Not so fast with the "scandal." This article omits a critical point: the so-called "new rules" about email were not even in place when Clinton left the State Dept. Unbelievable that the Times didn't report this. See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/03/hillary-email-scandal-n...
26
This is incomprehensible and clearly a violation of federal law. As a former first lady and former U.S. Senator Hillary certainly knew the requirements guiding the use and preservation of official email correspondence. Her use of a personal email account wasn't an oversight but a calculated decision. The question is why?
9
Using a personal email address was not against the rules at the time, period, and calling it a 'nuclear winter' is a bit outlandish. President Obama signed H.R. 1233 (which modernized the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications) on November 26, 2014. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State from January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013. John Kerry was the first SecState to use a state.gov email address.
I hope this article will be updated with a note of this huge oversight.
I hope this article will be updated with a note of this huge oversight.
24
It's a painfully obvious attempt to put a "wall" between her efforts and the American people's right to know what she was doing. If she wasn't planning on running for President, we would need significant legal help to look at the work product she created while on our payroll.
Is it possible to find one democrat in high office who has views and strategies that are strong enough they can thrive when shown the light of day?? I'm not seeing it...
Is it possible to find one democrat in high office who has views and strategies that are strong enough they can thrive when shown the light of day?? I'm not seeing it...
7
Is it wrong that I don't care? I am simply not shocked that someone engaged in diplomacy might choose to conduct that diplomacy in private/private email given how much diplomacy is about relationships of trust. and how little distance the knowledge that all records would be archived would travel in building that trust. We are living in interesting times, when legitimate questions about the proper/improper role of secrecy in governmental affairs should be asked and answered, not with the tenor of hysteria, but in a calm and measured way that reflects the fact that in our technology age, we need to ask the age old questions anew. For example, back in the olden days, what diplomats said in secret, whether in person or on the telephone, remained secret. Those conversations were not archived and who is to say which of our past diplomatic accomplished might have been compromised if the actors had known that their words and deeds would be preserved for time immemorial. We can feel any number of ways about this, and I am not suggesting that secrecy should give us no pause, but it is worth mentioning that secrecy has its legitimate ends as well as its nefarious ones, and that technology isn't inventing a new game; it's simply bringing an old game into the bright light. The time for a rigorous and thoughtful debate about secrecy privacy in the age of technology is now.
10
Stop trying to make news where there is none. Schmidt, you are not a news reporter. You are gossip columnist in training. Go work for the Inquirer.
There are NO supporting facts or even dates in this article to bolster your theory of "possibly breaking rules."
You failed to inform the public that the law you were trying to use wasn't even in place during the emails in question. So much for integrity in journalism. Misleading is what this is. It is clear that leaving out important FACTS wasn't even a mistake, it was intentional.
There are NO supporting facts or even dates in this article to bolster your theory of "possibly breaking rules."
You failed to inform the public that the law you were trying to use wasn't even in place during the emails in question. So much for integrity in journalism. Misleading is what this is. It is clear that leaving out important FACTS wasn't even a mistake, it was intentional.
20
Here lately, every time I see a picture of Ms. Clinton, I am reminded more and more of the latter days of Mae West. Except, I never doubted Mae's honesty.
4
Can we please get an expert opinion (by which I mean Edward Snowden) on this question:
Is it possible the Secretary used private encryption that rendered her communications MORE secure rather than less, with the specific intent of foiling NSA monitoring, and that nobody called her on it till now because it would be unseemly for the intelligence community to complain about not being able to spy on the SOS.
Is it possible the Secretary used private encryption that rendered her communications MORE secure rather than less, with the specific intent of foiling NSA monitoring, and that nobody called her on it till now because it would be unseemly for the intelligence community to complain about not being able to spy on the SOS.
11
A quick read of 18 USC 2071 sure looks like Hillary is, and should be, in some serious legal trouble.
Here is part of it:
"(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States."
She clearly had custody of the records and she concealed them.
Here is part of it:
"(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States."
She clearly had custody of the records and she concealed them.
11
Maybe you ought to look at 44 USC 2209 and check when it was passed. That would be the section of the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 that added personal email accounts to the record that had to be preserved. Which was two years after Clinton left office.
21
Everyone that works for the government is assigned an email account within the department that they work for, especially those in management and executive positions. Look ? No one is being fooled here, she is corrupt, that's all there is to it...
10
I really could not care less. This is so trivial you all need hobbies. You getting all worked up for something that will blow over in hours. This is not something to waste energy on.
10
You obviously have no idea of the safeguards and various software safeguards including encryption that are utilized in safeguarding snd encrypting email accounts for executives and government employees who have access to and receive messages of a sensitive nature not to mention classified information. To use one's private email for econducting business/conveying messages as the Secretary of State is a breach of basic security protocols.
4
No, we don't need hobbies, but you certainly need to educate before you exercise your right to vote. It is fundamental--and perfectly clear to anyone who has ever worked for the federal or state or local government in most areas, that the business of the government is done on the record, and that means e-mails too. This is a Sarah Palin kind of trick. That's how bad it is.
Hillary has been in government in one role or another for decades--she obviously knows better, and only hubris or intent to violate the law would explain this.
Hillary has been in government in one role or another for decades--she obviously knows better, and only hubris or intent to violate the law would explain this.
10
Hillary has been running for the top spot for quite some time and her reluctance to use publicly accessible e-mail and retain her ability to release what she wants is perfectly un derstandable -- hence JEBs "release' of his e-mails as governor.
Don't be confused -- everyone 'who matters' has long known about this and that JEB would try for as muych leverage as he could.
MY QUESTION is why Hillary didn't see this coming and deal with it before it could hurt of affect her -- who's giving you advice, Hillary???
Don't be confused -- everyone 'who matters' has long known about this and that JEB would try for as muych leverage as he could.
MY QUESTION is why Hillary didn't see this coming and deal with it before it could hurt of affect her -- who's giving you advice, Hillary???
5
When she whispered a few sentences to a foreign head of state, those sentences were not archived. If we're going to require her to use government email, then she'll just bypass transparency by flying around the globe and personally whispering with foreign dignitaries. And that will cost the taxpayers more money than if she simply uses her own private email account.
7
Did Elizabeth Warren start this "story"? This is hilarious and Michael Schmidt's interview on TV this morning was painfully cringe worthy as he dodged and weaved questions. His language in the article is flimsy and amorphous-he doesn't say she violated the federal records act and he wouldn't say it on TV either, because he knows the act only applies to emails after the 2014 amendment (post-Clinton). So, his article alludes to a possible violation of the national archives and records administration act (crickets). Are you kidding me? That act creates the office of archivist to maintain records and obligates federal employees to maintain their records. it doesn't create a federal obligation for employees only to use government email accounts. Gingrich says her behavior was criminal. What's criminal is that once again, a journalist is relying on readers being ignorant and gullible to gin up a controversy. Sigh. we are doomed.
20
What show was he on ? I'd like to see this interview.
I'm glad to see that the Times is not resorting to it's usual practice of amending the headline to cover up for its shortcomings. Better that people see the headline and read the article with the proper attribution so they can keep it in mind for the next "bombshell" he drops.
Particularly noteworthy is the insinuation that the Benghazi investigators "discovered" that Hillary used a private account, when it was apparently common knowledge in the government. It's like me saying I "discovered" that the value of corporate America has more than doubled since Obama took office.
PS - the value of corporate America has more than doubled since Obama took office. Why is this not the lead story every day ?
I'm glad to see that the Times is not resorting to it's usual practice of amending the headline to cover up for its shortcomings. Better that people see the headline and read the article with the proper attribution so they can keep it in mind for the next "bombshell" he drops.
Particularly noteworthy is the insinuation that the Benghazi investigators "discovered" that Hillary used a private account, when it was apparently common knowledge in the government. It's like me saying I "discovered" that the value of corporate America has more than doubled since Obama took office.
PS - the value of corporate America has more than doubled since Obama took office. Why is this not the lead story every day ?
2
It's a violation of the law and worse. It is a huge misjudgment on her part. How did she get to be Senator or SoS with that cavalier attitude?
3
What prompted the State Department to come out with this news now?
Why not address it while Mts. Clinton was in office?
And is it not being overblown? One reporter on CNN today put the news on a par with Mitt Romney's 47% issue. Oh, come now--are reporters just looking for sensational material?
Let's have perspective. Much of our news is delivered as if we were Romans watching the gladiator du jour.
Why not address it while Mts. Clinton was in office?
And is it not being overblown? One reporter on CNN today put the news on a par with Mitt Romney's 47% issue. Oh, come now--are reporters just looking for sensational material?
Let's have perspective. Much of our news is delivered as if we were Romans watching the gladiator du jour.
6
Does any one remember Mr Snowden? The government internet/email is not (NOT) secure. Nothing is secure. She could have been protecting information by not using an unsecure system. Do the regs say all government business is supposed to be kept on government servers. Yes. Does that mean that every government employee adheres to that reg? No. How many gov employees use text messages on their non-gov phones to conduct business? Lots. Is it ammunition to use against her? Yes. Will that happen? Yes. Every politician is probably thinking am I next? How much business have I conducted on my personal phone. No human is pure in thought, word or deed. We want our politicians, military and police to be above and beyond the rest of us but they are no better and no worse than the rest of us.
3
I disagree. I assumed, reading the headline, that Hillary forgot which phone she was using once and sent an e-mail on the wrong one. ONCE. To do it for four years is astoundingly bad. It's not an oversight--it's a deliberate breach of protocol and law. She either feels enormously entitled or she has something to hide. God help us.
5
A needless, self-inflicted wound for Hillary, who would know better than anyone how it would be used against her.
5
What was the need for the personal email you ask. Just as she has subjected them to, she can control what emails of her's they can and can't scrutinize. But why go the route of an additional email?! That's the million dollar question...
4
This is a non-story, poorly written and woefully in need of editorial oversight for accuracy. The reporter got sand bagged by the lunatic House Bangazi sub-committee into thinking this was "news". Isn't this the same kind of reporting that helped to get us into Iraq?
22
Well written,well documented!
Who else are you kidding,
Except yourself?
Who else are you kidding,
Except yourself?
4
You will find her emails on a nightstand beside the bed. S.O.P. for Ms. Clinton.
4
The Irony here is that the state dept email system has been hacked and remains compromised!! Gmail may be safer. Unless you want to keep it from the NSA. Then noone can help you.
5
I would use personal email too.
The more encrypted the better.
I wouldn't want to succumb to the same fate as Angela Merkel.
What d'ya' take us females for, fools ?
The more encrypted the better.
I wouldn't want to succumb to the same fate as Angela Merkel.
What d'ya' take us females for, fools ?
3
Question - where was the NSA or State Department IT folks the entire time? Didn't anyone want to encrypt her data?
That part to me is VERY odd!
That part to me is VERY odd!
3
she probably used her personal email because it was linked to her personal mobile phone. See ubiquitous photo on her twitter feed. Careless, arrogant and self absorbed. these are the same character traits revealed ini Whitewater.
3
If the USG and State Dept. IT services have in fact been compromised... as suspected, then maintaining her own account may have provided better security and inter-agency privacy.
3
Its pretty sad when somebody possibly breaking a law is headline news.
3
Even worse, it's someone"possibly breaking the rules", lol, not even the law.
2
I remember when The New York Times had the goods on
Bill and Gennifer Flowers and the Clintons snowed the paper. It will be fun to watch how they snow you again. Thanks for the entertainment. Please let me know if you ever get serious about the Clintons. There are plenty of ways to criticize them from the left or the middle.
Bill and Gennifer Flowers and the Clintons snowed the paper. It will be fun to watch how they snow you again. Thanks for the entertainment. Please let me know if you ever get serious about the Clintons. There are plenty of ways to criticize them from the left or the middle.
6
Ides of March:
This sounds really unprofessional and will have consequences. I wanted her to run for several reason (definitely looked forward to engaged discussion in the primaries). Though, knowing she would a have never made for presidency without the complete support of the Democratics and partial support of the other voters, this thing will save her a lot of important hours of her life and prevent H.C. to waste time in this nasty environment of political culture. What a March 2, 2015. There is definitely some political killings going on right now.
This sounds really unprofessional and will have consequences. I wanted her to run for several reason (definitely looked forward to engaged discussion in the primaries). Though, knowing she would a have never made for presidency without the complete support of the Democratics and partial support of the other voters, this thing will save her a lot of important hours of her life and prevent H.C. to waste time in this nasty environment of political culture. What a March 2, 2015. There is definitely some political killings going on right now.
1
As a former government employee, we were never told that we were required to use .gov email for business purposes. We were told that we COULD NOT use it for personal reasons. Any email is retrievable. Don't be naive.
8
Naïve is thinking that e-mails are retrievable. And if you were told it was OK to do business on private e-mail, whoever told you needs to be fired.
1
I am sorry to see The New York Times stoop to this kind of sensationalism -- something that I expect from cable news but not from the NYT. Let's not fan sensationalism through focus on the trivial; let's do seriously examine Hillary's record as Secretary of State. Here is where the NYT can be a huge help to the electorate: serious, in-depth review of her accomplishments while holding the senior cabinet position. I say this not as a Hillary supporter (I'm not) but as a concerned citizen who is tired of seeing elections won and lost over meaningless sensationalism driving out the important issues facing our country.
13
Who are you kidding?
The Times did a great job,
Except for the kool aid drinkers!
The Times did a great job,
Except for the kool aid drinkers!
3
I am ridiculously disappointed in this story.
It shows anyone can play the fool at any time, even the NYTs and its readers.
If Hillary Clinton had an email account not services by her agency and was not provided the protections such as encryptions and scanning--this would be a HUGE story as she would be violating the law as it relates to handling sensitive/classified government documents.
This story isn't about that issue because the "private account" had NiPRaNet and SipRANet protections, meaning it lived on the government server, it was services by the government IT professionals and routed through government hardware--blackberry, IPADs etc. So the government has full knowledge and access to all email accounts and can turn them over per request. Where the heck is the issue?
That process of turning the emails over isn't something the office holder does---it is the IT department. So the scandal boils down to --it that the National Archives didn't know to ask about this email until later--they know now.
But Clinton would have known any emails on their servers are public domain. But yet we are here discussing this as if email is a new phenomenon to the population.
It shows anyone can play the fool at any time, even the NYTs and its readers.
If Hillary Clinton had an email account not services by her agency and was not provided the protections such as encryptions and scanning--this would be a HUGE story as she would be violating the law as it relates to handling sensitive/classified government documents.
This story isn't about that issue because the "private account" had NiPRaNet and SipRANet protections, meaning it lived on the government server, it was services by the government IT professionals and routed through government hardware--blackberry, IPADs etc. So the government has full knowledge and access to all email accounts and can turn them over per request. Where the heck is the issue?
That process of turning the emails over isn't something the office holder does---it is the IT department. So the scandal boils down to --it that the National Archives didn't know to ask about this email until later--they know now.
But Clinton would have known any emails on their servers are public domain. But yet we are here discussing this as if email is a new phenomenon to the population.
6
Hey---Remember when Bill Clinton had Sandy Berger go visit the National Archives and Berger stole some documents for Clinton? Berger later he had to admit to the theft, saying he hid them at some construction site and was given a slap on the wrist for this outrageous act of theft from the Archives?
Remember that? And that the Clintons, once again, got away with getting fingered once again?
Maybe this time their corruption will finally catch up to them---how can Hillary be considered a serious candidate after this revelation?
Remember that? And that the Clintons, once again, got away with getting fingered once again?
Maybe this time their corruption will finally catch up to them---how can Hillary be considered a serious candidate after this revelation?
4
Back when I was an editor, I would have held this story as incomplete. What law did she break? How? When was the law passed? Where was the information about Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell and Janet Napolitano doing the same thing? Context is important. For instance, federal officials have now come forth since this was published to talk about the insanely slow and unreliable email system at the Department of State, and how difficult it was to use when traveling.
Most important: Where is a quote from the president? If Hillary Clinton was using private email, he had to have known. Did he condone this? If so, why?
Why is that context missing? Probably because once again, the Times, in their eagerness to get there first, simply molded the facts to fit their narrative: "Hillary Clinton thinks she's above the law. Hillary Clinton has something to hide." Nah, this piece just reads like the oppo dump it probably is.
Most important: Where is a quote from the president? If Hillary Clinton was using private email, he had to have known. Did he condone this? If so, why?
Why is that context missing? Probably because once again, the Times, in their eagerness to get there first, simply molded the facts to fit their narrative: "Hillary Clinton thinks she's above the law. Hillary Clinton has something to hide." Nah, this piece just reads like the oppo dump it probably is.
15
Hillary Clinton is not crazy or stupid. Clearly, she weighted her options and decided it was less harmful for her to break the rules and use private email, than to leave her emails open to the public access.
The big question then, how damaging are these emails to her, that she was ready to pay this price. Let's speculate.
The big question then, how damaging are these emails to her, that she was ready to pay this price. Let's speculate.
5
Let's not.
1
Hillary, break laws? tell me it ain't so.
She is the most honest, strongest woman our world, never mind our country, has ever seen.
Hillary is above pettiness and petty politics.
Hillary for 2016.
Remember, the bumper stickers will be available within a month:
"Hillary - 2016, Bring Honesty Back to the White House"
She is the most honest, strongest woman our world, never mind our country, has ever seen.
Hillary is above pettiness and petty politics.
Hillary for 2016.
Remember, the bumper stickers will be available within a month:
"Hillary - 2016, Bring Honesty Back to the White House"
3
Who are these "advisers" who decided which messages to turn over to the State Department? Exactly what do they "advise" on nowadays--PR? Marketing?
5
This article is misleading, since the law was signed into effect on 12/2014 -- two years after she left the post. http://www.govexec.com/technology/2014/12/obama-signs-modernized-federal...
12
What a snoozer. The American electorate will not bother to give this "scandal" a second thought. And they'll be right.
5
The Federal Law you refer to, The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014. That law? Passed in 2014? November 26, 2014? Wonder if that would have any bearing here?
5
"Et tu Hillary?" -Lois Lerner
4
When are people going to wake up to Hillary's devious and manipulative personality.
5
She's a government official though. Government officials are above the law.
4
So, nobody inside the Obama administration, or as part of the Federal government, thought to ask Ms. Clinton about this discrepancy during her 4-year tenure as Secretary of State? And this is just coming to light now?
It must be related to one of the revised rules from Orwell's book 'Animal Farm': "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
7
The Times' Michael Schmidt has no precise dates or language here for the regulations in question. Without statutory language and a timeline, this remains a very fuzzy set of charges. When precisely--and in what terms--did the law require the use of government email for all government business?
2
You may hate Mrs. Clinton or love her, but she is not stupid. I find it hard to believe that her established SOS email account was set up illegally.
It has been interesting, however, to see all the posters re-hashing the GOP talking points and unproven accusations from the 90s, as if somehow, in 2015, they have become credible.
It has been interesting, however, to see all the posters re-hashing the GOP talking points and unproven accusations from the 90s, as if somehow, in 2015, they have become credible.
5
It is surely damaging to her standing that she hid her emails from the public. It is interesting to speculate what she is hiding.
3
Or of more MSM fun to speculate on zip in the fact department.
I don't care, I am still voting for her. She is the most qualified presidential candidate we've had in years. Of course she was and still is a high priority target of right wingers and I believe she had to go the extra mile to protect her communications. Go Hillary!
2
If governments are reportedly engaged in escalating cyber war against each other, personal emails accounts seem safer. What if government system had been disabled? It didn't happen, but shouldn't the secretary of state have been prepared for the worst?
Bet she does not get dragged through the courts and destroyed like the male General who had an affair with a crazy woman from hell, and gave her access to some worthless over-classified trivia! After all she's a woman, and women have right to act like hyper emotional children throwing tantrums, they have a special right to use emotion instead of logic, no matter what their position or legal responsibilities. Because they bear our children they should be exempted from obeying any laws or moral norms they find inconvenient.
5
I am an Unaffiliated voter. Let's face iit. Hillary's candidacy for the president is already washed up. Today I learn that she eschewed a government email account which is ostensibly required. Please don't tell me that the government email isn't more secure even without enciphering and deciphering. You have fewerr users and therefore less points of failure than a private email account unless you use enciphering with something like OpenPGP with your private email. I do use OpenPGP encryption when necessary, usually for signing.
But less than a week ago she showed her total ignorance about encryption. As one writer at WaPo put it, it was like she believed some sort of magic pixie dust would give a secondary decipher capability to the FBI and others. The more I look at the code for GnuPG the answer comes down that a secondary decipher key is impossible at worst and will severely weaken the encryption at best. It does not make it just slightly less secure. It severely weakens your protection.
They need to make the requirement for using the government emaill account mandatory. Anybody required to use the government email that is not using it should be sacked.
But less than a week ago she showed her total ignorance about encryption. As one writer at WaPo put it, it was like she believed some sort of magic pixie dust would give a secondary decipher capability to the FBI and others. The more I look at the code for GnuPG the answer comes down that a secondary decipher key is impossible at worst and will severely weaken the encryption at best. It does not make it just slightly less secure. It severely weakens your protection.
They need to make the requirement for using the government emaill account mandatory. Anybody required to use the government email that is not using it should be sacked.
4
So, let's get this straight. The Republicans have for the last 6 years been curling all over the documents and emails of all parts of the current administration to the point of some of them leaking sensitive information or in the case of one of them rewriting it to suit his own agenda and just now we are finding out that Secretary Clinton used personal email, before the State Department changed its rules.
Really is this what we are talking about? Well excuse me if I will just wait for the other side of the story since there usually is one when the "Republican Party" is part of any so call scandel.
Next we are going to hear that the Republican Party does not like the eye shadow Secretary Clinton may be wearing on any given day.
Really is this what we are talking about? Well excuse me if I will just wait for the other side of the story since there usually is one when the "Republican Party" is part of any so call scandel.
Next we are going to hear that the Republican Party does not like the eye shadow Secretary Clinton may be wearing on any given day.
5
"The Republicans have for the last 6 years been curling all over the documents and emails of all parts of the current administration..."
And still did not have an access to IRS-Obama emails.
And still did not have an access to IRS-Obama emails.
2
This is quite obviously a violation of federal laws pertaining to the handling of classified information. So, I am quite certain that Hillary, and her staff will be held accountable in a similar fashion to any other American citizen that had done similar. Pfffft!! It's good to be the king!
4
Let's just go with it. It's the Clinton way: "What difference does it make, anyway?"
9
Wonder what they did in the days BEFORE email? Did you have to route your letters through special channels or would the postal service just do the same job they do for everyone else? The computer sure has unearthed a trove of problems.
1
The word transparency has no meaning to either Clinton. Never mind Monica Lewinsky. How quickly we forget the Rose Law firm documents which, without the authority to do so, were removed from the firm by Hillary and mysteriously "found" in a White House "closet" months AFTER the Whitewater investigation was closed. Hillary knew what she was doing re the emails. This chicanery should come as no surprise.
9
Or the FBI files that were pilfered by Hillary's staff? The list goes on and on. We have a royal class which is above the law here, and no one seems to care. No, its the evil Republicans that had the audacity to impeach Clinton that are the obvious threat to our republic. Geeze, the dumbing down of the American population has had its full effect.
5
As an archivist and records manager, the scenario with Ms. Clinton’s email is alarming although not unimaginable. While it’s hard to believe that this oversight occurred for one of our top official’s records it’s not an uncommon problem in the archival field to have electronic records, including email, neglected until it’s too late. There was a lack of conversation between NARA staff and Ms. Clinton’s staff from the get-go. On-boarding for any government staff member, including the Secretary of State, should include an overview of records retention, disposition, and archiving processes.
According to the U.S. Department of State Records Schedule, the Secretary of State's correspondence, regardless of format, should be retired to the Records Service Center (RSC) at the end of the Secretary's tenure or sooner if necessary.
Archivists (and records managers) need to be more proactive. NARA’s policies are not entirely flawed, but their communication skills and internal influence are certainly lacking. Across the profession we need a more prominent seat at the table so that we are not ignored until there is a crisis at hand. Digital preservation is hard enough as it is, let's not shoot ourselves in the feet.
