What do you think of that logic?

--imm

Who or where they were from to know if they were personal or business. Addresses from .gov is probably official, emails from Old Navy probably are not official business. I don't have to see the contents to make this decision.

Besides - what do you do with email from the Saudi ambassador who doesn't have a .gov domain? Or something from the Clinton Foundation?

Ambassador. Sounds like I heard excuses like these from Joe Scarborough in the last few days.

Even then, a smart politician would have turned the server over to the State Department and let them separate things. A smart lawyer would forbid that. She went with the lawyers, but will pay the political price if these massages can't be retrieved form the servers.

A lawyer do this for them. This has been the practice with other officials to decide which ones to delete, why is the rules changed because it is Hillary?

FOR THEMSELVES, whether any particular email belongs on the .gov account or in their personal account.

GOP continue to make an exception for Hillary. They are going after things that are silly, another Benghazi. Military officials have told them they could not get there in time but they continue their crap.

Through her official SOS post.

people's personal records without a warrant.

We can't just go sifting through every person's emails looking for possible crimes.

Dept but the Republicans are trying everything to discredit her, won't happen with me.

Ambassador would logically be among the names.

But something from the Clinton Foundation would have been personal, not State Department.

Another Borowitz classic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026350924

I suspect the answer isn't as simple as "why bother it's only spam-mail."

and far more efficiently.

in large document cases, or have staff and outside contractors do it. It would take a team of about 6 people about two weeks to read and take notes on each of these 60,000 emails.

Even if all the rules of civil discovery don't technically apply here, a lawyer would know this is a major deviation from the way that's normally done, and a politically smart lawyer would be aware that this is going to give the impression of impropriety and cover-up.

The more we learn, the worse this all seems.

Addresses from official ones. The official gets to decide which ones are and which ones are not.

emails relevant to something she did wrong, like Benghazi.

It is safe to assume from this moment on, if the email story is important to someone, that someone must think Hillary is guilty of something regards Benghazi.

Since we know there is nothing there, I guess that tells us what we need to know.

By the address and by the name of the people corresponded with.

Using technology in its native & useful state is not a SIN. Tell you what, Next time this happens, why don't YOU volunteer to READ THEM ALL? OK, Would you be satisfied then? This is addressed to the original writer of the article, not necessarily to the OP.

And the process described in the press conference was a ruling out, whereas the process, as it turns out, was a canned extraction which would not require a lawyer to do.

This might be very relevant to a judge.

It is also clear that Hillary was rather misleading in her press conference.

according to the head of the National Archives, who stated such in his sworn testimony before Congress in 2013. It was after that that the law was overhauled to require the use of .gov accounts.

But this is all still so overblown, because even today, any government employee makes the choice for any email either to send it on a personal or .gov account - or to make a phone call. Anything they want to keep off a .gov account can be easily kept off.

all the emails that they have.

There is a real risk that she deleted emails in violation of the record retention laws, either by mistake or on purpose. She has now set herself up for an unwinnable outcome.

And there's nothing in the old or new law that puts anyone else in charge of determining which of her emails are personal and which are State Department.

Senator Kerry's personal emails are also not available for anyone's inspection, nor those of any member of Congress. And it is up to them, with each email, whether they deem it a personal email or a business-related email.

party to determine and ensure adherence to the records retention laws and production requests. Had she segregated her business and private email accounts, she could turn over her business account to State and permit them to inspect, retain and produce in accordance with the law. In her case, we don't know and she can't even say with certainty that no business emails were deleted.

It was a stupid set up and she is getting bit in the ass for it. I just hope that if this fuck up becomes worse (which it easily could) it happens before the primaries are over.

if a particular email should be sent through that account or through her personal account. No one is looking over John Kerry's shoulder right now to make sure he's sending emails through the correct accounts.

So the only difference is whether she made the choice of personal vs. private BEFORE hitting the send button, or afterwards. Kerry is making the decision before he sends an email. She sorted through the emails after she sent them. But in each case they are the only ones who decided which was which.

And both of them are making their choices openly. Anyone who got an email from her could see it was from a personal account, and could have forwarded it to anyone else. Emails have virtually no privacy.

But I agree with you that I wish this had never happened!

