Look, I'm still voting for her (if I don't vote for Bernie), but 1)I find it hard to believe that she didn't send or receive ANYTHING classified in that time and 2)How the hell is/was this allowable at the State Dept??? I most especially want to know #2.
In #2, I can see how there would be no procedures in place. This happened in 2008. Democrats had been out of the White House for 8 years. When they let had it, email was not nearly as routine, or at least, I'm doubtful Madeline Albright was walking around with a blackberry emailing people about Serbia and yoga appointments. Colin Powell comes in, and he's said he didn't use a state department email. He probably wasn't getting classified info via email then. Probably not because he had better protocols, but because that probably wasn't how the state department was using email then and even if it was, it's unlikely that a 60-something year old man in an executive role was handing his own correspondence.
This happened because it really wasn't until the mid-2000s that we hit a tipping point whereby executives were typing their own emails. And nobody realized that other practices needed to be updated with the times. And nobody had quite the understanding of security and data breaches then as we do now.
You can't use 2015 knowledge and norms to evaluate this. 2008 wasn't exactly the dark ages, and I do think people should have known better, but I also think hindsight is 20/20 and if you really put yourself in the mindset of where her office and team were in 2008, it becomes easier to understand how this mess started.
Look, I'm still voting for her (if I don't vote for Bernie), but 1)I find it hard to believe that she didn't send or receive ANYTHING classified in that time and 2)How the hell is/was this allowable at the State Dept??? I most especially want to know #2.
In #2, I can see how there would be no procedures in place. This happened in 2008. Democrats had been out of the White House for 8 years. When they let had it, email was not nearly as routine, or at least, I'm doubtful Madeline Albright was walking around with a blackberry emailing people about Serbia and yoga appointments. Colin Powell comes in, and he's said he didn't use a state department email. He probably wasn't getting classified info via email then. Probably not because he had better protocols, but because that probably wasn't how the state department was using email then and even if it was, it's unlikely that a 60-something year old man in an executive role was handing his own correspondence.
This happened because it really wasn't until the mid-2000s that we hit a tipping point whereby executives were typing their own emails. And nobody realized that other practices needed to be updated with the times. And nobody had quite the understanding of security and data breaches then as we do now.
You can't use 2015 knowledge and norms to evaluate this. 2008 wasn't exactly the dark ages, and I do think people should have known better, but I also think hindsight is 20/20 and if you really put yourself in the mindset of where her office and team were in 2008, it becomes easier to understand how this mess started.
And also remember that the federal government is about ~10 years behind industry and well, everyone else when it comes to IT.
This won't make me vote Republican but I'm not going to vote for her either. With the Clintons, this is just one more example in a long ass line of same shit, different day. They are shady. They think regular rules don't really apply to them.
She's is shady as fuck. I feel like that's just a fact.
The email thing was a big misstep and she hasn't handled it well but it terms of things about her that worry me when considering her as president, I'd say the Clinton foundation money trail and it's list of foreign donors is much more troubling.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. - Trump, Cruz et al 2015
They're really doing a great job pulling the wool over everyone's eyes while transparency flies right out the window. The collective eye roll is really pretty disgusting to me.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. - Trump, Cruz et al 2015
They're really doing a great job pulling the wool over everyone's eyes while transparency flies right out the window. The collective eye roll is really pretty disgusting to me.
Oh please.
People have to choose one person to vote for. To eye roll that women on here prioritize voting for their life, liberty and health over email servers is pretty disgusting to me.
I feel like idiocy has captured me. On one hand, I'm like, "THE FUCK?!" and am uber annoyed by the typical Clinton shit. I hate how they always do this and hate how they think they are above the law (or it at least comes off this way). Plus it's just dumb. They always get caught by dumb stuff, which makes me wonder what is really hanging out in the shade. On the other hand I am so fucking tired of hearing about this and her emails, I'm just like - whatever. That's the bigger part of me. I've become what I typically dislike, lol. So tired of hearing about it, I don't even care. It could be totally illegal and malicious at this point and I'd be like, "look at all the fucks I give." And that's kind of a problem for me.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. - Trump, Cruz et al 2015
They're really doing a great job pulling the wool over everyone's eyes while transparency flies right out the window. The collective eye roll is really pretty disgusting to me.
