Video & Multimedia

Java

(82 posts)

107. Government policy on Email

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:55 PM

Mar 2015

Email correspondence is to be done through government email accounts which offer both user authentication (to prevent spoofing), encryption (security), as well as archival tapes. Email used to communicate official business is considered to be Government records which are Government property and are subject to security screening procedures as well as being considered for Freedom of Information Act Requests.

By using her private email, Hillary's emails lacked authentication as well a encryption and were sent over relatively insecure networks.

I believe a court ordered search warrant authorizing record seizures of the email server which contains Hillary's account to be the proper legal procedure, as well as a forensic examination of hard drives to determine what emails (government records) have been destroyed. And whether or not proper procedures were followed with respect to destroying government documents.

This is not a partisan issue. This is a legal issue, and if Hillary gets a pass on this, then it will set a precedent for the next time the Republicans get control of the White House. Now...we certainly do not want to see that happen in the future, do we?

Laws and policies are to be obeyed by both sides, otherwise we end up with a very bad situation where politicization is transmitted throughout Government agencies, not to mention security breaches.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

122 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pic Of The Moment: Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email When Serving As Secretary Of State [View all] EarlG Mar 2015 OP

Uh oh.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Mar 2015 #1

like the Select Comm on Benghi--which cnn said would bring it up. riversedge Mar 2015 #30

My understanding is the rule came in after she left. My problem is that it Autumn Mar 2015 #2

Actually the rule was in effect while she was there, according to the NYT 7962 Mar 2015 #8

Quote the passage from the NY Times wyldwolf Mar 2015 #11

I think the poster is referring to this: arcane1 Mar 2015 #19

This has been clarified to mean this: wyldwolf Mar 2015 #22

Thanks! Seems that there is a lot of ambiguity still. arcane1 Mar 2015 #28

Irrelevant. The Act covers public business, regardless of the form in which it is merrily Mar 2015 #57

the dailybeast just knocked the wind out of your sails. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #60

Not really. The statute is the issue. And Hillary knows how to read a statute. merrily Mar 2015 #63

Apparently you're the only one interpreting it that way. Good luck! wyldwolf Mar 2015 #65

Not really. A lot of writers and commentators are, including Lawrence O'Donnell, who worked in merrily Mar 2015 #70

Not exactly ballabosh Mar 2015 #109

Regulations were in place, just not the particular one people are going on about. merrily Mar 2015 #111

What's hilarious (or should I say HILLARIOUS) is that some people are desperately trying MADem Mar 2015 #116

If true her aides not taking action to have her emails preserved should be looked at Autumn Mar 2015 #13

I know that this must stick in your craw.. William769 Mar 2015 #49

If a personal attack is all you have william. It shows a lot about you. Autumn Mar 2015 #50

Let's just say you get what you give. William769 Mar 2015 #55

Yes one does. Autumn Mar 2015 #56

It sucked up the WH press conf today for the most part. LOTS of questions riversedge Mar 2015 #32

You noticed that as soon as Obama responded the media dropped the Huge Speech coverage? Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #37

actually have been away from tube for a while -had to shovel some snow. thanks riversedge Mar 2015 #53

Trying like hell to distract from Bonehead's buddy Bibi--imagine if all the energy had gone into MADem Mar 2015 #118

The oxygen gets sucked out of the room and no air time left to take a look at the GOP Congress.. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #33

So just like Jebs this will all be over tomorrow? Autumn Mar 2015 #36

No air time left to discuss Obama squishing Bibi like a bug.....with impeccable Spock -like logic. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #38

It will be something new next week for HC - "I don't like her because" crowd Iliyah Mar 2015 #43

WHAT??@?@? You're siding with the Clintonistas and DLC third way corporo-fascists?!?! wyldwolf Mar 2015 #3

Nope. Sorry. I will not 'deal with it'. Hillary disrespects federal laws, and closeupready Mar 2015 #4

What federal law? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #6

Oh, I see. Now we're going to play semantic games. closeupready Mar 2015 #10

Laws are laws. This isn't semantics. The only game here is the one you're playing wyldwolf Mar 2015 #12

In this case, it's been illegal to eat those chips since at least 1950. merrily Mar 2015 #59

but that isn't the case. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #62

Yes, it is the case. Please see Reply 63. merrily Mar 2015 #66

No it isn't. Please see reply 65 wyldwolf Mar 2015 #67

Your position is that a statute enacted in 1950 had no effect until after Hillary left office? LOL! merrily Mar 2015 #72

Your position is some statute enacted in 1950 has something to do with Hillary? LOL wyldwolf Mar 2015 #73

Yes. It has something to do with everyone in federal government, including Dimson and Hillary. merrily Mar 2015 #74

Link with relevance? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #75

I gave it to you on another thread. Once should be enough. merrily Mar 2015 #77

No link with relevance. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #78

according to you. I linked you to a post of mine that contained a link merrily Mar 2015 #80

Still no link. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #81

Whatever. I am not playing your endless repitition game again. Google is your friend. merrily Mar 2015 #82

No link. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #83

Which law? hrmjustin Mar 2015 #27

The Federal Records Act. merrily Mar 2015 #61

I saw that the regulations governing this didn't go into effect until 18 months after she left the hrmjustin Mar 2015 #64

merrily thinks they went into effect in 1950. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #68

