Hillary Clinton Uses Personal Email for State Business

[bamawriter]

Its 67 pages long. Can you tell me where it discusses the actual policy so i can take a look at that? Thanks.

Found the policy for you:

www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf

Page 5, section 12 FAM 544.3

Quote:

a. It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. The Department’s authorized telework solution(s) are designed in a manner that meet these requirements and are not considered end points outside of the Department’s management control.
b. The Department is expected to provide, and employees are expected to use, approved secure methods to transmit SBU information when available and practical.

You'll note that the policy was last updated in 2013, but the pertinent section hasn't been updated since 2005. Thus, it was in place for all of Hillary's term.

Hope that takes care of your question.

 

[utvolpj]

The same email address being used to conduct sensitive state dept business and fundraise for a likely presidential bid should raise a red flag for any rational person.

There was absolutely a reason that method was chosen

 

[Septic]

I'd probably just keep screaming "Benghazi!" and the fact she's a pantsuit wearing, fat cankled granny that will almost certainly dies of old age during her first moments in office.

This email "scandal" is boring.

I'll probably still vote for her for no other reason than to cancel out FL69's vote for Ted Cruz.

 

[Septic]

The same email address being used to conduct sensitive state dept business and fundraise for a likely presidential bid should raise a red flag for any rational person.

There was absolutely a reason that method was chosen

The red flag's should be up for anyone who wants to be a federal politician.

None of them have any character. None. We reward the candidate who is most effectively able to lie to us and/or smear his competitor. We deserve everything we get.

 

[AirVol]

Nixon was forced to resign under similar circumstances, but that was 40 years ago. Times have changed, fo sho.

 

[AirVol]

The red flag's should be up for anyone who wants to be a federal politician.

None of them have any character or morals. None. We reward the candidate who is most effectively able to lie to us and/or smear his competitor. We deserve everything we get.

fyp and yes I agree with you.

 

[lawgator1]

Nixon was forced to resign under similar circumstances, but that was 40 years ago. Times have changed, fo sho.

LOL.

Keep screeeching there, buddy.

 

[bamawriter]

LG,

Now that I've linked to the policy, do you have a take on why Hillary never once followed it?

 

[lawgator1]

LG,

Now that I've linked to the policy, do you have a take on why Hillary never once followed it?

Thanks, I had not realized you posted it.

As I read that, there are a lot of "shoulds" in there for sensitive but unclassified information. I assume that she had both classified and unclassified.

Now, obviously, classified is more of a concern. But yes, regardless, she should have been using something within the standard framework. I agree with you there.

But we need to separate out the issues here. One is whether she violated any laws or rules. Based on what you posted, I don't see that for this particular type of information, especially because reports are that she had some kind of approval from the relevant agency to use this approach. So dumb, perhaps, but not a violation.

Second, is the question of whether anything was actually compromised. I guess time will tell. If there were reason to think that, I assume we'd have heard about it by now. But I'm sure that will be looked into.

Third, is what this does to the ability to capture any emails. I don't know enough about it to know if that is a real, or conjured up problem. I wish people would keep their heads about them until we know more, but in this day and age that is not possible. The conservative blogs make money on hits. They recast old news as "breaking," and sometimes even make up stuff, in hopes of driving traffic and hits to their websites to make money.

So I get it. I think we all do.

She should not have done this, if for no other reason than it gives her opponents something to seize on and bash her for, whether it has merit or not. Time will tell if its a real problem.

 

[37L1]

She should turn over her server and let computer forensic experts go over it to make sure everything she did was on the up and up/nothing deleted.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

-Justice Louis Brandeis

 

[lawgator1]

She should turn over her server and let computer forensic experts go over it to make sure everything she did was on the up and up/nothing deleted.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

-Justice Louis Brandeis

Probably end up being something along those lines, but it will have to be carefully limited to her work emails. She still has privacy rights.

 

[37L1]

Probably end up being something along those lines, but it will have to be carefully limited to her work emails. She still has privacy rights.

She kind of forfeited them by her poor choices, either way, she should lose her ability to pick and choose what material to turn over. Let a judge or IG "in camera" make those decisions if it comes to that, not her.

 

[lawgator1]

She kind of forfeited them by her poor choices, either way, she should lose her ability to pick and choose what material to turn over. Let a judge or IG "in camera" make those decisions if it comes to that, not her.

Sheesz, you just cannot help but overreach, can you?

I would imagine a means could be created to search for work emails that are not otherwise available. But come on, you can't justify looking at anything else, and you know it.

 

[37L1]

"in camera" protects her privacy and is done all the time.