According to the U.S. Department of State Records Schedule, the Secretary of State's correspondence, regardless of format, should be retired to the Records Service Center (RSC) at the end of the Secretary's tenure or sooner if necessary.
Archivists (and records managers) need to be more proactive. NARA’s policies are not entirely flawed, but their communication skills and internal influence are certainly lacking. Across the profession we need a more prominent seat at the table so that we are not ignored until there is a crisis at hand. Digital preservation is hard enough as it is, let's not shoot ourselves in the feet.
2
"But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so."
She broke the law.
She did so willingly.
Her aides followed her example.
Time for her to go to prison.
Period.
She broke the law.
She did so willingly.
Her aides followed her example.
Time for her to go to prison.
Period.
11
Come on people, do you really think she did this on purpose? It's probably a matter of some aide not doing his/her job and setting her up with a government email account. I could see someone using private emails for things you want to hide, but to do it for all four years? That's more of a "Mom, go to Start, it's in the lower right corner...nevermind, I'm coming over." thing. lol
And yet I believe you'd probably list the fact that she's "smart" as a qualification for office. And yes, I do believe she did it on purpose.
3
Of course she did it on purpose. This cannot be blamed on an aide. Unless of course you believe that for four years she didn't notice that her email address after the @ was different from the email addresses of government employees in her in-box.
1
"breaking rules" No, New York Times, it was not merely a rule, but a law.
Nobody is shocked that a Clinton broke the law.
Clintons lie, they break laws and avoid doing the right thing with such ease it is frightening that anyone considers such lawless and amoral individuals to be anywhere near the levers of power.
Nobody is shocked that a Clinton broke the law.
Clintons lie, they break laws and avoid doing the right thing with such ease it is frightening that anyone considers such lawless and amoral individuals to be anywhere near the levers of power.
8
Not too smart, but are n't there much more important things going on right now.
Not so smart, but are n't there much more important things going on right now. The world in burning so what are we talking about.
2
Yes, much of the world is burning. Radical Islam has spread like wildfire across the Middle East to North Africa. Increasingly we see terrorist attacks in Europe. Why does Mrs. Clinton's behavior matter? Radical Islam spread while she was Secretary of State. Her emails might help explain how and why. Moreover, Mrs. Clinton no doubt wants to be president. Can we trust her if she doesn't trust us?
2
Actually, I believe that "radical Islam" spread when Ronald Reagan was president.
Does the name Osama bin Laden ring a bell?
Does the name Osama bin Laden ring a bell?
I love how this is described as possible rule breaking, if it were a republican it would be described as law breaking, as it was. I'm sure those intent to have a certain gender in the office will be able to overlook just about anything to accomplish this.
6
So, in October 2014 the State Department asked its emplyees to use government email servers for all communications. Hillary Clinton stepped down in 2013.
Tell me, where is the scandal here?
But, it's worth noting that because she was using private email, Edward Snowden probably learned nothing about Hillary while she was Secretary of State.
Tell me, where is the scandal here?
But, it's worth noting that because she was using private email, Edward Snowden probably learned nothing about Hillary while she was Secretary of State.
6
This is nothing new for the Clintons. "What difference does it make?"
Let's just move on, do the coronation for America's first dowager president, and get on with doing the celebrity monarchy thing.
We don't even have to wait for 2016. We're a techno multi-platform media-driven "democracy" not an old-fashioned 18th century constitutional whatever.
What the progressives want, right?
Let's just move on, do the coronation for America's first dowager president, and get on with doing the celebrity monarchy thing.
We don't even have to wait for 2016. We're a techno multi-platform media-driven "democracy" not an old-fashioned 18th century constitutional whatever.
What the progressives want, right?
8
Her violation of federal record keeping laws should automatically disqualify Hillary from seeking the Presidency, and she should be indicted; but we all know that won't happen either.
You can also bet your last dollar the Times will endorse Hillary for President and win.
You can also bet your last dollar the Times will endorse Hillary for President and win.
5
News of this is absolutely shocking and almost unbelievable.
Why did it take this long to realize she hadn't been using a government secured email system? Why hadn't her peers and colleagues called this out sooner? It's so hard for me to believe that someone with her level of security clearance was allowed to operate using insecure systems.
It makes me question the Washington's pervasive incompetence more than Hillary's personal lack of judgement.
Why did it take this long to realize she hadn't been using a government secured email system? Why hadn't her peers and colleagues called this out sooner? It's so hard for me to believe that someone with her level of security clearance was allowed to operate using insecure systems.
It makes me question the Washington's pervasive incompetence more than Hillary's personal lack of judgement.
7
As far as breaking the law, 2013 was the year given for tightening the rules on keeping gov'n emails, and Ms. Clinton left in 2012. While I think she should have used a government email, I think this is overblown as there are records out there of all her emails and her private account no doubt had encryption or much more of her stuff would have been leaked. Do any of you really believe that any email is secret? If she was doing this to hide things, she wouldn't have used email period! Come on folks! As far a Jeb Bush goes, just because he is releasing his gov'n email does not mean he is transparent either as he is probably did things in secret as well - if he wanted something kept from the public, he wouldn't have used email. I doubt top officials use email for top security matters anyway - everyone knows it is not secure. Most professionals out there know not to put sensitive material in emails - even a gov'n encrypted site can be hacked as the State dept site has been hacked before.
6
From Little Rock to the White House, from the Senate to the State Department..... after all Mrs. Clinton has been through it's hard to imagine that she still has an appetite for public service.
It takes enormous desire and energy to win and serve in the nation's highest office with it's daily stresses.
I wonder if HRC is completely sure that she has the energy and will to do the job as well as she would demand of herself.
It's hard to imagine that anyone who has been tried so severely could still want to serve
It takes enormous desire and energy to win and serve in the nation's highest office with it's daily stresses.
I wonder if HRC is completely sure that she has the energy and will to do the job as well as she would demand of herself.
It's hard to imagine that anyone who has been tried so severely could still want to serve
4
Hmm. Starting to look like you NYTimes guys set your hair on fire a little prematurely. Turns out the law you reference, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014, wasn't passed until - you guessed it - 2014, well after Sec. Clinton had left State.
Nice sloppy reporting you've got here.
Nice sloppy reporting you've got here.
9
The key word is "Amendments". The Federal Records Act of 1950 was passed in - you guessed it - 1950.
2
Needless to say, there was no email in 1950. The specific provision at issue here dates back only to 2014 - after Clinton left office. Indeed, of the past Sec.States, all of who have been asked to provide their correspondence, she is the only one to publicly acknowledge that she has complied with the request.
2
So now we know, the two likely Presidential contenders, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, used private email addresses while in office.
Can we move on to the next pseudo-scandal now?
Can we move on to the next pseudo-scandal now?
5
Where was the Obama admin on this shouldn't they have caught on to it years ago. This is a failure in the Obama admin as well. We need to blame the Obama Admin they should have kept tabs on there admin officials computers and accounts. So in reality Obama is somewhat to blame.
6
Hillary does it again. Unparalleled arrogance except for Obama, of course. "...what difference at this point does it make?"
9
What?! What was her email? [email protected]? The Clintons have been complying with the "letter" of the law for decades but they don't ever seem that interested in complying with the LAW. See Rose Law Firm and Whitewater. I don't care if no wrong doing was proved, the point is that these people consistently behave in this manner which makes someone who MIGHT consider voting for her, reconsider.
7
I really don't care about Mrs. Clinton's email account.
I am concerned about her views on foreign policy and domestic economic policy.
Will she support financial regulations given that her son in law runs a hedge fund.
I am concerned about her views on foreign policy and domestic economic policy.
Will she support financial regulations given that her son in law runs a hedge fund.
6
It's brilliant really. There is no official record for the emails, and any requestor is forced to accept whatever they are given as the the only transcript. It effectively eliminates any ability to scrutinize her emails.
I believe this is a test release of major issues towards her candidacy. Throw this out there, see how the public takes it. Democrats can't afford to have their only viable candidate derailed during the elections. If the data doesn't support Clinton after various leaks, they'll have to find someone else.
I believe this is a test release of major issues towards her candidacy. Throw this out there, see how the public takes it. Democrats can't afford to have their only viable candidate derailed during the elections. If the data doesn't support Clinton after various leaks, they'll have to find someone else.
6
Actually Peter anytime you use email there is a trail so your argument doesn't fly. Most politicians do things without public knowledge all the time- if they don't want it getting out they don't use email. PERIOD....If this were some kind of sinister plot, it wouldn't be in email- personal or govern. Also high level diplomats - like a Sec of state - need room for private discussion without public access just to run their jobs
2
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell to make statement saying he also used his private email while in office, a time when the State Department's computer system was famously obsolete - @NBCNews
So, what's the problem here? Is it OK if the SOS is Republican?
So, what's the problem here? Is it OK if the SOS is Republican?
6
I am a fan of Hillary, and to quote another responder "this is the problem with D.C. Pettiness on steroids. Four-year old emails, really ? Get over it and move on. Focus on the bigger issues, like people dying in Iraq, Iran getting nuclear weapons, Ukraine. etc. etc etc. Koch Brothers"
2
What of todays current issues could be traced back to breaches in unsecure email communication from this woman?
4
If she had classified documents on her personal email (it is very likely that is the case since she ran the State Department), that is a federal crime, the same crime Petraeus is being charged for today. also, all emails have to be turned over and saved on the government system -- her assistants can't make the decision regarding which emails must be stored on the government system. In the private sector, conducting corporate business using your personal email is terms for termination.
8
When will the Times update this to point out that the rule she 'violated' wasn't imposed until a year and a half after she left office?
7
Amazing!
Ms Clinton likely was in breach of protocol and/or the law, but where in Heaven's name was the oversight of government watchers. Surely, it was apparent from the time she was appointed as Secretary of State that Ms Clinton was not using a government email account. That was six long years ago but not a squawk was heard until now. Hundreds of people, both inside and outside of government, should have egg on their faces. Remember, "it takes a village."
Ms Clinton likely was in breach of protocol and/or the law, but where in Heaven's name was the oversight of government watchers. Surely, it was apparent from the time she was appointed as Secretary of State that Ms Clinton was not using a government email account. That was six long years ago but not a squawk was heard until now. Hundreds of people, both inside and outside of government, should have egg on their faces. Remember, "it takes a village."
6
"..the emails or whether they will be made public."
What a ridiculous clause/idea/question.
What a ridiculous clause/idea/question.
Yet another reason *not to* elect her President in '16.
6
You mean it took them 6 years to realize that she was using a personal email account and not a State Dept. email account and no one said anything to her???? Give me a break!
9
What difference at this point in time does it make?
5
Possibly breaking rules?
What a wimpy headline.
What a wimpy headline.
4
I am curious what email provider she used?
Clinton arrogance on blunt display.
You would think she would have noticed that she would be subject to criticism after Sarah Palin was caught using a private email to conduct Alaska State business.
You would think she would have noticed that she would be subject to criticism after Sarah Palin was caught using a private email to conduct Alaska State business.
6
Ah, Palin didn't do that. Occasional Blackberry msgs when she was out of the office don't even approach what Miz Hi'ry did. Plus, a foreign hacker accessed Clinton's emails. A Democrat official's son hacked Palin's.
2
She didn’t run a good campaign against Barack Obama (to put it mildly) during the Democratic primaries, something that should have been a big red flag. During that time, there were many issues within her inner circle and public fiascos that make one think that –in spite of being a bright person and in spite of being, by then, extremely familiar already with the Washington ins and outs– she has serious leadership and control flaws.
The email scandal is another red flag regarding those very same issues that arose during her failed presidential campaign. Is she clueless? Are people within her inner circle too afraid of her –or do not like or respect her enough– to make her note that it was a mistake not to use a work email?
Besides the morals, the ethics, the nepotism, the favoritism, she’s just not as politically savvy, capable and –yes– lucky as her husband.
Can’t the Democrats manage find a better candidate ASAP? There’s too much at stake for the U.S. and the world right now.
The email scandal is another red flag regarding those very same issues that arose during her failed presidential campaign. Is she clueless? Are people within her inner circle too afraid of her –or do not like or respect her enough– to make her note that it was a mistake not to use a work email?
Besides the morals, the ethics, the nepotism, the favoritism, she’s just not as politically savvy, capable and –yes– lucky as her husband.
Can’t the Democrats manage find a better candidate ASAP? There’s too much at stake for the U.S. and the world right now.
8
Entirely in character. There are rules and then there are the Clintons. Remember the box(es) of records that mysteriously appeared in the Clinton white house relative to past scadals that by the Clinton's own words didn't exist. But appeared from nowhere when the heat was on.
9
Excellent reminder. Character is important.
7
Jerry Brown for President. Ethical. Visionary and down to earth. Gets effective results. Worked in local government. A real comeback kid.
He's the politician who first questioned potential improprieties at Rose Law and Whitewater based on breaking news from the Washington Post. The strange response from Hillary Clinton the next day in the press was --- you didn't expect me to stay home and bake cookies. Strange in a lot of ways. Certainly condescending to voters and true feminists.
He's the politician who first questioned potential improprieties at Rose Law and Whitewater based on breaking news from the Washington Post. The strange response from Hillary Clinton the next day in the press was --- you didn't expect me to stay home and bake cookies. Strange in a lot of ways. Certainly condescending to voters and true feminists.
5
As a conservative who lives in CA, I would vote for Jerry Brown over Jeb Bush.
PJ I can tell you don't live in California. Real Democrats and progressives in the state are disgusted by the 21st Century version of Jerry Brown. Among the problems have been his looking away at rampant corruption in one state agency which regulates toxic substances. Just this year, it's been discovered that under Jerry Brown's administration, the state agency which regulates oil and gas drilling has been allowing oil field operators to inject massive quantities of carcinogenic benzene into the drinking water supply of hundreds of communities. The Jerry Brown of the 1970's disappear many years ago and the last thing America needs is Jerry Brown as President. Pick your least favorite President in the last 20 years and that's Jerry.
2
Come on! You gotta be kidding. This isn't important, she probably just misremembered to get a government email. This doesn't even compare to the seriousness of Scott Walker not getting a passing grade in college French class.
5
Another example of playing by "Clinton rules". Any government employee is well aware that they must use the appropriate email address. Many of her underlings had to be aware of this lack of regard for federal guidelines, as well as senders. I wonder what has been deleted or deemed not now relevant by the people sorting through her "personal emails"? Another pattern of being above the rules?
10
So she knowingly broke the law for four years in a government job, and now she wants to be president? Petreus handed over classified info to his snuggle and now wants not to go to jail?
What on earth makes these lofty people believe they can not only walk away from crimes, but be rewarded despite them?
What on earth makes these lofty people believe they can not only walk away from crimes, but be rewarded despite them?
12
Because they can. They are beyond the law. Some public embarrassment; that's it.
5
She may not have broken any laws. As "Chedd" from Jenkintown, PA, states in this thread: "Turns out the law you reference, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014, wasn't passed until - you guessed it - 2014, well after Sec. Clinton had left State."
I still don't know what to make of this - I'm no fan of Hillary these days - but can you at least find out the real facts before jumping to conclusions that she broke laws?
I still don't know what to make of this - I'm no fan of Hillary these days - but can you at least find out the real facts before jumping to conclusions that she broke laws?
1
The hallmark of a great leader is telling people to follow rules you decide not to or they will be fired.
8
As Hillary herself declared once to a Republican run committee about another pounced on issue." "So What!"
8
So what? Those of us who work for a living are obligated to follow rules set by employers and by law. As Secretary of State, she was required to leave her records to the National Archives and Records Administration even if they contained material that was embarrassing. Instead, she instructed her aides to decide what the government could and could not have. If I held a government job and did that, I would be subject to legal actions. So the "so what" is that she disregards laws. That is no the sort of person who ought to president. Besides , isn't there an unwritten rule that says candidates are supposed to wait until they are elected before breaking the regulations the rest of us have to live with?
6
This is nothing if utter stupidity and irresponsibility. How can a Secretary of State not receive a a government email account and then for neither Secretary Clinton nor any of the recipients of those emails; which likely included personnel from the State Department, White House, and Congress; not realize this was not right and raise it as an issue.
4
Strange story. Tens of thousands of pages of 'private emails? Why was not this discovered and rectified during Ms. Clinton's tenure? The question is WHO should have rectified this situation. Everyone was probably afraid of the Mighty Hillary while she was the Secretary of State. Only now when many emails are gone for good people have the courage to talk about it.
Hillary is a very strange person. I will probably be dead in 2016 but if I am not, I may not vote for her even if she is nominated by the Democratic Party.
Hillary is a very strange person. I will probably be dead in 2016 but if I am not, I may not vote for her even if she is nominated by the Democratic Party.
8
As a government contractor we and the feds I work with are constantly pestered about only using .gov for government business. I am a low level employee and would be fired for violating this rule. I guess Hillary and Lisa Jackson get a pass.
14
It probably will not take as long, but this matter will fade away just like Benghazi did. But with not as much laughter at the GOP.......
5
To quote the former Secretary "What difference does it make now?"
4
I don't like to see the comments which minimize the use of a private e-mail address for, for heaven's sake, the Secretary of State's professional correspondence! It "is" a big deal! And her staff is going to "select" which e-mails are to be archived? Are you kidding me? Please don't say it is not and is just an attack on HC by the right. I am a far, far left progressive and am disgusted with her poor show of judgement - and over several years' time! This is the same person who voted to fund the invasion and war in Iraq. I never liked her especially since then - we opposed the invasion vehemently, felt it was obvious that the WMD excuse was a ruse by Bush - and felt that she was supposed to show way better judgement than that as someone close up to it all - but she voted to pay for the invasion by Bush/Cheney et al and now we have THIS. No, she is an incompetent who is not worthy of the job of President. Oh, yes, she speaks well. Who cares? However, I will vote for her over almost any Republican that I can think of. What a mess! What a shameful choice! Ralph Nader was right in some respects. We have no one.
15
Don't vote because if you vote Hillary Clinton you essence support her. Vote Independent.
5
I voted a second time for Obama even though I know he is way too conservative for me - he is in line with Wall Street - but why vote Independent and thus let in an even more conservative Republican candidate? That makes no sense to me at all! It's got to be the lesser of two inevitable evils, as far as I am concerned!
So the headline reads "possibly breaking rules." Wouldn't it be helpful if the article, for all of length, identified the specific rules (if any).
6
There were no rules until after she left. You can read the truth on MediaMatters.
7
This story is filled with weasel words and phrases like "possibly," "may have," and "appears." I am by no means Mrs. Clinton's biggest fan, but this is yet another application of the media's Clinton Rules: something done by any other politician that would be unremarkable suddenly becomes a front page "scandal" when a Clinton does it. Buried all the way down in the eighth paragraph is this: "Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business." On top of that, the rules she's accused of violating didn't even go into effect until after she left office.
11
Maybe I am wrong here, but when Bush Jr. was in the White House - I thought just about everything was done in our name via private email?
3
The responses to this are so typical. 1) I hate Hilary and this is just one of 600 reasons why... OR 2) I am blindly in love with Hilary and I'll back her for prez even if she is convicted of a felony...
Our objectivity is tainted and our judgement is skewed in all things polical...
Our objectivity is tainted and our judgement is skewed in all things polical...
7
Yep.
The "North American purple rock-rib" is a rare bird indeed.
The "North American purple rock-rib" is a rare bird indeed.
Or how about the category that is appalled at the risk to national security? Non-partisan national security. She knew better and flouted rules to do what she wanted. Wanton and reckless.
4
In an environment where hacking is rampant, as seen in both the Sony email server breach, Wikileaks State Dept cables publication, and in "Guccifer" hacking into the very emails Hillary exchanged with Sidney Blumenthal, it is outrageous that a Secretary of State would use a non-governmental, third-party email system - and exclusively so!
This is an obviously premeditated action by Hillary to conceal her communications from discovery by legitimate governmental authorities, including Congress, the courts, and even the executive branch agencies like DOJ or DoD. She clearly believes she is above the law. A review of her unethical behaviour as a counsel to the Select Committee on Watergate and her concealment of the Justice Douglas ruling during that time is in order.
This is a blatant act of a criminal nature and it is by no means a singular example. From her Watergate counsel work, to FBI Filegate, breaking the open meeting requirements in her 1994 healthcare work, and numerous other such examples, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach is that Hillary is both unethical and frankly a recidivist criminal.
This is an obviously premeditated action by Hillary to conceal her communications from discovery by legitimate governmental authorities, including Congress, the courts, and even the executive branch agencies like DOJ or DoD. She clearly believes she is above the law. A review of her unethical behaviour as a counsel to the Select Committee on Watergate and her concealment of the Justice Douglas ruling during that time is in order.
This is a blatant act of a criminal nature and it is by no means a singular example. From her Watergate counsel work, to FBI Filegate, breaking the open meeting requirements in her 1994 healthcare work, and numerous other such examples, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach is that Hillary is both unethical and frankly a recidivist criminal.
9
To all the Hillary apologists who say that just because Colin Powell used a non-secure account or we're just picking on her because she's a woman and a Clinton, I saw get real. Clinton should be criticized for using a non-secure email account during her entire tenure as Secretary of State. If some low level employee of the State Department had done something similar that person would have been fired. It's time the Democrats stopped kowtowing to the Clintons (and I say Clintons because both of them control the party) and move on. There really are better candidates out there.
12
I so agree. I would vote Democrat if they would put up a moderate, similar to what is expected of the Republican party. Right now, I see no moderates on the horizon in the Democrat party. Sadly.
4
The use of private e-mails for government business can in no way be justified and the use of them suggests criminal conspiracy.
As one who once traveled world wide, I always had secure access to my companies servers and thus personal e-mails were never needed to conduct company business.
I never saw personnel emails mixed with corporate email. My cooperate e-mails never belonged to me nor was I able to shied any of my e-mail correspondence from my corporate governors.
Are we now accepting that our governors are to be completely ungoverned by we the people.
This is no longer a government of by and for the people but one much like the one we once overthrew.
As one who once traveled world wide, I always had secure access to my companies servers and thus personal e-mails were never needed to conduct company business.
I never saw personnel emails mixed with corporate email. My cooperate e-mails never belonged to me nor was I able to shied any of my e-mail correspondence from my corporate governors.
Are we now accepting that our governors are to be completely ungoverned by we the people.
This is no longer a government of by and for the people but one much like the one we once overthrew.
9
For any of you that are defending her potentially shielding her emails from scrutiny, please consider what you would be writing or saying if this had been John Snow, Secretary of State under President Bush. Any remarks should be based solely on the facts, and not political preference, a desire to see her as the US' first woman president, or, conversely, any personal animus against the Clintons. Personally, while I think she is immensely talented, this is going to open the doors for a more wide-ranging Democratic primary. It remains to be seen whether she will survive this, or whether she wants to put up with the inevitable hard questioning.
7
What I cannot understand is why this was not corrected. It is obviously stupid. There is nobody in the State Department that could deal with this issue? What if there is a more serious issue? What about security? It IS an Onion story made real.
5
It is not corrected because she certainly was not the only cabinet member to do this in Obama's administration. Transparency....right!
3
She used email in the same way Colin Powell did and he did not turn over any of his emails
1
Well, at least General Powell had the courage to lie, directly, to the UN without using email.
1
And therefore everyone must vote for Hillary, Pogo? That's some Logic.
3
I wonder if there are any lifelong Democrats on here that want her gone now. Do you all think Clinton is making another blunder. I am a Independent.
3
How could MS Clinton have avoided the right procedure.
Besides we need a different democratic candidate. Hopefully, others will step up even though the Clintons have hundreds of millions in a war chest. She is not crowned yet.
Besides we need a different democratic candidate. Hopefully, others will step up even though the Clintons have hundreds of millions in a war chest. She is not crowned yet.
3
Her personal email account was never hacked although there were numerous leaks from the State Department. Conclusion, it was a judgement call for better security in dealing with sensitive matters.
3
How do you know?
3
I am confused by this article.