Oh please.
People have to choose one person to vote for. To eye roll that women on here prioritize voting for their life, liberty and health over email servers is pretty disgusting to me.
People aren't saying they'll still vote for her. They're saying they don't care.
And I think this is what Hillary has been internally screaming when this comes up, which is one of the reasons an apology is somewhat forced & pretty tardy into this topic she can't believe we're still discussing.
Listen, I'll vote for Hillary if she is the D candidate, but come on. She has handled this issue horribly. She is a pro at politics and presumably has good people advising her, so I can't for the life of me figure out why she didn't handle this issue head on and instead danced around it and made cringe worth joke about it.
I am embarrassed for her each time I see this clip replayed. If she had been upfront about everything 2 months ago, it would have blown over by now and we could all focus on the circus that is the Republican party.
Nah. She's been handling it in a typical HRC way. Like others said, she is still constantly amazed that the other side can distract from real issues. Her entire life is, "Are we really still discussing THIS shit?" BENGHAZI!
People aren't saying they'll still vote for her. They're saying they don't care.
Given the choice between email transparency and some of the shit being proposed by the GOP candidates? Sorry, no. I DON'T care about the emails. I might if things were different; I might if there weren't people literally talking about taking military action against women's clinics, or if they weren't dismantling equal pay and unions. I don't care if you eyeroll that or think it's dumb. Frankly, I think it's the smarter of the choices offered.
Especially given that she was following the law as it was written at the time. I expect politicians to walk the line between legal and illegal - they'll do what they can get away with. This may be flameful, but I don't really expect transparency in some aspects of government, especially the State Department.
People aren't saying they'll still vote for her. They're saying they don't care.
Given the choice between email transparency and some of the shit being proposed by the GOP candidates? Sorry, no. I DON'T care about the emails. I might if things were different; I might if there weren't people literally talking about taking military action against women's clinics, or if they weren't dismantling equal pay and unions. I don't care if you eyeroll that or think it's dumb. Frankly, I think it's the smarter of the choices offered.
And on the other side of this, I DO care about the emails and I'm STILL voting for her.
Of course we all know how I am about being the morality police. :-P
But you expressly said that you don't like it because she broke laws, protocol, etc. And she didn't.
We don't know that she didn't... we just know the state department is saying that calling it that right now is "premature."
I have a really hard time believing that her practices didn't violate a law. And yes, she did break protocol by having work emails sent back and forth to a personal account when they should all have been maintained on work (i.e. government) servers.
ETA - The state department was calling her violation of the handling of classified records as premature - not all laws.
she at minimum violated the NARA regulations by deleting emails. It is up to the State Department to determine what can and cannot be deleted from her work emails as Secretary of State. Whether that is something subject to prosecution, I don't have enough information on that.
She also violated the Federal Records act by arbitrarily deleting what she felt like deleting.
Like, all other things being equal, I'd be pissed about this and would think it was a big deal. But in light of the truly egregious views and ideas put forth by other candidates, the email server just doesn't compare. Not even a little bit.
When you start talking about criminalizing abortion doctors, deploying the national guard to women's clinics, building a fucking wall to keep out brown people and systematically dismantling equal pay measures? Sorry, but I don't care if your opponent is posting classified emails on goddamn Twitter.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. - Trump, Cruz et al 2015
They're really doing a great job pulling the wool over everyone's eyes while transparency flies right out the window. The collective eye roll is really pretty disgusting to me.
Oh please.
People have to choose one person to vote for. To eye roll that women on here prioritize voting for their life, liberty and health over email servers is pretty disgusting to me.
See, the national security risk she has taken does put my life, liberty and health at risk.
