This was really dumb of her. This could be what ruins her hopes at the presidency. I can see a lot of moderates being turned away, and perhaps super liberals saying "eff it" and going third candidate because she is now sketchy as fuck.
I bet you it will come up thousands of times in the primary and general. I'm actually concerned we won't have strong primary contenders and the Republicans can win the general using this. Perhaps that is alarmist of me, but this seems like a big problem with no easy explanation.
I have been thinking this for YEARS. Before Benghazi. Before she resigned as SOS. Before today.
Not that she's not necessarily a strong candidate, but the Dems are doing a real disservice if they don't put up a fight in the primaries because "Hilary deserves it." Because all of this shit will become even more of an issue in the general election and if she loses we won't get another strong Dem candidate/shot at the White House for 8 years.
If I had to make a guess as to motive it would probably be she wanted to campaign and fundraise and work on her future plans from the same account. Which may be laziness or may be something else slightly more calculated. I'm pulling this all out of my ass. And this is my "the clintons are shady" side shining through.
Do you mean the she wouldn't want to switch accounts depending on what she was working on, or that she was working the running-for-president angle while communicating with world leaders and other diplomats as early as 2009 when she became SOS?
Because I can switch between my work and personal email all damn day long and keep it all straight, and if I can do that, I'm sure HRC can, because she's many times smarter than I am.
Or do you mean she would email Angela Merkle and be all, "let's just say that in January 2017, I'll make this happen for you," and wouldn't want that on record?
Read the gawker piece above. If what Gawker is reporting is accurate, the issue isn't whether she was following the law or not. The issue is their FOIA request was rejected "because no records existed." When in fact they did. On her private email.
If that gawker piece is true, I really hope this does end her bid for the White House. I'm completely not comfortable with a potential president using a non-classified e-mail to discuss intelligence reports with a civilian, not even someone employed by the state department.
Yeah and that article completely dispels the "but I was sending them to people who were likely using secure emails and/or archiving them" notion out of the damned water if she's sending intelligence reports to a fucking aol account.
If that gawker piece is true, I really hope this does end her bid for the White House. I'm completely not comfortable with a potential president using a non-classified e-mail to discuss intelligence reports with a civilian, not even someone employed by the state department.
Yeah and that article completely dispels the "but I was sending them to people who were likely using secure emails and/or archiving them" notion out of the damned water if she's sending intelligence reports to a fucking aol account.
Read the gawker piece above. If what Gawker is reporting is accurate, the issue isn't whether she was following the law or not. The issue is their FOIA request was rejected "because no records existed." When in fact they did. On her private email.
If that gawker piece is true, I really hope this does end her bid for the White House. I'm completely not comfortable with a potential president using a non-classified e-mail to discuss intelligence reports with a civilian, not even someone employed by the state department.
I'm not defending what happened, but let's get the facts straight. The screen grabs show only that he was sending her stuff. There is no evidence that she replied or told him anything.
It seems plausible that she said, "Sid, you know I can't tell you stuff, but if you have thoughts on what you are reading or seeing elsewhere, feel free to send them my way." Yes, it's also plausible she was engaging in conversations with him and sharing classified information, but the screen shots are not evidence that that happened.
Hmmm. So a journalist discovered the use of private emails between HRC and former White House Staffer Sidney Blumenthal? But what I don't get is that as a the Secretary of State, can you not get information from other people talking or mentioning your job at all without archiving?
I guess I don't understand if this is ok or not b/c we don't know if those emails were just him guessing what was happening or an account from his friends that were there or actual intelligence. If Blumenthal was just sending an invite to a birthday party, that's fine, but mentioning "Oh I heard X, Y, Z about Benghazi," to a friend/former employer is not fine? I am just curious what and how Blumenthal would have more information or "freelance intelligence reports" as Gawker says than HRC herself. What did he do at that time? Blumenthal was a former Clinton WH staffer so he probably wasn't the most reliable information source since he wasn't in the intelligence community, no?
But now I side-eye the State Department more than anything. So Gawker identified this issue in 2013 and they didn't ask for archived emails until October 2014 from past Secretaries of State? C'mon State Department, that is some lax follow-up!
If that gawker piece is true, I really hope this does end her bid for the White House. I'm completely not comfortable with a potential president using a non-classified e-mail to discuss intelligence reports with a civilian, not even someone employed by the state department.