First, It quotes a Mr. Baron, who worked as an archiver from 2000-2013,as saying this is unprecedented and then later says that Colin Powell who worked during that interval also did the same. In what way is this unprecedented if there was a precedent?
Second, when was the law changed? I find no mention that there was a law requiring her to use a state department email address.
First, It quotes a Mr. Baron, who worked as an archiver from 2000-2013,as saying this is unprecedented and then later says that Colin Powell who worked during that interval also did the same. In what way is this unprecedented if there was a precedent?
Second, when was the law changed? I find no mention that there was a law requiring her to use a state department email address.
5
I believe the article said Mrs. Clinton was the only one to use private email exclusively.
I'm not so sure she broke any law. But, if true, I am certain that her actions show very poor judgement, and in view of her prior misconduct I'm wonder whether she had something to hide.
I'm not so sure she broke any law. But, if true, I am certain that her actions show very poor judgement, and in view of her prior misconduct I'm wonder whether she had something to hide.
6
Who cares? This is much ado about nothing.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a politician and legend in her own mind. And her husband's and daughter's too.
This is not a failure that could have led to something as disastrous as the morning of September 11, 2001. American military national defense security intelligence is an oxymoron.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a politician and legend in her own mind. And her husband's and daughter's too.
This is not a failure that could have led to something as disastrous as the morning of September 11, 2001. American military national defense security intelligence is an oxymoron.
The Winkin, Blinkin, and Nod Foundation. Where a house of cards becomes a castle made of sand. Time to write another book, but use longhand this time.
3
If I were a cabinet secretary, I wouldn't use e-mail; subordinates would. Same for having a cell phone, texting and all the rest of that nonsense that makes people somehow feel important.
Secretaries have secure phones in their offices, likely their homes, and in the vehicles that shuttle them around. No need for a cell phone. Ever.
I understand the president is fond of using a Blackberry. Hopefully it's for playing games. Otherwise, the scores of aides are overpaid onlookers.
At $450,000/year, I just don't wanting the president to send any texts. He can tell someone to "lol" for him.
Secretaries have secure phones in their offices, likely their homes, and in the vehicles that shuttle them around. No need for a cell phone. Ever.
I understand the president is fond of using a Blackberry. Hopefully it's for playing games. Otherwise, the scores of aides are overpaid onlookers.
At $450,000/year, I just don't wanting the president to send any texts. He can tell someone to "lol" for him.
"Slick Willy" has now become "Slick Hilly" and that is who the Dems are willing to put up for president.
7
The GOP will probably subpoena the emails and have a field day.
I doubt her legal beagles can prevent it since technically it's a matter of public record.
I'm not sure who gave her the advice but this would seem to be by design. How else could anyone overlook such a basic thing?
I doubt her legal beagles can prevent it since technically it's a matter of public record.
I'm not sure who gave her the advice but this would seem to be by design. How else could anyone overlook such a basic thing?
3
Secretary Clintons 'personal email account' was as secure as is possible for any account to be in this day and age. More secure than perhaps the State Department email accounts, from which there where numerous leaks. Obviously, everyone who received emails from her and answered, new that she was using this email which no doubt included Senators, members of Congress, high ranking military officials, cabinet members, etc., etc., Why such a fuss four years after the facts? Because for too many Americans it is once again Hilary Clinton Bashing Time. A favorite American sport.
Come on. Get serious.
Come on. Get serious.
6
Umm, sweetie pie, how on earth do you know how secure her personal email account was? You're just making things up, aren't you?
7
My first thought was, if it wasn't this, it would be something else. With Hillary as a presidential candidate, there's mountains of potential dirt. Please, Democrats, just let her go before things get even worse!
10
Whether she used a State Dept email account, or her personal account, all the work-related emails of the Secretary of State are 'work product', produced in the course of doing the job for which she was paid by US taxpayers. Thus, they are government records which belong to the US government and should be handed over to State Dept. If she didn't want her personal messages handed over, too, she should have used a separate personal account for them. Now, archivists at the US National Archives (who really can be trusted to be discreet) -- not her staff -- will have to sort out which is personal, and which is work-related.
8
"I did not have textual relations with that woman."
14
I am not a fan of Mrs. Clinton, but it's only fair to point out that Colin Powell, while serving in the same post, also used personal email addresses. So did many members of the George W. Bush administration. Besides, Mrs. Clinton has turned over 55,000 pages of emails to the government.
Unless there is some cause to believe that she withheld any of her government-related communication in that release, then this is a tempest in a teapot. It would behoove the New York Times to treat GOP campaign attacks with just a little bit more skepticism.
Unless there is some cause to believe that she withheld any of her government-related communication in that release, then this is a tempest in a teapot. It would behoove the New York Times to treat GOP campaign attacks with just a little bit more skepticism.
3
CP didn't use his exclusively...
4
Do you seriously believe that previous SsoS used personal email accounts exclusively? She turned over 55,000 pages already? How generous! Were they selected for content, or redacted heavily? How many words per page? (remember Jim Wright's *book*, with sometimes not more than a single sentence per page?)
The security breach here shows just how dearly Hillary holds her integrity. One hacker broke through, and shared the info with another country's leaders. Belly up to the bar, boys! Sensitive emails are on me!
The security breach here shows just how dearly Hillary holds her integrity. One hacker broke through, and shared the info with another country's leaders. Belly up to the bar, boys! Sensitive emails are on me!
5
"house of cards" becomes more and more believable...maybe thats why its so popular....who can u trust in government...very sad
6
Incomprehensible and very foolish. I don't expect HRC herself to be familiar with the technical reasons this was such a bad, bad idea, but who were her technical advisors? And legal, for that matter.
2
Why would you not expect HRC herself to be familiar with the technical reasons, etc.? Lowering the bar just a bit, aren't you?
3
As a staunch liberal, I am really angry about this total and utter lack of respect for this country and her citizens. As Secretary of State, Clinton has a duty to be our top representative with other countries and foreign dignitaries; failure to record her communications while in this position is inexcusable.
Notwithstanding the secretive elements of this whole story, it is also important to realize that sensitive information has certainly been shared with Clinton via her non-secured, private e-mail account. In my opinion, this is a huge security issue; I work in IT, and the lack of control over data when using private e-mail would not be acceptable at my company. This is even more disturbing when the sensitive information she received as Secretary of State has passed through private e-mail servers outside of the control of the government.
In any event, ANY political appointee, regardless of party affiliation, should be using a government account for all government business, for both disclosure and security reasons. Any self-proclaimed Democrats who are trying to defend this inaction by Clinton should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves...if it was a Republican appointee, would I feel the same way?
"Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge"
Notwithstanding the secretive elements of this whole story, it is also important to realize that sensitive information has certainly been shared with Clinton via her non-secured, private e-mail account. In my opinion, this is a huge security issue; I work in IT, and the lack of control over data when using private e-mail would not be acceptable at my company. This is even more disturbing when the sensitive information she received as Secretary of State has passed through private e-mail servers outside of the control of the government.
In any event, ANY political appointee, regardless of party affiliation, should be using a government account for all government business, for both disclosure and security reasons. Any self-proclaimed Democrats who are trying to defend this inaction by Clinton should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves...if it was a Republican appointee, would I feel the same way?
"Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge"
9
The left needs to start looking for a new candidate for 2016 and quick.
13
What's the big deal? The U.S. State Department is only a personal fief, not a public office, right? Well . . . that's what it is, am I right?
9
This smells to me. I'm not a fan of the Oligarchy on either side, but this doesn't make sense to me. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State - a HUGE job. She is smart, experienced and knows what she is doing. It seems to me that this 'news' is by design. Didn't the rules change with John Kerry's taking the position? That means when she was SS it was not against the law to use private email.
Mitt Romney refused to release his tax returns. Dick Cheney was the Puppet Master during the Bush 2.0 regime. They ALL do what they do and while this is going to capture all of the news - funny it's coming at this particular "time".
Mitt Romney refused to release his tax returns. Dick Cheney was the Puppet Master during the Bush 2.0 regime. They ALL do what they do and while this is going to capture all of the news - funny it's coming at this particular "time".
2
There's no law that says anybody running for president *has to* release their tax forms. (Or for that matter, release their college transcripts.) It's purely voluntary.
1
This certainly has me thinking twice about her possible candidacy.
Jim Webb, anyone?
Jim Webb, anyone?
7
The Washington Post reports that the domain for the personal email account that Hillary used while SoS was registered on the day that her confirmation hearings commenced. So obviously, this was all planned from the get-go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/02/hacked-emails-...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/02/hacked-emails-...
7
I can't help but to laugh at all of this. Reason being, the idea that Ms. Clinton's failure to launch (laugh) a formal, viable, government provided (traceable) email account probably has more to do with how badly and over regulated her own beltway peers have legislated themselves into the information age corner they now find themselves where privacy means different things to different people, too many with shady integrity. I doubt she takes lightly the mess US security made with Germany's Merkel.
What does make me angry is knowing how much time, and possibly mass amounts of taxpayer monies are wasted every hour of every day by this kind of partisan political squabbling. An outrage and it has been going on for far too long. This is the exact reason why nothing is being accomplished here in the US. Petty, media induced infighting. It will be our undoing, if our untenable and bankrupt focus on ISIL/ISIS doesn't get us first. Absurd.
What does make me angry is knowing how much time, and possibly mass amounts of taxpayer monies are wasted every hour of every day by this kind of partisan political squabbling. An outrage and it has been going on for far too long. This is the exact reason why nothing is being accomplished here in the US. Petty, media induced infighting. It will be our undoing, if our untenable and bankrupt focus on ISIL/ISIS doesn't get us first. Absurd.
3
.
.
So was she using a Clinton Foundation email server or something like Yahoo?
That is somewhat relevant to the story and a bit of an omission.
.
.
So was she using a Clinton Foundation email server or something like Yahoo?
That is somewhat relevant to the story and a bit of an omission.
.
2
Well now we know why the Benghazi related emails haven't been produced yet.
Mrs. Clinton is a smart, ivy-league educated attorney who chose to not follow the rules because they most likely didn't suit her purposes. I doubt she did it out of some malicious intent to hide her actions or communications, but that doesn't make it right and just makes her look stupid and elitist.
Sorry Mrs. Clinton, not the type of behavior I am looking for in a President.
Mrs. Clinton is a smart, ivy-league educated attorney who chose to not follow the rules because they most likely didn't suit her purposes. I doubt she did it out of some malicious intent to hide her actions or communications, but that doesn't make it right and just makes her look stupid and elitist.
Sorry Mrs. Clinton, not the type of behavior I am looking for in a President.
10
Assuming her motive was foul, she would only look stupid if she pays some form of penalty.
Otherwise, it's much ado about nothing.
Otherwise, it's much ado about nothing.
1
So much for transparency.
There is no reason - absolutely no reason - to exclusively use a private email account for government business, especially a high-ranking government official as Secretary of State.
Even if her spokesman said Hillary Clinton complied with the "letter and spirit of the rules", let's face it, she didn't - certainly not the letter, because that would require use of government email and certainly not the spirit, because of the need for transparency and to follow federal record-keeping practices.
Even if everything was 100% above-board and every personal email was turned over, there is always going to be a question as to whether she didn't turn over one or more "things". Why even put herself in that position? HRC knows more than anyone else about that vast right-wing conspiracy.
It's very simple - use government email accounts. How difficult is it to do that?
Very dumb. Hillary has no one to blame but herself for breaking the rules. She's got a lot of explaining to do on this one.
C
There is no reason - absolutely no reason - to exclusively use a private email account for government business, especially a high-ranking government official as Secretary of State.
Even if her spokesman said Hillary Clinton complied with the "letter and spirit of the rules", let's face it, she didn't - certainly not the letter, because that would require use of government email and certainly not the spirit, because of the need for transparency and to follow federal record-keeping practices.
Even if everything was 100% above-board and every personal email was turned over, there is always going to be a question as to whether she didn't turn over one or more "things". Why even put herself in that position? HRC knows more than anyone else about that vast right-wing conspiracy.
It's very simple - use government email accounts. How difficult is it to do that?
Very dumb. Hillary has no one to blame but herself for breaking the rules. She's got a lot of explaining to do on this one.
C
12
She talked about the rules, not the law. Interesting parsing. Will we find out if she forwarded any notes to enemy agents?
2
This is so ridiculous or could this be such a big story because she may be running for President and if she or Elizabeth Warren run, guess what? We do not need to know everything that goes on in the federal government, because guess what, technology does not maintain secrets from the rest of the world. There is already too much information about the United States that should not be public or on the internet. And now, some political entity decides to intimidate Hillary running for office. Guess what transparency before September 11th might have been more acceptable, putting America in jeopardy; no longer true and guess what, knock, knock. Hillary, I would have voted for you before and if you ever run for President of the US again know wha? Oh! Congratulations on being a new grandmother.
I' d like to know when the new regulations went into effect and if it was while Hillary was @ STATE. I've heard that she'd been gone for over a year when full implementation happened. Lets get ALL the facts before we write her off.
2
Like many Democratic politicians, there's one rule for Hillary (add also unequal pay with her female staffers) and one rule for the rest of the country. Still find it hard to believe that she's serious about running for POTUS, when she has such a thin and vulnerable resume.
12
It is astonishing that the entire security apparatus of the US (Dept. of Homeland Security, Secret Service, CIA, NSA, ...) went along with this. Wasn't this a security risk? Why didn't anyone flag this? As Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton outranked the head of the NSA, but surely the head of the NSA outranked her in demanding that all her communications be secure.
7
If the entire government can ignore the phony appointment conspiracy at the VA, why would their avoidance of Hillary's offenses be puzzling? Not to mention, the 30,000 emails that IRS chief Lois Lerner claimed were missing..... until the Inspector General of the IRS found them. Hmmm.
7
Don't forget all thise 'missing' Rose Law Firm billing records. This woman is well-versed in how to hide what she doesn't want revealed.
5
Hilary Rodham Nixon. The rules never apply to her or her husband. No wonder she accomplished so little as Secretary of State. Every foreign intelligence service worth its salt was reading her mail.
11
Obama makes Nixon look like a novice.
4
So true. Just when I think there couldn't possibly be a worse president than whoever is the current one, someone always comes along. For example, I used to think "Clinton makes Nixon look good." Now sometimes I catch myself thinking, "Obama makes Clinton look good." And considering how contemptible I find the Clintons, that's saying something.
3
Why would the Times choose to make this major news when it has been the practice of many previous secretaries of state? What is has done is undermined the Clinton campaign and given a new fire to the Hilary haters and those vulnerable to their propaganda. The fact is that all email can be accessed if necessary and in compliance with the regulation any official business was sent by her to official email addresses which would then be recorded in the archives so it is irrelevant. It only fuels the opposition's branding her as some kind of clandestine dishonest person when in fact she is one of the only decent people left in our political system. All journalism seems to be sensational including what I thought was the only decent reporting in the nation.
1
And we should be surprised! The only way to serve as Secretary of State and avoid being tarred with Benghazi etc. etc. was to do this. Better to worry about how believable the "gosh, I didn't know" line than to have to take responsibility for the President's (and her) foreign policy.
4
Must be preserved on department servers? What's the problem? Surely the NSA has them.
1
Big deal. In any case and surely all records were accessed by 'big brother' and can still be retrieved if transparency is the issue. She probably used an account she was already comfortable using as well as her State Department account. Surely our high level officials are allowed a private life? Here comes the let's disqualify Hillary campaign.
What was her email address? [email protected]? [email protected]? [email protected]? And nobody -- the White House, foreign heads of state, the NSA, etc., -- did not notice it was a personal account?
9
I am not 'on the right', but anyone seeing this story must ask the reasonable question of what she needed to hide by this move. She is a lawyer. She, Hillary, had to know that her private email had certain, um, privileges, that a state department email address would not provide. She is not stupid. She just got caught. But you know what? She can be sure her minions review the emails and provide the 'appropriate ones' to the State Dept. to be recorded. This does not pass the smell test, regardless of which nostril you are using.
9
I think that will do in Hillary Clinton. No matter how much she or her advisors try to squirm around it, she should have known better. I can't believe she didn't know better. And if she really didn't, that's even worse.
4
Here's the thing – there's a fundamental disconnect between the expectations of the people who use the email programs and the people who choose the email clients. On one end, you have Hillary, who just wants the email client that meets her functional requirements – fast, easy to use, reliable. On the other end, you have ITS employees, who make utilitarian choices, and who prey on the perception that their relationship with technology grants them special expertise so that they can keep their jobs.
The head of the National Security Archive can harp on and on about the relative security or insecurity of personal emails, but I can bet you that he has no idea of what he's talking about. Here's a sentence you never hear, "'My personal emails were hacked' –Eric Schmidt."
Here's a sentence you frequently hear: "The NSA subpoenaed Google for access to a user's files because the Agency couldn't hack it on its own."
There's an irritatingly bizarre perception that consumer technology products are inherently less-secure than state products, when often times, it's the other way around. Technology firms like Google are at the bleeding edge of cyber-security, and typically employ far more experts than federal IT departments. POTUS emails with consumers every single day, and his email isn't being hacked, either.
I can guarantee you that Hillary saw her personal option, saw the government's option, and said, "I'm not going to deal with that."
There's no further controversy here.
The head of the National Security Archive can harp on and on about the relative security or insecurity of personal emails, but I can bet you that he has no idea of what he's talking about. Here's a sentence you never hear, "'My personal emails were hacked' –Eric Schmidt."
Here's a sentence you frequently hear: "The NSA subpoenaed Google for access to a user's files because the Agency couldn't hack it on its own."
There's an irritatingly bizarre perception that consumer technology products are inherently less-secure than state products, when often times, it's the other way around. Technology firms like Google are at the bleeding edge of cyber-security, and typically employ far more experts than federal IT departments. POTUS emails with consumers every single day, and his email isn't being hacked, either.
I can guarantee you that Hillary saw her personal option, saw the government's option, and said, "I'm not going to deal with that."
There's no further controversy here.
3
The bigger issue here is freedom of information statutes and rules dealing with records retention. On those bases alone, she was likely skirting the law--regardless of how government accounts match up to commercial accounts.
3
If you add this to the recent revelations about the Clinton's receiving huge donations from foreign governments - and her lying several times about "dodging sniper fire" in Bosnia, it is not a pretty picture.
Surely we can do better than Hillary as our next president!
Surely we can do better than Hillary as our next president!
6
I believe the only donation in question was $500,000 from Algeria the day after the Haitian earthquake (how horrible to have accepted this); the others were in line with the established ethics agreement (as I understand it, could be wrong).
OK Let me get this straight We are assaulted at the airport the NSA collects all our data in order to keep us safe from terrorist .But are SS is hacked by a romanian hacker and the head of the CIA just got busted for sharing state secrets with his girlfriend.Does anyone else feel like there is something wrong with this picture.
1
I find this information disturbing. I have been reserving judgment about potential presidential candidates until all the candidates have declared they running. While I can understand the desire of the former Secretary of State to keep her communications under the radar due to the relentless muck-raking by Republicans and their ability to take statements out of context, the rules seem clear. I don't like any politician subverting the intent of transparency.
5
Laws are for the little people.
11
This, let us hope, is a deal-breaker.
Clinton entitlement, Clinton corruption, Clinton excess, Clinton smugness. And I haven't even said which one.
Clinton entitlement, Clinton corruption, Clinton excess, Clinton smugness. And I haven't even said which one.
10
Do not forget the most likely one: Clinton President. Too Bad, Stephen......
1
Oh, I doubt that very much. Clinton has so much baggage she's going to sink her own ship. Clintonistas are deeply mired in their own self-deception about her appeal or capabilities as a candidate. Look at the history. Obama, a man from nowhere with nothing on his resume, blew her away like the dead leaves of fall. In fact, Clinton is a gift to Republicans.
4
Everything about the Obama administration is secret. What else is new...Truth is hard to find in this administration. Over a year now and we still can't get all the emails regarding Benghazi!
4
Get over it - who does not use office email for personal issues - people living in glass houses do not throw stones.
1
Did you read this? It is not about using work emails for personal issues but using personal emails to conduct work, ie government business. It appears she may never have used a State Dept. account. Different scenario to what you said. And yes, I do not conduct personal business on my work account. My spouse and kid have the address only for emergencies...
6
Why has the President of the United States been following the rules while SOS Clinton did not? She didn't think this could turn into an issue if she ran? Operating under your own set of rules is always hard to defend.
4
Her use--sole use--of a private account "breaks rules?" That's the understatement of the year! Let's see...private emails are less accessible for building the public record, an important principle in a democracy. She's a cabinet level officer, who had previously served as a Senator and First Lady. You telling me she wasn't well versed on the rules?
I assume the article doesn't account for use of a classified network for classified materials. Assuming that's the case, a cabinet level officer's unclassified emails would still contain highly sensitive information of great interest to hundreds of countries around the world, many of which have sophisticated collection capabilities. Presumably gmail or aol or whatever she used is more vulnerable than federal systems. And if the article isn't off-base, and she didn't use State's classified email system...well, then I don't know how she could have NOT sent classified information over unsecure means, given the sensitivity of the issues SecState deals with, which is a no-brainer federal crime.
Fact is, she's been preparing to run for President for years, and has a well-founded fear of her words being used against her in the campaign. I understand her concerns. But that doesn't get her off the hook.
Ironic this story breaks the day before news of Petraeus pleading guilty to divulging classified info.
I assume the article doesn't account for use of a classified network for classified materials. Assuming that's the case, a cabinet level officer's unclassified emails would still contain highly sensitive information of great interest to hundreds of countries around the world, many of which have sophisticated collection capabilities. Presumably gmail or aol or whatever she used is more vulnerable than federal systems. And if the article isn't off-base, and she didn't use State's classified email system...well, then I don't know how she could have NOT sent classified information over unsecure means, given the sensitivity of the issues SecState deals with, which is a no-brainer federal crime.
Fact is, she's been preparing to run for President for years, and has a well-founded fear of her words being used against her in the campaign. I understand her concerns. But that doesn't get her off the hook.
Ironic this story breaks the day before news of Petraeus pleading guilty to divulging classified info.
8
The rules never apply to Hillary. She'll do whatever she can get away with.
9
This is disturbing news to say the least. As much as I like Hillary and dislike Jeb, the idea of her ascending to our highest office makes me sick to my stomach, especially given the imperious manner in which she has responded to this issue.
6
Aside from being against the rules, private emails open the government computer system up to all kind of malicious malware and viruses. This should never have been allowed and looks very suspicious.
Mrs. Clinton is a very intelligent individual and from what I’ve read a very good lawyer. It almost sounds like the intention was to not have all her emails preserved so that she could pick and choose what she wanted the public to see. Not the kind of behavior you would expect from a potential presidential candidate.
Mrs. Clinton is a very intelligent individual and from what I’ve read a very good lawyer. It almost sounds like the intention was to not have all her emails preserved so that she could pick and choose what she wanted the public to see. Not the kind of behavior you would expect from a potential presidential candidate.
8
If this was anyone else there would be major outrage and people saying she should never be allowed to hold any office since she feels the rules do not apply to her. Since her claim to fame is that she knows Washington and how it works and the rules, this is not a rookie mistake. On top of that her supporters call her one of the smartest lawyers ever, well she is a lawyer and knows she cannot plead ignorance on this. She broke the LAW.
Again ---- No way can she hold any official office again.
Again ---- No way can she hold any official office again.
7
Shame on you, NYT for reporting from the GOP playbook. The first Secretary of State required to do so was John Kerry. The law that was signed by Obama, H.R. 1233, was in November 2014. Clinton left office 1 February 2013.
9
Ahhhh, but what sells the most newspapers? Trash or Truth?
2
While we are outing cats from bags, Mr. Jason R. Baron, it might be interesting to know what percentage of State Department employees have used personal email accounts for government business per year over the last, say, twenty years. (That are known about).
1
For someone with Clinton's experience and political savvy, not to mention her Presidential aspirations, this is an astonishingly amateurish mistake. Given the depth of animosity on the right, this issue will never go away, (thanks to Fox News), and will likely torpedo her White House campaign before it even starts.
5
Interesting that the State Department leaks occurred on the classified networks by Bradley Manning and not through Ms. Clinton's personal account. Maybe her personal account was more secure. Just a thought...