It's not just that she broke a rule and potentially the law.
It's that she broke a pretty huge rule that could have very serious implications.
Do we brush our shoulders off because, as far as we know, it doesn't appear that her frivolous handling of sensitive government communications was stolen off her private contractor servers? What if it HAD BEEN? The same act existed - violating rules in place for national security. Do we turn a blind eye just because as far as we know nothing happened?
That guy thought the export control rules were stupid and overly restricted and ignored them. And he went to prison for it. HRC thought the rules for handling government emails were overly restricted and ignored them. She probably had emails that had even juicier information in them than this guy's research had for China and Iran. Information that could put our life liberty and health at risk. And yet we are to just dismiss her action without concern?
So now she is publishing her emails. She's only publishing the ones she has left. Not the thousands she "deleted." (I put that in quotes because nothing is really ever completely deleted is it?).
People have to choose one person to vote for. To eye roll that women on here prioritize voting for their life, liberty and health over email servers is pretty disgusting to me.
See, the national security risk she has taken does put my life, liberty and health at risk.
It's not just that she broke a rule and potentially the law.
It's that she broke a pretty huge rule that could have very serious implications.
Do we brush our shoulders off because, as far as we know, it doesn't appear that her frivolous handling of sensitive government communications was stolen off her private contractor servers? What if it HAD BEEN? The same act existed - violating rules in place for national security. Do we turn a blind eye just because as far as we know nothing happened?Â
That guy thought the export control rules were stupid and overly restricted and ignored them. And he went to prison for it. HRC thought the rules for handling government emails were overly restricted and ignored them. She probably had emails that had even juicier information in them than this guy's research had for China and Iran. Information that could put our life liberty and health at risk. And yet we are to just dismiss her action without concern?
So now she is publishing her emails. She's only publishing the ones she has left. Not the thousands she "deleted." (I put that in quotes because nothing is really ever completely deleted is it?).
Where is your proof that the emails on her server, installed by a SOS employee, were more at risk than servers at SOS?
To me the issue over the emails has always been one thing: FOIA. Was she able to avoid FOIA requests because they were on her server? That's been my only problem.
But in the end, since I have to choose, my right to life > FOIA.
See, the national security risk she has taken does put my life, liberty and health at risk.
It's not just that she broke a rule and potentially the law.
It's that she broke a pretty huge rule that could have very serious implications.
Do we brush our shoulders off because, as far as we know, it doesn't appear that her frivolous handling of sensitive government communications was stolen off her private contractor servers? What if it HAD BEEN? The same act existed - violating rules in place for national security. Do we turn a blind eye just because as far as we know nothing happened?
That guy thought the export control rules were stupid and overly restricted and ignored them. And he went to prison for it. HRC thought the rules for handling government emails were overly restricted and ignored them. She probably had emails that had even juicier information in them than this guy's research had for China and Iran. Information that could put our life liberty and health at risk. And yet we are to just dismiss her action without concern?
So now she is publishing her emails. She's only publishing the ones she has left. Not the thousands she "deleted." (I put that in quotes because nothing is really ever completely deleted is it?).
I feel like there are too many "probably"s and "potentially"s here.
See my ETA above:
ETA -
The state department was calling her violation of the handling of classified records as premature - not all laws.
she at minimum violated the NARA regulations by deleting emails. It is up to the State Department to determine what can and cannot be deleted from her work emails as Secretary of State. Whether that is something subject to prosecution, I don't have enough information on that.
She also violated the Federal Records act by arbitrarily deleting what she felt like deleting.
No probablys or potentiallys there. She admitted to both of those actions and claimed she didn't know better.
I can't sexually harass someone and get away with it because I didn't know better. If I SHOULD have known better, I'm accountable for my actions. She should have known better. And I'm sure she did. She very likely decided to secure her personal emails BECAUSE of what she faced as Bill's wife in the white house. Since she was smart enough to do that, she should have been smart enough to know she couldn't willy nilly go about deleting things and had to follow protocal. She just decided to act first and ask for forgiveness later.