Not too much to ask that the email would have actually been read by someone before being deleted.

Ctrl F Chelsea checkmark all delete.

No Judge would accept this approach to preserving records. No Judge will.

and emailing Hillary about that while she was SoS and engaged in diplomatic relations with those countries. If so, it would seem, at the very least, an appearance of impropriety and, along with that, certainly a very poor exercise of judgment.

In any case, obviously people need to wait and let the facts come out, as the NY Times and Wash Post are still investigating, and see where this leads.

No sense in prematurely jumpin to conclusions.

even though the head of the National Archives testified to Congress in 2013 that she broke no laws and even Daryll Issa has conceded that.

Ever hear of the radical concept of "innocent till proven guilty"?

I have forgotten. Was it 18 minutes that went missing on the taped phone calls?

Looked uncomfortable. Ergonomics have improved, however. Oh, progress!

Act.

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2207, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981. The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records.

However, the Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that Nixon did not own the tapes and they weren't covered by Presidential Priviledge, The law that governs records of the Secretary of State goes back to the Federal Records Act of 1950.

The Nixon White House tapes are audio recordings of the communications of U.S. President Richard Nixon and various Nixon administration officials and White House staff, ordered by the President for personal records. The taping system was installed in selected rooms in the White House in February 1971 and was voice activated. The records come from line-taps placed on the telephones and small lavalier microphones in various locations around the rooms. The recordings were produced on up to nine Sony TC-800B open-reel tape recorders. The recorders were turned off on July 18, 1973, shortly after they became public knowledge as a result of the Watergate hearings.

Nixon was not the first president to record his White House conversations; the tradition began with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and continued under Presidents Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. It also continued under Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. What differentiated the Nixon system from the others, however, is the fact that the Nixon system was automatically activated by voice as opposed to being manually activated by a switch. The Watergate tapes are interspersed among the Nixon White House tapes. The tapes gained fame during the Watergate scandal of 1973 and 1974 when the system was made public during the televised testimony of White House aide Alexander Butterfield. Only a few White House employees had ever been aware that this system existed. Special Counsel Archibald Cox, a former United States Solicitor General under President John F. Kennedy, asked District Court Judge John Sirica to subpoena eight relevant tapes to confirm the testimony of White House Counsel John Dean.

But then apples are not as self-absorbed as oranges due to less navel gazing.

It's the hypocrisy that's so difficult to stomach.

Per the Federal Records Act, she was required to preserve personal emails on State Dept's servers, and did not.

All the rest of this is Kabuki theater.

servers, per the Federal Records Act or any other law in effect while she was SoS.

Where did you get that strange idea?

The New York Times

The Federal Records act at the time did not require her to use a .gov account AND did not require her to preserve personal records on department servers.

The head of the National Archives gave sworn testimony before Congress in 2013 that she had violated no law in her use of her personal email account instead of a .gov account; and even Darryl Issa has conceded that she broke no law in existence when she was SoS.

She was required to preserve personal emails tied to government business on State Dept servers, and she did not. She operated on her own private servers, and didn't even retain all emails on that.

and she did preserve her work-related emails, and forwarded them to the State Department when they requested them. Colin Powell, OTOH, said he had deleted ALL his work-related emails and would be happy to answer questions.

It wasn't till 2014 that the new law required the records to be transmitted within a specific time period.

that you have never actually posted.

So I'll rely on him rather than a NYTimes reporter's paraphrase.

"Explicitly illegal" is like "very pregnant." It is either illegal or it is not. It wasn't illegal till the law was overhauled. Now it is illegal.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. That's what Democrats believe in, well everyone except Hillary.

She will get HAMMERED with this in the upcoming election and has nobody to blame but herself.

Apparently that's true for everyone except for Hillary.

Everyone knows that personal emails are open to discovery and subpoenas, particularly if there is no segregation.

. . . Hillary supported the NSA going through everyone ELSE'S emails!!

no appearance of impropriety and everything had been transparent.

Now it seems more than half that number were erased. I hope you can admit that this gives at least the appearance of impropriety. When Republicans did the same thing, no one here was yawning. It was pretty obvious to everyone that they weren't just deleting spam from Pizza Hut.

