I read it. I have no understanding of what I've read.
Some reporter to Clinton staffer via email: so what do you make of those Gawker allegations?
Staffer: THEY LIE and I'm going to CC all the big political reporters to school you fools and that little liar liar pants on fire Gawker too! Here's some rhetorical questions to prove they are liars!
Gawker: Fine, answered, annnnnnd here's some follow up questions for you good sir.
Staffer: silence.
All the other reporters on the CC: probably shitting their pants because OMGBBQWTF THIS IS WHAT YOU DREAM OF IN J SCHOOL!!!!!111!!!
Politico has a run down. They were part of the CC. As was Buzfeed and Wapo and others I'm not remembering.
I read it. I have no understanding of what I've read.
Some reporter to Clinton staffer via email: so what do you make of those Gawker allegations?
Staffer: THEY LIE and I'm going to CC all the big political reporters to school you fools and that little liar liar pants on fire Gawker too! Here's some rhetorical questions to prove they are liars!
Gawker: Fine, answered, annnnnnd here's some follow up questions for you good sir.
Staffer: silence.
All the other reporters on the CC: probably shitting their pants because OMGBBQWTF THIS IS WHAT YOU DREAM OF IN J SCHOOL!!!!!111!!!
Politico has a run down. They were part of the CC. As was Buzfeed and Wapo and others I'm not remembering.
I had to go read a synopsis elsewhere b/c it was confusing. However, it's unprofessional, but it also doesn't sound like concrete evidence of intentional misuse of email so much as the intentional use of rude people as your staffers. Through this, I have now realized that reporters and Washington Politicos/staffers are assholes to each other all the time - not just witty and gaming like The West Wing.
It sounds like the off-the-record source about the Clinton domain, may have gotten it wrong with Raines and has no concrete proof and it also it still sounds like the FOIA people/State Department also are not good at the archives b/c they couldn't find the "f-off" email between Raines and Buzzfeed's Hastings that Gawker requested and Raines CLAIMS was not only from his state department email, but also copied to another state department person (Victoria (Toria) Nuland - who I think is still there). So if the copy was archived with Toria Nuland and Raines swears it was on his state account, what is wrong with the State Department that they couldn't fulfill the FOIA? What I also don't get is can Hastings not just confirm this as the e-mail receiving party?
Some reporter to Clinton staffer via email: so what do you make of those Gawker allegations?
Staffer: THEY LIE and I'm going to CC all the big political reporters to school you fools and that little liar liar pants on fire Gawker too! Here's some rhetorical questions to prove they are liars!
Gawker: Fine, answered, annnnnnd here's some follow up questions for you good sir.
Staffer: silence.
All the other reporters on the CC: probably shitting their pants because OMGBBQWTF THIS IS WHAT YOU DREAM OF IN J SCHOOL!!!!!111!!!
Politico has a run down. They were part of the CC. As was Buzfeed and Wapo and others I'm not remembering.
I had to go read a synopsis elsewhere b/c it was confusing. However, it's unprofessional, but it also doesn't sound like concrete evidence of intentional misuse of email so much as the intentional use of rude people as your staffers. Through this, I have now realized that reporters and Washington Politicos/staffers are assholes to each other all the time - not just witty and gaming like The West Wing.
It sounds like the off-the-record source about the Clinton domain, may have gotten it wrong with Raines and has no concrete proof and it also it still sounds like the FOIA people/State Department also are not good at the archives b/c they couldn't find the "f-off" email between Raines and Buzzfeed's Hastings that Gawker requested and Raines CLAIMS was not only from his state department email, but also copied to another state department person (Victoria (Toria) Nuland - who I think is still there). So if the copy was archived with Toria Nuland and Raines swears it was on his state account, what is wrong with the State Department that they couldn't fulfill the FOIA? What I also don't get is can Hastings not just confirm this as the e-mail receiving party?
Of course the exchange is not evidence of wrongdoing. It's not evidence is anything. It's simply amusing.
Where did you read that Raines forwarded the Hastings communication to another person at State? That was not a fact disclosed in the gawker email exchange.