1
HRC is neither stupid nor ignorant. She made a conscious decision to use personal email so that there would not be a government record of some of her electronic correspondence. As usual, she was more concerned about covering her own butt than ensuring the security of this country. As has become crystal clear, the Clintons along with scores of other politicians see themselves as elites, choosing to ignore the rules as well as laws and simply do as they please rarely suffering any consequences. There can be little room for doubt that HRC was sending classified information using private, unsecured email just as General Petraeus did. She should be charged accordingly.
8
55,000 pages of emails over 4 years, what a joke. I have 3.4 Terabytes of emails in my government account, doesn't include archived mail.
4
At best, bad judgment and poor governance.. At worst, a deliberate attempt to conceal emails and avoid transparency. In either case, not traits we need in our next President. Add the recent reports about the Clinton Foundations's foreign contributions and internal staff conflicts and CEO resignation, and we see an on-going pattern of questionable values and lack of leadership that is not Presidential. The simple truth is that inspite of their intellect and excellent political skills, the Clinton's cannot be trusted; America deserves better.
10
Private email? What a concept! Where can we get that? Let's move on--make a policy-either use government issued email address or your so-called private email, all of it, becomes forwarded to your government email address and archived at government servers and becomes part of public records.
2
Astoundingly poor judgment. It will be up to the Dem establishment to determine if this is salvageable. Good luck. If these comments are reflective of the "influencers" (I definitely do not think they are reflective of the electorate), then she is in for some seriously tough sledding.
Last word: I'm not surprised.
Last word: I'm not surprised.
5
I am a liberal Democrat. I did not support Hillary Clinton in 2008, because I thought she had a air of entitlement and that she would be a lightning rod for the opposition. I would grudgingly support her in 2016. But I repeat what I have said often: she is absolutely tone deaf. And I am furious about this latest revelation. Talk about giving the opposition the best ammunition they could ask for!
4
Hillary may be craven, but she isn't stupid. So maybe this was all done on purpose, in an effort to garner sympathy & support from the "befuddled senior" vote. As we saw in FL in 2000, that is a very significant demographic.
5
Now, now... I know people who voted in that precinct and they don't care for those terms. Find others to embarass.
Hmmm. Probably abused her parking privileges too. Let's spend a billion tax payer dollars and investigate.
5
Welcome, Ladies and Gentlemen, to Email-Gate. This will give Fox News something to carp about for the next who-knows-how-long. It also reminds me why I voted for Obama instead of Hillary in the NY Primary those many years ago. There is just something about the Clintons that is just a wee bit short of completely trustworthy.
6
If there ever was, what Adam Smith called "man of system", it exists in the person of Hillary Clinton.
Avoid this person. We'll all be better off.
Avoid this person. We'll all be better off.
10
So let me get this straight....some of my fellow Americans still do not understand that there is no law for the lawless? Let me tell you what they will say about this: This was just another "accident," or "oversight" or "harmless error." This is a "right wing conspiracy" and a "political witch hunt." Sadly, most of the left is just fine with having criminals run the country...as longs as the criminals have a (D) after their name.
16
Your criticism applies equally to the right. And no, most of the left is not fine with "criminals." Progressives demand accountability from all.
1
The media spent over a week attempting to disqualify Scott Walker from the 2016 presidential race on the basis of him not saying what the media wanted him to say about ISIS, or Barack Obama, or whatever else they are on about today.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton breaks federal guidelines for the sole purpose of evading federal record-keeping laws and to avoid having any of her actions as Secretary of State become part of the public record, and it isn't disqualifying? She was evading federal law, and doing it purposefully and willfully.
Most transparent administration in history? That's become the punchline of a joke.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton breaks federal guidelines for the sole purpose of evading federal record-keeping laws and to avoid having any of her actions as Secretary of State become part of the public record, and it isn't disqualifying? She was evading federal law, and doing it purposefully and willfully.
Most transparent administration in history? That's become the punchline of a joke.
13
She probably figured the NSA was keeping track.
4
And now let's link in what else happened while she was Sec of State from our dear friends at WaPo...
Anyone else care to venture a reasonable guess to the nature of the content of the emails she's keeping in her personal account?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions...
Anyone else care to venture a reasonable guess to the nature of the content of the emails she's keeping in her personal account?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions...
6
How petty. Just as most of our politicians are.
"The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack." Why, pray tell, are we just hearing about this on the day Mr. Netanyahu is speaking to OUR Congress against OUR President? It just stinks. Bush, Jr. and Cheney refused to turn over records regarding a CIA investigation - executive privilege. Sounds like the "rules" aren't as stringent as some of us think. However, I won't let them knock me off Hillary Rodham-Clinton again. She is one of the few people equipped to handle this minefield we call the Presidency. We just need to make sure she and other elected officials do what the vast majority of Americans want. And it does not include going to war with Iran.
2
Why are we hearing about it now?
News media cover-up to protect her.
News media cover-up to protect her.
2
At this point "What difference does it make?"
She's not ready (thank GOD) to be president.
She's not ready (thank GOD) to be president.
9
I would say that, if she were blindfolded and had her hands tied behind her back, she would be more ready than George W. ever was - even after 8 years holding a stolen office. Too bad, bayboat. She WILL be president......
1
Hey let's all make a big deal out of this, so we can defame her, and instead elect a right wing Republican who is against marriage rights, voting rights, and doesn't believe in evolution. There's a plan. Let's get a bunch of paid lackies who want to cut taxes on the rich and further ruin the hopes of the poor and middle class in this country. That's a great idea.
Honestly, where is any perspective on this? I'll vote for her, but I dread the whole freakshow that the campaign will be, if it's all Benghazi and private email. Really, enough.
Honestly, where is any perspective on this? I'll vote for her, but I dread the whole freakshow that the campaign will be, if it's all Benghazi and private email. Really, enough.
8
Excuses, excuses. That's what has emboldened her in the past 20 years, the inexhaustible Democrat tolerance for "Hill" making it up as she goes along. Now she's her own third-rail, mired in "email eruptions."
6
I see you have swallowed the bait, hook, line, and sinker.
2
This is not the general election, where such a comparison to a Republican candidate would be valid. This is a chance for Democrats to select a more deserving candidate than Hillary.
6
I agree with most of the comments here, but somehow I think the media is turning over every rock to scrape up every bit of wrongdoing on Hillary's part (although I would suspect that someone in IT should be sharing the blame for this one ... I have never worked at any company where I was personally responsible for acquiring my business email and I was not running around the world putting out fires).
Meanwhile, the antics and outrageous opinions of every one of the loonies on the right who have announced or hinted at candidacy needs no investigation at all.
Meanwhile, the antics and outrageous opinions of every one of the loonies on the right who have announced or hinted at candidacy needs no investigation at all.
1
Don't you remember the 1990s? You really don't need to turn over rocks to find Clinton scandals. They seem to fall from the sky. It's all coming back to me now.
9
Mostly hype to feed the 24-hour circus we call the news cycle. And mostly discredited after the fact.
1
So for four years, NO ONE who received an eMail from Ms. Clinton mentioned/noted/reported her use of a private eMail account? Seems improbable.
11
Are you aware of how wrathful she is? Remember the White House enemies list? Not Nixon's, but the Clinton one? Heck, she still has a fatwa on former Gov. Bill Richardson, heretic.
6
Bid deal. If all of them are archived, what difference does the .gov versus some other server make? What would be more shocking to me is if actual secure business were conducted by email rather than some secure form of communication.
1
The big deal is that personal correspondence isn't covered under several records-keeping statutes. It was a purposeful method of evading the law. That she was so blatant about it is unforgivable.
16
Dear Hillary Supporters:
Please. Please. Please reconsider:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-03/hdr22clintonemailcom-how-romani...
This is beyond crazy. This is Keystone Cops stuff.
Please. Please. Please reconsider:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-03/hdr22clintonemailcom-how-romani...
This is beyond crazy. This is Keystone Cops stuff.
9
Clearly, she is unfit for office...
14
But, still much more "fit" than George W. ever was - even after holding the stolen office for 8 years.
Pogo, I agree with you on some issues, but is playground rhetoric ("he did it first") the best you can do here? I realize trying to defend the indefensible is a losing proposition, but still...
2
Martha Stewart was thrown in jail for insider trading and lying. Mrs. Clinton has clearly broken the law. She must be held accountable. Enough is enough. Mrs. Clinton knew what she was doing and she violated and broke the law there are no excuses for those in office. We must hold those in office accountable and stop talking about it and take action. If you break the law at work, go against company policies, or openly defy the rules and policies in place you are held accountable and progressively disciplined out the door. You are fired. Terminated for your inappropriate behavior. I do not think that Mrs. Clinton should run nor will I vote for her. Isn't it time to retire? Enjoy your grandchild after jail? If Sarah Palin was in the hot seat right now everyone would be screaming and tweeting and the smear campaigns would start. It is time for the American people to rise up, hold their officials accountable and start getting into politics themselves. We must end corruption. It is time for common decency and for those in office to do the right thing and hold others accountable.
7
How soon we forget....This is just a tiny foretaste of what is to come. The Clintons are ethically and morally challenged. It's in their DNA. I am a lifelong Democrat, but I wouldn't vote for Hillary for dogcatcher. Read "No One Left to Lie To" by Christopher Hitchens. You'll never see those two the same way again.
17
Really? You really want a member of that fun cast of Republicans to hold the presidency instead? I'm a lifelong Democrat too, who like you, would prefer fresh blood as well. But no way will I not vote for Hillary against a Bush or another of those clowns.
5
Perhaps not.
What will happen, however, is what happened in 2012. You may not vote for a Republican, but plenty of Democrats will simply refuse to vote at all.
Unless the GOP seriously messes up, 2016 is theirs to lose at this point.
What will happen, however, is what happened in 2012. You may not vote for a Republican, but plenty of Democrats will simply refuse to vote at all.
Unless the GOP seriously messes up, 2016 is theirs to lose at this point.
2
While this is unethical, it's not illegal. This regulation did not go into effect until after she stepped down.
President Obama signed HR 1233 (which updated the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications) on November 26, 2014. Hillary Clinton was in office from January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013.
President Obama signed HR 1233 (which updated the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications) on November 26, 2014. Hillary Clinton was in office from January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013.
8
The article states that Ms. Clinton may have violated the Federal Records Act. Um, the FRA was enacted in ... 1950.
4
May have violated?!! Nothing that says she did violate. This is beyond stupid. If the law was passed in 1950, then why does the article make an exception for Colin Powell. This is clearly a hit job...NYT should be ashamed.
1
She undoubtedly had plenty of private face-to-face conversations, as well as private conversations on her own phone. So why not private conversations via her own email account? I lament that complete archives are not available, but they are not available concerning hundreds of cabinet officers who have gone before. This is nothing new and nothing to obsess about.
3
Of the hundreds of persons you mention, only one is running for President, in fact, it's the ONLY Democrat running for President. Hence, the country's "obsession" over her bona fides.
2
I hope the Democrats push her to the side. Do Democrats want to see another Bush re-run then you better put someone else up besides Clinton.
7
When will this corrupt Justice Department ever enforce the law and prosecute those who violate it? Only after Obama has retired. In the meantime the President and his corrupt minions know they are all above the law.
7
What "law" are you referring to? There was no law involved in this matter. Can you tell us of a law which was broken?
1
Government e-mail should be used for things like announcing snow closings and distributing weekly cafeteria menus.
1
Hillary knew what she was doing. She isn't stupid, nor is she unaware of rules and the reasons for having them.
She did this to hide things. There is no other logical explanation. She did this to hide things that were illegal, or would get her fired, or would eliminate her from consideration for public office.
People don't hide things others will like. They hide things others won't like.
She did this to hide things. There is no other logical explanation. She did this to hide things that were illegal, or would get her fired, or would eliminate her from consideration for public office.
People don't hide things others will like. They hide things others won't like.
15
The time frame for this Information revelation to have come out would have been during her appointment Time.
That it comes out now led me to believe whom ever dribbled the bread crumbs so a enterprising person would stumble upon this protocol infraction is distasteful. Whereas the leak intent was not about outrage of not following protocol but a choreographed timed release leaked for political reasons. For that reason the person whose tip manipulation led to the story as well as Hillary for not following established protocol both get a raspberry from me.
That it comes out now led me to believe whom ever dribbled the bread crumbs so a enterprising person would stumble upon this protocol infraction is distasteful. Whereas the leak intent was not about outrage of not following protocol but a choreographed timed release leaked for political reasons. For that reason the person whose tip manipulation led to the story as well as Hillary for not following established protocol both get a raspberry from me.
2
Jeb Bush released ALL his government emails during his eight years as Florida Governor. He is going to have a field day with Mrs. Clinton over this! She is toast at this point! This really is a pretty damming smoking gun
1
Bush released e-mails containing personal information about Florida citizens. Hardly an example I would aspire to.
2
Of course Jeb he did. But that does not mean he did not have all kinds of other email correspondence that was kept hidden. That Clinton solely used her own email for all correspondence suggests that she probably had nothing to hid. If this was such a scandal why did the the Benghazi-crazy Issa not out this. Surely, he had 1000s of her emails which originated from her private account.
What at least a few of us have gotta be thinking: if she was striking a high-profile blow at either records retention or auditors, it's maybe the first thing she's ever done to make me like her.
I would say that there are about the same odds of Hillary cooperating with an investigation as Bill joining a monastery.
3
Can any of my fellow Democrats honestly say that if this article was about Condoleezza Rice during her tenure as Sec. of State, that they would extend to her any courtesy about opacity of her official communications? I doubt it (I know I wouldn't have). Well done Ms. Clinton.
4
Shes been around way too long to know better. Her husband was president for 8 years. She knows the rules! "something aint right" !!!
6
Pretty ironic that Clinton has condemned Edward Snowden for leaking information all while basically distributing data that is highly likely confidential, if not top secret on the Internet. That data will now ALWAYS be out there. Once it's on the web, you cannot destroy it.
2
Imagine that, another email scandal in the Obama administration. Of course, neither he nor anyone else on his staff knew that his Secretary of State was using a private email to conduct all of her official government business, including highly classified information. She risked national security breaches in order to keep her dealings out of reach.
4
Is it possible Hillary doesn't even DO email? Some highly placed persons, like CEOs, never use computers, don't know how, have hirelings on hand to do their correspondence? Could be Hillary's approach. Or maybe she's old-school, uses snail mail. More likely is that she had an assistant send her official correspondence from a staffer's computer.
In any case, failing to be tech savvy is definitely going to lose her some votes among the younger population.
In any case, failing to be tech savvy is definitely going to lose her some votes among the younger population.
Is it asking too much for people to actually read the article before making comments? It says right in the article that Hillary turned over 55,000 pages of emails. So it's pretty clear that she uses email.
6
This has been a very common tactic by government officials by not using "government" emails addresses. By using their personal email accounts "government officials" can avoid Freedom of Information inquiries and hide their dirty business.
Needless to say, since many private email accounts are not encrypted, shouldn't the head of the State Department use government encrypted email?
Needless to say, since many private email accounts are not encrypted, shouldn't the head of the State Department use government encrypted email?
3
Did she use her Clinton Foundation email address?
5
You failed to mention that the "trove of e-mails" that Bush released included dozens of social security numbers, sensitive HR documents and other private items that were never blacked out and omitted. Good job on assisting with state employees identity theft Jeb!
1
Really? This is all the media has? Another non-issue on steroids?
2
Well, it's all the GOPs have since Benghazi faded away.........
1
Non- issue?
What article
Did you read?
What article
Did you read?
2
Simply inexcusable! This demonstrates disregard for both the public she served and for the legitimate security policies of the federal government. The fact that Colin Powell and others might have done the same is no excuse.
3
She's so smart, yet this was SO DUMB. I think it's disqualifying - and I would have voted FOR her. But THANKS for the heads up Hillary...you can't be trusted. We have NO reason to believe she'll follow rules she finds inconvenient. Period. Full stop.
5
On the plus side at least Hillary's not promising transparency.
6
There needs to be a criminal investigation of this. There are laws not just rules against using personal email for official government business. Did Clinton communicate classified information on unsecured systems? At the very least it is such a gross display of irresponsibility that it shows Clinton should not have any responsible position in government ever again.
6
The Clintons, who work as a team, are quintessential calculators.
In this case, I would guess that these intensely experienced political operators looked, quite calmly, at the upsides and downsides of keeping the e mails essentially under their own control.
They knew, at some point, it would be discovered...but that would give them the chance to reveal what they wanted, and to hold back anything that might make her look "bad".
They also decided that any furor would blow over...that this is not a real deal breaker.
My guess is their calculation was right.
In this case, I would guess that these intensely experienced political operators looked, quite calmly, at the upsides and downsides of keeping the e mails essentially under their own control.
They knew, at some point, it would be discovered...but that would give them the chance to reveal what they wanted, and to hold back anything that might make her look "bad".
They also decided that any furor would blow over...that this is not a real deal breaker.
My guess is their calculation was right.
4
Lots of government employees must use personal email accounts at the various times when their government networks are shut down, they use an alternative email to continue to communicate, this is better than the alternative which is no communication at all. I wouldn't go so far as to say the personal email accounts are the primary addresses for government communications. Same applies to personal cellphones, sometimes they are used to communicate government business.
Was there a time when Hillary was Sec of State where "government networks were shut down" for 4 straight years? I don't remember reading about that.
6
Yeah, this could have been written by Preibus and his flaks: Jeb Bush is transparent, the Clintons never were. Forget those truckloads of shredded documents that Dick Cheney took care of in the weeks before Obama was inaugurated. Has this reporter examined Jeb's emails? Is that all of them? Mrs Clinton has released a lot more emails. Has he examined those? NYT -- in the pocket of Republican operatives, trumpeting the latest smears.
1
This writer and this article should be an affront to all reporters. It is saying that only Hillary Clinton used personal e-mail accounts, and toward the end of the article he mentions Coli Powell. No where does he bother to mention the Bush administration officials love of private e-mails.
It happened in 2007 during the investigation of the dismissal of eight US Attorneys. They "lost " over 5 million e-mails. Karl Rove used RNC addresses for a lot of his e-mails.
Crew learned taht private e-mails were used by Bush administration officials in the Reading First program.
We need an independent media and one that does some research.
It happened in 2007 during the investigation of the dismissal of eight US Attorneys. They "lost " over 5 million e-mails. Karl Rove used RNC addresses for a lot of his e-mails.
Crew learned taht private e-mails were used by Bush administration officials in the Reading First program.
We need an independent media and one that does some research.
5
The Clintons do as they please, when they please. What else is new? And the Democrat party has all but anointed this woman as their presidential candidate. Pathetic.
7
"A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Nick Merrill, defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the “letter and spirit of the rules.”"
If this be the case, then EVERY email should have been turned over, not just the selected portion of the total.
What was she trying to hide? That is why it is forbidden to have an unsanctioned email account. She knew that, but choose to do it deliberately. That's the problem with politicians, they think they are above the law.
If this be the case, then EVERY email should have been turned over, not just the selected portion of the total.
What was she trying to hide? That is why it is forbidden to have an unsanctioned email account. She knew that, but choose to do it deliberately. That's the problem with politicians, they think they are above the law.
6
Mrs. Clinton has scrupulously held not only to the letter but the spirit of the law; regulations prevent the use of .gov emails for fundraising. Mrs. Clinton has not uttered a single word in the last 20 years that was not for purposes of fundraising or making a buck.
6
Very FUNNY the reader response to this pseudo-issue,
It's kinda like the NYT put up the elements of a tabla rasa so that everyone fell for the notion that something important really happened. Now everyone of us rushes to fill in the blanks and fall all over ourselves condemning her mostly.
This only shows how much real work our gal will have to do to overcome these embittered and frustrated supporters to say nothing of the right.
The comments also show a disturbing lack of understanding of national security, the email's basic limitations and capacities to be "private", as well as the simple fact that the United States of America NEVER let's its top people hang-out to the detriment of our cause. The folks who don't understand this seem to outnumber significantly those who do.
More power to Hillary Clinton in her campaign for the first woman president.
HEADS UP MRS. CLINTON here comes the cavalry to your rescue.
Excellent strategy! Gotta hand it to the NYT for defusing this early on.
Thanks for doing Hillary the favor. She needs our support to rise above.
It's kinda like the NYT put up the elements of a tabla rasa so that everyone fell for the notion that something important really happened. Now everyone of us rushes to fill in the blanks and fall all over ourselves condemning her mostly.
This only shows how much real work our gal will have to do to overcome these embittered and frustrated supporters to say nothing of the right.
The comments also show a disturbing lack of understanding of national security, the email's basic limitations and capacities to be "private", as well as the simple fact that the United States of America NEVER let's its top people hang-out to the detriment of our cause. The folks who don't understand this seem to outnumber significantly those who do.
More power to Hillary Clinton in her campaign for the first woman president.
HEADS UP MRS. CLINTON here comes the cavalry to your rescue.
Excellent strategy! Gotta hand it to the NYT for defusing this early on.
Thanks for doing Hillary the favor. She needs our support to rise above.
Well, what can I say, she's a liberal, and that is what liberals do. If liberals were ever honest about their policies, and their ideology, they wouldn't be in office, but they have to keep things behind closed doors, hide their traces, cheat, and lie to keep the voting base in tact. Don't worry the libs have very short memories and will quickly forget this yet another clinton incident.
4
It's so unusual and refreshing to find something of this nature reported in which the main character hasn't benefited personally.
In that way, this event distinguishes itself from the sordid money-grubbing we've been so often exposed to in politics.
So if, as appears, Mrs. Clinton didn't do this for personal gain, what, if any, could have been her motive?
In that way, this event distinguishes itself from the sordid money-grubbing we've been so often exposed to in politics.
So if, as appears, Mrs. Clinton didn't do this for personal gain, what, if any, could have been her motive?
2
This should disqualify her from holding any high office, let alone the Presidency. Could you imagine President Obama hiding his e-mails. Like her husband, Hillary obviously believes she is above or beyond the rule of law. Positively Nixonian!
6
What law? She violated no law. Could you explain what law you are referring to?
2
One of the reasons why this story is disturbing, is that Hillary who was supposed to be more level-headed than her husband, seems to follow in the same path - playing fast and loose with the rules, even though two decades ago they were barely treading water due to dodgy lapses of judgement.
Fast forward to the present day and it turns out that there are issues with the Clinton Foundation, an example of how not to blur the lines between charity and serving Hill and Bill's self-interest.
Now, we discover that from the beginning of her time as Sect'y of State, she skirted the rules, probably in order to maintain control about what history says about her tenure. And while Hillary says that her aides have turned over every reverent email, the question arises whether any were held back or edited. Even if she was somehow naive and/or well-meaning, why put yourself into hot water by not following the rules?
Fast forward to the present day and it turns out that there are issues with the Clinton Foundation, an example of how not to blur the lines between charity and serving Hill and Bill's self-interest.
Now, we discover that from the beginning of her time as Sect'y of State, she skirted the rules, probably in order to maintain control about what history says about her tenure. And while Hillary says that her aides have turned over every reverent email, the question arises whether any were held back or edited. Even if she was somehow naive and/or well-meaning, why put yourself into hot water by not following the rules?
2
Say what you will about the GOP clown car, as Hillary tools around at the back of a stretch limo sent by Goldman Sachs, solo. Dynastic.
9
In that his is, well, the Times, I am sure there are plenty of commenters who are already invested in the projected Hilary presidency and who are ready to classify this as "no big deal."
Breaking a law that exists to insure transparency, accountability, and honesty in government is a big deal.
And if you don't hold a political figure accountable when they break such a law, then be prepared for the NEXT political figure that comes along to do something even worse, because they've noticed that their supporters don't care.
Breaking a law that exists to insure transparency, accountability, and honesty in government is a big deal.
And if you don't hold a political figure accountable when they break such a law, then be prepared for the NEXT political figure that comes along to do something even worse, because they've noticed that their supporters don't care.
8
And the point is considering that they knew this THEN!
