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.
Wait, are you telling me that talking (or email communication in this case) to someone about how you are perceived as a politician or a public figure will NEVER be private if you're on government payroll?
I don't expect that of our public figures. I expect that their job and job decisions are transparent (and yes, we can't guarantee that in this case), but I don't expect a politician to keep any discussion of their public perception or optics as public information. I think that is expecting too much of fallible humans who need advice from others sometimes.
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.
SEE WHAT I MEAN???
GAH!
Where did I say it didn't count as official business?
I will say it again. The screen grabs only show that HRC received emails from Blumenthal. I pointed that out in response to deej's comment that the screen grabs show that HRC revealed classified information to a civilian. They do not show that.
TO BE CLEAR: It was NOT RIGHT that this information was not archived and turned over in response to a FOIA request.
I never said otherwise. If people keep taking me to task over something I never said, I'm going to be pissed.
I simply described what appeared in the Gawker screen shots to clarify that what deej was seeing was not there.
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.
Wait, are you telling me that talking (or email communication in this case) to someone about how you are perceived as a politician or a public figure will NEVER be private if you're on government payroll?
I don't expect that of our public figures. I expect that their job and job decisions are transparent (and yes, we can't guarantee that in this case), but I don't expect a politician to keep any discussion of their public perception or optics as public information. I think that is expecting too much of fallible humans who need advice from others sometimes.
This is the point I was trying to make - we can't guarantee that ANY of them are being transparent! Secret emails are common - ask any AE who discovered one on her DH's computer. The point was made above (by ESF, maybe) that candidates probably won't hammer this point because they don't want to reveal their own secret emails.
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.
I'm not saying her decision to use the personal e-mail had anything to do with Bengahzi, just that using anything but an official government address to discuss the situation (or any situation like it) is not a good idea for a variety of reasons.
ASSuming that she really did forward/copy/otherwise properly archive official business, I don't see why this is relevant. Benghazi is a manufactured scandal, and several investigations concluded that there was no wrong doing. Benghazi was just business as usual for a Secretary of State. If her habit and practice was to forward emails to be archived, then those will be archived. I guess we'll find out.
I'm not saying her decision to use the personal e-mail had anything to do with Bengahzi, just that using anything but an official government address to discuss the situation (or any situation like it) is not a good idea for a variety of reasons.
ASSuming that she really did forward/copy/otherwise properly archive official business, I don't see why this is relevant. Benghazi is a manufactured scandal, and several investigations concluded that there was no wrong doing. Benghazi was just business as usual for a Secretary of State. If her habit and practice was to forward emails to be archived, then those will be archived. I guess we'll find out.
Well we know she didn't do this for all emails because otherwise presumably the Blumenthal email would have showed up under the FOIA request.
ASSuming that she really did forward/copy/otherwise properly archive official business, I don't see why this is relevant. Benghazi is a manufactured scandal, and several investigations concluded that there was no wrong doing. Benghazi was just business as usual for a Secretary of State. If her habit and practice was to forward emails to be archived, then those will be archived. I guess we'll find out.
Well we know she didn't do this for all emails because otherwise presumably the Blumenthal email would have showed up under the FOIA request.
Uh, I think I missed a side convo here. I'm doing like ten things at once!
Who do you think is a strong R contender though? I haven't seen anyone murmuring on the right who will be taken seriously by anyone even slightly moderate.
Marco Rubio. I know people here think he is crazy, but I think to most he comes off as a moderate Republican.
I also don't think the intricacies here matter that much in the court of public opinion. This story will blow up and will be thrown at HRC ad nauseam during election season, and the sound byte is going to make her look awful.
I hope she jumps on this QUICK. I want to know what her reasoning was. TBH, it probably won't change the fact that I will vote for her (unless someone way to the left of her has a chance of winning), but she has definitely lost a lot of points IMO.
He's way too far right on social issues to be a serious contender.
I'd like to see the actual language of the response because I don't think you can make that conclusion from the info in that article. Although I admit that I'm not familiar enough with FOIA to say even if I did see the response. Do they typically admit that the documents exist but are classified or whatever? Or do they just say "no records meet your request"?
The article doesn’t say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.
The first statutory change in the law since it was passed in 1950: –Confirms that federal electronic records will be transferred to the National Archives in electronic form; –Grants the archivist of the United States final determination as to what constitutes a federal record; –Authorizes the early transfer of permanent electronic federal and presidential records to the National Archives, while legal custody remains with the agency or the president; –Clarifies the responsibilities of federal government officials when using non-government email systems; –Empowers the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal, and; –Codifies procedures by which former and incumbent presidents review presidential records for constitutional privileges, rather than relying on an executive order that may change under future presidential administrations.
The bipartisan law was passed in response to the IRS scandal and the use of a private email account by Lois Lerner. Now, to be clear, this law isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Times article (good job?), so it’s possible however unlikely another law is being referenced in the report.