I had to go read a synopsis elsewhere b/c it was confusing. However, it's unprofessional, but it also doesn't sound like concrete evidence of intentional misuse of email so much as the intentional use of rude people as your staffers. Through this, I have now realized that reporters and Washington Politicos/staffers are assholes to each other all the time - not just witty and gaming like The West Wing.
It sounds like the off-the-record source about the Clinton domain, may have gotten it wrong with Raines and has no concrete proof and it also it still sounds like the FOIA people/State Department also are not good at the archives b/c they couldn't find the "f-off" email between Raines and Buzzfeed's Hastings that Gawker requested and Raines CLAIMS was not only from his state department email, but also copied to another state department person (Victoria (Toria) Nuland - who I think is still there). So if the copy was archived with Toria Nuland and Raines swears it was on his state account, what is wrong with the State Department that they couldn't fulfill the FOIA? What I also don't get is can Hastings not just confirm this as the e-mail receiving party?
Of course the exchange is not evidence of wrongdoing. It's not evidence is anything. It's simply amusing.
Where did you read that Raines forwarded the Hastings communication to another person at State? That was not a fact disclosed in the gawker email exchange.
The email exchange you posted today linked to the older buzzfeed one and mentioned that he copied a state staffer. That second link of mine goes to the 2012 Buzzfeed article that shows that he copied Toria (Victoria) Nuland and she has and still works for the state department for most of her career (from Wikipedia) - through Bush and Obama.
So if a career state department worker isn't archiving or the FOIA search isn't finding that archive, then I'm stumped. I am leaning to more and more to being pissed at the State Department for dodging the FOIA requests.
ETA: Sorry...it wasn't a direct link. Here's the text from the Gawker link of yours that made me look for that second buzzfeed link from 2012.
"From: Philippe Reines Date: Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:09 AM Subject: Re: Email To: CJ Ciaramella, Ben Smith, Josh Gerstein, Keenan Trotter Cc: Erik Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill
Good Morning All,
And let me welcome Ben to our little party, because, well, he's flat out wrong.
Michael emailed me that morning on my State account, I responded from my State account, I even added a second State person's State account to that exchange, and it entirely remained on our State accounts without my personal account being referenced or used in any way."
Of course the exchange is not evidence of wrongdoing. It's not evidence is anything. It's simply amusing.
Where did you read that Raines forwarded the Hastings communication to another person at State? That was not a fact disclosed in the gawker email exchange.
The email exchange you posted today linked to the older buzzfeed one and mentioned that he copied a state staffer. That second link of mine goes to the 2012 Buzzfeed article that shows that he copied Toria (Victoria) Nuland and she has and still works for the state department for most of her career (from Wikipedia) - through Bush and Obama.
So if a career state department worker isn't archiving or the FOIA search isn't finding that archive, then I'm stumped. I am leaning to more and more to being pissed at the State Department for dodging the FOIA requests.
ETA: Sorry...it wasn't a direct link. Here's the text from the Gawker link of yours that made me look for that second buzzfeed link from 2012.
"From: Philippe Reines Date: Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:09 AM Subject: Re: Email To: CJ Ciaramella, Ben Smith, Josh Gerstein, Keenan Trotter Cc: Erik Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill
Good Morning All,
And let me welcome Ben to our little party, because, well, he's flat out wrong.
Michael emailed me that morning on my State account, I responded from my State account, I even added a second State person's State account to that exchange, and it entirely remained on our State accounts without my personal account being referenced or used in any way."
Okay so it's his word we are going off of? But no FOIA picked it up....? That sounds odd.
The email exchange you posted today linked to the older buzzfeed one and mentioned that he copied a state staffer. That second link of mine goes to the 2012 Buzzfeed article that shows that he copied Toria (Victoria) Nuland and she has and still works for the state department for most of her career (from Wikipedia) - through Bush and Obama.
So if a career state department worker isn't archiving or the FOIA search isn't finding that archive, then I'm stumped. I am leaning to more and more to being pissed at the State Department for dodging the FOIA requests.
ETA: Sorry...it wasn't a direct link. Here's the text from the Gawker link of yours that made me look for that second buzzfeed link from 2012.