This Mud Slinging must come to an end as all this Illustrates is that the GOP is empty and thus only knows how to throw out degrading comments and actions---yet what have they accomplished other than grand standing and obstructional attitudes!
If all they have is trash then more trash is what they will toss to us for the next 2 years---oh yeah how boring!
This Mud Slinging must come to an end as all this Illustrates is that the GOP is empty and thus only knows how to throw out degrading comments and actions---yet what have they accomplished other than grand standing and obstructional attitudes!
If all they have is trash then more trash is what they will toss to us for the next 2 years---oh yeah how boring!
I agree Nancy, we should stop the mud slinging hypocritical degrading comments about people we may disagree with. Maybe you can start and show us troglodytes by example.
1
Hillary began her career immersed in shady dealings with the Watergate Scandal and has managed to keep from being prosecuted even through the Benghazi Scandal where she managed to conveniently get "injured" and later conveniently to make a miraclous recovery when the heat went down. She is a liar, an obfuscator, a finagler, a cheat and does not possess a "smidgeon" of integrity, honesty or dedication to the interests of the American citizenry. In short, she is an attorney with an "ambulance chaser" mentality that believes anything that advances her own personal agenda is fine, illegal or immoral.
4
Wow. Why don't you tell us what you really think of her?
No doubt busy soliciting contributions for the Clinton Foundation while ostensibly doing the nation's business.
How long before we hear (again) "in the end, what difference does it make??"
How long before we hear (again) "in the end, what difference does it make??"
9
Dishonest, disingenuous and arrogant. It is so pitiful that we'd need to settle for her to get a woman in the Oval Office.
12
Hillary finally gets her Bridgegate. More will follow.
6
Don't worry....the NSA has it ALL backed-up......somewhere.
1
I'm actually tired of reading about politicians not following the rules, lack of transparency, and their ability to weasel out of situations. It is time that we start holding our elected leaders and appointed leaders accountable.
8
She knowingly broke the law while serving as the number 3 person in the federal government. This should disqualify her for running for President.
4
Are you by any chance reasonably aware that regulations from National Archives are not the same as laws?
one suspects the answer is, "Why, no," goven all the recent shrieking about IRS regulations and certain Executive Orders.
one suspects the answer is, "Why, no," goven all the recent shrieking about IRS regulations and certain Executive Orders.
1
Ugh. More Benghazi. Another pretext for Darrell Issa to grandstand and sneer in yet more pointless hearings. Another opportunity for Fox News to rev up the Hillary-hate.
3
It's hard to decide who is more wacky on this topic ... those who want to hang her from the yardarm because she burped at the dinner table ... those who will excuse an unlimited amount of Clintonian self-dealing because "what's the big deal ...they all do it don't they?"
1
Please! Clearly she regularly emailed everyone she worked with including and most especially the president. Clearly this was an arrangement she made going in, an agreement she had with the white house, a decision by all to let it be this way and proceed this way. Just as with Obama's blackberry which famously he kept when he transitioned to the White House.
This isn't something she did if everyone permitted it and communicated back to her this way. Is there anyone who asked her to switch? does any record exist that she was told to do one thing and that she refused or ignored that request/demand?
This is less than small potatoes.
This isn't something she did if everyone permitted it and communicated back to her this way. Is there anyone who asked her to switch? does any record exist that she was told to do one thing and that she refused or ignored that request/demand?
This is less than small potatoes.
1
If this were true, why doesn't she come out and say so?
1
We have laws in this country. These things can't just be "an agreement she had with the white house", and clearly are not "a decision by all to let it be this way and proceed this way". At least not if "all" means the American people, for whom the entire government work.
1
Writing as a lifelong Democrat, I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton, and this is merely just one more reason why not. Unfortunately, I'll be voting third party 2016, unless of course, Elizabeth Warren decides to run.
6
The "vast right-wing conspiracy" claims another victim.
2
This is a good example of why the Dems need someone else to run. You never know what's around the next corner with Hillary (or Bill), something that might force her to drop out of the race. In the event that happens, the Dems need someone else already vetted and ready to step up.
6
Speaking as an Information Security consultant, this is extremely disturbing and against FISMA regulation. I can't imagine the volume of confidential data that is effectively in public domain now.
6
Or, the volume of data that SHOULD be in the public domain - or at least subject to FOIA and other requests - and isn't.
1
I cannot understand why this is only coming up now. How does the National Archives not monitor this on a real-time basis? To me, the lack of oversight of the National Archives organization is the real story.
1
Surely, Clinton is not the only such political individual to do this! Surely not!!!
2
The woman is a scoundrel.
8
I rather imagine that Hillary because of her position and understanding, knows something we do not, as yet. Surely that must be the case.
Of course, the history of others in her position using personal email accounts ameliorates the gravity of the practice on its face.
It would seem that after this little flap blows over, this probably won't amount to a hill of beans because everything at her level is recorded anyway even down to when she went to the bathroom and how long she was in there.
Makes wonderful fodder for the behind-closed-doors, secrecy operative the Republicans want to hang our dear lady with.
It won't wash; she's a woman who all women know needs more privacy than a man.
The obligation? to participate with National archives has not been clearly delineated obviously until recently and its interface with National security is most likely nil. Certainly her email communications were not only monitored but encrypted by our experts. It would be foolish and naïve to think otherwise.
It will take a lot more than this for the sky to fall around H. Clinton. I'm sure that in the end, we will find that she was doing nothing that risked National Security or was meant to avoid proper disclosure of her actions and communications.
The term "private email" is now a non sequitur; there is no such thing.
Next thing we learn her private email communications were made on behalf of her Foundation as she busily solicited donations from foreign nations while on the job.
Of course, the history of others in her position using personal email accounts ameliorates the gravity of the practice on its face.
It would seem that after this little flap blows over, this probably won't amount to a hill of beans because everything at her level is recorded anyway even down to when she went to the bathroom and how long she was in there.
Makes wonderful fodder for the behind-closed-doors, secrecy operative the Republicans want to hang our dear lady with.
It won't wash; she's a woman who all women know needs more privacy than a man.
The obligation? to participate with National archives has not been clearly delineated obviously until recently and its interface with National security is most likely nil. Certainly her email communications were not only monitored but encrypted by our experts. It would be foolish and naïve to think otherwise.
It will take a lot more than this for the sky to fall around H. Clinton. I'm sure that in the end, we will find that she was doing nothing that risked National Security or was meant to avoid proper disclosure of her actions and communications.
The term "private email" is now a non sequitur; there is no such thing.
Next thing we learn her private email communications were made on behalf of her Foundation as she busily solicited donations from foreign nations while on the job.
2
Any e-mails she sent to people outside of the State Dept would be just as exposed as any mail she sent from outside the State Dept.
If she sends a mail to Merkel, it does not matter how secure the State Dept e-mail servers are, it matters how secure Merkel's servers are.
The security risk is being blown way out of proportion here.
If she sends a mail to Merkel, it does not matter how secure the State Dept e-mail servers are, it matters how secure Merkel's servers are.
The security risk is being blown way out of proportion here.
4
Wrong. Intra-Agency email is often encrypted by default via TLS or the sort. Email that is sent outside of the Agency would be subject to DLP (Data Loss Prevention) inspection and if deemed to sensitive, it would be re-directed to a platform that forced the email to be retrieved from a secure platform (like IronMail). She could also have preemptively forced encryption if she knew the data was sensitive.
The fact that this data was sent out of a private email service like gmail is indeed a problem and the data is still out there.
The Times "Top Pick" should be revoked for this post as it spreads misinformation.
The fact that this data was sent out of a private email service like gmail is indeed a problem and the data is still out there.
The Times "Top Pick" should be revoked for this post as it spreads misinformation.
4
Fran,
Even if I wanted to agree with your assertion that somehow the onus is on Merkel's server (it's certainly true that both sides need to be secure).... what about all the emails she sends *within* the State Department??? As Secretary of State she's in charge of the State Department. I think you'd agree that the overwhelming number of e-mails sent and received would be those in her department (and not to world leaders). Most of those e-mails would have been internal to State Department computers/networks much less exposed to the Internet. Also, I would hope that more secure communications are mandated for sensitive and/or classified information that just a normal e-mail client to gmail.
Lastly, one thing you probably won't hear much about.... what about any attachments to her e-mail? Those attachments could have contained classified or sensitive data. As the State Department operates around the world and, by necessity, is an interested party to the Intelligence gathering that the US does, isn't her use of a private email account, at minimum, a mistake in judgment? I think so.
Your post seems to trivialize this which is why I replied.
Even if I wanted to agree with your assertion that somehow the onus is on Merkel's server (it's certainly true that both sides need to be secure).... what about all the emails she sends *within* the State Department??? As Secretary of State she's in charge of the State Department. I think you'd agree that the overwhelming number of e-mails sent and received would be those in her department (and not to world leaders). Most of those e-mails would have been internal to State Department computers/networks much less exposed to the Internet. Also, I would hope that more secure communications are mandated for sensitive and/or classified information that just a normal e-mail client to gmail.
Lastly, one thing you probably won't hear much about.... what about any attachments to her e-mail? Those attachments could have contained classified or sensitive data. As the State Department operates around the world and, by necessity, is an interested party to the Intelligence gathering that the US does, isn't her use of a private email account, at minimum, a mistake in judgment? I think so.
Your post seems to trivialize this which is why I replied.
3
Ready for Hillary might just have become Ready for Elizabeth.
4
"might just"? I'd say it's real close to a fait accompli. Jeb can easily beat Hillary, since they are so much alike, and he has a track record of success, and she has a track record of scandal.
i think i'd trust private email accounts before government ones given how it seems easier to hack into government computers easier.
btw, what's the problem? the NSA has access/possession of ALL her emails as well as ours....
btw, what's the problem? the NSA has access/possession of ALL her emails as well as ours....
3
This is scandalous! Until it's not.
What do we really know about this? Did she flout a current law? Or were .gov email rules more recently developed? This is not a big deal until:
1) we get a more complete report,
2) we see what real-world effects actually come of it (not a bunch of ifs and maybes as speculated in the comments), AND
3) we are not satisfied with her version of events.
Pardon the terminology, since many people have already made up their mind on her (since Barbara Bush's 90s slip), but this is currently just another foray into a pre-election witch hunt.
What do we really know about this? Did she flout a current law? Or were .gov email rules more recently developed? This is not a big deal until:
1) we get a more complete report,
2) we see what real-world effects actually come of it (not a bunch of ifs and maybes as speculated in the comments), AND
3) we are not satisfied with her version of events.
Pardon the terminology, since many people have already made up their mind on her (since Barbara Bush's 90s slip), but this is currently just another foray into a pre-election witch hunt.
5
A Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.
3
Kinda like when the Clintons left the White House, they took the furniture they wanted. When Hillary leaves the State Department, she takes the emails she wants.
Warren for President.
Warren for President.
11
If that's the worst they can find on her, pul-eeze. C'mon, folks, she's sent in the emails. Leave her alone.
4
People... people... Congress knew of this the entire time she was SOS (they got emails from her) and the knew about it based on all the emails she submitted during the investigations. It was a non-issue for them then and had a crime been committed they would have been all over her then and would be all over her now.
This is non-news and a non-issue... all this does is make me question the integrity of the NY Times... who, btw, has reporters that received emails from that same account.
This is non-news and a non-issue... all this does is make me question the integrity of the NY Times... who, btw, has reporters that received emails from that same account.
6
This has been pretty common practice for the administration touting itself as the most transparent in history.
8
This has as much to do with the sense of entitlement of the political class as it has to do with individuals. The officials who corresponded with her "knew" (or quickly figured out) that Secretary Clinton was entitled to do this, as Secretary Powell had been.
2
You mean to tell me her private email were in fact private when for the rest of us one could hardly say so. Sounds like a classic witch hunt. And the beat goes on!
1
This is an example of either: 1. Poor Judgment or 2. "the Rules don't apply to me because I know better".
This is such a common sense thing that I'm truly perplexed at any level of rationalization that Mrs. Clinton could have had. When you add the "Manning Leaks" into the stew, you'd think that someone with so much intelligence could get something so basic, so wrong.
I won't go into all the sensitive and possibly classified information that could have been hacked and easily compromised. Most private e-mail don't impose security requirements on mobile devices. I wonder if she ever lost her phone?
Is this really someone with the judgment to be President of the United States?
This is such a common sense thing that I'm truly perplexed at any level of rationalization that Mrs. Clinton could have had. When you add the "Manning Leaks" into the stew, you'd think that someone with so much intelligence could get something so basic, so wrong.
I won't go into all the sensitive and possibly classified information that could have been hacked and easily compromised. Most private e-mail don't impose security requirements on mobile devices. I wonder if she ever lost her phone?
Is this really someone with the judgment to be President of the United States?
5
I would like to know more about why a lawyer for the National Archives (NARS) passed this story to the NYT.
I do not believe that NARS has the statutory or administrative power to require all Executive Branch employees to use email, much less government email, and to impose that requirement on cabinet officers. This sounds like a fairly low level spitting contest among bureaucrats who felt safe in assuming that the lack of love between Obama and Clinton ensured that there would be no fallout from making this accusation in the press.
I'm fairly certain that Clinton's practice of using private email made NARS' job of archiving required records more difficult, but I see no basis for anyone to suspect that doing so violated the legislation that requires such archival, or the legislation that requires record retention. I do see a basis for questioning whether this story has any legal meaning, and whether it was simply crafted to provide a wave of hysteria in cable news, which lacks even the minimal ability to scrutinize a story demonstrated in this article.
I do not believe that NARS has the statutory or administrative power to require all Executive Branch employees to use email, much less government email, and to impose that requirement on cabinet officers. This sounds like a fairly low level spitting contest among bureaucrats who felt safe in assuming that the lack of love between Obama and Clinton ensured that there would be no fallout from making this accusation in the press.
I'm fairly certain that Clinton's practice of using private email made NARS' job of archiving required records more difficult, but I see no basis for anyone to suspect that doing so violated the legislation that requires such archival, or the legislation that requires record retention. I do see a basis for questioning whether this story has any legal meaning, and whether it was simply crafted to provide a wave of hysteria in cable news, which lacks even the minimal ability to scrutinize a story demonstrated in this article.
In four years, didn't anyone notice she wasn't using a government email address?
1
That's not how email works. When you send an email it is routed to your email server (Usually MS Exchange) and that routes the email to the recipients email server. The recipient then downloads the message from their end point machine (Phone, Desktop, Notebook, tablet...). The information will be stored on email servers on both ends and then archived and backed up. Getting rid of an email is a near impossible task.
1
Why can't the National Archives and Records Administration comply with the law by getting a copy of all of her email from the NSA? :)
2
Perhaps Bibi will let us in on what we missed during those years.
3
What I want to know is what font did she use? Did she use government regulation font? Because if she didn't well, uh uh uh, Benghazi! Stop wasting our time with this trivial nonsense. Does anyone really believe this is going to send us all scrambling to vote for the other guys who want to destroy the environment, fabricate more reasons to keep us in a constant state of war, and continue to enrich themselves while the working class bears more and more burdens? Nobody is going to change their vote over this. The amount of trolling in these comments gives us a good clue as to how much of a threat Mrs. Clinton is to the opposition. Good for her and for us.
2
So what is new? This is the Clinton's who (lke the Kennedys) believed they were above/beyond the laws of man and nature, When they crash and burn we are astounded, disappointed and sometimes, wounded.
2
Folks, Settle down. This will be a ding that will be used in future by her foes and she will give you that sarcastic smirk she has mastered so well. And say 'Come on! Is this what the American people want to hear? Don't you know I'm running for President of the United States for crying out loud?' We're doomed.
2
"What difference, at this point, does it make?" Said often, apply liberally.
3
Unethical, sneaky and secretive so she cannot be traced. Another example of the" no moral compass" for a Clinton.
5
This is old news and everyone involved knew the return address of her e-mail.
1
Well far as I can tell elections are coming up time to start digging up dirt on everyone I like her im sure if you dig deep enough you can find dirt on all of them
1
The law you are referencing was not in place until 2 years after Sec Clinton left office. What a terribly misleading article. You must be smart enough to know you have just totally lied to people.
3
This revelation will roll on like a steam roller under GOP direction. May be it should.
In any case the solution is obvious, Hillary needs to come clean, and not 6 months from now.
In any case the solution is obvious, Hillary needs to come clean, and not 6 months from now.
1
"Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department."
This statement begs the question: Did the State Department not provide Mrs. Clinton with a government (and secure) email account or did it do so and she simply refused to use it? Isn't that an important distinction? If the State Department did not provide an account, why? If it did, and Mrs. Clinton did not use it, why? As the head of State and a member of the President's Cabinet, the State Department should have provided a secure government email account and required that it be used for all communications. In this age of massive daily security breaches around the world, private email is a secure as posting on Facebook.
I don't understand, and unless I am missing it, the article fails to answer these important questions.
This statement begs the question: Did the State Department not provide Mrs. Clinton with a government (and secure) email account or did it do so and she simply refused to use it? Isn't that an important distinction? If the State Department did not provide an account, why? If it did, and Mrs. Clinton did not use it, why? As the head of State and a member of the President's Cabinet, the State Department should have provided a secure government email account and required that it be used for all communications. In this age of massive daily security breaches around the world, private email is a secure as posting on Facebook.
I don't understand, and unless I am missing it, the article fails to answer these important questions.
7
Welcome back to Clinton rules, Clinton deception, and Clinton spin. Assuming she wins in 2016 we are staring down the barrel of 10 straight years of this. PS: Major kudos to the NYT for breaking this story.
6
I never liked Ms. Clinton, would never vote for her, and think she should have used State Department email. That said, this story really should have reported a few facts more completely. First - what exact regulation was she violating? What is the name of the regulation, was it part of a law, and when did it take effect? Second - Did the State Department never issue her an employee email address? Wouldn't it be difficult to email other State Department employees, if she could not even log into the internal email system to pull up their addresses? And, most importantly, is it possible to log into a private email account while also being logged into the State Department servers? My employer (and its IT installed security) did not allow this, as it makes it too easy to secretly send out confidential internally downloaded information. If the State Department allows this practice, it seems like a huge security breach.
Isn't this the fault -- and the problem of -- the person or department in charge of email? Surely her colleagues and boss noticed her email address. If she wasn't supplied with a govt email address what was she to use? Why was she not given one?
I work at a *community college* and we are required to use our .edu address for all college-related corresponse. And the rule is well enforced. If it were well enforced at the White House, Clinton would have been given an email address. Something is missing in this story.
I work at a *community college* and we are required to use our .edu address for all college-related corresponse. And the rule is well enforced. If it were well enforced at the White House, Clinton would have been given an email address. Something is missing in this story.
2
Be serious. Who would stop her? Who could stop her (and remain employed)?
2
If a regular person had done this, it might be a problem. Clinton however is a Democrat and enjoys full immunity.
3
Remember all the stories that came out about the Clintons trashing the White House and stealing furniture as they were leaving ?
And it all turned out to be NOT true.
Even the new president, George W. Bush, felt compelled to say publicly that the stories were not true.
Is it possible for us to wait until the full story is known before we call out the firing squad?
And it all turned out to be NOT true.
Even the new president, George W. Bush, felt compelled to say publicly that the stories were not true.
Is it possible for us to wait until the full story is known before we call out the firing squad?
1
Mrs. Clinton has such a cult of personality that no one would at State or the White House would dare to tell her that she mus abide by the law.
1
I am sure Secretary Clinton has a quick and well thought response to this revelation that she used personal email account at the state Department when she was having a ball globe trotting at tax payers cost. What difference does it make? An email is an email no matter what account is used. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill just when Hillary is about to run uphill to announce her candidature officially. All I can say to the democrats is don't put all your weight behind one basket case or you will have lost not only the house and senate but the white house. .
3
The Federal Records Act was amended to include email communication in 2014. She left office in 2013. Is there another act she may have violated? Perhaps the reporter can clarify.
2
A spokesman said Mrs. Clinton was complying with the "letter and spirit of the rules."
And pigs were flying.
"The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency's computer server is not working."
... or if your name is Hillary Clinton.
Why is this story covered so meekly? I guess I an surprised that the story is running at all in the New York Times. I thought the Times and other mainstream papers would once again defer to Fox News and then castigate Fox for daring to impugn the 'letter and spirit" of Clinton and her actions.
Think for a second how reporters were diving into the minute detritus of Jeb Bush's e-mails.
Does Hillary have something to hide? No, her aides already determined what would be turned over to the State Department for archiving.
And pigs were flying.
"The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency's computer server is not working."
... or if your name is Hillary Clinton.
Why is this story covered so meekly? I guess I an surprised that the story is running at all in the New York Times. I thought the Times and other mainstream papers would once again defer to Fox News and then castigate Fox for daring to impugn the 'letter and spirit" of Clinton and her actions.
Think for a second how reporters were diving into the minute detritus of Jeb Bush's e-mails.
Does Hillary have something to hide? No, her aides already determined what would be turned over to the State Department for archiving.
6
" [HRC]...may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record."
These are pretty weaselly words. By "federal requirements" are you saying there is an actual statute that required her to use government email? Or are you saying that she violated a State Department directive?
The former sounds vague and unconstitutional, while the latter is almost meaningless. If federal law requires retention of copies, those still exist on the government servers retaining recipients' copies. If it is merely a State Department directive to use State Department email, then she merely broke a rule that had no bearing on retention of records.
This story tries hard to imply that Clinton -- of whom I am no fan -- broke a law. If so, it should have identified the specific law that she broke, and how, and really ought to examine the question of why there is no lawsuit in the works.
These are pretty weaselly words. By "federal requirements" are you saying there is an actual statute that required her to use government email? Or are you saying that she violated a State Department directive?
The former sounds vague and unconstitutional, while the latter is almost meaningless. If federal law requires retention of copies, those still exist on the government servers retaining recipients' copies. If it is merely a State Department directive to use State Department email, then she merely broke a rule that had no bearing on retention of records.
This story tries hard to imply that Clinton -- of whom I am no fan -- broke a law. If so, it should have identified the specific law that she broke, and how, and really ought to examine the question of why there is no lawsuit in the works.
1
I cannot believe this is a "Page 1" story. Another trivial soundbite for people to latch on to in their fight against having a strong and intelligent woman in the White House. Well done.
6
I am not getting the problem. She turned over 55,000 pages of e-mails. Presumably others which were not turned over were personal in nature. Some will be suspicious about what is in the e-mails she did not turn over. But if she had used the government server and wanted to hide certain things, she could have switched over to use of her personal account. Much ado about nothing. Which is what we will be in store for if/when she runs for President and wins.
1
This just seems like another case where Hillary's handlers are trying to get this story out early so that it has blown over before the real campaign begins. What's next in this drama? When will it stop?
6
As someone who works in IT, I'm puzzled why the IT guy didn't set up her government email account? All new users in the government presumably get a handout with how to use email. And why does the government even allow personal email accounts to be used from gov't computers? And why was this allowed to go on for years? Why didn't the recipients of her gov't emails question her use of a private account?
Why didn't someone from the NSA set her straight?
This seems just too bizarre.
As for derailing her presidential ambitions, if she has them, well, the Republicans obviously will try their very hardest, but it's not clear yet if this one has legs.
(Here's a thought: maybe she used her gov't acct only to email her lover?)
Why didn't someone from the NSA set her straight?
This seems just too bizarre.
As for derailing her presidential ambitions, if she has them, well, the Republicans obviously will try their very hardest, but it's not clear yet if this one has legs.
(Here's a thought: maybe she used her gov't acct only to email her lover?)
I seem to recall some headaches at State, caused by computer and network insecurity. In fact, I believe they have been pwn'd more than once or twice. Look into the history of computer and network security at State and then get back to us with the much more sinister implications and the subsequent issues we need to discuss.
Once again, Hillary Clinton shows her total disregard for any protocol. She can do whatever she wants, and get away with it, simply because she's Hillary Clinton.
6
This behavior implies forethought by someone who expects to later be accused of wrongdoing. If they are ultimately accused of wrongdoing, it will be interpreted as pre-meditation in a cover-up.