You seem pretty sure about a lot of things that aren't very certain at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm concerned about it; but I really don't think it's comparable to the other things we're facing at this point, so I'm not giving it a lot of weight.
I'm only sure that it concerns me, that she was wrong for deleting emails, that it should be taken seriously, and should be something we all care about. Because I'm sure that she abused her power at a minimum.
I've already agreed that all other things considered I'd still vote for her over any of the current republicans. But I can still keep a watchful eye and warily go forth with that vote, feeling really damn disappointed that there aren't better candidates.
I don't understand how the two issues are mutually exclusive.
I'm sorta annoyed that rhis is even a question for debate. The other party is literally teaming with men tripping over each other to see who can kill women the fastest. I mean c'mon.
All I know is this email thing effects me not at a all. No one has died, no wars have started, no rights have been compromised, and it seems no laws have been broken.
All I know is this email thing effects me not at a all. No one has died, no wars have started, no rights have been compromised, and it seems no laws have been broken.
Its as important as a fart.
It was important enough to go through the process to delete them. Unless that is also part of the standard practice?
she at minimum violated the NARA regulations by deleting emails. It is up to the State Department to determine what can and cannot be deleted from her work emails as Secretary of State. Whether that is something subject to prosecution, I don't have enough information on that.
She also violated the Federal Records act by arbitrarily deleting what she felt like deleting.
At the time, there were no regulations against use of personal email for work purposes in the federal government. There are now. So she didn't violate any regulation in doing it. Was it stupid and also probably shady as hell? Yes. Illegal or against federal regulation? Doesn't look like it.
I'm not sure what NARA regs you're referring to, but my assumption is the ones addressing record retention. (If I'm wrong, my apologies). The Federal Records Act defines what constitutes a record and NARA determines how long a record must be maintained. That said, it is (to my understanding) NOT a violation to delete any email you ever send or receive on government email, particularly personal emails. For example, as a federal employee, if I delete a stupid email forward that my dad sends me because no matter how many times I tell him not to send me anything at my work email address he still does, I am not violating the FRA or NARA regs. Same with inconsequential work emails (notice of a potential training oppty or the like). I do not have to consult IT or an Admin lawyer before the deletion of any email ever. So, while HRC may well have violated the FRA and NARA regs, it's not at all clear that she in fact did (particularly if, as she claims, there was a cc to a govt email address on most or all of her work emails).
I'm sure that if I'm wrong about any of the above, an Admin lawyer will correct me ASAP, and I ask that they do, but that's my understanding.
Also, for the reasons stated by others, I really can't bring myself to care. She emailed everyone and their brother in govt with that address and not one person (including the people who are now demanding investigations and congressional inquiries) cared. At all.
All I know is this email thing effects me not at a all. No one has died, no wars have started, no rights have been compromised, and it seems no laws have been broken.
Its as important as a fart.
It was important enough to go through the process to delete them. Unless that is also part of the standard practice?
Still don't care lol. I will stand corrected when the great Hilary email disaster of late 2015 hits and we all die horrible deaths. Until then, fart.
she at minimum violated the NARA regulations by deleting emails. It is up to the State Department to determine what can and cannot be deleted from her work emails as Secretary of State. Whether that is something subject to prosecution, I don't have enough information on that.
She also violated the Federal Records act by arbitrarily deleting what she felt like deleting.
At the time, there were no regulations against use of personal email for work purposes in the federal government. There are now. So she didn't violate any regulation in doing it. Was it stupid and also probably shady as hell? Yes. Illegal or against federal regulation? Doesn't look like it.
