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.
I'm like a poor man's ESF.
For what it's worth, I am envious of your wit, and I laugh at every one of your posts. I wish I could commentate without walls of texts and with hilarious quips.
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 So the 2009 regulation may have been in place, but it was pulling the meaning of "Federal Records" from the outdated Records Act, which was messy and subject to misunderstandings and different agency practices, which led to the change in 2014.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.
[
The scenario/question you have in your #1 doesn't bother me if she was sending some emails and not others. My opinion/current understanding is that she could easily have been sending forward the emails she deemed to be federal records as defined in the FRA. I agree that it would be very interesting to hear what Powell and Rice did.
As an aside, I will pay much more attention to the federal records training in 2015 than I did in years past. My take home from that training thiugh is that not every file or document produced is an actual record that must be maintained
Whether or not she was in compliance with archival rules is not my biggest concern, although it's a concern, for sure. (I mean honestly? Arguing that an email from or to a public official about official related things on a non government server is not a record is kinda ludicrous or if it is true it hasnt been proven here yet). But my biggest issue is the FOIA rejection. That rejection was an actual barrier to the public's right to information as a direct result of her decision to go through private communication channels. Did Condi do it? Did Powell do it? I don't know? But it doesn't make it better. Neither of those two are running for president either. But if they were and they did this, I'm pretty sure, no I know I'm sure, I would feel just as queesy.
anonymous everything produced is a record, but not every record has archival value. Some things can be discarded immediately, some kept for a certain period of time according to your agency's records schedule, some should be preserved indefinitely. Only a very, very small percentage of records have archival value and merit being stored permanently at the National Archives.
anonymous everything produced is a record, but not every record has archival value. Some things can be discarded immediately, some kept for a certain period of time according to your agency's records schedule, some should be preserved indefinitely. Only a very, very small percentage of records have archival value and merit being stored permanently at the National Archives.
Yes. And just because a record isn't archives bound doesn't mean it isn't subject to a FOIA request.
anonymous everything produced is a record, but not every record has archival value. Some things can be discarded immediately, some kept for a certain period of time according to your agency's records schedule, some should be preserved indefinitely. Only a very, very small percentage of records have archival value and merit being stored permanently at the National Archives.
Yes. And just because a record isn't archives bound doesn't mean it isn't subject to a FOIA request.
Right. And it is also not up to the Secretary of State to determine what records do and do not have archival value which is basically what she was doing when deciding which emails to forward to someone with a state.gov email addresses.
She could fart in a hat at a press conference and she would still look better than the total lunatics running for the Rs.
EXACTLY.
At the end of the day, hide and go seek with your email still beats the guys talking about legitimate rape and birth certificates while throwing feces.
This is why the decline of the GOP hurts all Americans, not just Republicans.
Yes. And just because a record isn't archives bound doesn't mean it isn't subject to a FOIA request.
Right. And it is also not up to the Secretary of State to determine what records do and do not have archival value which is basically what she was doing when deciding which emails to forward to someone with a state.gov email addresses.
Q-whose job at an agency would it be to make that determination? At my agency it is up to an individual's discretion to keep emails, documents, etc, or to delete them. If I have deleted an email at work and later receive a FOIA request, that email does not become part of the response to the request. At least, I don't think the disclosure group is going back to the servers and pulling deleted email records.
A private server in their home sounds even worse to me. I guess that is what difference it makes. I don't see myself voting R and I do wonder if this opens a door for different Ds now? I'd hope.
Right. And it is also not up to the Secretary of State to determine what records do and do not have archival value which is basically what she was doing when deciding which emails to forward to someone with a state.gov email addresses.
Q-whose job at an agency would it be to make that determination? At my agency it is up to an individual's discretion to keep emails, documents, etc, or to delete them. If I have deleted an email at work and later receive a FOIA request, that email does not become part of the response to the request. At least, I don't think the disclosure group is going back to the servers and pulling deleted email records.
I've never worked at an agency so I'm not entirely sure, but I think it varies. Some agencies employ archivists or records managers that should be able to help with records appraisal. I know NARA will send someone out in some cases to help with appraisal and transfer. I think that in theory if you have a good records management policy that people actually adhered to it would take a lot of the guesswork out of it, but is a big if. And born digital records like email are exponentially more difficult to deal with than paper records. I'm not an expert in FOIA but I don't think going to the server for deleted emails would be out of the question. @gracie6414 would probably know more about this than I do.
Q-whose job at an agency would it be to make that determination? At my agency it is up to an individual's discretion to keep emails, documents, etc, or to delete them. If I have deleted an email at work and later receive a FOIA request, that email does not become part of the response to the request. At least, I don't think the disclosure group is going back to the servers and pulling deleted email records.
I've never worked at an agency so I'm not entirely sure, but I think it varies. Some agencies employ archivists or records managers that should be able to help with records appraisal. I know NARA will send someone out in some cases to help with appraisal and transfer. I think that in theory if you have a good records management policy that people actually adhered to it would take a lot of the guesswork out of it, but is a big if. And born digital records like email are exponentially more difficult to deal with than paper records. I'm not an expert in FOIA but I don't think going to the server for deleted emails would be out of the question. @gracie6414 would probably know more about this than I do.