I expect Democrats to complain about Republican peccadilloes and Republicans to complain about Democratic peccadilloes . I am content to let the voters sort it out.

That's why I don't call myself a party loyalist. It's a lot simpler to just have some universal standards.

My universal standard, my north star, my political compass leads me to support the party that can best advance the interests of the working man and woman.

...why on earth would anyone care what you say?

If you don't believe Democratic inspired legislation and programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act, the Parental Leave Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, et cetera makes a real difference in the lives of ordinary men and women there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

You just admitted to having exactly one standard: the politician with the D next to their name did no wrong. So you'll push any free trade, pro-war, corporate toad the party leadership offers. And you want to hide behind actual liberal accomplishments and suggest the people undermining these policies are the ones who won't defend the corporate slugs?

Elections are about choices and I choose to align myself with the Democratic party and I certainly am not going to overlook Republican pecadillos and obsess over Democratic ones.

Than a single sentence or paragraph can explain ...

It's not just a matter of a 'D' appended to a name, until we hit the general election, ... then?

THEN?

If you care about the policies that favor workers and families (like the list provided above), THEN you might vote for the name with the 'D' attached to the name ...

To ignore this distinction could be disastrous for the country ...

I dislike Hillary for her pro-corporate inclinations, but I will still vote for her if she is the nominee for the party with the 'D' ...

Not that I'm terribly happy with them, either ...

I don't see how it can be defended a year before the primaries have even begun.

For that I can not in good conscience apologize.

candidate as of now. Yet, you seem to declare a victor
already. This OP is just criticism, not an attack or as you
name it complaint.

We will see, whether this story has wings or goes to
the graveyard. If HRC will have to contend with a very
serious Dem as adversary, she might have to explain
all this much better.

But I forgot, she has been the chosen one already.

And I'm bored with this scandal as are the voters, ergo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/13/why-the-email-controversy-probably-hasnt-dented-hillary-clintons-public-image/?

He hasn't always been forth coming with information.

He's a partisan gas bag. Nothing he says means anything, because he just bats for a team, no matter what the facts are.

Did you think this was fine when the Republicans did it?

Investigating the 47 who signed Tom Cottons letter.

for inspection. Not because she broke a law or is accused of doing anything else criminal. Just because.

And you don't seem to understand that even today, when Sen.Kerry sends an email, he decides whether to send it through his .gov account, or through a personal account.

Why is it that he would be trusted to make that decision before hitting the send button -- but if the emails had been mingled in one account, he wouldn't be trusted to make the decision (splitting the emails into "personal" and "work related&quot afterwards?

Although in his case, of course, there is a new law in effect that wasn't when Hillary was SoS.

Ya can't hit ping pong balls back and forth with Mika without ping pong paddles.

Everyone knows that.

for the gowns, had trouble with flower-girl candidates and swan ice carvers. No, really, you ask a good question. The whole thing is bizarre--all of her work intermingled with all of her personal stuff, with accounts in there for her staff...and now it's *poof* all gone, either deleted unexamined by the State Dept. or any government official or third party, or weirdly printed out on thousands of sheets of paper.

The number of employees is largely irrelevant. There were probably only a relative handful of people who could communicate with her directly, and it was those people's jobs, and the jobs of those under them, to handle anything that didn't absolutely require her attention.

I would bray about that but I don't believe it's high on the list of voters concerns...

I don't care. Hillary Clinton is one million times better than any repuke will ever be.

GOTV!

I doubt that with H-1B expansion, The Family, TPP, fracking, GMOs, chained CPI, and 5 or 10 new wars later we'll all be weeping in gratitude that we got the lesser evil once again

... but I'm not.

Rest assured, this Clinton email story will be around as long as Hillary is in contention for the POTUS job.


If you haven't figured out that much about the Teapublican Noise Machine, you haven't been paying attention.

'Time for some trouble in Trenton!' might not have triggered the filter. Carefully word anything about which you and the recipient already have talked, and suddenly it's 'personal'.

Quelle surprise.

contained all the names of people she had contact with as a SoS, what's the problem?