The Gawker request was made in 2013, before the law was passed, and before Clinton was required to turn electronic records over to the National Archives.
Entire thing is sketchy as fuck, but these facts explain a lot.
ASSuming that she really did forward/copy/otherwise properly archive official business, I don't see why this is relevant. Benghazi is a manufactured scandal, and several investigations concluded that there was no wrong doing. Benghazi was just business as usual for a Secretary of State. If her habit and practice was to forward emails to be archived, then those will be archived. I guess we'll find out.
Well we know she didn't do this for all emails because otherwise presumably the Blumenthal email would have showed up under the FOIA request.
We actually don't know that she didn't forward all "relevant emails with official business" either b/c that Gawker article mentions that the Blumenthal emails had "freelance intelligence reports," but we don't really know b/c it was personal and Gawker also doesn't have that exact info or they wouldn't be asking for it either in 2013. Plus, the State Department could have that now b/c that FOIA request was 2013 and HRC turned over 55,000 emails when asked this fall 2014. So maybe they do have it now?
What I'm saying is they could or could not be relevant and we may NEVER find out b/c even the Guicifer hacker copied/pasted stuff and Gawker didn't fully believe that the hacker's info either, which is why they requested the FOIA in 2013.
"As screenshots provided by Guccifer to Gawker and other news outlets make clear, Blumenthal was a prodigious emailer to an address that appears to be Clinton's, for instance sending 13 messages—with subject headings like "H: Libya, latest Benghazi intel. Sid"— to the address in December 2012. In one memo dated September 2012—which should be taken with a grain of salt, since Guccifer apparently copied and pasted the text into a new document before taking a screengrab—Blumenthal reports the findings of a "sensitive source" with direct access to Libyan president Mohammed Magarief's thinking on Benghazi. The screengrabs released thus far don't include any indication that Clinton wrote back to Blumenthal."
I'd like to see the actual language of the response because I don't think you can make that conclusion from the info in that article. Although I admit that I'm not familiar enough with FOIA to say even if I did see the response. Do they typically admit that the documents exist but are classified or whatever? Or do they just say "no records meet your request"?
My experience? They provide you the document as requested if it exists. Now, the only non-redacted words in the document might be "a" and "the"...
"No records meet your request" is for "I know GWB sent an e-mail in May 17, 2001, proving that Justin Bieber is really an alien given access and permission to do mind control experiments on teenage girls."
The article doesn’t say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.
The first statutory change in the law since it was passed in 1950: –Confirms that federal electronic records will be transferred to the National Archives in electronic form; –Grants the archivist of the United States final determination as to what constitutes a federal record; –Authorizes the early transfer of permanent electronic federal and presidential records to the National Archives, while legal custody remains with the agency or the president; –Clarifies the responsibilities of federal government officials when using non-government email systems; –Empowers the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal, and; –Codifies procedures by which former and incumbent presidents review presidential records for constitutional privileges, rather than relying on an executive order that may change under future presidential administrations.
The bipartisan law was passed in response to the IRS scandal and the use of a private email account by Lois Lerner. Now, to be clear, this law isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Times article (good job?), so it’s possible however unlikely another law is being referenced in the report.
The Gawker request was made in 2013, before the law was passed, and before Clinton was required to turn electronic records over to the National Archives.
Entire thing is sketchy as fuck, but these facts explain a lot.
I don't dispute the federal law regarding email communication being in flux, but FOIA has been around forever.
The article doesn’t say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.
The first statutory change in the law since it was passed in 1950: –Confirms that federal electronic records will be transferred to the National Archives in electronic form; –Grants the archivist of the United States final determination as to what constitutes a federal record; –Authorizes the early transfer of permanent electronic federal and presidential records to the National Archives, while legal custody remains with the agency or the president; –Clarifies the responsibilities of federal government officials when using non-government email systems; –Empowers the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal, and; –Codifies procedures by which former and incumbent presidents review presidential records for constitutional privileges, rather than relying on an executive order that may change under future presidential administrations.
The bipartisan law was passed in response to the IRS scandal and the use of a private email account by Lois Lerner. Now, to be clear, this law isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Times article (good job?), so it’s possible however unlikely another law is being referenced in the report.
The Gawker request was made in 2013, before the law was passed, and before Clinton was required to turn electronic records over to the National Archives.
Entire thing is sketchy as fuck, but these facts explain a lot.
I don't dispute the federal law regarding email communication being in flux, but FOIA has been around forever.
What I'm saying is that they just didn't have it in 2013 and now if we did the same request under the FOIA in 2015, I'm wondering if they have those emails from Blumenthal to HRC now. Anybody know someone in Gawker that can request on our behalf? Hopefully by tomorrow or the end of the week?
The article doesn’t say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.
