General Discussion

TheBlackAdder

(29,981 posts)

127. Before HRC was SoS... remember the Sarah Palin Email Fiasco?

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:07 PM

Mar 2015

Come on, while I'll vote for Hillary, I can't believe she was stupid enough to use a Yahoo email system, which is probably about as secure as using GMail-where all of their employees can read any account and even view their passwords.

I cannot fathom how government emails between state departments of various countries were entrusted to a third-party email provider.

===

Defend HRC or not, this was all brought to light when everyone (including myself) was busting Sarah Palin's balls for her secrecy and use of private emails to skirt reporting and compliance rules. Document destruction and obfuscation are the only reasons why someone would do this. John Kerry has no problems using a governmental system.

This cannot and is not any different than SP's use.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

127 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So, how many people actually researched the Clinton email story? [View all] brooklynite Mar 2015 OP

Do YOU "actually" research every single news story you read???? closeupready Mar 2015 #1

Reading isn't the question-- commenting is. TreasonousBastard Mar 2015 #2

Nonresponsive. closeupready Mar 2015 #3

Is there a problem trying to be fully informed? still_one Mar 2015 #33

not if you are for the focal point of the controversy. it will be enough to throw shade roguevalley Mar 2015 #125

ME. And I gotta say, I found nothing HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #4

So Aerows Mar 2015 #11

You're assumption jumps WELL BEYOND what I said. Catapult as you like but HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #18

Lord have mercy. Aerows Mar 2015 #25

Did you actually research the Cheney story? Capt. Obvious Mar 2015 #19

No. I also didn't Aerows Mar 2015 #30

It's not the use of private email (but is a security risk) - failure to turn over email records leveymg Mar 2015 #12

Ok, if you have a link to an internet site that states that I'd much appreciate it HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #23

Cornell law library on-line, here: leveymg Mar 2015 #31

As I read that it DOES NOT ban the use of private email HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #36

You've never worked Aerows Mar 2015 #54

I have. Maybe not YOUR government. But, I have HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #59

So you Aerows Mar 2015 #67

you are off on a wild-goose chase my friend, HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #69

So you Aerows Mar 2015 #71

I haven't worked under updated regulations now in effect, no HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #82

So you Aerows Mar 2015 #83

But I CAN read!!! I read the relevant chapters of the law re Federal Records Act HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #88

Oh Lord Aerows Mar 2015 #94

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #95

? Aerows Mar 2015 #101

I would agree if there were a turnover of all State Department emails karynnj Mar 2015 #98

You can keep posting it Aerows Mar 2015 #90

Add to that the odd HRC true believer with obnoxious "progressive poutrage" comments. leveymg Mar 2015 #110

Before HRC was SoS... remember the Sarah Palin Email Fiasco? TheBlackAdder Mar 2015 #127

Your research gets an F - '50 Act has included "machine readable" messages since the '70s leveymg Mar 2015 #5

No records were removed from the agency and there is no evidence that any were destroyed. pnwmom Mar 2015 #13

What is deleting an email? What is not turning in the record, as required? leveymg Mar 2015 #24

What evidence is there that she deleted any emails or failed to turn in any State Department emails? pnwmom Mar 2015 #27

As far as I can tell...300 emails were submitted to a Bengazi committe while 55k HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #32

She hasn't turned all the emails over. It's in today's NYT article: leveymg Mar 2015 #41

Why should she have turned over any PERSONAL emails? Read your quote again. pnwmom Mar 2015 #50

As far as I can tell from what -I- read...only documents meeting req as Fed. Records HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #63

Incorrect Aerows Mar 2015 #73

SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS A PRIVATE EMAIL IS ILLEGAL. YES PRIVATE EMAIL CAN BE A FED. RECORD HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #78

Rant at me Aerows Mar 2015 #81

you keep claiming law. show me the text of the fucking law. HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #84

When did you work Aerows Mar 2015 #87

See #5 and #31, above. leveymg Mar 2015 #89

Private email becomes a public document when used for official purposes. leveymg Mar 2015 #86

Yes, I never said email couldn't be a federal record, note on toilet paper could be HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #91

HRC's use differs from other officials, including Powell, who used both - DOS email for official leveymg Mar 2015 #99

Nailed it. Aerows Mar 2015 #121

That says "in the custody of the agency" prayin4rain Mar 2015 #17

It was all official business, so it is in the custody of the Department when created. leveymg Mar 2015 #26

Where does it say that? prayin4rain Mar 2015 #29

If the Judge orders you to produce all work-related email, and you produce none because it was all leveymg Mar 2015 #48