Thanks. I am not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but I guess I am not seeing much difference b/w HRC not forwarding emails b/c she did not think they triggered record keeping vs. federal employees deleting emails that they do not think trigger record keeping.
Wait wait wait. So intelligence reports were sent from her staffer's AOL account?! So, intelligence reports have gone through the AOL server? Or am I reading that wrong? It seems like a security risk.
Wait wait wait. So intelligence reports were sent from her staffer's AOL account?! So, intelligence reports have gone through the AOL server? Or am I reading that wrong? It seems like a security risk.
A former Clinton staffer emailed HRC security briefings through her private AOL account to HRCs private email. When gawker tried to FOIA it Department said "we have no record that this email exists."
Right. And it is also not up to the Secretary of State to determine what records do and do not have archival value which is basically what she was doing when deciding which emails to forward to someone with a state.gov email addresses.
Q-whose job at an agency would it be to make that determination? At my agency it is up to an individual's discretion to keep emails, documents, etc, or to delete them. If I have deleted an email at work and later receive a FOIA request, that email does not become part of the response to the request. At least, I don't think the disclosure group is going back to the servers and pulling deleted email records.
Our records training that we do every year gives a definition of what records need to be part of the official record. It is up to the employee's discretion to decide this, based on the definition that we are given.
I keep every e-mail because I'm crazy. Probably not the best idea, but I do go back to them sometimes.
Did anyone see this article (not sure if it has already been posted)?
That the Clintons have their own server that runs all of their networks? This is interesting, and even if it isn't actually shady, could lead to that implication.
Most Internet users rely on professional outside companies, such as Google Inc. or their own employers, for the behind-the-scenes complexities of managing their email communications. Government employees generally use servers run by federal agencies where they work.
In most cases, individuals who operate their own email servers are technical experts or users so concerned about issues of privacy and surveillance they take matters into their own hands. It was not immediately clear exactly where Clinton ran that computer system.
Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account — hdr22@clintonemail.com, which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym — for official State Department business.
Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton's home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.
******** I'm still unclear as to whether she actually broke any rules/laws though - the law about using a .gov address was not enacted until after she left her position as SOS, right? I'm still confused about the FOIA stuff, admittedly.
Also, surely someone in the government knew this was how they were operating - did not one person tell her that it might not be a great idea?
A private server in their home sounds even worse to me. I guess that is what difference it makes. I don't see myself voting R and I do wonder if this opens a door for different Ds now? I'd hope.
Is this much different from a VPN? If I'm off campus, I have to use a VPN to connect to some services because of confidentiality. I'm less bothered by a private server, because it at least seems like that could be protected.
A private server in their home sounds even worse to me. I guess that is what difference it makes. I don't see myself voting R and I do wonder if this opens a door for different Ds now? I'd hope.
Is this much different from a VPN? If I'm off campus, I have to use a VPN to connect to some services because of confidentiality. I'm less bothered by a private server, because it at least seems like that could be protected.
Your VPN is encrypted from outside, but you have to log into it on your work system for a reason so, no, it is not the same in any way.
A private server in their home sounds even worse to me. I guess that is what difference it makes. I don't see myself voting R and I do wonder if this opens a door for different Ds now? I'd hope.
Is this much different from a VPN? If I'm off campus, I have to use a VPN to connect to some services because of confidentiality. I'm less bothered by a private server, because it at least seems like that could be protected.
Much different and there is no way a "private server" can be used for any classified information. There is absolutely no way she could have replicated/mirrored/whatever the JWICS system in her home den.
Ok to be clear, this isn't an actual server sitting in her house. This is sever space they are using through a legit company who is good at this sort of thing. Considering they have that foundation, this doesn't automatically raise flags for me. BUT it COULD negate my theory on being more agile. My question from here would be how much the govt. options were crappy and in terms of reliability and security.
If she used govt. technology, would she be using military-based security, servers, networks, etc? I was just thinking that people who do so much international work would only have that as an option but maybe not?
A former Clinton staffer emailed HRC security briefings through her private AOL account to HRCs private email. When gawker tried to FOIA it Department said "we have no record that this email exists."
Also this staffer was one she attempted to hire at state, but the White House blocked. Seems like they were smart to do so.
This is the part I can't see any way around. Aside from the facts that a) forwarding/copying state.gov addresses introduces a fallible human element and b) assumes everyone else has a state.gov email and HRC is a speshul snowflake/never corresponds with anyone outside the agency, here it is, right here, evidence that the forwarding/copying did not happen on all records.
The only explanation is HRC is not considering this a record, which is a level of deliberate obtuseness I'd rather not see in a president.