Assuming that Ms. Clinton is pure of heart and has done nothing wrong on substantive issues, her poor judgment in this matter will create new questions about her past activities -- and ultimately about her motives.
Ms. Clinton should have seen this obvious implication of her behavior, independent of the law (which she appears to have broken) and national security concerns. And she would have seen it, too, if she had the capacity to walk in the shoes of everyday Americans. The gap between Ms. Clinton's standard of honesty and forthrightness and that of voters brings to mind Mitt Romney's disconnect with voters on everyday economic realities. It leaves a very bad aftertaste, one that stays with you.
Assuming that Ms. Clinton is pure of heart and has done nothing wrong on substantive issues, her poor judgment in this matter will create new questions about her past activities -- and ultimately about her motives.
Ms. Clinton should have seen this obvious implication of her behavior, independent of the law (which she appears to have broken) and national security concerns. And she would have seen it, too, if she had the capacity to walk in the shoes of everyday Americans. The gap between Ms. Clinton's standard of honesty and forthrightness and that of voters brings to mind Mitt Romney's disconnect with voters on everyday economic realities. It leaves a very bad aftertaste, one that stays with you.
5
Preservation of official government papers--including correspondence--is an essential element of establishing and maintaining a free and democratic society, since it opens government action to public scrutiny. This is a very serious matter, and a serious issue for an aspiring presidential candidate. This is not a partisan issue, but should be a concern for all of us.
5
Whaddayaknow -Hilary turns out to be a human being after all, i.e., she is subject to error as all human beings are. But so are the bad mouthers that use this hardly-an-earth-shaking-"error" on Hillary's part to try and thwart her goal of becoming America's first woman President.
Now - if she had committed murder or, even worse, becomes a tea-party Republican - that would justify preventing her from ever reaching her presidential aspirations.
Now - if she had committed murder or, even worse, becomes a tea-party Republican - that would justify preventing her from ever reaching her presidential aspirations.
Think if you're working for a corporation and using personal emails to correspond with clients. You would be fired immediately. There is no explanation. I was caught up in the clinton for president.Not anymore. She is just plain awful. Both Hillary and Bill need to leave America alone. Move to Sweden!
5
Poor judgement, failure to comply with federal regulations that encompass every employee of the Executive Branch, Mrs. Clinton is not our queen. We don't need another ruler from Houses Clinton or Bush.
7
This woman is going to be much more trouble than she is worth.
6
I hate it when the elites keep telling us that the contest next year will be between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bush. Since when does the American voter not have a say in the nominating process? Even if I liked either candidate (I do not) I would greatly resent being told that the contest was a foregone conclusion.
This is yet another reason we need a Supreme Court to overturn the Citizen United ruling. Money has too much influence in American politics.
This is yet another reason we need a Supreme Court to overturn the Citizen United ruling. Money has too much influence in American politics.
3
Wow. Just wow. In this day and age, when security and archiving are considered priorities, to deliberately flaunt the rules because of the "expectation" that emails would be archived is arrogant at best and potentially criminal at worst (though highly unlikely in the later case). I'm shocked and a little dismayed.
3
We have so lost our way when we give any wiggle room on this. People, let's all wake up. This seems black and white because it is black and white. Simple: Use the government email as dictated by federal law. Hillary had "every expectation they would be retained" is a statement that embarrasses us, mocks us all--republican, democrat, apolitical etc. We all deserve better. Maybe.
5
This story attempts to persuade us that Hillary uses a run of the mill email account provided by aol, google, yahoo etc.
The statement "Personal Emails are not secure" is misleading. There are many companies that offer an extra heightened encryption service that the NSA can't even decode. In fact, because the nature of her job required ultra security reinforcement, her email account could be exclusive and the most secured in the world.
The statement "Personal Emails are not secure" is misleading. There are many companies that offer an extra heightened encryption service that the NSA can't even decode. In fact, because the nature of her job required ultra security reinforcement, her email account could be exclusive and the most secured in the world.
1
Based on documents, provided by Edward Snowden, the NSA has all of her emails from her time with the State Department and could turn them over to the National Archives. But, of course, doing so would only validate that which Edward Snowden hoped to shed light on and which James Clapper denied, under oath, occurred.
1
There are two separate issues here:
1) Mrs. Clinton used a private email address so her emails were unavailable to the press, the public, and official archivists. She directly flouted transparency laws and showed little regard for the public's right to know. Now that she's been caught, she's not actually turning over all the emails: Her staff is hand-picking the emails they say are relevant, and turning those over. In other words, we will only see what Clinton wants us to see.
2) Clinton used a private, third-party email address. That means her emails containing official government business were stored on corporate servers and conceivably available to employees of the third party. Aside from the fact that [email protected] doesn't inspire confidence, it's not secure. At all. And how does it look to diplomats and officials of other countries when they're getting sensitive email from an AOL, Yahoo or Google address?
1) Mrs. Clinton used a private email address so her emails were unavailable to the press, the public, and official archivists. She directly flouted transparency laws and showed little regard for the public's right to know. Now that she's been caught, she's not actually turning over all the emails: Her staff is hand-picking the emails they say are relevant, and turning those over. In other words, we will only see what Clinton wants us to see.
2) Clinton used a private, third-party email address. That means her emails containing official government business were stored on corporate servers and conceivably available to employees of the third party. Aside from the fact that [email protected] doesn't inspire confidence, it's not secure. At all. And how does it look to diplomats and officials of other countries when they're getting sensitive email from an AOL, Yahoo or Google address?
3
Go away Hillary Clinton. You're not above the law. You never have been. You just imagine that you are.
Truth be told, you're merely the wife of a former President. You chose to "stand by your man," but your act of fidelity doesn't qualify you to be our next President. We, the American People, never chose you. Now go away.
Truth be told, you're merely the wife of a former President. You chose to "stand by your man," but your act of fidelity doesn't qualify you to be our next President. We, the American People, never chose you. Now go away.
6
For those of us who support Hillary Clinton for president, we have to ask ourselves: if this were Scott Walker or Jeb Bush, would we be willing to give them a pass?
This was very stupid on her part and demonstrates contempt. The policy is not a grey area where some people view the “letter and spirit of the rules” differently than others.
I still support her for president, but it makes it harder. I wish she and her husband (Whitewater, WH Travel Office, FBI files lying around, perjury in the Monica Lewinsky affair, pardons, etc.) would stop continually playing so close to -- and over the edge of -- the law.
This was very stupid on her part and demonstrates contempt. The policy is not a grey area where some people view the “letter and spirit of the rules” differently than others.
I still support her for president, but it makes it harder. I wish she and her husband (Whitewater, WH Travel Office, FBI files lying around, perjury in the Monica Lewinsky affair, pardons, etc.) would stop continually playing so close to -- and over the edge of -- the law.
2
Thank you for applying "the rules" to both parties. It rarely happens.
2
GOP says 8 years in prison... I wonder why...???
Why does NYT's Michael Schmidt let Clinton apologist Nick Merrill get away with his delusional, and to me cynical, defense of Hillary's use of the personal email account.
Would Merrill defend "President" Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email account for the transaction of her Administration's work?
Schmidt is playing gingerly here or else he might have asked whether a "President" Hillary Clinton will continue the private email practice and, afterwards, decide what emails are pertinent and turn over to National Archives and Records Administration?
Likewise, Schmidt might have asked Clinton, or Merrill, whether she will "require" her cabinet to likewise use personal email accounts as she did when she served in the cabinet?
Of course both Clinton and Merrill knew her emails were government records -- it's 2015 for pity's sake! So why didn't the NYT press Clinton or Merrill? Merrill has some personal exposure here, I would think, if he played a role, setting up or arranging for Clinton's use of personal email, in violation of State Department rules.
Would Merrill defend "President" Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email account for the transaction of her Administration's work?
Schmidt is playing gingerly here or else he might have asked whether a "President" Hillary Clinton will continue the private email practice and, afterwards, decide what emails are pertinent and turn over to National Archives and Records Administration?
Likewise, Schmidt might have asked Clinton, or Merrill, whether she will "require" her cabinet to likewise use personal email accounts as she did when she served in the cabinet?
Of course both Clinton and Merrill knew her emails were government records -- it's 2015 for pity's sake! So why didn't the NYT press Clinton or Merrill? Merrill has some personal exposure here, I would think, if he played a role, setting up or arranging for Clinton's use of personal email, in violation of State Department rules.
2
If she's dissing this email account requirement as Secretary of State, what would she diss if she becomes President of the US? I shudder at the thought.
5
The writer should realize that Secretary Colin Powell also used private emails. Actually the law for not using private emails did not go into affect until 2014 after President Obama signed it into law which is 2 years after Secretary Clinton left office.
This story will turn out to be a NOTHING burger.
This story will turn out to be a NOTHING burger.
1
This is the last straw.
Not only am I not ready for Hillary. I can't wait for her NOT to run for the White House.
Let's draft Elizabeth Warren people!
Not only am I not ready for Hillary. I can't wait for her NOT to run for the White House.
Let's draft Elizabeth Warren people!
6
This is newsmongering at its worst. Hillary Clinton may have broken the rules. Why not wait until the verdict is out?
Everybody surely knows that a headline from the NYT carries a lot of clout and that the word 'Possibly' will be swept aside or not even noticed by the majority. Anti-Clinton bloggers and media will have a field day.
And in the end it may turn out that she didn't break any rules. If she did, when it's proven will be the appropriate time to fill headlines with it. This is just speculation, which isn't good journalism. It isn't journalism at all, it's gossip.
A truthful headline would have been "Maybe she broke the rules but we could be wrong because we have no evidence to confirm our possible suspicions and we haven't spoken to her and we actually know nothing factual about whether she did or didn't break the rules." But how to condense it? Impossible, so you don’t write the article.
I’ve got a good one. What about "Hillary Clinton Accused Again By Benghazi Investigation Louts".
Everybody surely knows that a headline from the NYT carries a lot of clout and that the word 'Possibly' will be swept aside or not even noticed by the majority. Anti-Clinton bloggers and media will have a field day.
And in the end it may turn out that she didn't break any rules. If she did, when it's proven will be the appropriate time to fill headlines with it. This is just speculation, which isn't good journalism. It isn't journalism at all, it's gossip.
A truthful headline would have been "Maybe she broke the rules but we could be wrong because we have no evidence to confirm our possible suspicions and we haven't spoken to her and we actually know nothing factual about whether she did or didn't break the rules." But how to condense it? Impossible, so you don’t write the article.
I’ve got a good one. What about "Hillary Clinton Accused Again By Benghazi Investigation Louts".
2
Hillary , the white house is not your mothers kitchen :)
Although there is something almost comforting about the informality -good men come hard to the machinery of industrial nations.
Although there is something almost comforting about the informality -good men come hard to the machinery of industrial nations.
1
Well, to be fair, she may have had a perfectly good reason for doing this. Like, for example, the government's .gov system doesn't do that "You've got mail!" thing.
1
I suspect, Dr. Watson that all the above suggests Mrs. Clinton does not intend, and possibly never has intended to be running for president in 2016.
Instead of her reticence on the subject of a run being aimed at keeping the buzz going while getting campaign ducks in a row - a ruse that so many of her supporters have fallen for - she has been keeping her hat in the proximity of the ring to sustain interest in the Clinton Family agenda, and her memoir.
So, If she announces in the near future that she will not be running, it won't be because of this silly little unforced "email kerfuffle" error. It will be because she was teasing us. And she will have failed oh, so many.
Instead of her reticence on the subject of a run being aimed at keeping the buzz going while getting campaign ducks in a row - a ruse that so many of her supporters have fallen for - she has been keeping her hat in the proximity of the ring to sustain interest in the Clinton Family agenda, and her memoir.
So, If she announces in the near future that she will not be running, it won't be because of this silly little unforced "email kerfuffle" error. It will be because she was teasing us. And she will have failed oh, so many.
1
As a professor at Wayne State University, I stopped using my faculty email after the university proudly announced that it was hacking into all staff communications through its servers. I applaud Mrs. Clinton attention to security in an insecure government system.
I'm confused.
“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.
Didn't Clinton's period as Secretary of State end in 2013?
“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.
Didn't Clinton's period as Secretary of State end in 2013?
Sad and stunning.
You simply can't make this stuff up.
I'm a true-blue Chicago Democrat. But even as a woman who has waited my entire life to vote for a female candidate for president-- I am sadly unable to vote for her. Goodbye Hillary. Wish you had been the real deal.
You simply can't make this stuff up.
I'm a true-blue Chicago Democrat. But even as a woman who has waited my entire life to vote for a female candidate for president-- I am sadly unable to vote for her. Goodbye Hillary. Wish you had been the real deal.
4
I assume we're just getting this out into the open now, in early 2015, so it will be old news in a year (or a week) and no one will remember it at the primaries.
1
I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren as the Democratic candidate. I used to think she was too far left, but after listening to a podcast of a talk she gave at Politics and Prose, senator Warren appears to be intelligent, confident, and more centrist than I thought. She also appears to be more likable than Ms. Clinton.
2
Somebody you could have a beer with?
1
What's the big deal, just ask the NSA they have copies of every single email!
1
Of course-Benghazi. What's next Vince Foster? Now we know the Republican qualifications to be President: 1) be a male Bush and 2) release a trove of e-mails. Gonna be a long campaign.
1
Right. No doubt a Republican political operative sold her a cell phone at Best Buy.
2
"The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides. Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages."
Isn't great that the clowns at State get to decide what is important for us to see? I'm sure we got the whole truth here.
Isn't great that the clowns at State get to decide what is important for us to see? I'm sure we got the whole truth here.
2
Please feel free to go after conservatives as much as you go after Hillary.
1
Another conspiracy theory?
Please!
Please!
I am a Phil Hart Democrat and an anybody-but-Hillary Democratic voter. Using a secret personal e-mail account for government business and sussing out what she allows as relevant is beyond those little errors in judgement we usually grant clemency for. This is not a witch hunt, this is not twisted and nuanced, this is an expose of outright chicanery and possible illegal behavior. Hillary is not a fit candidate for the office of President. We (D)s need to come up with a candidate we can be proud of and support without hesitation; that candidate is out there waiting for an opportune moment.
5
The Republicans will jump all over this and in their exaggerated sense of self-righteousness will make Hillary Clinton looking even better. Karl Rove did this almost exclusively while holding his White House post as a Presidential adviser. The GOP-controlled House and Senate will launch two investigations, but nothing more will be revealed. This isn't Watergate or even Iran Contra.
Opposition research and smear campaigns can backfire. That is the only way that Republicans can hope to run a successful campaign. The platform offers nothing more than another eight disastrous years of another Bush Presidency. "It's Our Turn!" rings hallow as a campaign theme.
Opposition research and smear campaigns can backfire. That is the only way that Republicans can hope to run a successful campaign. The platform offers nothing more than another eight disastrous years of another Bush Presidency. "It's Our Turn!" rings hallow as a campaign theme.
1
so what? it's not like it will matter when it's too late to do anything about controversial/questionable policies, and there's no reason to think that appropriate action would nowadays be taken about any government (or corporate) official's inappropriate official discussion or decisions.
net result: job security for historians.
net result: job security for historians.
LOL. I really don't get it. I see comments supporting Hillarious, even though she is a proven, pathological liar. This issue is just another in a long stream of criminal activities. Believe me, my disgust is not reserved only for the clintons or this party or that. There is clear criminal conduct that has had the effect of increasing welfare rolls and crushing the middle class. One branch does nothing to reign in the other, and they are all playing patty cake. Even if you like ebama care, you must wonder exactly how John Roberts did a 180 on his vote, looking like someone just told him a family member died.
1
The problem is, there are going to be so many stories like this between now and November 2016 that I doubt most people care.
I realize that you need to sell papers and generate interest to sell those papers. There certainly are more important issues in the world.
2
I believe many people,especially Dems,see big problems for Hillary in 2016;this,donations from foreign countries,"we were dead broke" and of course staying in a marriage with a serial philanderer will come up again and again during her probable campign.Many would like to give Elizabeth Warren a reason to get into the race and feel like she could win.As Hillary's problems mount this comes closer to being a reality.
3
I can understand if Secretary Clinton used a few emails in her personal account to do some work at home. But to "exclusively" use your personal email account for government business all the time? I think reporters need to start digging into the Clinton Foundation-it appears that her position of power may have been used for other purposes...
3
This is a VERY corporate foundation attitude about data. She doesn't want you to know what goes for blow under her Tea Pot Dome. Data is the New Oil, don't slip in it, Slicks.
2
Her personal email address was probably safer. What's the big deal? We're going to see it one way or another anyway. Let the games begin!
Why now? She was in office for 4 years! It is fascinating to watch how quickly both sides rush to judgement. This story has many holes in it and I would speculate it is stretching the truth or accusations. Let the dust settle before condemning her or jumping off the bandwagon
It's headlines like this remind me that Benghazi rhymes with Yahtzee. Wake me up when the paper of record deigns to report on issues of governing. It's as if we are supposed to believe her emails weren't under surveillance.
Using a personal email address is inexcusable and gives me great pause... but I'm still going to vote for her, or any Democratic candidate. Although what Clinton did was "wrong"... it does not compare to the nastiness of the Republican party.
"... the National Security Archive, a group based at George Washington University that advocates government transparency."
"Groups" that have nothing to do with the Federal Government should not be allowed to use a name that sounds so official. The Internet is bad enough, with anyone with a computer can call themselves "Americans For Freedom" even if there's only them and their cat. But National Security Archive? Shouldn't be allowed.
"Groups" that have nothing to do with the Federal Government should not be allowed to use a name that sounds so official. The Internet is bad enough, with anyone with a computer can call themselves "Americans For Freedom" even if there's only them and their cat. But National Security Archive? Shouldn't be allowed.
Another Clinton-Bush Wall Street-funded election, starring the haughty and privileged, could easily knock voter turnout back below 50%. Americans are yearning for real change and new faces while the establishment media absolutely shoves these same people down our throats.
We are being dominated.
We are being dominated.
2
If this was so important, why wasn't it noticed earlier. Has she never emailed a Senator or Representative? I think this is making a mountain our of a text message. Why didn't the reporter ask Mrs. Clinton or her staff why this had gone on so long. I also wonder why wouldn't someone conducting foreign policy want to keep some things secret.
"Has she never emailed a Senator or Representative?"
Well, Hillary hasn't driven a car since 1996. What makes you think her lackies don't send her communications out under their name?
Well, Hillary hasn't driven a car since 1996. What makes you think her lackies don't send her communications out under their name?
2
This revelation speaks to a sense of entitlement; the former first lady felt entitled to use private e-mail despite, most assuredly, being reminded of its impropriety.
A secretary of state, dealing with friend and foe of the US, is expected to engage in secure communication. That Ms. Clinton decided otherwise raises loud alarms about her judgment and trustworthiness as a possible presidential candidate. Best response by her, although unlikely, is to announce that she will not be a candidate.
A secretary of state, dealing with friend and foe of the US, is expected to engage in secure communication. That Ms. Clinton decided otherwise raises loud alarms about her judgment and trustworthiness as a possible presidential candidate. Best response by her, although unlikely, is to announce that she will not be a candidate.
4
So this came out as part of the Benghazi investigation, the one the Dems have said is just a witch hunt and bears no fruit. Surprise!
2
Will wonders never cease! Another hidden e-mail event in the current administration. Who would have guessed that "the most transparent administration in history" would have some much problem with honest information.
2
Really, I don't see a big issue here, I so don't care. Let the hatchet jobs begin on the road to tearing her down, again. I whole heartedly support Hillary Clinton.
1
I'm a Democrat and hate to say it, but this could (and maybe should) bring Clinton down. There is no excuse. How do we know that the person she was contacting was nit also using a private email address? Then there is no record. How is it possible that no one had the guts to say "I'm sorry Madame Secretary, I'ld feel more comfortable if you sent this message through a secure State Department line". Seriously.
2
Once again, when public servants view themselves as above the law, we have a real cause for alarm.
This is an indefensible action. When these people believe everyone around them works for them, it's time for them to go.
This is an indefensible action. When these people believe everyone around them works for them, it's time for them to go.
1
Were this a Republican, the times would be screaming for indictments.
2
So, I guess now we can all be confident that everything that could be done was done on the night that Benghazi went down--or at least we know that nothing harmful to her image will come to light. Nothing to see here, move along.
2
I don't believe a word of it. The same as I didn't believe the White House email system lost 3 1/2 years worth of email during George Bush and DIck Cheney's romp in office. Such a lame excuse. Lies
And you probably believe "free healthcare" is free.
The Left is so gullible.
The Left is so gullible.
3
The idea that gov't email is more secure than, say, gmail or yahoo is really goofy. There have been enormous leaks. The most brilliant computer folks work for Google and other mail providers -- more money.
Of course the archived email, suitably encrypted, should be stored offline for posterity. But, if I were Secretary of State, I'd sure use a non-gov't email.
Of course the archived email, suitably encrypted, should be stored offline for posterity. But, if I were Secretary of State, I'd sure use a non-gov't email.
2
GOP is going to have a lot of fun with this scandal. Democratic party clearly needs a backup plan for 2016.
1
This is nothing more than fodder for Faux News.
The breach of secrecy storing top secret type email correspondence on a public server like yahoo or google is a jailable offense. Nevermind she was using it to avert the federal disclosure laws. In this world of hacks and breaches its inconceivable that she was just using her private email address to perform the high level business she was performing. This is a huge deal.
3
I wonder if the moniker "slick Willie" will stick (pun intended) with respect to Hillary. If it was once or twice, that would be bad enough, but to completely ignore such an obviously important rule by someone in such an obviously important position.
And her spokesman saying she has been complying with the “letter and spirit of the rules.”
Does this sound like yet another, "while technically and legally accurate," doesn't this potentially mislead anyone following this story?
And her spokesman saying she has been complying with the “letter and spirit of the rules.”
Does this sound like yet another, "while technically and legally accurate," doesn't this potentially mislead anyone following this story?
2
Before we make this a giant deal, many individuals of HC age group do not USE email in any way, shape or form. Can you show me a legal requirement to use a government furnished email account? If the requirement is to leave a record for archival use, that it can be met a number of ways...and last, I have lost more emails using gov't systems than I ever have with my third party, secure, email that I pay $60/year.
I know many, many senior managers who still hand write memo and have their staff send them out, sometimes on email, sometimes on paper. I think we need a few more facts before the pitchforks and torches come out.
If you dig very hard on ANYONE, something will show up sooner or later.
And last issue...do we have all of GWB emails to examine?
I know many, many senior managers who still hand write memo and have their staff send them out, sometimes on email, sometimes on paper. I think we need a few more facts before the pitchforks and torches come out.
If you dig very hard on ANYONE, something will show up sooner or later.
And last issue...do we have all of GWB emails to examine?
This is not a newsworthy article -- it's missing numerous key detail.
Does the federal policy actually require use of *.gov sender/recipient addressing? Unlikely, given how easily spoofed email addresses are.
The NYTimes should have explained the difference between an email account and a mail hosting system -- that it is possible to host a personal address on a secure enterprise email system.
Or that all email activity can be BCC:ed to a third-party email address for archiving purposes.
Or that the NSA obviously has a copy of all government communications, and that we can expect a full upload of all Clinton-related emails to Wikileaks at some point in the future.
Does the federal policy actually require use of *.gov sender/recipient addressing? Unlikely, given how easily spoofed email addresses are.
The NYTimes should have explained the difference between an email account and a mail hosting system -- that it is possible to host a personal address on a secure enterprise email system.
Or that all email activity can be BCC:ed to a third-party email address for archiving purposes.
Or that the NSA obviously has a copy of all government communications, and that we can expect a full upload of all Clinton-related emails to Wikileaks at some point in the future.
3
Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email is appalling but not surprising. She is a very intelligent lawyer who worked in government a long time. She knew, or at least should have known. the law and the reasons for the law. This shows an obvious disrespect of the law, or at least an above the law approach to the law and transparency in government. I'm starting to feel a "Tricky Dicky" approach here reminiscent of another smart lawyer, Richard Nixon and ultimately bad president. It was just that feeling of concerning that made me look very closely at President Obama, and why I believe millions of people who believe in civil liberties and our bill of rights voted for him. What will keep Hillary from doing what "she believes" is right to get elected this time? Can independents trust her? Can civil libertarians trust her? This raises the hair on my back. Why did it take so long to find this out????? Where were the journalists for four years?????