I'm not defending what happened, but let's get the facts straight. The screen grabs show only that he was sending her stuff. There is no evidence that she replied or told him anything.
It seems plausible that she said, "Sid, you know I can't tell you stuff, but if you have thoughts on what you are reading or seeing elsewhere, feel free to send them my way." Yes, it's also plausible she was engaging in conversations with him and sharing classified information, but the screen shots are not evidence that that happened.
There's no evidence because the FOIA was rejected. That's the issue.
If that gawker piece is true, I really hope this does end her bid for the White House. I'm completely not comfortable with a potential president using a non-classified e-mail to discuss intelligence reports with a civilian, not even someone employed by the state department.
I'm not defending what happened, but let's get the facts straight. The screen grabs show only that he was sending her stuff. There is no evidence that she replied or told him anything.
It seems plausible that she said, "Sid, you know I can't tell you stuff, but if you have thoughts on what you are reading or seeing elsewhere, feel free to send them my way." Yes, it's also plausible she was engaging in conversations with him and sharing classified information, but the screen shots are not evidence that that happened.
But why would he pick some email address to send the SoS intelligence reports for funsies? I mean that's doesn't even make sense. He's sending her regular intelligence reports without knowing for sure it's the email she works from?
I'm not defending what happened, but let's get the facts straight. The screen grabs show only that he was sending her stuff. There is no evidence that she replied or told him anything.
It seems plausible that she said, "Sid, you know I can't tell you stuff, but if you have thoughts on what you are reading or seeing elsewhere, feel free to send them my way." Yes, it's also plausible she was engaging in conversations with him and sharing classified information, but the screen shots are not evidence that that happened.
There's no evidence because the FOIA was rejected. That's the issue.
Oh the FOIA was fulfilled b/c they could confirm they didn't have those emails. Now, the State Department should have turned around and asked HRC for those emails immediately in 2013!
They probably wouldn't have told Gawker if they had them after that, but another FOIA filed now should show that, no?
I'm not defending what happened, but let's get the facts straight. The screen grabs show only that he was sending her stuff. There is no evidence that she replied or told him anything.
It seems plausible that she said, "Sid, you know I can't tell you stuff, but if you have thoughts on what you are reading or seeing elsewhere, feel free to send them my way." Yes, it's also plausible she was engaging in conversations with him and sharing classified information, but the screen shots are not evidence that that happened.
There's no evidence because the FOIA was rejected. That's the issue.
Right, the FOIA thing is a problem because it means this stuff was not archived. And it's sleazy.
But my point was simply that the Blumenthal screen grabs that prompted the FOIA request only show what Blumenthal sent her. They do not show that HRC actually engaged or sent him anything. I was specifically responding to deej's point that the Gawker piece shows that she used non-classified e-mail to discuss intelligent reports with a civilian. The Gawker piece does not actually show that. It suggests that might have happened, but it also suggests other explanations.
Given that Blumenthal seems to be the guy doing dirty work and not an actual expert in matters of foreign policy, my theory is that she was consulting him regarding the optics of Benghazi, which could be done without discussing classified information. Which is still sleazy, but politics-sleazy, not go to prison-sleazy.
I'm not defending what happened, but let's get the facts straight. The screen grabs show only that he was sending her stuff. There is no evidence that she replied or told him anything.
It seems plausible that she said, "Sid, you know I can't tell you stuff, but if you have thoughts on what you are reading or seeing elsewhere, feel free to send them my way." Yes, it's also plausible she was engaging in conversations with him and sharing classified information, but the screen shots are not evidence that that happened.
But why would he pick some email address to send the SoS intelligence reports for funsies? I mean that's doesn't even make sense. He's sending her regular intelligence reports without knowing for sure it's the email she works from?
I didn't say he was sending it to a random email address. I meant that it seems possible that he was providing her information, but that it was not a two way street, i.e., she wasn't replying back with classified information.
So, she had a personal email account through a classified email system? I don't really understand that either.
Yeah, this is making no sense to me. Wouldn't she have to be using a .gov to be using this classified system? And the NYT piece is saying she had no @state.gov account.
Classified system handheld devices exist and have a whole series of other separate precautions and rules that apply to them. Those systems would be integrated with her classified email address.
There's no evidence because the FOIA was rejected. That's the issue.