"From: Philippe Reines Date: Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:09 AM Subject: Re: Email To: CJ Ciaramella, Ben Smith, Josh Gerstein, Keenan Trotter Cc: Erik Wemple, Brian Stelter, Nick Merrill
Good Morning All,
And let me welcome Ben to our little party, because, well, he's flat out wrong.
Michael emailed me that morning on my State account, I responded from my State account, I even added a second State person's State account to that exchange, and it entirely remained on our State accounts without my personal account being referenced or used in any way."
Okay so it's his word we are going off of? But no FOIA picked it up....? That sounds odd.
Well now somebody needs to request the correspondence where Victoria Nuland was cc'd between Hastings and Reines and if nothing shows up there, I'm assuming the FOIA doesn't work and who gives an F- if you're archiving anything if the State Department can't actually produce it!
How far back are state dept emails supposed to be archived?
I think ESF noted that 2014 was the updated rules but there are some rules as to what to keep from the 90s. Maybe this is just one of those cases where there are no archives of emails because it wasn't explicit required - good point.
Okay so it's his word we are going off of? But no FOIA picked it up....? That sounds odd.
Well now somebody needs to request the correspondence where Victoria Nuland was cc'd between Hastings and Reines and if nothing shows up there, I'm assuming the FOIA doesn't work and who gives an F- if you're archiving anything if the State Department can't actually produce it!
If gawker asked for all communication between Reines and Hastings, FOIA should have picked up something. Asking for Nuland correspondence doesn't change it. But that Buzzfeed article doesn't include anyone's address either. Unless I missed that part. So I wouldn't assume FOIA doesn't work until you know what emails were used.
How far back are state dept emails supposed to be archived?
Rupertpenny explained above that this is a complicated question based on internal agency rules based on federal rules based on the nature of the document, etc.
Well now somebody needs to request the correspondence where Victoria Nuland was cc'd between Hastings and Reines and if nothing shows up there, I'm assuming the FOIA doesn't work and who gives an F- if you're archiving anything if the State Department can't actually produce it!
If gawker asked for all communication between Reines and Hastings, FOIA should have picked up something. Asking for Nuland correspondence doesn't change it. But that Buzzfeed article doesn't include anyone's address either. Unless I missed that part. So I wouldn't assume FOIA doesn't work until you know what emails were used.
Or the FOIA will never work for anything before 2014 - even for State Department emails like pixiy brought up.
How far back are state dept emails supposed to be archived?
I think ESF noted that 2014 was the updated rules but there are some rules as to what to keep from the 90s. Maybe this is just one of those cases where there are no archives of emails because it wasn't explicit required - good point.
This is what I'm getting at. Unless specifically specified at the time of the request, there's no way this would have been picked up, and certainly can't be collected now.
If gawker asked for all communication between Reines and Hastings, FOIA should have picked up something. Asking for Nuland correspondence doesn't change it. But that Buzzfeed article doesn't include anyone's address either. Unless I missed that part. So I wouldn't assume FOIA doesn't work until you know what emails were used.
Or the FOIA will never work for anything before 2014 - even for State Department emails like pixiy brought up.
Well that's clearly not the case. Unless you can tell me there has never been a successful FOIA request prior to 2014. Which is patently absurd.
"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.” "
I think ESF noted that 2014 was the updated rules but there are some rules as to what to keep from the 90s. Maybe this is just one of those cases where there are no archives of emails because it wasn't explicit required - good point.
This is what I'm getting at. Unless specifically specified at the time of the request, there's no way this would have been picked up, and certainly can't be collected now.
What gets me is that Michael Hastings at Buzzfeed KNOWS this answer already. Is it journalistic integrity that keeps him from confirming if it was indeed a state dept email address?
This is what I'm getting at. Unless specifically specified at the time of the request, there's no way this would have been picked up, and certainly can't be collected now.
What gets me is that Michael Hastings at Buzzfeed KNOWS this answer already. Is it journalistic integrity that keeps him from confirming if it was indeed a state dept email address?
What gets me is that Michael Hastings at Buzzfeed KNOWS this answer already. Is it journalistic integrity that keeps him from confirming if it was indeed a state dept email address?
Hastings is dead.