The nyt piece should have made it clear. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #71

I think the NYT... smiley Mar 2015 #101

Agreed! They want to create an issue. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #102

The NYT was trying to take a little of the shade away from BIBI IN CONGRESS, I think. nt MADem Mar 2015 #117

Agreed! hrmjustin Mar 2015 #122

Regulations are promulgated pursuant to statutes. For instance, the Internal Revenue Code is the merrily Mar 2015 #79

Well i am not getting worked up about it. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #86

I didn't think you would. But, if its not important to you, why even bother to ask questions? merrily Mar 2015 #87

I didn't say it was unimportant and I did not ask you anything. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #88

You posted a question on a thread. You didn't ask another poster in a pm. merrily Mar 2015 #91

I am very predictable. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #93

She didn't, and peopole here do not "dismiss it". The story was incomplete.... George II Mar 2015 #23

yes, here is when the LAW came into effect.... riversedge Mar 2015 #40

Thanks. JDPriestly Mar 2015 #98

poster here.. riversedge Mar 2015 #35

So ''technically'' she's NOT GUILTY!!! DeSwiss Mar 2015 #89

That link only flashes on for a second, then its blank. 7962 Mar 2015 #96

"Print" version should be visible Babel_17 Mar 2015 #99

Thanks! 7962 Mar 2015 #108

I'd be outraged if a Republican was using g-mail for official government business davepc Mar 2015 #5

Why would you be outraged if a Republican was doing it? BainsBane Mar 2015 #9

Why would you be outraged if a republican... Act_of_Reparation Mar 2015 #14

Several assumptions there BainsBane Mar 2015 #15

Burden will ALWAYS be on authorities to disprove that communications were NOT high level. closeupready Mar 2015 #17

Did you read this? BainsBane Mar 2015 #18

Yes, I did. What someone on DU claims about themselves and HRC is really not news. closeupready Mar 2015 #20

Obviously you're thrilled about the news because you despise Clinton BainsBane Mar 2015 #44

She was using g mail? nt. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #26

Seems to me thatv there's a lot of 2naSalit Mar 2015 #76

this is dismissive and out-of-touch of you, DU Adenoid_Hynkel Mar 2015 #7

So who is that candidate? QuestionAlways Mar 2015 #34

Shhh..... DeSwiss Mar 2015 #95

+1 I do not believe her arrogance is a virtue whereisjustice Mar 2015 #115

She's the one going to have to deal with it. Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #16

The nut jobs at FR and other trolls are going to have to deal with it. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #25

Sorry but Clinton deliberately bypassed the State Dept. email system. She deserves to be called out Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #97

What's the stink about it? I am sure the NSA was monitoring it all along liberal N proud Mar 2015 #21

Very true. I think that she may have had good reasons for doing this. JDPriestly Mar 2015 #42

Republicans can't deal with it. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #24

This is disturbing. I don't care what level of bureaucrat WestSeattle2 Mar 2015 #29

Let's double down on entitlement! BeyondGeography Mar 2015 #31

umm.. did her team riversedge Mar 2015 #39

Although I do not want her to run for president, I have to defend her on this one. JDPriestly Mar 2015 #41

I don't believe the response to that issue, if in fact it is an issue, is to WestSeattle2 Mar 2015 #46

So did Colin Powell. Another fake scandal for fake outrage. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2015 #45

I think outrage would be fake; but concern is not. Anyone who WestSeattle2 Mar 2015 #51

Hell yes! Thanks EARLG! William769 Mar 2015 #47

Of course this is much ado about nothing. While I do not favor Clinton for totodeinhere Mar 2015 #48

Daily Beast proves she did not break the law or regulations. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #52

Hmmm, verryyyy interesting........... Beacool Mar 2015 #54

Alot of things can be said about Hillary Clinton but ALBliberal Mar 2015 #58

WhoopTFuckindo tomsaiditagain Mar 2015 #69

K & R SunSeeker Mar 2015 #84

Bottom line: using personal email, intentionally or unintentionally, Maedhros Mar 2015 #85

How does it bypass a litigation hold? SunSeeker Mar 2015 #106

. stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #90

how important this is depends on WHAT'S IN THOSE EMAILS yurbud Mar 2015 #92

Wait. Am I to understand that she didn't conduct *any* public business on a government email? w4rma Mar 2015 #94

It's OVAH!!!!!! DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #100

Somebody fetch my clutching pearls and fainting couch! [nt] Jester Messiah Mar 2015 #103

Hillary Clinton stiill has my vote! c588415 Mar 2015 #104

Hillary Clinton still has my vote! c588415 Mar 2015 #105

Government policy on Email Java Mar 2015 #107

Hillary was texting her pal Rev. Doug Coe of "THE FAMILY." blkmusclmachine Mar 2015 #110

I hope she wasn't trading secrets on gmail like famous Gen. Petraeus whereisjustice Mar 2015 #112

Petraeus should be charged with treason polynomial Mar 2015 #120

the repugs would love to get their eyes on her personal emails wordpix Mar 2015 #113

Oh, Republicans do it too? I guess the two parties are closer than it seems. My bad. whereisjustice Mar 2015 #114

2009 dolphinsandtuna Mar 2015 #119

No it doesn't wyldwolf Mar 2015 #121