The first statutory change in the law since it was passed in 1950: –Confirms that federal electronic records will be transferred to the National Archives in electronic form; –Grants the archivist of the United States final determination as to what constitutes a federal record; –Authorizes the early transfer of permanent electronic federal and presidential records to the National Archives, while legal custody remains with the agency or the president; –Clarifies the responsibilities of federal government officials when using non-government email systems; –Empowers the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal, and; –Codifies procedures by which former and incumbent presidents review presidential records for constitutional privileges, rather than relying on an executive order that may change under future presidential administrations.
The bipartisan law was passed in response to the IRS scandal and the use of a private email account by Lois Lerner. Now, to be clear, this law isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Times article (good job?), so it’s possible however unlikely another law is being referenced in the report.
The Gawker request was made in 2013, before the law was passed, and before Clinton was required to turn electronic records over to the National Archives.
Entire thing is sketchy as fuck, but these facts explain a lot.
I don't dispute the federal law regarding email communication being in flux, but FOIA has been around forever.
Hmmmm now I'm confused. FOIA requests are made to the agency in charge, but do they go to the archives to get the documents? I don't really know how the searches work. It seems like a neutral third party ought to be doing the searches, not a state department employee.
The sketchy explanation is that if she was not required by law to archive those communications, then perhaps they were destroyed prior to Gawker asking for them.
Question, if everyone knew she was using a personal email, wouldn't the FBI and IT staff there have checked to see if the email was secure before allowing her to continue? Moreso the FBI?
I don't dispute the federal law regarding email communication being in flux, but FOIA has been around forever.
Hmmmm now I'm confused. FOIA requests are made to the agency in charge, but do they go to the archives to get the documents? I don't really know how the searches work. It seems like a neutral third party ought to be doing the searches, not a state department employee.
The sketchy explanation is that if she was not required by law to archive those communications, then perhaps they were destroyed prior to Gawker asking for them.
I have had to search my own records for FOIA requests. Sometimes I've sent items forward and sometimes I have not. My guess is that the FOIA request would need to go to the national archives directly (not sure that's possible) if they wanted archived documents. There are specific federal records schedules and yearly training on what documents need to be kept, who keeps them, what is official duty work, etc.
Question, if everyone knew she was using a personal email, wouldn't the FBI and IT staff there have checked to see if the email was secure before allowing her to continue? Moreso the FBI?
That's where I am at. There is NO way that HRC was just in her Google inbox or some shit on Air Force One, sending emails to Putin about diplomacy. I am still in the camp that she is using a non .gov handle but still on the secure government server somehow. I'm not an IT expert, though.
Question, if everyone knew she was using a personal email, wouldn't the FBI and IT staff there have checked to see if the email was secure before allowing her to continue? Moreso the FBI?
1) There is no "personal" email secure enough to be used for classified information.
2) If she was only using it for non-classified, business information, I'm not sure how IT staff would know (other than her never using her real DOS e-mail). And I'm not 100% sure who would be responsible for investigating using a personal e-mail for "official govt business". Anyone knowing she had done it should have reported internally in their Dept.
3) If someone sent an e-mail to her personal email that contained classified information, she is responsible for reporting it internally, but receiving the e-mail isn't against any rule/law. Not reporting it would be. Sending classified information using a personal e-mail would be. Forwarding a received e-mail with classified information e-mail using a personal e-mail would be. (None of these have anything to do with recent archiving or retention rules).
Question, if everyone knew she was using a personal email, wouldn't the FBI and IT staff there have checked to see if the email was secure before allowing her to continue? Moreso the FBI?
I don't dispute the federal law regarding email communication being in flux, but FOIA has been around forever.
Hmmmm now I'm confused. FOIA requests are made to the agency in charge, but do they go to the archives to get the documents? I don't really know how the searches work. It seems like a neutral third party ought to be doing the searches, not a state department employee.
The sketchy explanation is that if she was not required by law to archive those communications, then perhaps they were destroyed prior to Gawker asking for them.
Oh boy. If she's destroying email I think the situation just got a whole heck of lot worse for her.
It's not my understanding that FOIA only applies to things that are archivable. Just to any agency document unless there is an enumerated exception (eg personnel files). But maybe I'm wrong.
My H is in media. I can ask him more about sunshine laws tonight.
Post by tacoflavoredkisses on Mar 3, 2015 19:19:25 GMT -5
Usually my reaction to someone not getting something out of a FOIA request is that they must not have been specific enough in the request. But it seems like gawker worded their request pretty specifically so I fail to understand why State didn't supply them with any documents if they were being forwarded from the email to a state email. Because if she was, then those forwarded emails would have clearly fallen under the scope of the FOIA request.
If gawker filed FOIA requests dating back to 2011 then there is no way ignorance can be claimed. They obviously knew they were on notice in a sense that they needed to get this on the up and up.
