerry don't want an email released? They will be right to withhold those emails but will almost certainly be blamed for not releasing any time the emails and their availability come up (even though they should not currently be available to the public).

If she asked NSA to release all of her emails, that would be more interesting

History rhyming.

Everybody is doing it, though. How many emails went missing from the GWB administration?

The congressional committee doesn't care about what server the emails came from, Gowdy wants to access Clintons email so he can see if there is a smoking gun to screw her with....Benghazi will never go away, unlike all the Bush embassy attack crap.....typical right wing cluster fuck.....

and to sell the USA to Monsanto?

not really news, but they needed something to slam on her about...

Also, she never kept her servers in her house. That's not how that works. While the ip address may resolve back to a domain registered to that address, that doesn't mean the actual physical hardware was located there. That's rudimentary IT info 101.

this distinguishes her from the * comparison.

If you all remember, * fought for the right to keep all of his and his staff's communications private and secret.

As another poster pointed out, the NSA probably has copies of them anyway.

give them hell Hillary!