Sorry, I missed that. I feel bad for sounding so callous now.
Maybe this is HRC's strategy? Staffer implodes and thus takes attention away from the HRC story. Kinda brilliant HRC!
I watch too much House of Cards.
I'm also conspiracy theorizing here. Here's what I'm wondering.
So apparently this was known for a long time now because Gawker's been talking about it for years and republicans have had the documents from Benghazi!!1!1!11 that show her clintonemail.com account. Why is this the first we are hearing about it now as this newly discovered thing?
So here's my thinking.
First, Republicans doing the Benghazi investigation did not previously make a big deal out of it before because, as I said up thread, this is routine for people in DC, it didn't strike them as unusual, and anyway, they all have these skeletons.
So why now? Well, put on your tinfoil hats kids, because here I go.
HRC has enough intel to know this was an area that journalists were sniffing around on. So rather than wait for someone smart to package the story up and nail her to the wall with it when she least expected it, she instead took control of the situation. She had someone pitch it to the NY Times. The article was sloppy - didn't say which laws were broken and just left a lot of shit dangling. While more careful journalists run around trying to put it all together, she has time to gage reactions and shift the story line away from "she broke the law" to "did she break the law" and generally prepare how to respond.
Meanwhile the story runs well in advance of any run, so by the time she announces, while it may be on people's minds, it's old news. The dust from the fall out will have settled.
Maybe this is HRC's strategy? Staffer implodes and thus takes attention away from the HRC story. Kinda brilliant HRC!
I watch too much House of Cards.
I'm also conspiracy theorizing here. Here's what I'm wondering.
So apparently this was known for a long time now because Gawker's been talking about it for years and republicans have had the documents from Benghazi!!1!1!11 that show her clintonemail.com account. Why is this the first we are hearing about it now as this newly discovered thing?
So here's my thinking.
First, Republicans doing the Benghazi investigation did not previously make a big deal out of it before because, as I said up thread, this is routine for people in DC, it didn't strike them as unusual, and anyway, they all have these skeletons.
So why now? Well, put on your tinfoil hats kids, because here I go.
HRC has enough intel to know this was an area that journalists were sniffing around on. So rather than wait for someone smart to package the story up and nail her to the wall with it when she least expected it, she instead took control of the situation. She had someone pitch it to the NY Times. The article was sloppy - didn't say which laws were broken and just left a lot of shit dangling. While more careful journalists run around trying to put it all together, she has time to gage reactions and shift the story line away from "she broke the law" to "did she break the law" and generally prepare how to respond.
Meanwhile the story runs well in advance of any run, so by the time she announces, while it may be on people's minds, it's old news. The dust from the fall out will have settled.
You must also watch House of Cards!
The Clintons are usually 10 steps ahead of everyone so I don't find this theory crazy at all.
I'm also conspiracy theorizing here. Here's what I'm wondering.
So apparently this was known for a long time now because Gawker's been talking about it for years and republicans have had the documents from Benghazi!!1!1!11 that show her clintonemail.com account. Why is this the first we are hearing about it now as this newly discovered thing?
So here's my thinking.
First, Republicans doing the Benghazi investigation did not previously make a big deal out of it before because, as I said up thread, this is routine for people in DC, it didn't strike them as unusual, and anyway, they all have these skeletons.
So why now? Well, put on your tinfoil hats kids, because here I go.
HRC has enough intel to know this was an area that journalists were sniffing around on. So rather than wait for someone smart to package the story up and nail her to the wall with it when she least expected it, she instead took control of the situation. She had someone pitch it to the NY Times. The article was sloppy - didn't say which laws were broken and just left a lot of shit dangling. While more careful journalists run around trying to put it all together, she has time to gage reactions and shift the story line away from "she broke the law" to "did she break the law" and generally prepare how to respond.
Meanwhile the story runs well in advance of any run, so by the time she announces, while it may be on people's minds, it's old news. The dust from the fall out will have settled.
You must also watch House of Cards!
The Clintons are usually 10 steps ahead of everyone so I don't find this theory crazy at all.
H and I got halfway through the first season and had to give up. I am a CEP failure. I haven't even seen the West Wing, and I don't watch Scandal.