More FOIA requests as far back as 2011. All rejected.
The fact that there are other aides using these email addresses is the most troubling part. She can't explain it with "well, this is what I always used and the rules didn't prohibit it at the time, but don't worry, people with state.gov emails were always cc'ed on this stuff" kind of explanation. Instead, it looks much more like an attempt to carry things out secretly.
I'm still confused about the record keeping though. It seems possible that because there were no rules requiring her to archive, the FOIA request came up empty because people only searched what had made it to the archives. Which certainly does not let her off the hook, but less shady than intentionally deleting or ordering them to lie about what was found.
Also, was Gawker really doing serious journalism in 2011? Who knew?
Post by rupertpenny on Mar 3, 2015 19:42:04 GMT -5
It warms my heart to see how many people here think archiving is important (heart)
If only high level officials (in government and elsewhere) felt the same way. I'll admit I am a bit jaded here though. I fight this battle every fucking day and it gets tiring.
"Here is the rule: According to the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration regulations in effect when Clinton took office, “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” "
ESF I can't remember which threads but it seems like so often lately I say something, and then you come and make the same point many many posts later but explain it way better. It makes me feel semi-smart because at least I know I am on the same page as some smart folks.
"Here is the rule: According to the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration regulations in effect when Clinton took office, “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” "
Based on the defintion of record, from the federal records act, as copied below, it is my interpretation that every email is not a federal record that is required to be archived:
]Records are defined in various statutes, including the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act. The definition that follows is from the Federal Records Act that governs agencies' records management responsibilities. Records include all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine-readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of the data in them (44 U.S.C. 3301).
Many of the key terms, phrases, and concepts in this statutory definition of records are defined in CFR Part 1222.12.
To me, the question of whether the emails that were part of the FOIA request are federal records hinges on this part of the record definition:
''Evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Gov or because of the informational value of the data in them.
Also, here is the reg mentioned above in the record keeping definition (note #6 gets to my question above about whether the FOIA'd it's are records):
§ 1222.10 How should agencies apply the statutory definition of Federal records? (a) The statutory definition of Federal records is contained in 44 U.S.C. 3301 and provided in § 1220.18 of this subchapter. (b) Several key terms, phrases, and concepts in the statutory definition of a Federal record are further explained as follows: (1) Documentary materials has the meaning provided in § 1220.18 of this subchapter. (2) Regardless of physical form or characteristics means that the medium may be paper, film, disk, or other physical type or form; and that the method of recording may be manual, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or any other combination of these or other technologies. (3) Made means the act of creating and recording information by agency personnel in the course of their official duties, regardless of the method(s) or the medium involved. (4) Received means the acceptance or collection of documentary materials by or on behalf of an agency or agency personnel in the course of their official duties regardless of their origin (for example, other units of their agency, private citizens, public officials, other agencies, contractors, Government grantees) and regardless of how transmitted (in person or by messenger, mail, electronic means, or by any other method). In this context, the term does not refer to misdirected materials. It may or may not refer to loaned or seized materials depending on the conditions under which such materials came into agency custody or were used by the agency. Advice of legal counsel should be sought regarding the “record” status of loaned or seized materials. (5) Preserved means the filing, storing, or any other method of systematically maintaining documentary materials in any medium by the agency. This term covers materials not only actually filed or otherwise systematically maintained but also those temporarily removed from existing filing systems. (6) Appropriate for preservation means documentary materials made or received which, in the judgment of the agency, should be filed, stored, or otherwise systematically maintained by an agency because of the evidence of agency activities or information they contain, even if the materials are not covered by its current filing or maintenance procedures.
I love this thread!!!!! A real political discussion! With citations to statutes and other sources!
As I understand it, the law that was passed in 2014 included emails in the definition of "Federal Records." So the 2009 regulation may have been in place, but it was pulling the meaning of "Federal Records" from the outdated Records Act, which was messy and subject to misunderstandings and different agency practices, which led to the change in 2014. I think?
So here's what I'm interested in knowing:
1. Before she resigned, was Clinton sending some emails to be archived and not others? Or was she not sending any? If it's the latter (or if the only emails she sent were those specifically subpoenaed during the Benghazi investigation), then that suggests that as a matter of practice, she was taking the narrow meaning of the word "federal records". If it's the former, that's sketchier to me, because it suggests she knew what she was obligated to do, but was intentionally hiding things.
2. Were Rice and Powell sending all their emails from personal accounts to be archived? If they weren't, then it sounds like the State Department interpreted "records" narrowly, and further suggests that if Clinton adopted that practice, it was because it was agency protocol, and while it may have assisted in covering up the sketch, it may not have been motivated by a desire to do sketchy things. If they were, then however Clinton handled it, she bucked the trend, suggesting sketch.
And with that, I'm going out to dinner.
Tomorrow I have to do more work than I did today. Damn board.