2
It took everyone this long to notice? Weren't they *reading* her emails???
4
That this behavior surprises anyone is mind boggling. Entitled, a bit, do you think? Tip of iceberg, who knows. I am a woman and a Democrat, but Lord I wish this woman would go away.
4
When there's going to be a real scandal, please let me know. Right now it seems that her detractors are having a ball trying to discredit her. People who think she would not release this information before her announcement to run for the democratic nomination (which is supposed to be some time this month) live in another world.
Hillary will still win the 2016 general election, sorry Republicans.
Hillary will still win the 2016 general election, sorry Republicans.
6
The law only apply to Republicans, not to Democrats. The more liberal you are, the less laws apply.
2
Was that a Barack Obama quote?
2
This is beyond shocking!
No one could be so clueless as to conduct official US government business, from a personal e-mail account.
Are we supposed to believe that Mrs. Clinton did not know the difference between her personal and professional life?
The record keeping technicalities aside, who on earth could show such complete lack of professional judgement?
And also, apparently a lack of office etiquette, protocol and document discipline.
Well, the voters will ultimately decide.
No one could be so clueless as to conduct official US government business, from a personal e-mail account.
Are we supposed to believe that Mrs. Clinton did not know the difference between her personal and professional life?
The record keeping technicalities aside, who on earth could show such complete lack of professional judgement?
And also, apparently a lack of office etiquette, protocol and document discipline.
Well, the voters will ultimately decide.
2
Can't the NSA just pull up her emails like they can do for the rest of us?
2
Did she declare war on another nation? Ok, then, not such a bid deal. Leave it up to the pencil pushers to invent a crisis - they're good at that, at least.
1
The truth is, you have no way of knowing what she did. You don't know if she made deals or 'coordinated' stories. What you do know is that there are regulations that state that she should not be doing it. Why is she above that? The idea is to create a trail if things go bad. What about freedom of information requests down the road. There are REASONS for these regulations. And yes, they apply to BOTH sides.
2
Of far more significance than use of her personal e-mail is the chaos that she inflicted on every corner of the globe as Madame Secretary.
2
Some animals are more equal than other animals...
2
Any emails sent by her to someone using the Federal servers would be residing on the recipient's email server. Any mail sent to Clinton would also show up on that same server. It might take a little more work to access them since we're talking about tens of thousands of emails but they can be found. We found Lerner's emails didn't we?
This breach of rules is so clumsy it's hard to call it evil -- someone really intent on communicating out of the sunlight would have used a much less traceable method.
That said, the most basic ethics training -- the type given to unpaid citizen commission members -- covers record keeping. Anyone remotely at the Secretary of State level will know these rules. Some dozens of staff at the Department would have known. Did the IT staff wake up one day and say "gee, we forgot to give Mrs. Clinton an email address"? No way. Dozens of people were in the loop here, from the top down to the intern responsible for onboarding new employees.
That said, the most basic ethics training -- the type given to unpaid citizen commission members -- covers record keeping. Anyone remotely at the Secretary of State level will know these rules. Some dozens of staff at the Department would have known. Did the IT staff wake up one day and say "gee, we forgot to give Mrs. Clinton an email address"? No way. Dozens of people were in the loop here, from the top down to the intern responsible for onboarding new employees.
3
And so it all begins in the media.
2
First Ms. Lerner & now Ms. Clinton.
Not following the rules, why do they try to hide. Is it because they have something to hide?
Not following the rules, why do they try to hide. Is it because they have something to hide?
1
Another example of how the Dem's and their leadership are the most colossally stupid political organization in history.
2
I'll wager that throughout Clinton's tenure at State NSA had copies of each and every email she sent or received using her personal account within milliseconds of its transmittal or arrival in her inbox.
Tom Benghauser
Denver Home for The Bewildered
Tom Benghauser
Denver Home for The Bewildered
2
This seems to be a case of either arrogance, or incompetence. Neither inspires confidence in a potential presidential nominee.
4
Is this the best they can do to go after this woman?
5
No way, call me crazy! It reminds me of the IRS emails that they could not find right under their noses, all the while claiming they were "destroyed!" I bet this is ubiquitous though out the administration......
1
Hillary already announced about her transparency and good intentions with respect to mid class. But other politicians and critics already have to much questions to her. Questions are about her program for presidential run and not only.
She has real problems with transparency. And violation of the rules of working correspondence is just the top of her foggy iceberg.
Most Republicans and some democrats (to say nothing of ordinary voters) are not unaware of her presidential program. She speaks a lot about mid class and small business. But we know nothing except ties with Wall Street.
JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Boeing and SOROS.
Her foundation was filled in using funds of foreign countries (in particular, Algeria and Haiti).
If this is not enough, remember BENGHAZI.
In such circumstances, her plan to start the election campaign in April 2015 is at least unwise.
She has real problems with transparency. And violation of the rules of working correspondence is just the top of her foggy iceberg.
Most Republicans and some democrats (to say nothing of ordinary voters) are not unaware of her presidential program. She speaks a lot about mid class and small business. But we know nothing except ties with Wall Street.
JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Boeing and SOROS.
Her foundation was filled in using funds of foreign countries (in particular, Algeria and Haiti).
If this is not enough, remember BENGHAZI.
In such circumstances, her plan to start the election campaign in April 2015 is at least unwise.
1
Come on NSA. Release Hillary's emails.
1
Others have argued that this was simply an error in judgement, but I beg to differ. By using her own e-mail address, Mrs. Clinton put herself in a position of being able to control the narrative about her term as Secretary of State. Without intervention from the Government, journalists and future historians will be reliant on the Clinton Archives for information, and will not be able to obtain anything via Freedom of Information requests. Anything that is potentially adverse, or damaging to the Clinton legend, can be simply deleted.
Of course the Government could act, now, to demand the turn over of all e-mail she wrote or received during her tenure under penalty of criminal action, but given the miserable Obama administration record on transparency, that is highly unlikely. Even if the Government presses its case, there is no guarantee that all the material will be returned to its rightful owner, the People of the United States.
Maybe there is something to those Benghazi conspiracy theories after all.
Of course the Government could act, now, to demand the turn over of all e-mail she wrote or received during her tenure under penalty of criminal action, but given the miserable Obama administration record on transparency, that is highly unlikely. Even if the Government presses its case, there is no guarantee that all the material will be returned to its rightful owner, the People of the United States.
Maybe there is something to those Benghazi conspiracy theories after all.
3
Lois Lerner of the IRS claimed in Congressional hearings that she never knew what was going on with the 501-C conservative groups, and that 30,000 emails had gone missing. Hmmm. The Inspector General of the IRS later "found" the emails. In the Obama White House, and his Cabinet, a general cluelessness pervades.
Ms. Clinton clearly feels that regulations and requirements do not apply to her. Her arrogance and unwillingness to heed the law make her unfit for public office---and there's the question of outside financial influence as well. Surely the Democrats can find a better candidate than this.
2
A few days ago Nate Cohn, in an article entitled "Hillary Clinton and Inevitability: This Time Is Different" wrote in these pages: "she appears to be far better positioned than she was eight years ago. If she barely lost then, why would she lose now?" Here's your answer Mr. Cohn. Someone make sure Mr. Cohn doesn't hurt himself trying to spin this fiasco.
What difference does it make? Did she get the job done? This is so petty. How about her reaction and non-action to Benghazi and other horrendous actions against US? How about her credibility as a human being with feelings? Which email she used is moot.
1
"Did she get the job done?"
Russian reset -- failure
Libya -- failure and a dead ambassador
Name one example of a foreign policy success under Mrs. Clinton.
Russian reset -- failure
Libya -- failure and a dead ambassador
Name one example of a foreign policy success under Mrs. Clinton.
1
Who cares? Really. If our intelligence agencies are doing their jobs we theoretically have all emails on file, regardless of where they are stored.
1
In a time where the NSA is a galactic leader in data security, (albeit usually undermining it) what better email host is available on the planet than the US gov't? Security reasons alone should demand the Secretary of State to use a gov't email address. Selfishness and paranoia are the only reasons not too.
1
If Hillary was using non-secure emails, then let's get ALL of those emails and see why she used the private account. There must be some reason and rather than pass judgement now, let's see what she was up to. If she communicated to foreign countries we need to know what was communicated.
2
If Ms. Clinton doesd not offer a valid explanation SOON, and one that is not laughable, she is toast. It may show a disregard for rules (Nixon) or bad advisors (Romney) or something worse, a deaf ear (most politicians, including Obama)
She turned over 55,000 emails evidently sent during her tenure as Secretary of State. And those are the ones her staff considered government business. WOW! Seems like she could have not had time for anything else but sending emails 24/7. I hardly think that is possible. I guess a lot of people believe that she was doing something in plain sight that they could not see. I lack that kind of imagination or wisdom. However, I have seen many people in government and the media who also see things which the rest of us are baffled by. Invisible to the human eye. If Hillary can get through the next six months with all this junk constantly going on, she qualifies to be president. A thick skin is mandatory. If you can't stand the nick picking, get out of the race!
1
I understand everyone's various comments on this but really, what does it matter? We are the freest people in the history of free a great republic, and yet our citizenship is posting comments or rebutting them.
The celebrities we are entertained by everyday are better prepared for their lives than we are for ours. They have managers, we have handlers.
e-mails today, Benghazi, or Christian poverty in a land of great wealth, Iraq... things just seem to happen to us freedom loving people that we can't control. We should really rethink the free thing.
The celebrities we are entertained by everyday are better prepared for their lives than we are for ours. They have managers, we have handlers.
e-mails today, Benghazi, or Christian poverty in a land of great wealth, Iraq... things just seem to happen to us freedom loving people that we can't control. We should really rethink the free thing.
As usual since its a Democrat this is an end of the world scandal...Had this been a GOP candiate it would be no big deal....
All the issues surrounding Chris Cristie are far worse, but as always, republicans have carte blanche...
All the issues surrounding Chris Cristie are far worse, but as always, republicans have carte blanche...
3
This is a non issue. Even if she used a private email account, those emails still exist in the government system since the recipients of her emails would be government employees whose emails and responses are archived. Hillary's would be caught that way and it simply has to be filtered out.
1
Where is/was the big headline when Secretary Powell did the same? Is this really a newsworthy story or just a headline "looking" for a story?
2
There is some things not reported on yet:
1. The recipients who were Federal Gov't employees should have alerted someone.
2. Who is getting to choose which of her messages is to be archived?
3. What about attachments to the messages such as schedules, contracts, agreements - all government documents should be kept confidential and not shared via personal accounts.
4. When an employee starts a new job, their user name, password and e-mail accounts are generated automatically by IT. It would have to have been intentional not to use the e-mail account and instead use the personal account.
5. ALL of the personal account messages should be handed over to the Archives to sort through and decide which to archive. A big mess to clean up!
1. The recipients who were Federal Gov't employees should have alerted someone.
2. Who is getting to choose which of her messages is to be archived?
3. What about attachments to the messages such as schedules, contracts, agreements - all government documents should be kept confidential and not shared via personal accounts.
4. When an employee starts a new job, their user name, password and e-mail accounts are generated automatically by IT. It would have to have been intentional not to use the e-mail account and instead use the personal account.
5. ALL of the personal account messages should be handed over to the Archives to sort through and decide which to archive. A big mess to clean up!
3
This conduct is the mark of a true amateur, or of someone who has another agenda.
1
Is it remotely possible that this was a calculated act of disinformation?
If the Chinese, Iranians, Russians, North Koreans, etc. think they're spying on her carelessly unsecured emails, what better way to throw them off track?
If the Chinese, Iranians, Russians, North Koreans, etc. think they're spying on her carelessly unsecured emails, what better way to throw them off track?
I want to see all 40,000 emails now! I have time for it and I bet it's riveting. But seriously, Hilary at least try to pretend you're not above the law:) Lol. For me.
2
I would almost certainly vote for Hillary over just about anyone the Republicans nominate but I would be holding my nose doing it.
The 1950 Federal Record Act doesn't cover electronic communications for obvious reasons. While the 2014 update to the act does include email communications, Mrs. Clinton was already out of office by that point. It seems to me she was acting to the letter of the law. Perhaps not the spirit, but to the letter, yes. It seems like this issue is being overblown.
9
Sounds like Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Yes, true to the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Birds of the same feather.
1
Not to worry about any possibly deleted e-mails. Undoubtedly the N.S.A., C.I.A., and F.B.I. have copies.
Gmail? Yahoo? What kind of 'private' email?
1
This isn't shocking. What's sad is that this is the garbage they'll distract you with. Look away. Pay attention.
1
Can you say she is toast she will lose the Democrat nominee. The Democrats better be smart and not put her or they will get to see Bush re-runs all over again.
Nothing seems as disingenuous as the people who makes comments like "I was going to vote for Hillary, but now I can't." Are people that easily swayed by this story to change their actual vote ?
My guess is that they are Republican moles acting like "shocked" Democrats to trick people into thinking that these types of people actually exist. If you supported Hillary until five hours ago and suddenly changed your mind because of this article, I don't know how you make any decisions at all.
On the other hand, there were apparently 70% or so plus Americans who supported the Iraq War in 2003, and another 70% who thought Ebola travel bans were a good idea. I wonder where those people are now ?
My guess is that they are Republican moles acting like "shocked" Democrats to trick people into thinking that these types of people actually exist. If you supported Hillary until five hours ago and suddenly changed your mind because of this article, I don't know how you make any decisions at all.
On the other hand, there were apparently 70% or so plus Americans who supported the Iraq War in 2003, and another 70% who thought Ebola travel bans were a good idea. I wonder where those people are now ?
1
Didn't Hillary Clinton also murder Vince Foster?
Oh wait, no, she didn't.
But here we go again: First the verdict and then the trial.
First the condemnations and then the full facts!
Oh wait, no, she didn't.
But here we go again: First the verdict and then the trial.
First the condemnations and then the full facts!
5
It is beyond belief that Clinton wasn't aware of the protocol for why and how to use official email. And it is also hard to believe that the people she corresponded with were ignorant that she was using a personal email address.
The benefits of using a personal email account is clear. it allows its user to have complete control of retention and destruction of communications. Now why would someone like Hillary want that kind of control?
The benefits of using a personal email account is clear. it allows its user to have complete control of retention and destruction of communications. Now why would someone like Hillary want that kind of control?
1
No worries. If the National Archives needs any of HRC's emails, Putin would be more than happy to furnish copies. As would probably half of the world's governments. Unbelievable.
Nixon was crucified by this paper for not revealing a short stretch of recorded conversation. In all fairness, Mrs Clinton ought now be crucified a thousand times.
American historians will not be pleased that so much source materials has disappeared. And this time they wont be able to rely on the opening of Soviet Archives for information.
American historians will not be pleased that so much source materials has disappeared. And this time they wont be able to rely on the opening of Soviet Archives for information.
2
It should be worth remembering that WE should be the ones setting the standards for their behavior, not them. Instead, we let the foxes design the security system for the hen house and then we debate whether the first fox to kill a hen was red or brown... with little, if any, concern for the actual hens. We are so bent on despising the other side of the aisle that we no longer care if our own side does something wrong. Instead, we justify our own party's behavior by scrounging up something worse that the other side did.
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." (Pogo, Walt Kelly)
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." (Pogo, Walt Kelly)
The Washington Post is reporting that the domain of the email she used was registered on the day of her Senate confirmation hearings. I'm sure it was encrypted and secure, and we will probably never see most of those emails. The Clintons are world-class masters of secrecy and HC knew exactly what she was doing in keeping ALL her emails off State Department servers.
8
We know from Daniel Manning's disclosure of State Dept. emails through Wikileaks that even secure top secret communications aren't safe.
1
Hillary Clinton held the office of Secretary of State. She was acting as the office holder, not as an individual. The power and authority Mrs. Clinto held was through the office, not personal power. For Mrs. Clinton, an attorney, to disregard the legal and bureaucratic demands that accompanied the position she held was to convey that she thought the office a mere trapping in a sense and saw the power of the office to reside with her herself ... This is an affront to the citizens of the US and telling as to the perspective she might carry if elected President ...
8
It was wrong (and probably more nefarious) when the Bush admin used RNC email servers for government business, and it's wrong - and worse, stupid - for HRC to have made the same kind of mistake.
But I have to ask, NYTimes, why no mention of Condoleeza Rice's practices? You note what Kerry does, and what Colin Powell did, but Mrs. Clinton's immediate predecessor is left out. Why is that?
But I have to ask, NYTimes, why no mention of Condoleeza Rice's practices? You note what Kerry does, and what Colin Powell did, but Mrs. Clinton's immediate predecessor is left out. Why is that?
1
and so it begins....(or continues). It's going to be drip, drip, drip until election day
2
"Hello, Anonymous?"
"We are Anonymous. We are legion."
"Yes, good. I have a job for you."
"We are on it!"
"We are Anonymous. We are legion."
"Yes, good. I have a job for you."
"We are on it!"
I think that this is all part of their plan for her presidential run. They're news-dumping as much as possible now before she officially declares her bid and the country gets into election mode. People won't care as much if this comes out now as they would if it came out next year - sad, but true.
That being said, I don't know how this was just now discovered. Shouldn't someone have notice years ago?
That being said, I don't know how this was just now discovered. Shouldn't someone have notice years ago?
2
this evil shouldn't even exist let alone run for a Power position in this corrupt, hi-jacked Republic, surely we don't need yet another lying, criminal murderer in the WH for 8 years
4
While it is surprising that Hillary didn't use government email (or maybe not so much, if Colin Powell also didn't bother) - it is completely shocking that the US government allowed this. The employer doesn't apparently enforce their own rules.
2
Why does this surprise anyone? Those that say "no big deal" just don't get it and have no moral compass at all, can't see right from wrong. If a high official knowingly flouts such a simple and easy to comply with law what does that say about the likelihood they will ignore other laws whenever they feel it profitable? Hillary is one of those people, privileged to the point where laws only apply to the little guy, those poor bastards that don't understand the ruling class is above and beyond the law. This explains quite a bit about her character. "What does it matter?" It matters.
7
This is a widespread practice among senior appointed officials. The goal is to evade Freedom of Information Act requests and Congressional inquiries. Recently, a Federal judge chastised EPA for the same practice. Text messages on mobile phones are also government records, are typically very revealing, and consequently are not saved by political appointees for the same reasons.
On the bright side, ignorance may be bliss. Do you really want to know what went into that sausage you were served or what bone-headed thinking is behind our foreign policy? Soon our leaders will be communicating by Snapchat!
On the bright side, ignorance may be bliss. Do you really want to know what went into that sausage you were served or what bone-headed thinking is behind our foreign policy? Soon our leaders will be communicating by Snapchat!
1
This, obviously, is a common occurrence under this administration.
They are apparently afraid of the "transparency" so touted by Mr. Obama when running for office. I believed him then. I don't any longer......
They are apparently afraid of the "transparency" so touted by Mr. Obama when running for office. I believed him then. I don't any longer......
4
Here we go with another round of character assassinations as many commenters try to draw correlations between this email situation and Hillary's ability to govern a nation. Another topic in which everyone can throw logs into the reactionary fire that keep fueling rampant emotion.
We've had leaders in all segments of government who weren't perfect but seemed to manage their positions just fine. We've also had leaders who appeared to have everything together in the beginning only to be derided by indecision and complacency on critical issues. So in this email issue, I will wait to see if anyone can peer into a crystal ball and gather evidence that this situation could be troublesome for Hillary in running this country as it needs to be.
I'll save you the trouble. Don't bother. You might as well tell me that posting silly cat videos on YouTube will end up being the downfall of human civilization.
We've had leaders in all segments of government who weren't perfect but seemed to manage their positions just fine. We've also had leaders who appeared to have everything together in the beginning only to be derided by indecision and complacency on critical issues. So in this email issue, I will wait to see if anyone can peer into a crystal ball and gather evidence that this situation could be troublesome for Hillary in running this country as it needs to be.
I'll save you the trouble. Don't bother. You might as well tell me that posting silly cat videos on YouTube will end up being the downfall of human civilization.
Obviously Hillary decided to use her personal email account as Secretary of State in order to conceal records that could be used to hurt her future political plans. It was purely a political decision. The big problem: the republic she seeks to lead - a government that governs solely by the consent of the governed - can not work if government officials work in secret. I think Hillary may have miscalculated the political damage that could come from this "political decision."
9
You have to ask why is this just now coming out? The powers that be (who are afraid Hilliary will run for president) have already started their negative campaigning to decimate her character. They will bring back former President Bill Clinton's past or anything else they can dig up. Will all of the perfect people commenting negatively here please stand up? Hilliary's emails sent to other public figures are automatically documented and they are public record. What is the big deal? I sincerely hope Hilliary will run. She has proved her abilities and strength as a female and as a leader. She is experienced and is familiar with the terrain.
Is she perfect? No, of course not. Did she make some mistakes, yes, but so have other presidents and leaders, except they were familiar men of a special breed and their mistakes are not played out in the media. Fear of a worthy opponent will make men cower and when they cower they don't fight fair and will use devious tactics. Hilliary is a worthy opponent and apparently the cowards are out in full force.
Is she perfect? No, of course not. Did she make some mistakes, yes, but so have other presidents and leaders, except they were familiar men of a special breed and their mistakes are not played out in the media. Fear of a worthy opponent will make men cower and when they cower they don't fight fair and will use devious tactics. Hilliary is a worthy opponent and apparently the cowards are out in full force.
2
Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, even (perhaps especially) if you are Secretary of State. Especially after you have had 8 years of experience in the Executive as First Lady. I'm a democrat, and I think this is a big deal. History is what it is in great part because of written communications that have been saved.
This will be a huge problem for Clinton, and one more reason I don't think she should be our candidate for president. If Warren won't run, find another viable candidate. Clinton will run with a dark cloud over her head, and it won't bode well for the democratic party.
This will be a huge problem for Clinton, and one more reason I don't think she should be our candidate for president. If Warren won't run, find another viable candidate. Clinton will run with a dark cloud over her head, and it won't bode well for the democratic party.
9
Bring on Elizabeth Warren!
4
Its not about security, or not only. We want to know what she said to whom, and when. We have the right to know, she worked for us. The person who she worked for directly is Mr. Obama. He must have been aware of this. He must wear some of the consequences also.
4
It must be a law of politics that, if a person is in power long enough, she becomes the politician she hated most when she was young and idealistic. As though the hate stemmed from something she saw of herself in that other politician. More and more it appears that Mrs. Clinton is turning into Richard Nixon.
6
"The following message is personal and does not reflect any official position of the United States Department of State"
1
Really? It's gone to this level of stupid reporting already? How many of us get personal email at our business?
1
Not unexpected from the most transparent administration in years. Billari has never told the truth about anything, this helped her hide from future access her lies and deceits. A terrible slimeball Democrat politician
4
Good Lord, If that is the worst thing she ever did while in office, we were very lucky to have her indeed
3
This is just one more log on the fire for the 40% who hate her and will never vote for her.
4
Because of its national security implications, this is a troubling story. What were they thinking?
1
Prior to retiring in June 2014, I had worked for two pharmaceutical companies and a pharmacy benefit manager. Their rules were clear and communicated often: using personal email for company business is grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. Thus, I am totally flummoxed by this news that this situation could exist at the highest and most sensitive levels of our government for so many years. Regardless of whether a specific House Rule existed or not, it was just poor form.
1
Something here doesn't add up. Where were the State Department lawyers counseling Clinton as to her breach of official rules?
What about all of the people who received her tens of thousands of emails from her personal Yahoo account? Weren't foreign ambassadors, heads of state or Republicans in the House and Senate concerned over security when they were forced to use commercial accounts and not secure government ones when dealing with the Secretary via email?
And why hasn't the GOP, which has been all Benghazi all the time in its single minded pursuit of Clinton, revealed this information? Why did it take the nation's leading liberal newspaper to do so?