Oh the FOIA was fulfilled b/c they could confirm they didn't have those emails. Now, the State Department should have turned around and asked HRC for those emails immediately in 2013!
They probably wouldn't have told Gawker if they had them after that, but another FOIA filed now should show that, no?
That's the issue though! They couldn't turn over something that didn't exist. But they did exist. Whether it was something that would have been ultimately classified or not is irrelevant. What about all the other off the books correspondence that could be discovered but couldn't b/c the department couldn't find it?
What's the point of sunshine laws at all if officials operate on their own private servers?
Sorry this story is going to have long legs.
Eta: I still think it can be Poped but HRC needs to take hold of this convo pronto.
But why would he pick some email address to send the SoS intelligence reports for funsies? I mean that's doesn't even make sense. He's sending her regular intelligence reports without knowing for sure it's the email she works from?
I didn't say he was sending it to a random email address. I meant that it seems possible that he was providing her information, but that it was not a two way street, i.e., she wasn't replying back with classified information.
It doesn't count as official business?
Look, see this is actually the entire damned point. If she were using the government email with its layers of security and archiving abilities, we wouldn't be having these conversations in the first damned place because it would all be saved, all be secured and it wouldn't matter if she replied, told me to stop sending them, if this aspect of the discussion was classified or if it's was okay to talk about it using this particular email.
WH presser on now: he said HRC forwarded/copied state personnel on official emails so they ARE preserved.
They only spent a few minutes on this topic.
Sooooooooo it's okay because she decided for herself which emails are official and needed to be preserved??
I take it back. Everyone is stupid. Our nation is being run by morons.
Well, TBF, don't they all? I'm sure she sent all kinds of emails that were strictly personal in nature - just like we all do. All politicians and government officials have the ability to deem a communication as personal and send it from a private account.
That's the issue though! They couldn't turn over something that didn't exist. But they did exist. Whether it was something that would have been ultimately classified or not is irrelevant. What about all the other off the books correspondence that could be discovered but couldn't b/c the department couldn't find it?
What's the point of sunshine laws at all if officials operate on their own private servers?
Sorry this story is going to have long legs.
Eta: I still think it can be Poped but HRC needs to take hold of this convo pronto.
That's the issue though! They couldn't turn over something that didn't exist. But they did exist. Whether it was something that would have been ultimately classified or not is irrelevant. What about all the other off the books correspondence that could be discovered but couldn't b/c the department couldn't find it?
What's the point of sunshine laws at all if officials operate on their own private servers?
Sorry this story is going to have long legs.
Eta: I still think it can be Poped but HRC needs to take hold of this convo pronto.
I'm going to say something soon to piss you off, I'm sure.
Oh the FOIA was fulfilled b/c they could confirm they didn't have those emails. Now, the State Department should have turned around and asked HRC for those emails immediately in 2013!
They probably wouldn't have told Gawker if they had them after that, but another FOIA filed now should show that, no?
That's the issue though! They couldn't turn over something that didn't exist. But they did exist. Whether it was something that would have been ultimately classified or not is irrelevant. What about all the other off the books correspondence that could be discovered but couldn't b/c the department couldn't find it?
What's the point of sunshine laws at all if officials operate on their own private servers?
Sorry this story is going to have long legs.
Eta: I still think it can be Poped but HRC needs to take hold of this convo pronto.
Plus, I'm sure there is more to this with who reports to who.
The Secretary of State is the head of the State Department, so I have to remember that it's not hierarchy for the Department to just tell her what to do and she had to comply... that's not how it worked, huh? She got to do the work on behalf of the President and report to him.
I still think it looks poorly that the State Department knew about the email address in 2013 and didn't request archives from the past Secretaries until October 2014.
Well, TBF, don't they all? I'm sure she sent all kinds of emails that were strictly personal in nature - just like we all do. All politicians and government officials have the ability to deem a communication as personal and send it from a private account.
But when you are Secretary of State and the communication is about something like a US Embassy getting attacked, I don't think anything can be deemed personal even if it really is how to manage the optics.
And even if you CAN deem it personal, it doesn't mean you should. If for no other reason than it makes you look shady and like you can't be trusted even if you can.
This isn't about Bengahzi, except that was when it was apparently discovered. She became SoS in 2009 and Bengahzi was in 2012. Whatever her reasons for using personal email, she made the decision long before then.