I'm not sure what NARA regs you're referring to, but my assumption is the ones addressing record retention. (If I'm wrong, my apologies). The Federal Records Act defines what constitutes a record and NARA determines how long a record must be maintained. That said, it is (to my understanding) NOT a violation to delete any email you ever send or receive on government email, particularly personal emails. For example, as a federal employee, if I delete a stupid email forward that my dad sends me because no matter how many times I tell him not to send me anything at my work email address he still does, I am not violating the FRA or NARA regs. Same with inconsequential work emails (notice of a potential training oppty or the like). I do not have to consult IT or an Admin lawyer before the deletion of any email ever. So, while HRC may well have violated the FRA and NARA regs, it's not at all clear that she in fact did (particularly if, as she claims, there was a cc to a govt email address on most or all of her work emails).
I'm sure that if I'm wrong about any of the above, an Admin lawyer will correct me ASAP, and I ask that they do, but that's my understanding.
Also, for the reasons stated by others, I really can't bring myself to care. She emailed everyone and their brother in govt with that address and not one person (including the people who are now demanding investigations and congressional inquiries) cared. At all.
Yes, I'm referring to NARA's record retention requirements.
The thing is, YOU delete your records. That doesn't mean they are deleted from the server. Your organization has backup systems that retain even some of your deleted records. If there was an investigation into wrongful communications you committed, they could recover many of your deleted emails off of the server. The content is there and how they manage your deleted mail is according to their policy and practice, not yours.
It would be like if I did my HR job using a personal yahoo address all the time. Not happening. But you make a good point that no one ever questioned her on it and they certainly had years of opportunity to do so. That is more compelling of a reason to let it go than just simply not caring about it compared to threats on my womb. I can care about both equally.
At the time, there were no regulations against use of personal email for work purposes in the federal government. There are now. So she didn't violate any regulation in doing it. Was it stupid and also probably shady as hell? Yes. Illegal or against federal regulation? Doesn't look like it.
I'm not sure what NARA regs you're referring to, but my assumption is the ones addressing record retention. (If I'm wrong, my apologies). The Federal Records Act defines what constitutes a record and NARA determines how long a record must be maintained. That said, it is (to my understanding) NOT a violation to delete any email you ever send or receive on government email, particularly personal emails. For example, as a federal employee, if I delete a stupid email forward that my dad sends me because no matter how many times I tell him not to send me anything at my work email address he still does, I am not violating the FRA or NARA regs. Same with inconsequential work emails (notice of a potential training oppty or the like). I do not have to consult IT or an Admin lawyer before the deletion of any email ever. So, while HRC may well have violated the FRA and NARA regs, it's not at all clear that she in fact did (particularly if, as she claims, there was a cc to a govt email address on most or all of her work emails).
I'm sure that if I'm wrong about any of the above, an Admin lawyer will correct me ASAP, and I ask that they do, but that's my understanding.
Also, for the reasons stated by others, I really can't bring myself to care. She emailed everyone and their brother in govt with that address and not one person (including the people who are now demanding investigations and congressional inquiries) cared. At all.
Yes, I'm referring to NARA's record retention requirements.
The thing is, YOU delete your records. That doesn't mean they are deleted from the server. Your organization has backup systems that retain even some of your deleted records. If there was an investigation into wrongful communications you committed, they could recover many of your deleted emails off of the server. The content is there and how they manage your deleted mail is according to their policy and practice, not yours.
It would be like if I did my HR job using a personal yahoo address all the time. Not happening. But you make a good point that no one ever questioned her on it and they certainly had years of opportunity to do so. That is more compelling of a reason to let it go than just simply not caring about it compared to threats on my womb. I can care about both equally.
Yes, but not every email you send constitutes a record. Part of the FRA definition of "record" is that is is something that it "preserved, or appropriate for preservation, because it provides evidence of an Agency’s organization, functions, decisions, procedures and transactions." Any email HRC deleted that didn't meet that definition would have been fine to delete. She claims she only deleted emails that were did not constitute records. I agree, however, that the problem is we have no way of knowing what she deleted. Her emails are also largely preserved because they were sent to or cc'd someone at a .gov address.
All that said, I'm not saying she's not shady or that what she did wasn't stupid. I just can't get that worked up about it. I respect that it is a bigger deal to you.