If this article is correct, there are almost certainly meaningless 'time bombs' out there, emails that were SOS related but not turned over, to be 'discovered' by the Republicans in October 2016. Probably much ado about nothing, but they will try to make the molehill into a mountain. Doesn't feel good to be able to predict an oncoming kerfluffle.

Hillary could have handled this better. She could have gone onto the Sunday talk shows earlier and explained herself in a less dramatic setting than a full blown press conference. Sen. Feinstein is a big Hillary supporter, she wouldn't have been on the Sunday show herself saying 'Her silence hurts her' unless she had already conveyed that message privately.

The press conference at the UN stepped on Hillary's own message, her speech commemorating one of the highlights of her career, the speech on women's rights in Bejing. Not only that, it was the most inconvenient space possible for the reporters, who probably were grumpy and irritable before they even asked the first question:

http://www.cjr.org/analysis/hillary_clinton_press_relationship.php How Hillary Clinton made journalists’ lives difficult from Columbia Journalism Review

Clinton is well known for loathing the political press. That contempt has become all too apparent — or all too familiar, for those who remember her husband’s presidency — in wake of the email revelations. Her tight-lipped team has stonewalled countless questions from reporters, and her only personal response to the story came in a late-night tweet last week. Journalists, smelling a potential home-brewed Clinton scandal, clamored for more. And on Tuesday, Clinton finally paid lip service to the furor.

But not without a catch, of course. Though Politico reported on Monday that Clinton would give a press conference the following afternoon, her office did not officially confirm those plans until 11:30 am Tuesday, just hours before the event was scheduled to begin. The location: the United Nations, well-known for an arduous process to obtain press credentials.

The move caught political reporters unaware, and they flooded the UN’s media office on Tuesday morning in a rush to gain access. The Washington Post described the scene:

“The line for credentials wrapped the block outside the cramped U.N. office where all badges are issued. A lone staffer, beleaguered but polite, was handling all press requests. Badges in hand, reporters then waited in a long line to pass through security.”

snip...

Clinton ran behind schedule in starting her remarks, leaving dozens of reporters hemmed in a cramped space, doing what we’re best at: tweeting in indignation. Her eventual remarks weren’t especially enlightening, as she maintained that she used a personal email out of convenience. Clinton’s ultimate message: Trust me.

single thing that would be of interest to them. They are scum as far as I am concerned.

Benghazi. . .

A nowhere story started by a guy names Kristol sent through his usual rag newspaper for the purpose of political sabatoge.
That's it.
Now back to the 47 Traitors and the shitstorm they have caused to the US & its Allies in dealing with EFFING IRAN & Nuke Weapons, and this tabloid email stuff is what's being debated?

I get about 500 emails a day. If I read each one I basically would do nothing every day but read emails. So, the majority of my emails get deleted without any review. That way I can focus on the critical emails and get work done.

Not that difficult of a concept to anyone dealing with the cya nature of emails.

Do I miss some, yes, about one a week. Still a much more productive approach.

This is horrible and it makes my life and the life of my children so much worse!

What could possibly seem shady about this?

Somehow, I have to believe Hilary gets spam mail the same as we all do. Yes, I keep some email for a while, if they refer to something I might be interested in, but every so often I go through even the saved ones and delete all of them. If any of the people pitching a fit about there are honest with themselves, they'll admit they do the same too.

I think the media is losing interest on this one. Sorry guys, but it's time to find a new thing to hop on.

and several times over the years we would get notice of a lawsuit against faculty and staff... in every case we had to to do many restorations of the users involved mail boxes, server logs, and mail journals (all mail messages going into and out of the servers are stored in these journals).

since well before 2009 mail servers have had this functionality as it was added in response to additional regulations mostly put in place to regulate financial institutions.

any mail admin worth their salt working with an institution that could reasonably anticipate that they would be subject to legal actions would have had these in place.

Not having these things in place would have opened us up to additional legal actions.

I find it hard to believe someone working for the state department would not / could not anticipate this and have planned accordingly.

To expect differently is ludicrous. Most likely they wrote a filter that deleted anything addressed to, say, Chelsea.Clinton@Gmail.com, etc.

I swear, it's like DU has become an extension of the Eternal Benghazi Committee.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

Including taking notes on each email reviewed.

Me neither, so why bother?