You don't trust a judge or IG/Special Counsel?

What's the problem? She got something to hide? Maybe that's why she set this whole mess up in the first place.

She has no one to blame but herself.

 

[lawgator1]

"in camera" protects her privacy and is done all the time.

You don't trust a judge or IG/Special Counsel?

What's the problem? She got something to hide? Maybe that's why she set this whole mess up in the first place.

She has no one to blame but herself.

Given the eagerness of the GOP to turn it into a fishing expedition, far beyond the purported purpose of gathering her work emails, yes, I would have a real problem with anything that goes one iota past work emails.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

Given the eagerness of the GOP to turn it into a fishing expedition, far beyond the purported purpose of gathering her work emails, yes, I would have a real problem with anything that goes one iota past work emails.

Would you have the same response if it were Ted Cruz instead of Killary?

 

[DC_Vol]

Given the eagerness of the GOP to turn it into a fishing expedition, far beyond the purported purpose of gathering her work emails, yes, I would have a real problem with anything that goes one iota past work emails.

How are you so sure of this?

 

[37L1]

I got to wonder what she was thinking when all the Lois Lerner/IRS missing emails/computer crashes hit the fan. How could she not know after all that that she was required to use government servers/maintain back-up and duplicate copies?

And what about all those people in the State Department/White House/Federal Government who received emails from her ".com" and not ".gov"? Where were the light bulbs going off then with those folks?

Not to mention the previously noted incidents where people were disciplined for not using government servers. . .

Things that make you go, Hmmmm?

 

[lawgator1]

How are you so sure of this?

Ummm ... see posts above?

 

[lawgator1]

I got to wonder what she was thinking when all the Lois Lerner/IRS missing emails/computer crashes hit the fan. How could she not know after all that that she was required to use government servers/maintain back-up and duplicate copies?

And what about all those people in the State Department/White House/Federal Government who received emails from her ".com" and not ".gov"? Where were the light bulbs going off then with those folks?

Not to mention the previously noted incidents where people were disciplined for not using government servers. . .

Things that make you go, Hmmmm?

I don't think she was "required." Even what you posted is not in those terms, except i think i saw something about no auto forwarding.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Not using a government computer says two things. 1) she was unwilling to consent to the terms of use of the government system 2.) she had something to hide or employed a lil subterfuge.

As the head of an agency it boggles my mind how she conducted ANY official business. I receive emails from the head of my agency and others weekly. None are from a non government account. This has been going on for 9 years. The fact that she did not use a government computer really goes to show that she was either incompetent and/or just a figure head with literally no responsibility..well she might have though she had no responsibility (see Benghazi).

I guess when she gets elected President we will get emails from HRCladyfoker69 for all of our official announcements..

 

[bamawriter]

I don't think she was "required." Even what you posted is not in those terms, except i think i saw something about no auto forwarding.

Emails fall under the Record Retention Rules. Every single thing that was State related should have been auto-archived.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Would you have the same response if it were Ted Cruz instead of Killary?

Are you kidding? LG has the hammer & nails plus the cross ready for Ted Cruz to slip up any day now.

 

[theFallGuy]

Emails fall under the Record Retention Rules. Every single thing that was State related should have been auto-archived.

You are wasting your breath. LG will never, in a million years, ever admit a member of the Democratic party has done anything wrong. Hillary could kill his beloved pet dog and he'd find a way to justify it.

 

[hog88]

Thanks, I had not realized you posted it.

As I read that, there are a lot of "shoulds" in there for sensitive but unclassified information. I assume that she had both classified and unclassified.

Now, obviously, classified is more of a concern. But yes, regardless, she should have been using something within the standard framework. I agree with you there.

But we need to separate out the issues here. One is whether she violated any laws or rules. Based on what you posted, I don't see that for this particular type of information, especially because reports are that she had some kind of approval from the relevant agency to use this approach. So dumb, perhaps, but not a violation.

Second, is the question of whether anything was actually compromised. I guess time will tell. If there were reason to think that, I assume we'd have heard about it by now. But I'm sure that will be looked into.

Third, is what this does to the ability to capture any emails. I don't know enough about it to know if that is a real, or conjured up problem. I wish people would keep their heads about them until we know more, but in this day and age that is not possible. The conservative blogs make money on hits. They recast old news as "breaking," and sometimes even make up stuff, in hopes of driving traffic and hits to their websites to make money.

So I get it. I think we all do.

She should not have done this, if for no other reason than it gives her opponents something to seize on and bash her for, whether it has merit or not. Time will tell if its a real problem.

No laws may have been broken but it's another demonstration of her poor decision making skills.