Something doesn't add up here.
What about all of the people who received her tens of thousands of emails from her personal Yahoo account? Weren't foreign ambassadors, heads of state or Republicans in the House and Senate concerned over security when they were forced to use commercial accounts and not secure government ones when dealing with the Secretary via email?
And why hasn't the GOP, which has been all Benghazi all the time in its single minded pursuit of Clinton, revealed this information? Why did it take the nation's leading liberal newspaper to do so?
Something doesn't add up here.
7
sooo.... no one on the receiving end of her missives ever noticed the .com instead of .gov? seriously? it looks like the IT department also needs an serious overhaul.
and the 55,000 PAGES of emails is meaningless when most of them would have been emails of multiple pages.
and the 55,000 PAGES of emails is meaningless when most of them would have been emails of multiple pages.
2
Did The GOP receive any of her emails? If they did, why didn't they do something about it back then.
3
Someone should be handling the transition for all required officials, for one. And I've heard time and time again that the only secure communications and devices are borderline unusable for most modern communication methods. Remember when Obama demanded that he get his own secure version of his crackBerry? Still no excuse.
I am only 31, but I cannot remember such a tepid scandal in the entire length of my political awareness. More than straw poll results or Sunday morning news appearances, it is stories like this that really signal the start of the race to the White House. Ladies and gentlemen, start your eye-rolling.
2
It is very surprising to hear that US secretary of state didn't have an govenment email-id. I couldn't believe that it is possible in a country like US.
2
I love all these people assuming that her e-mail was not secure. You have no idea what was done behind the scenes. Just because the address was not .gov doesn't mean it wasn't secured. Furthermore, at no point in this "story" which I suspect is exactly what his will turn out to be, was it referenced that she used google, yahoo or other such accounts. People can apparently jump to quick conclusions. I guess everyone forgot those secret RNC e-mail accounts Dubya and others used during their tenure in the White House, the same emails they refused to turn over.
2
If this was really a big problem it would have surfaced much earlier.
It didn't matter, then and it doesn't matter now. All those e-mails are accessible if needed to be. It's a reparable problem and should not considered ill-intentioned by default
(Also NYT Picks among the comment, e bit too biased, no?)
It didn't matter, then and it doesn't matter now. All those e-mails are accessible if needed to be. It's a reparable problem and should not considered ill-intentioned by default
(Also NYT Picks among the comment, e bit too biased, no?)
2
Why wasn't this problem addressed and corrected when she was with the State Department? Something smells fishy with all of this.
2
I might've known this was attached to Benghazi! Let it go, people, let it go!!
I assumed all govt officials were Given a govt email address, but apparently not in Ms. Clinton's case. Maybe this is why?
I assumed all govt officials were Given a govt email address, but apparently not in Ms. Clinton's case. Maybe this is why?
Seriously, did Mrs Clinton have political advisors? Did she have government bureaucrats? How could anyone let this happen? This is Government 101, Politics 101—whatever. Difficult to believe that this could happen in the second decade of the 2ist century
1
All we need to do to find out what's in those emails is ask the N.S.A., which has 'em all. It's a one-stop shop.
1
Please retire from politics Hillary. Or is it Hilary (as in Sir Edmund)? This is so embarrassing to the United States! The only reason anyone pulls a scheme like this is to maintain control over their files should an investigation arise. Period. She has already shown her hand and has started waiting out the clock, hoping legal manuevers will blur the facts and that the smoking gun won't be discovered before the election so she can harness the machinery of the presidency to destroy her enemies. Chilling. Simply chilling. I wish we had someone half as honest as Nixon running.
3
Power corrupts. More power corrupts more.
1
I would expect that there is much more to this story than meets the eye. It is impossible to think that nobody knew that Clinton was not using an official State Dept. e-mail account while she was at the Department. Was she not given an official account? There is a lot more that we need to know.
2
Something, something seemingly rather important, overlooked: Law that requires government officials use of official email was only signed last November http://www.govexec.com/technology/2014/12/obama-signs-modernized-federal...
1
This bespeaks a very arrogant and secretive person lacking in good judgment. This is not someone we want to elect to the highest office in the land.
3
High-level (and older) people like the Secretary of State usually have other people sending emails on their behalf. Some never personally send any emails at all or just use email for personal affairs rather than affairs of state.
I've just dictated this message for my assistant to email to the NY Times.
I've just dictated this message for my assistant to email to the NY Times.
John Kerry is actually the first SOS to use a state.gov account.
As such, the worst that can be called into question is Clinton's notion of transparency.
Meh. She's a politician. None are transparent.
As such, the worst that can be called into question is Clinton's notion of transparency.
Meh. She's a politician. None are transparent.
2
There are many reasons why she should not be president, and this just adds more fuel to the fire.
Shall we say Bengahzi?
How about the "restart button" with Russia?
And the lack of any progress in any field while she ran State!
How about pushing the big O to get involved in Libya?
And quitting her senate seat in NY state two years after getting re-elected, after stating that she will serve the full six.
Plus, she is yesterday's news with nothing new to report today.
And with all due respect to 42, eight years in the WH was enough for you.
No need to have you back there again, just in case you'll decide to actually sleep again under the same roof as your spouse.
Shall we say Bengahzi?
How about the "restart button" with Russia?
And the lack of any progress in any field while she ran State!
How about pushing the big O to get involved in Libya?
And quitting her senate seat in NY state two years after getting re-elected, after stating that she will serve the full six.
Plus, she is yesterday's news with nothing new to report today.
And with all due respect to 42, eight years in the WH was enough for you.
No need to have you back there again, just in case you'll decide to actually sleep again under the same roof as your spouse.
1
Pitch a fork in her. She's done.
1
Looks like now we'll have "Email-gate"! Just what we needed: a reminder of the baggage and psychodrama that the Clinton's always bring with them to allow Republicans to drag campaigns into the mud and deflect from the real issues confronting the country. Now stay tuned for the search for the "blue dress," "smoking gun" email on Benghazi with hourly updates on Fox "News."
Thanks to Daniel Manning and Wikileaks we've all had a chance to see government emails from the State Dept. Even the most secret and classified and they don't amount to very much. I think this is another Benghazi overblown red herring. Unless someone can show something embarrassing from Sec. Clinton's private emails that have been compromised she should only be admonished for breaking a rule at most IMO.
2
At a time when our enemies are hacking some of the most sophisticated sites, Clinton , who has a security clearance equal to the President, conducts government affairs on a personal account. Clinton is not new to government and knows all the rules. This disgraceful and arrogant disregard for the laws of the US and is continuing historical behavior by Hillary Clinton, who believes she is above our laws. Let those who continue to side by her remember this if she ever comes into office and continues this conduct on a bigger scale.
5
Trust me - the State Department knew the status of her email account throughout her career. We are living in a black box surveillance society.
3
Until 2014, the law did not require the State Dept to use official email
http://www.govexec.com/technology/2014/12/obama-signs-modernized-federal...
talk about a smear!
http://www.govexec.com/technology/2014/12/obama-signs-modernized-federal...
talk about a smear!
5
Dominoes will fall: Hillary will now be out of contention, Jeb may not be able to run without his shadow - the Clinton dynasty, Republicans and the country will be in the hands of the likes of George W and destructive fools like Brenner in Iraq. But more disasterous for the whole country is that Obama's entire administration - and his program for women, the poor, the elderly, Blacks, Hispanics, and so much/and so many more - will now destroyed. The Republicans will win the House, Senate, and the Presidency - and will have an even more Balkanized right-wing Supreme Court. We will all lose, suffer, and endure a generation of pain.
I speculate that all this was because the Clintons, in their greed and lust for power, extorted concessions from Obama as soon as he won the Democratic nomination, and Hillary and her consort lost. For the Clintons NOT to oppose or undermine him in the general election campaign, she would become his Secretary of State, and be allowed to act as an independent force. She would keep control of her fief, and the networks, information, and records [through her personal email account] to personally use and [ perhaps] profit from in the future. In his weakness and insecurity, Obama disasterously yielded to the Clinton demands, and in so doing sowed the seeds for his administration's demise and the destruction of his own legacy. The Republicans will now gleefully pounce on this; horror lies ahead for us all.
I speculate that all this was because the Clintons, in their greed and lust for power, extorted concessions from Obama as soon as he won the Democratic nomination, and Hillary and her consort lost. For the Clintons NOT to oppose or undermine him in the general election campaign, she would become his Secretary of State, and be allowed to act as an independent force. She would keep control of her fief, and the networks, information, and records [through her personal email account] to personally use and [ perhaps] profit from in the future. In his weakness and insecurity, Obama disasterously yielded to the Clinton demands, and in so doing sowed the seeds for his administration's demise and the destruction of his own legacy. The Republicans will now gleefully pounce on this; horror lies ahead for us all.
One of the key statements in the article is:
"“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013."
Ok, so he worked from 2000. When did officials start using emails? 1990? Maybe 1985? It's not like we're going back to records that date to George Washington. I don't think there's much of a modern precedent for this type of situation.
That said, the story does reak of Clinton doing things her own way because she feels above normal procedure. Not good for her future aspirations.
"“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013."
Ok, so he worked from 2000. When did officials start using emails? 1990? Maybe 1985? It's not like we're going back to records that date to George Washington. I don't think there's much of a modern precedent for this type of situation.
That said, the story does reak of Clinton doing things her own way because she feels above normal procedure. Not good for her future aspirations.
2
Here is an archived CNN article for those who think there is any difference between the Clintons and Bushes and their entourage. Clintonites were just as warmongering Hawks as the Bushes, which is the reason why we went with Obama.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070117152630/http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meas...
https://web.archive.org/web/20070117152630/http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meas...
2
I'm more concerned about the campaign contributions she took from foreign companies while Secretary of State http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/02/18/foreign-don...
and the fact that our intelligence community had to go around her to stop her from declaring war on Libya and using US military to remove Ghadaffi from power Hillary falsely claimed impending genocide,
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/listen-tapes-libya-clinton/#ixzz3TIb2I6QK
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
and the fact that our intelligence community had to go around her to stop her from declaring war on Libya and using US military to remove Ghadaffi from power Hillary falsely claimed impending genocide,
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/listen-tapes-libya-clinton/#ixzz3TIb2I6QK
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
6
To assume this was a minor slip-up by Mrs. Clinton would be a mistake. This was intentional and by design. I'm sure the rationale was political: it eliminates potentially embarrassing emails popping up later, during a soon-to-be-announced second presidential run.
Everything the Clintons do is calculated. This is no different.
Everything the Clintons do is calculated. This is no different.
8
Hey, don't let Scott Walker get ahold of this. He had a secret wifi 15 feet from his desk in a closet. Umm to do campaign work on the taxpayers dime. Yup, 6 felony counts for his top staff.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email account -- we need a new democratic candidate.
4
When i was a State Dept. reconstruction official in Iraq I often used both State and my personal email, and occasionally Skype. Most people do, sometimes as back up, some times it was more convenient. It wasn't something I thought much about, because I had more important things to worry about, as I imagine was the same for Secretary Clinton. The American people can be assured that every email was collected and available if really needed.
1
I don't understand how Mrs. Clinton was allowed to do this for so long.
2
The democrats better find someone else fast.
4
this isn't about some random witchhunt to the rabid Clinton fans. At least when Powell did this, our primary enemies were barely computer literate and the likelihood that Al Qaeda or the Taliban or the Baathists could hack his account were low. It was just as stupid, but the stakes were lower.
She entered in an era when Russia and China, two countries with very similar tech warfare abilities to our own, were front and center. She thought HRC@google was secure? Just reading this makes it sound so MUCH more understandable how we were outmaneuvered by Russia and China in so many dealings.
Using a 3rd party email account leaves multiple vectors of attack open to our potential enemies and rivals. To think the senior diplomat of the US didn't think to take every effort to secure her communication tells me she doesn't have a handle on modern technology or the risks involved with it. I may have cheered Obama in 2008, but I won't cheer a Clinton ticket considering both the sheer ignorance displayed here or the arrogance in the response.
She entered in an era when Russia and China, two countries with very similar tech warfare abilities to our own, were front and center. She thought HRC@google was secure? Just reading this makes it sound so MUCH more understandable how we were outmaneuvered by Russia and China in so many dealings.
Using a 3rd party email account leaves multiple vectors of attack open to our potential enemies and rivals. To think the senior diplomat of the US didn't think to take every effort to secure her communication tells me she doesn't have a handle on modern technology or the risks involved with it. I may have cheered Obama in 2008, but I won't cheer a Clinton ticket considering both the sheer ignorance displayed here or the arrogance in the response.
Like many Democrats, I want Hillary to run primarily for one reason: she will win. However, as with every possible benefit with Clintons (plural) it comes with a drawback or two. At some point we must ask, "when does the price become too high?".
Two things must happen in quick order:
1. All HRC email accounts must be turned over to the State Department or National Archives.
and
2. An explanation of why government accounts were not used. And that explanation really needs to be believable. Also, I'm not sure a mea culpa is sufficient. I don't think admitting that she did not follow protocol is good enough. This is reminiscent of Nixon's 22 missing minutes on the Watergate tapes (actually, the similarities between Nixon and both Clintons are eerie).
Two things must happen in quick order:
1. All HRC email accounts must be turned over to the State Department or National Archives.
and
2. An explanation of why government accounts were not used. And that explanation really needs to be believable. Also, I'm not sure a mea culpa is sufficient. I don't think admitting that she did not follow protocol is good enough. This is reminiscent of Nixon's 22 missing minutes on the Watergate tapes (actually, the similarities between Nixon and both Clintons are eerie).
1
Benghazi!
The comments are predictable but sad ... nearly everyone, left and right, is making far more of this than it is, as if they hadn't read the article beyond the headline. Someone even asked "Have any over cabinet figures in past administrations done the same thing?", as if the article does not explicitly say "Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. " and mentions Colin Powell as another who did so.
This isn't a "black swan" or Clinton being imperious or any of the rest of the nonsense people are putting forth. State department bureaucrats should have set up proper email and recording, rather than needing capture 55,000 pages after the fact. It's dumb, but it's not evil ... not that my pointing this out will change anyone's mind ... ideology trumps facts and logic.
The comments are predictable but sad ... nearly everyone, left and right, is making far more of this than it is, as if they hadn't read the article beyond the headline. Someone even asked "Have any over cabinet figures in past administrations done the same thing?", as if the article does not explicitly say "Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. " and mentions Colin Powell as another who did so.
This isn't a "black swan" or Clinton being imperious or any of the rest of the nonsense people are putting forth. State department bureaucrats should have set up proper email and recording, rather than needing capture 55,000 pages after the fact. It's dumb, but it's not evil ... not that my pointing this out will change anyone's mind ... ideology trumps facts and logic.
3
The reason why everybody on this comment thread is now suddenly a defender of the National Archives is pure disingenuity. Yes, the Clintons are obsessed with secrecy, tell me something I don't know, but this article makes this sound like anybody cares AND gives Jeb Bush credit for releasing emails. Please check into how W. sealed his TX governor records in his father's presidential vault, then double sealed everything in his presidential vault. And then go get bent.
5
Wow. A Presidential candidate who ultimately thinks the law does not apply to her/him. How shocking!!! (Not.)
3
If Hillary can't get email protocol right, which is pretty basic, she'll always have the cover-up issue hanging over her. I look at the crop of GOP presidential wannabees with disdain, and Hillary seems no better. I know, presidential politics is low-down and dirty, and none of the assumed and announced candidates aren't without a certain odor. Perhaps this reflects upon the expectations and actions of voters, too. As a union guy, I won't vote for any of the Republicans, especially since it seems to them I'm a terrorist, but Hillary and Joe for the Dems... no, just very disappointing, both of them. Warren hasn't made the big mistake (yet) and I do like her populism and the way she speaks for consumers, so she might get my vote if she runs. I hope she is for real, but she's really going to be under the microscope now.
Sounds like just another disappointing election coming up.
Sounds like just another disappointing election coming up.
2
Given that how hundreds of thousands of emails from State Deaprtment officials to others were leaked en masse by Wikileaks and then by Snowden, Ms. Clinton use of a personal email account that is encrypted may well be more secure.
6
Wow...The thing that gets me is politicians expect the public to buy the whole I turned over x pages/emails argument and it seems like some people are sympathetic. But this is just a smoke screen as long as they are hand picking which ones to release the only meaningfull statement is "I released all the information" and even then this should be treated with scepticism.
2
And, Mrs. Clinton's perfidy comes as a surprise to exactly whom?
5
"The most transparent administration in history." - B. Obama, 2/13/13
4
The officials that Clinton corresponded with are at fault as well. I'm sure many individuals, both on the Republican and Democratic side, were well aware of such occurrence. Yes, Hillary Clinton should have used a government email, but also we should not pretend like her activity cannot be retrieved in an era where everything is stored. Lastly, how long ago did this transpire? Let's move on to more important topics such as funding the Department of Homeland Security, and stop worrying about emails that can be recovered.
What was she trying to hide by this action is my question. Her tendency to secrecy makes her a very dangerous person to be running for President. We can only hope that this behavior and the Clinton Global Initiative money questions will dissuade her from running! and her actions surrounding the Bengdazi tragedy !!
3
I've have heard directly from staff of the National Archives that many government employees have trashed many thousands of emails and other records--all of which should have been retained. So why pick on Hilary--to get some attention?
5
She made a bone-headed decision at best; no one is picking on her. My read of the critics is more scratching their collective heads at how such an experienced and educated woman could have made such a simple and stupid decision. But I guess that is how it happens.
This is scandalous! Until it's not. What do we really know about this? Did she flout a current law? Or are .gov email rules more recently developed? This is not a big deal until we 1) get a more complete report, 2) what real-world effects actually come of it (not a bunch of ifs and maybes as speculated in the comments), AND 3) we are not satisfied with her version of events.
Pardon the terminology, since many people have already made up their mind on her (since Barbara Bush's 90s slip), but this is currently just another foray into a pre-election witch hunt.
Pardon the terminology, since many people have already made up their mind on her (since Barbara Bush's 90s slip), but this is currently just another foray into a pre-election witch hunt.
2
Probably wanted to use her Macbook.
Wonder why .. Enough of Hilary, think about Elizabeth Warren who is honest
1
Hillary Clinton believes she is above the law.
All of her government communications should have been preserved when she was in office. It is a failure of the Obama administration to ensure that she complied with the law.
It is inadequate that Hillary's "advisors" are deciding which e-mail should be preserved by the government. Because Hillary violated government protocols, the government should take over her personal e-mail account and the government should review the e-mails and preserve all that is necessary.
How can you trust anyone who thinks they are above the law?
All of her government communications should have been preserved when she was in office. It is a failure of the Obama administration to ensure that she complied with the law.
It is inadequate that Hillary's "advisors" are deciding which e-mail should be preserved by the government. Because Hillary violated government protocols, the government should take over her personal e-mail account and the government should review the e-mails and preserve all that is necessary.
How can you trust anyone who thinks they are above the law?
2
"It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State." - THEY decided which ones to turn over!?
3
Once again I must question Ms. Clinton's "common sense" and ethics.
Surely she knew the regulations.
Surely one of her many aides knew the regulations.
Equally surely she chose to ignore them.
Some folks are just above such bureaucratic requirements aren't they?
Ms. Clinton is one of those.
Please don't run for President. Enough already.
Surely she knew the regulations.
Surely one of her many aides knew the regulations.
Equally surely she chose to ignore them.
Some folks are just above such bureaucratic requirements aren't they?
Ms. Clinton is one of those.
Please don't run for President. Enough already.
I've seen colleagues fired for not using company e-mail and firms fined big bucks by the SEC and FINRA for not properly supervising its employees use of personal e-mail which begs the question: Who in this Administration failed to supervise Mr. Clinton and who either should be fired or suspended? Oh, I forgot, this Executive branch is impervious to federal rules and legislates it's own laws...Yes, there is truth to the old saying: "The fish stinks from the head down."
1
Here we go again. Another liberal democrat that doesn't go by procedure but will walk away from the whole thing and just possibly become the first woman president of the good ole USA. She was fired for lying at a job she had as an attorney. Let our men die in Benghazi and then said "what does it matter?". Yep, that's the person I want for the first female president. As good at lying as the first black president. Can't wait to read the excuses the commenters make on this article. I'm sure it was all some one else's fault.
Who the French cares. Like the NSA doesn't have a copy of any email they could possibly want anyway. NON STORY.
Federal Records Requirement do not apply to personal e-mails.
If, however, her e-mail account was used for Federal Business they would have to be retained. The same applies to her personal correspondence (snail mail).
Were I her attorney, I would simply argue that only personal business was conducted using e-mail. That no one would believe me I would argue is a problem of the beholder, not the writer.
If an e-mail pops up which in fact discusses government business, I would simply say, "Oops, my mistake, mea culpa." And go on with my business.
Why? Glad you asked, because the business of running the business of the nation and personal business probably gets a bit hazy; and more importantly, there is not a single politician in the House, Senate, or Supreme court that hasn't done the same thing.
If, however, her e-mail account was used for Federal Business they would have to be retained. The same applies to her personal correspondence (snail mail).
Were I her attorney, I would simply argue that only personal business was conducted using e-mail. That no one would believe me I would argue is a problem of the beholder, not the writer.
If an e-mail pops up which in fact discusses government business, I would simply say, "Oops, my mistake, mea culpa." And go on with my business.
Why? Glad you asked, because the business of running the business of the nation and personal business probably gets a bit hazy; and more importantly, there is not a single politician in the House, Senate, or Supreme court that hasn't done the same thing.
"The existence of Mrs. Clinton's personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack." I can only assume Mr. Schmidt typed this verbatim as received from the Republican National Committee. Or are we to believe that he is so credulous that he believes that no one the US Secretary of State communicated with by e-mail in four years ever noticed the sender's e-mail address - including members of the always useless House of Representatives.
When it was discovered that Sarah Palin used her personal email for some official business the NYT was apoplectic. So much so that the NYT asked readers to help them review Palin's emails. Now that we know Hillary Clinton used her personal email for ALL official business the NYT is barely concerned. The stench of corruption follows the Clintons wherever they go.
2
Independent voter here. She's wily. And we don't need her as our President.
3
The larger issue is the security of communications at the highest levels of our government. How could this have happened without the State Department being aware? How could this have happened without the CIA, the NSA and other intelligence agencies being aware?
And if they were aware why didn't they take action?
And if they were aware why didn't they take action?
2
Between various government officials using personal--and probably unsecured--email for sensitive communications and Snowden leaking the rest, we may have achieved transparency in government, if only by accident.
Elizabeth Warren for President.
Edward Snowden can share them all with us, and probably will do so eventually.
1
This issue will have a short life although maybe not the most peaceful of deaths. There will be calls for an investigation. Screams from the usual corners. Editorials demanding transparency. Then it will fade away. The people will care less about a private email account. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, is hoping the issue has legs. Then he will have Joe Biden to look forward to.
What's up with these people? They want us to trust them, yet, don't give us any reason to trust them.
This extends to both sides, potential candidates and the current administration.
This extends to both sides, potential candidates and the current administration.
“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath . . . "
Mormon lawyer at Republican law firm attacks Mrs. Clinton? As Mormon hackers are some of the most virulent and partisan (N.S.A. "collection" center, of course, just happens to be at Salt Lake City, Utah), it would be interesting to find out exactly who Mr. Baron is working for.
Mormon lawyer at Republican law firm attacks Mrs. Clinton? As Mormon hackers are some of the most virulent and partisan (N.S.A. "collection" center, of course, just happens to be at Salt Lake City, Utah), it would be interesting to find out exactly who Mr. Baron is working for.
1
It's not so bad when you consider she posted her other top secret correspondence on Facebook and Twitter.
1
Being as polite as I can be, NOW can the liberals see that they are being hoodwinked by the Clintons? Please? Hillary HAD to know she was outside the rules of transparency to cover up anything she wanted which is what I believe. Otherwise, you tell me, Is she just that technologically ignorant? THAT'S SCARY.
Hillary is O - V - E - R, OVER.