Ok to be clear, this isn't an actual server sitting in her house. This is sever space they are using through a legit company who is good at this sort of thing. Considering they have that foundation, this doesn't automatically raise flags for me. BUT it COULD negate my theory on being more agile. My question from here would be how much the govt. options were crappy and in terms of reliability and security.
If she used govt. technology, would she be using military-based security, servers, networks, etc? I was just thinking that people who do so much international work would only have that as an option but maybe not?
So am I missing where anything has definitely stated that the statement that she used this address for ALL email is incorrect and that she only used this e-mail account for non-classified information and used the proper system (JWICS) for all levels of classsified information? We know she apparently received classified information on this e-mail (security breech on the sender's part, on her part if she didn't report it). Has if been confirmed that she never SENT anything classified using this e-mail?
Again, no private company can provide classified-level hosting to an individual. Well, they could sell her the space with the exact same specs as the classified system but not in anyway attached to any real classified system/network (it would be super-duper-expensive), but the second she moves anything classified to it, she's violating Federal security laws on multiple levels. I'm not getting why people think this isn't a big deal? Unless people think we should just open up all classified information to everyone in the world and close down the entire Intel Community and Law Enforcement at a Federal level?
So am I missing where anything has definitely stated that the statement that she used this address for ALL email is incorrect and that she only used this e-mail account for non-classified information and used the proper system (JWICS) for all levels of classsified information? We know she apparently received classified information on this e-mail (security breech on the sender's part, on her part if she didn't report it). Has if been confirmed that she never SENT anything classified using this e-mail?
Again, no private company can provide classified-level hosting to an individual. Well, they could sell her the space with the exact same specs as the classified system but not in anyway attached to any real classified system/network (it would be super-duper-expensive), but the second she moves anything classified to it, she's violating Federal security laws on multiple levels. I'm not getting why people think this isn't a big deal? Unless people think we should just open up all classified information to everyone in the world and close down the entire Intel Community and Law Enforcement at a Federal level?
It is a big deal, but everything is speculation right now based off of a wanna-be-advisor, who wasn't an actual paid advisor who sent some emails to her with shady topics/subject lines found by a hacker and leaked to a journalist.
We are now just speculating what server she sent what mail through and knowing that she did NOT have a .gov email and knowing that the previous SoS did not use a .gov email either and knowing the the State Department knew all this and didn't seem to care... we just don't know anything except that it wasn't secure and archived for at least Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton.
So am I missing where anything has definitely stated that the statement that she used this address for ALL email is incorrect and that she only used this e-mail account for non-classified information and used the proper system (JWICS) for all levels of classsified information? We know she apparently received classified information on this e-mail (security breech on the sender's part, on her part if she didn't report it). Has if been confirmed that she never SENT anything classified using this e-mail?
Again, no private company can provide classified-level hosting to an individual. Well, they could sell her the space with the exact same specs as the classified system but not in anyway attached to any real classified system/network (it would be super-duper-expensive), but the second she moves anything classified to it, she's violating Federal security laws on multiple levels. I'm not getting why people think this isn't a big deal? Unless people think we should just open up all classified information to everyone in the world and close down the entire Intel Community and Law Enforcement at a Federal level?
It is a big deal, but everything is speculation right now based off of a wanna-be-advisor, who wasn't an actual paid advisor who sent some emails to her with shady topics/subject lines found by a hacker and leaked to a journalist.
We are now just speculating what server she sent what mail through and knowing that she did NOT have a .gov email and knowing that the previous SoS did not use a .gov email either and knowing the the State Department knew all this and didn't seem to care... we just don't know anything except that it wasn't secure and archived for at least Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton.
No I think I read Condi had a .gov she just didn't use it often because she just wasn't an emailer.
Post by oscarnerdjulief on Mar 4, 2015 14:10:41 GMT -5
I had heard that Hillary was possibly going to announce a presidential run in April after donors were skeptical about a summer announcement. Supposedly, they were saying that she needed to start fundraising early. Wonder what this revelation does to the timeline? The cynic in me wonders if this is "inoculation" so that when more damaging things come out later about transparency and emails, her team can claim it's just old news, those rascally Republicans, etc.
As far as the GOP field goes, I think that they would be wise to eliminate any candidate who can be linked to dysfunctional Washington. There are a few governors who might have a chance, including John Kasich of Ohio who handily won re-election despite a very shaky start with an unpopular anti-union initiative that was repealed. I remember Martinez and Sandoval being in the mix but haven't kept up with their recent activities.
I actually think the Republican field (outside of Washington) is stronger than the Democratic b-list if Hillary doesn't make the run. Don't know how much appeal an O'Malley, Warren, or Cuomo, to name a few possibilities, would have outside their core constituency. I can't imagine people thinking Biden's up to the job, and Kerry already had his chance.
A former Clinton staffer emailed HRC security briefings through her private AOL account to HRCs private email. When gawker tried to FOIA it Department said "we have no record that this email exists."
Also this staffer was one she attempted to hire at state, but the White House blocked. Seems like they were smart to do so.
They probably saw his aol email address on his resume and went NERP.