That is clearly a COMPLETELY separate issue. prayin4rain Mar 2015 #53

The '50 Records Act requires machine readable docs be turned over. If they aren't, that violates the leveymg Mar 2015 #74

If a statue, order, or subpoena called for my work prayin4rain Mar 2015 #85

Colin Powell exclusively used private emails. The NYTimes never suggested that was illegal. pnwmom Mar 2015 #35

LOL snooper2 Mar 2015 #42

What I read suggest policies and procedures must be in place in the agency HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #51

Agreed. And it could have been handled better, but prayin4rain Mar 2015 #68

At this point, neither do I. I am open to be shown that, but no one -has- shown me that. HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #75

The use of private email isn't illegal, its use for official purposes without retaining a record and leveymg Mar 2015 #104

The right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary SidDithers Mar 2015 #6

+1 trumad Mar 2015 #9

The least interested of all are in the dull middle. See above, Sid. leveymg Mar 2015 #15

True. n/t FSogol Mar 2015 #22

I would be amzed of all the presumabled Democrats on DU ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #40

Amen!! uponit7771 Mar 2015 #108

And neither, thankfully, are in the majority. NYC Liberal Mar 2015 #119

These stories are a dream come true for some folks BainsBane Mar 2015 #7

+1 JustAnotherGen Mar 2015 #37

Next? ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #44

Keep in mind JustAnotherGen Mar 2015 #61

But face it ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #64

But - you - you said JustAnotherGen Mar 2015 #72

+1 uponit7771 Mar 2015 #109

Most people don't seem to have read past the headline. DanTex Mar 2015 #8

Or, the 1st paragraph of the blog of their preference 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #47

I, personally find the email 'scandal' boring. bravenak Mar 2015 #10

It is easy to find it boring Aerows Mar 2015 #21

I archive my emails, and i am a nobody. bravenak Mar 2015 #28

As Secretary of State Aerows Mar 2015 #39

I understand completely. bravenak Mar 2015 #56

Did she not archive her emails? DanTex Mar 2015 #60

Are Aerows Mar 2015 #65

What does that mean? DanTex Mar 2015 #80

As much as I don't want to see her as the nominee, it's a nonstory. ScreamingMeemie Mar 2015 #14

We are still in the stage where people throw shit at the wall to see what sticks. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #16

Easier just to quote Breitbart (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #19

+1. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #55

+1 uponit7771 Mar 2015 #111

There's no law nichomachus Mar 2015 #34

I'm sure if Hillary left her files on the counter at Denny's Capt. Obvious Mar 2015 #38

Except she isn't some Aerows Mar 2015 #46

Show me the law that says she can't eat at Denny's Capt. Obvious Mar 2015 #57

Bingo! Aerows Mar 2015 #43

I've held several government jobs where use of private email was Lee-Lee Mar 2015 #45

If anything Aerows Mar 2015 #49

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #52

That isn't "anecdote" Aerows Mar 2015 #76

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #100

Oh Lord. Aerows Mar 2015 #102

She may not have violated the law- that doesn't mean Lee-Lee Mar 2015 #93

Then you might be interested in reading this. Pacifist Patriot Mar 2015 #58

Not understanding the law Aerows Mar 2015 #77

Did you intend to reply to someone else? Pacifist Patriot Mar 2015 #96

I replied in the context Aerows Mar 2015 #97

have some source data Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #62

DU is my research, quite frequently. Orsino Mar 2015 #66

What you're noticing is factually-challenged 'progressive' poutrage. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #70

Right wingers aren't into facts. Just not their thing. nt. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #79

I can't comment on it yet since I haven't heard enough. Xyzse Mar 2015 #92

I did-- it was a big meh ismnotwasm Mar 2015 #103

Daily Beast proves story is not true and Clinton was 100% legal. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #105

The law's been around since 1950. Daily Beast can't change that. See posts #5 and #31. leveymg Mar 2015 #113

Looks like Dailybeast did, at least. elleng Mar 2015 #106

My issue is the lack of security for those emails. KeepItReal Mar 2015 #107

Me! Me! And so did Media Matters McCamy Taylor Mar 2015 #112

The House Oversight Committee is on it. Autumn Mar 2015 #114

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #115

The sad thing is that they are on it. They don't have to find wrong doing. Autumn Mar 2015 #117

"we would be talking about us out-dumbing them" wyldwolf Mar 2015 #122

Of course they didn't! They thought they had Clinton and it all fell apart. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #116

It fell apart pretty fast, too. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #123

Last night I was dejected but glad that there wax push back today on it. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #124

I did. riqster Mar 2015 #118

Kick & recommended. William769 Mar 2015 #120

Reflexive criticism is just as easy as reflexive defense. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #126