Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Tweets: "I Want the Public to See My Email." She Doesn't.

|

credit: Nrbelex / Foter / CC BY-SA

At 11:35 p.m. eastern time last night, Hillary Clinton offered her first response to the email scandal that has made front-page news over the last several days, in which it was revealed that Hillary Clinton relied exclusively on a personal, privately controlled email account to conduct business while Secretary of State, contrary to federal records rules. 

"I want the public to see my email, " she wrote in the Tweet. "I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible."

Obviously the best way to ensure that a public official's emails are seen by the public is to hide them on a privately managed server. 

Anyway, it's nice, I suppose, that Clinton asked State to review and release her emails, but it's also totally beside the point. The problem is that the Department of State didn't have all of her emails to begin with.

Instead, according to The New York Times, trusted Clinton aides recently reviewed her emails and turned over some 55,000 pages of them to the Department of State. So, at very best, Clinton is asking State to turn over emails that her staffers have already weeded through and marked as potentially acceptable for public consumption. 

What we need to see are the other emails—the full batch of written electronic communications she sent and received in her professional capacity as Secretary of State, unedited by her politically minded staff.

It is incredibly hard to justify Clinton's decision to keep those emails out of public view and uncollected by federal recordkeeping. As a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration told The New York Times when the story first broke, "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." Yet that is exactly what Clinton did. (You may note there was no nuclear winter in the last six years.) 

That Clinton took unusual and perhaps out-of-bounds steps to hide her emails only makes it more important that they now be accessible to the public. In context, her tweet suggests that, contrary to her stated desire to see her emails made accessible to the public, she prefers to hide many of her electronic communicatations from public scruntiny. 

NEXT: Andrew Napolitano on Obama's Lone Wolf Presidency

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How many people, outside of her cult, believed a word of that claim?

    1. I doubt people in her cult actually believe it, they are just hell bent on supporting her no matter what she does.

      1. Depends what their definition of “email” is.

    2. I think that this scandal has legs because it is pretty simple to understand.

      I don’t know how many people have an email address for their job, but I bet it is a lot. And all of them know how much trouble they’d be in if they up and decided to use their gmail account instead.

      Who working in the corporate world doesn’t have both a work email address and a non-work address? You send all the fun stuff via the non-work address and use the work address for strictly business stuff.

      1. I don’t know about “simple to understand”. I’ve been battling with a some total jackanapes at a different site who seem to think this is no big deal/BOOOSH! When I brought up that any classified data spill from that account basically amounts to knowingly committing a felony, the SNOWDEN!!!!!!!! stuff started in earnest, along with the many, many, many talking points that were put out over the last day and a half (most of which have been defeated by further reporting, interestingly).

        1. But it not like she went and signed up with an e-mail provider she thought was secure and looked into encryption keys.

          No – she bought a fucking server and put it in her fucking house! Who does that who isn’t running a business? Somebody who wants complete control over their emails – despite what any laws require.

          1. I don’t think that it’s been proven that the physical server was located in the house. It’s possible, but the reports only seem to focus on a whois search that gave the domain registry information. It’s possible that the domain was purchased, but the actual server was maintained by a 3rd party. Certainly not one of the big web-mail providers.

            There are several domain services that will sell you e-mail domain names just like that for a small fee or even register it for free. It’s relatively easy to do.

            1. It was in her house – that is being reported by the AP and not disputed by Clinton.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

        2. The Snowden analogies you’re talking of do seem disgusting and stupid to me.

      2. See, this is what I mean. In your second paragraph you seem to say everyone can appreciate how much trouble they’d get into but in your third you say everyone does it anyway. I think this is going to have a hard time resonating with the public as something awful.

        1. Yes, using private e-mail for business is widely understood to be something that gets you in trouble, and any company worth a damn trains new hires on that on day one.

          Yes, everyone who CAN will likely use private e-mail for non-business stuff.

          There is no conflict here. You’re deliberately being obtuse. Please stop.

          1. You don’t think lots of people use their private accounts for business stuff, especially preliminary discussions before finalizations, and then formalize the agreements with their official accounts? I’m betting that’s common place.

            1. My personal experience says otherwise. The exceptions are small businesses and independent contractors who don’t have their own domains.

            2. I’m betting that’s common place.

              You lose.

            3. No, Bo.

              Stop being stupid.

            4. Bo, with all due respect, it’s pretty clear from your statements that you’ve never been out of college. No, you don’t use your private e-mail for business discussions, especially for anything that is transactional. The first thing any manager is going to wonder is what the hell you’re saying that you don’t want the company to know about it.

              1. I wish this blog were more like Reddit so I could up vote you.

                I’ve had a business email address for 20+ years at various companies. I’ve never heard of anyone using their private email address for company business, especially when the company provides you with one.

                Other than trying to keep emails from potential subpoenas, there is no other reason to set up a private email server, most especially when you work in a sensitive position, like Secretary of State, and have to full resources of the federal government to keep your government supplied email address and emails safe.

            5. As someone working for a defense contractor, I certainly would NEVER use a private email account for business. EVER.

              Gmail is actually blocked and monitored by our admins, as is every other webmail system.

              1. or well, not completely blocked, but you have to clock a link saying you agree to be monitored if you use it.

                1. I had a company email, and a company laptop set up on day one, 8:00 AM.

                  My home computer is only used for VPNing into work. All of my work in on my company laptop. I would get fired immediately if I tried to transfer files from the company laptop to my home computer.

                2. We had them all blocked hard. NO access at work.

                  Also defense.

            6. Bo, serious question, have you ever actually worked for a living at any company? It is not common place, the exact opposite is true. You are constantly trained and pushed to NEVER use personal email for business transactions in office administration jobs for security and consistency purposes. In more higher sec positions (like when I previously worked at an APC factory and in corrections) it’s a fire-able offense. Yet apparently the Secretary of State shouldn’t be held to the basic standard of a lowly private company employee.

              1. Yet apparently the Secretary of State shouldn’t be held to the basic standard of a lowly private company employee.

                Well we know the President of the United States isn’t held to the lowly private employee standard either, specifically if his name is Clinton. I mean hell, I don’t know of any private sector employee who wouldn’t immediately be fired for getting his knob slobbed under his office desk by a subordinate, and then lying to a Grand Jury in a matter related to his job.

                I’m just trying to figure out the angle on this Hillary deal though. Either, it’s coming up now so the MSM can throw it out there and when someone tries to bring it all up during actual primary season, they can all say “oh that’s old news, everyone’s moved on” (ala Bill)…or… if they’re trying to fry her because they really don’t want any more Clintons and they’re trying to set the stage for Fauxcahontas because she said she wouldn’t run if Hillary is running.

            7. It’s not, and you know damn well it’s not. Anyone doing that at my company would be fired for collusion and then investigated to see what charges would be appropriate.

          2. You’re deliberately being obtuse. Please stop.

            Don’t waste your time. That’s what he does.

        2. No, everyone does not do that. No one does it. If you work for an organization, you get an email account that is on their servers and you DO NOT use your personal email account for work related activities.

          But working for a government agency, especially the fucking state department, and trying to hide your emails on a private server and exposing them to potential hackers?

          Are you out of your fucking mind, Bo? You clearly are completely clueless about what you are talking about, that much is clear as day.

          1. He’s just being Bo.

            1. You yourself said it was commonly done! Are you just being me?

              1. People commonly use private e-mail for non-business purposes. They get their hand slapped at best by IT pretty routinely if they do otherwise and are caught.

                That is IF (and only if) a business allows access to external e-mail providers. For 12 years, I could not access my private e-mail during work hours from work except on my phone.

                1. You don’t think those rules demonstrate that it’s a fairly common, you might say ‘natural’ tendency to want to use a private email at and maybe for work?

                  1. Bo, THIS IS SOMETHING YOU SIMPLY DO NOT DO IF YOU ARE IN A JOB REQUIRING A CLEARANCE. You will get proper-fucked if caught – if you’re not a famous politician, that is.

                    Capisce?

                    1. Again, I’m not saying she didn’t violate a security clearance rule or even a rule about conducting business on a personal account. I just think as Bill says below “I’m sure plenty of people do.”

                    2. Bo, you don’t read well. Bill said “I’m sure plenty of people WANT to use…”

                    3. Actually, what he literally said was “if people want to use private e-mail for work. I’m sure plenty of people do.”

                      I think this shows they find the rules to be technical and restrictive, not moral.

                    4. Let’s ask Bill what he meant.

                    5. Bo, it’s completely unprofessional, and a breach of ethics. You’re exposing internal company business to potential security breaches which they have no control over. They control the company servers. If there is a break of security, they know about and can fix it. They can’t fix a breach of security if someone hacks your private email account. They could lose millions of dollars via disclosures of proprietary data, or god forbid, something classified.

                    6. Bo, you mendacious little fuck, I said “It doesn’t fucking matter if people want to use private e-mail”.

                      In that context, it’s patently obvious that “plenty of people do” refers to wanting to use private e-mail. Not to using it. Which I note that companies don’t allow.

                      If you’re going to try to quote me out of context, at least don’t be such a fucking imbecile that people can see the original a few posts down.

                      Really, if you’re this sloppy while being dishonest, maybe you should reconsider the idea of a career in law.

                  2. It doesn’t fucking matter if people want to use private e-mail for work. I’m sure plenty of people do. For reasons not much different from Ms. Clinton – they want to have correspondence not show up on the official records. Companies don’t allow it precisely because it doesn’t leave an audit trail.

              2. There may be people out there who are using their personal accounts to send NSFW images to their work buddies. But that would be IT.
                They are certainly not conducting ANY sort of work-related business via private email, and if they are, they are definitely violating company policy.

            2. Bo, many businesses that handle sensitive information don’t allow you to even open a non-business email account on company equipment.

              That’s how seriously this is taken.

              Don’t bloviate about things other people have far more experience with.

              Nobody, but nobody, in a hospital would be allowed to do what Hillary did. As soon as IT found about it, it would escalate to Compliance and then to Legal, and the message (likely from me personally) would be “You have a choice: never, ever use your home email for work. Or you can quit your job. Choose now. And we’ll be auditing all you work email traffic, and if I see one message that includes your home email anywhere in the string, you’re fired. Got it?”:

              1. That raises a good point RC. Surely SOMEBODY noticed that she wasn’t using a state.gov address during the course of all of her correspondence. And yet, nobody called her on it? How is everyone is feigning some type of surprise? Why didn’t somebody at the White House call her up and say, “yo HIll, what’s with this clintonmail address? You need to be conducting your business on your state.gov address.”

        3. I really hope you are trolling, Bo, because at least then I’ll know you’re sane. If you honestly think you’ve made a good rebuttal to Jimbo, please seek help.

          Clinton did not have a govt address and then her personal address for the “fun emails.” She ONLY had a private email.

          We – people who actually work in businesses and have experience with this stuff – know that the private email and “fun emails” are frowned upon. Even if the boss is cool with it and engages in it, it’s understood that it’s not really Right. A govt manager, and presidential hopeful, is supposed to be better than us. She’s not supposed to play these games.

          And again, no official govt email. So the comparison doesn’t even work, nor will it come to mind for most people. The comparison will be doing ALL of one’s business on your personal address, which most of us would rightly consider crazy.

          This is all simple and obvious.

        4. Bo….I sometimes check into the NYT on a story like this just to see how the Dem-bots are thinking. Typically, the NYT Picks are 100% pro Obama/Clinton etc., and 75% of the Reader Picks are too. On this story about 50% of the NYT picks were very anti-Clinton. The 50% that were not anti-Clinton were not defending her, but it was Mitt Romney’s worse. The Reader picks were 90% anti-Clinton. A lot of self described supporters, people who were pulling for her over Obama 8 years ago said they could not vote for her because of this.

          I think you’re wrong.

      3. “I think that this scandal has legs because it is pretty simple to understand.”

        I don’t think it has legs.

        I just think it reminds everybody that Hillary Clinton’s integrity died the death of a thousand cuts 20 years ago–and nothing has changed.

        She’s taking money from foreign governments–again.

        I’m looking at her donor list. There’s a lot to like if you’re a Republican challenger. She’s taking money from the Sultanate of Oman and “The Friends of Saudi Arabia”, whoever the hell that is, as well as the the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The State of Qatar, the State of Kuwait.

        If you’re a Democrat challenger, there’s a lot to like, too. She’s taken money from Wal*Mart, Bank of America, et. al.

        We’ve seen this all before. Some of her “donors” in Little Rock ended up in jail. She’s learned nothing. This is her and Al taking money from the CCP again–except she wasn’t the First Lady this time. She was the Secretary of State.

        Everybody over 40 has seen this movie before. Last thing you want to do before announcing your candidacy is make your donors look suspicious for donating. Where’s the FEC on this?

        The FEC commissioners better cancel their summer vacations. They’re gonna have a lot of work to do. This is gonna be hillarious.

    3. What difference, at this point, does it make?

      1. That one’s got legs.

        What we’ll see her resurrect is the old Clinton standby.

        Whenever Team Clinton was asked whether something they did was ethical, they would always respond with the answer that it was legal.

        “Ms. Clinton, do you think it’s ethical to raise money from foreign governments while you’re holding the office of Secretary of State?”

        Her answer will always be that it was legal.

        But that isn’t the question!

        The Clintons got away with this shit before because it wasn’t enough to impeach them with once they got into the White House, but this isn’t about impeaching a sitting President. It’s about whether you want to vote for a sleazy Secretary of State that accepts donations from foreign governments.

    4. outside of her cult

      Boy did I mis-read that…

  2. Fake. Scandal.
    And also, BOOOOSH!!11!!!

    1. Expect Shriek to come by and paste a wikipedia page any time now…

      1. Which will pretty much state the opposite of what he claims.

  3. We will never have any way of knowing if the full set has been disclosed. This was by design.

  4. What she did was wrong, and arrogant. And making excuses for her is beyond the pale. I know she would like it all to just go away…hopefully it doesn’t.

    1. What difference at this point does it make?

      1. Sadly, maybe not much. As most here know, I am on the left on many issues- it would be my preference that the left takes her to task for this, but that may not happen. It was good to see that the NYT did break the story, so maybe there is hope.

    2. Average American Voter: “I think it’s important to hold elected and appointed officials accoun – OOOH LOOK! A SHINY THING!”

      1. Yep.

      2. Leave Kim Kardashian’s ass out of this.

  5. Fun fact: the left seems to be fairly split on this whole thing three ways.
    1. Hillary’s done and they are very disappointed (most in this camp already resented Hillary in the first place),
    2. BOOOOOSH! (most in this camp aggressively fail to understand anything remotely useful about how information systems work and how protection of classified/sensitive information is treated in the government/contracting community),
    3. SNOWDEN IS GUILTY OF TREASON!!!!!!!!!! (people who can’t distinguish whistleblowers casting light on illegal/immoral government activities and bureaucrats actively trying to obfuscate and deceive).

    1. But in both instances there was electronic information involved, so it’s the same.

    2. Actually, from reading the comments on the NYT piece, it seems more like:

      4. Hillary’s done, and thank god, now Elizabeth Warren can run.

      1. Hadn’t seen that one yet.

        I hang out in a rather different place than the NYT (though most posters range from Dem to Jesse Myerson – with a few libertarians and a couple conservatives thrown in for color).

  6. I’m no fan of Clinton’s but I’m having a hard time seeing how this is such an awful offense. I would have thought that any government employee would keep a separate private email given they have to know their official one is potentially public knowledge.

    It’s also interesting that the massive coverage this is getting in the ‘MSM’ seems to complicate the standard conservative line about them being shills for her and the Democrat Party.

    1. Bo, she is welcome to have a private account for communicating whatever she wants on her private time about non-SoS stuff. Football pool picks, dress pics (white and gold), etc. No one at all would begrudge her that.

      Where she gets wrapped around the axle is when she uses a private account for stuff related to her job as SoS. I know she probably has trouble with the term, but she is a public servant and we are her boss. As an employee she is obliged to make her job related communications available to we the people.

      If you were a private employer would you allow the CFO to conduct business using their private account? Never. What would you do in a dispute with others? You would have no way of proving what your employee said or promised if they weren’t using official email addresses.

      1. I see your point, but I’m betting it’s commonplace nonetheless. I mean, if it weren’t done people would just do I recorded conversations by phone or such.

        1. So you’re saying you’re in category 2? (without the BOOOSH! part, but you seem to be TRYING not to understand the problem).

          1. No, I think the fact that everybody does it shows a recognition that the rule is over restrictive and that violations of it are not some tremendous evil.

            1. Bo, please stop aggressively being stupid.

              1. I made my point, if you see problems with it you might want to point them out.

                1. Bo, you have no idea how fucking important legally it is to large companies to control this shit. It IS a tremendous evil, ESPECIALLY if the person in question has a clearance of any kind.

                  1. I’ll have to take your word for it about the seriousness of the legal consequences. My only experience with it is indirect, I had a prof that preferred his personal email for our correspondence since he didn’t like the functionality or format of our college one and I had a woman I dated who worked for a state agency that would use her personal email, especially when using her phone when out of the office, to arrange meetings with co-workers. I just don’t see this resonating with them.

                    1. Yes, Bo, you will. It is Serious Business. And I do not mean that facetiously in any way.

                      Even though I’m out of the job I had that required a clearance, I’m still bound by the law to not use private e-mail to discuss specific former business topics.

                      Companies get debarred for shit their employees do. Employees get fired or worse. YOU DO NOT DO IT.

                    2. Also, companies can get pulled into legal action and have all THEIR assets subpoenaed if an employee does something legally questionable on a private account while discussing business – classified or not.

                    3. Bo, your retard, do you have the slightest understanding of what “proprietary data” means? How about “disclosure” and “non-disclosure”? Do you understand that you can blow a fucking patent by accidentally disclosing data on an invention before the application is filed? Do you understand what the consequences of unintentionally leaked proprietary data can be for a company?

                2. They’ve been pointed out, Bo. Shut the fuck up.

            2. I don’t think everyone does it.

              What most people I know do is have two email accounts. A work one and a private one. You use the work one only for work stuff and then you use your private account for the personal stuff.

              One of the ways I know I’m being accepted at work sites is when people start asking me for my personal email address because they want to send inappropriate humor to me.

              The rule is absolutely not over restrictive. It is common sense.

              Evil? Maybe it is more a combo platter of ignorant arrogance and laziness.

              1. It;s more than that. In general, you can only access your work account from work, and you can only access your home account from home.

                if you have webmail, the admins will strictly monitor people accessing webmail from work. If I need to look at gmail, I use my smart phone.

                So it’s not even like it’s EASY to use your private email account for business. It isn’t. It’s much easier to use your official work email.

                Nevermind that your archives are stored at work, which makes it a huge pain in the ass to dig up some email someone at work sent you last month if you can’t remember which account it got sent to.

                I wouldn’t even WANT to use my personal email for work. The spam filters are better on my work account, and all of my business is neatly filtered into appropriate folders.

                1. Although, for senior people, there’s a secure phone app that will allow you to check your work email from a smart phone. But for me the only way to access my work email from home is to VPN in and remote desktop to my work computer.

                  1. Hazel, it was similar where I worked in almost every detail.

                    However, most people at a certain level had laptops that were able to be taken home. Of course to do work, you logged on to the VPN.

                  2. for senior people, there’s a secure phone app that will allow you to check your work email from a smart phone.

                    Hazel, the product is called Good. And you can only access your work e-mail within the app. It’s completely segregated from your personal e-mail.

        2. No, everyone does not do what she did. If it where a Gmail or Yahoo account I might be slightly inclined to agree with you. But, she went through great trouble and expense to set this up. She had to purchase servers, network gear, and software. Not to mention hiring people to set it all up and run it over a period of 6 years. I would guess that it cost her somewhere in neighborhood of $50,000 a year. So, you should ask yourself why would someone go to those great lengths when you can sign up for a Gmail account in under 5 minutes. The only conclusion that makes any sense is that she did not want anyone to have any type of access to her email. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft all maintain very good logs, backups, and audit trails. And, they comply with subpenas in a very timely fashion. And, Clinton didn’t want any that.

          1. Good point. To add, Clinton’s private email domain was probably not one which the NSA was collecting meta-data from. So we probably couldn’t even get that.

    2. Bo, have you been following anything that is less than 48 hours old on this? She EXCLUSIVELY used this account for all business, official or not. It was set up SPECIFICALLY for this, and on the day of her confirmation hearings beginning. Oh, and it was a separately-purchased domain, so not one of the typical web-mail deals, meaning it was either managed out of the Chappaquiddick residence by some unknown IT admin, or managed for them by some heretofore unknown IaaS/SaaS provider.

      1. Exclusively? She didn’t have or use her official one at all?

        1. Reports that came out after the initial one (multiple, independent reports) said precisely that.

          Also, in case you missed it, last night either in a main story or in a comments section, it was reported that White House/DoS IT people were aware, reportedly tried to convince her people that it was a terrible, insecure idea, and were rebuffed.

          1. The arrogance aspects are unsurprising and should be troubling, I’d agree there.

            1. As someone who was subject to many of the same rules someone in that position would be, THAT’S only a small part of it.

              If she were an ordinary engineer, for example, she’d be in serious legal jeopardy merely for the fact of having set up the account the way she did, much less USE it for business.

        2. Exclusively? She didn’t have or use her official one at all?

          That is correct.

    3. What private email service did she use? What level of security did it have?

      Was Putin reading her communications with the white house about strategies dealing with Russia?

      Did Al Qaeda know her lunch plans a week ahead of time?

      1. I believe she had her own server. HER OWN server!

    4. Also, Bo, this is a huge deal because of the potential data spill aspect. This is precisely the sort of shit that gets people fired or worse from government contracting jobs all the fucking time.

      1. Guys, don’t feed his condition by acting as if there was anything to discuss with him. Instead, encourage him to get help. Engaging him as if he was not suffering from a treatable disorder does him no favors.

        Aspergers can be treated.

        1. Your repetitive obsessive behavior is the only mental condition on display here old man.

        2. Hey OMWC. I just saw you acting in a youtube video last night. You were perfect for the part. Why didn’t you tell us you are a star?

          Go to 1:35.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwluC6GoKLE

          1. Put a yarmulke on him and yeah, you’d be close.

        3. Ease up on the name calling to Bo. He is coming around to our point of view that this is A) Highly Unusual and B) a huge security risk.

    5. You’re having a hard time seeing why it’s an offense because you’re dense as lead, apparently.

      You’re out to prove that your’re really ignorant here. Let me explain it one more time to you and see if you are capable of learning simple things.

      When you work for an organization, your emails are not your private property. Those emails belong to the organization. Any 5 year old could understand this. Can you? If not, you’re fucking hopeless.

      1. You’re out to prove that your’re really ignorant here.

        No, it’s not voluntary on his part, it’s a condition.

      2. “When you work for an organization, your emails are not your private property. Those emails belong to the organization. ”

        I’m not missing that premise, in fact my argument is itself based on it.
        “I would have thought that any government employee would keep a separate private email given they have to know their official one is potentially public knowledge.”

        1. Hillary DELIBERATELY and actively refused to even obtain a DoS official e-mail (and according to one of the links posted here, refused even the non-public/secret account that bureaucrats COMMONLY use to keep from getting spammed by random people).

        2. I would have thought that any government employee would keep a separate private email given they have to know their official one is potentially public knowledge.

          Of course they do. And if they use it for official business, they’ve broken the law.

          Honestly, you are either a medium-high grade troll, or someone with a mental condition. Either way, a waste of time.

    6. I’m on the left on many issues, and I see a problem here.

      The simple fact that it was the only email account she used is really enough to show that is was an attempt to keep her correspondence hidden. And there clearly were rules in place to discourage that.

      I will say this though- hardly anyone can in business or politics could function effectively if every piece of communication were to be made public. People should be able to say things off the record. Its how you move discussions along without concern about “politically correct” things to say.

      That is not an excuse for her…the rules were clear. If it is our expectation that all business that is conducted on email in privy to public scrutiny, then if you need to say something off the record maybe you need to say it and not write it.

      1. Mind you, I’m not saying she didn’t break a rule, I’m sure she did. I’m sure that organizations, especially government ones, have such rules and I see the logic behind them. My entire point is that, for the reasons you give, lots of people are going to bend and break these rules. Those rules are like the speeding limits that everyone breaks. And for that reason I don’t see the charge resonating much.

        1. Good point, Bo. You know, there is somewhat of a libertarian principle here at work. What right does the government have to ALL correspondence?

          My take would be if you work for them, you play by their rules. But you do want those employees to conduct business and get to problem resolution without their hands tied as to what they can and cannot say for public scrutiny. I guess its much harder today to feel freedom. All of those politicians in the past…Johnson, Kennedy, Reagan…all of them…I bet they would be saying to themselves “I don’t know how you folks today can get anything done.”

          I can’t imagine Begin, Sadat and Carter working under those constraints.

          1. “What right does the government have to ALL correspondence?”

            If she was working at a private business none. But, her business was government. So, the people have every right to see what she has been doing on the peoples dime.

        2. There really aren’t that many people who have illegal business going on on the side that they need to keep off company servers.

          And those that do, it’s usually something even libertarians would be against, such as fraudulent accounting on company financials.

          The rule of law is also a major libertarian principle.
          While there may be lots of stupid laws, we still want to enforce the non-stupid ones.

    7. I would have thought that any government employee would keep a separate private email given they have to know their official one is potentially public knowledge.

      Which is precisely why they’re not allowed to do it! The very point is that their actions in their official capacity merit monitoring by the public.

    8. would have thought that any government employee would keep a separate private email given they have to know their official one is potentially public knowledge.

      Yes, I would expect Clinton to have a separate private email for her dirty laundry. I would NOT expect her to use that email exclusively for all her business , including official, classified work for the State Department.

    9. ” I’m having a hard time seeing how this is such an awful offense”

      This is because you’ve never worked in any professional capacity in your life

    10. It’s irrelevant as to whether you think it’s an awful offense, Bo. TWO DAYS AGO, David Petraeus entered a plea for sharing classified information to his mistress via his personal email account.

      This is actually against the law.

  7. I am not concerned with seeing her emails. What concerns me is the opening she created for security breach. It seems almost certain to me that someone hacked the account to monitor the goings on of the secretary of state. Her judgement is dangerously flawed, breathtakingly so.

    No matter what the emails reveal it won’t be as bad as the fact that she probably laid bare to our enemies what the state department was up to. It would be insane to let her into the oval office.

    *Looks at who is in the oval office now*

    Yeah, I know. I know.

    1. It would be insane to let her into the oval office.

      It’s Hillary’s turn! Because, vagina!!

    2. I’m totally with you on the hacking angle.

      I’m guessing that there is a good chance that large government email systems have been penetrated by foreign govts. That is with a lot of money and bright people being thrown at the problem.

      Now think of Craig Livingstone running Hillary’s email server. I’m with you the likelihood of a private group being able to keep her emails secret is nearly 0%.

      This is the angle the media should really hammer home. Maybe a gofundme campaign to raise a bounty for anyone who can produce her emails from that server?

    3. It would be insane to let her into the oval office.

      What will be the official talking points for why it is out of bounds to discuss the possibility that she could potentially be blackmailed as the POTUS by someone who had gained access to those emails and found something very damaging?

      1. That would be misogynist. Because Colin Powell also had a private email account.

        1. RACIST!!!!!!

          1. No way, Colin Powell is not authentically black, because he’s a Republican. So no invective against him can be racist. QED.

            1. Authentically black means, “Half white, raised by a wealthy white family, attending elite private schools which are predominantly white, and then taking on a series of white mentors.”

              People really think this.

    4. I thought the State Department was the enemy.

    5. It technically doesn’t even matter if anyone successfully hacked it (though I believe that’s the main reason we know about this – some Romanian guy, I heard?). What matters is that the personal account had classified data spilled on it. That means ANYTHING that touched it also is contaminated.

      That is a serious fucking deal.

    6. I am not concerned with seeing her emails.

      I am, because I want to know what she took such great lengths to hide.

      1. THIS.

        She set this all up THE VERY DAY she was confirmed as SOS. She knew exactly what she was doing.

  8. I’m almost disappointed that she probably just lost the nomination. I would be so much fun to see her stumbling through a general election. I bet there is far far more to come. She and Bill have been living separate lives for years – think he has tamed his appetite?

    1. Bill’s trips on the pedophile plane to pedophile island indicate his appetites remain insatiable.

      1. Yeah, but so far the media is treating these accusations against Bill with kid gloves…

        1. They can try, but there is a greater than zero chance that videos may surface. Lets see them try to bury that.

          1. kid gloves

            You take all the fun out of making juvenile Beavis and Butthead level snarky comments when I have to explain it.

            1. Oh FFS. How did I miss that?

              I was too busy ribbing OMWC and completely missed it.

    1. It’s funny because it’s true.

    2. Just seeing those faces makes my skin crawl.

      Someone needs to slap those two pussies around. Besides Obama I mean.

  9. She of course went into the patented Clinton “tu quoque” mode: “Colin Powell did the same thing!” Unfortunately, that was before the email rules were put into place, but that won’t spoil the narrative. Can we just yell, “Racist!” whenever her minions roll that one out?

    1. If Powell did the same thing then it kind of does undercut the idea that this is some inherently malum en se evil leaving only the violation of the later imposed rules, right?

      1. Powell did not deliberately set up his own private account, managed by – potentially – her own IT staff, and then proceed to do ALL DoS business on that account.

        At the time Powell was in there, DoS was getting used to the whole 21st century thing. I did lots of international travel during the time of Powell (latter part) and Clinton. The DoS always sent out briefings for the countries one was visiting if one registered beforehand. The e-mails did not really begin to be useful until 2007 or so.

        Powell (and Rice) likely conducted their classified business in the many traditional ways. The fact that Hillary allowed the release of 55,000 e-mails from this account suggests the amount of business done via e-mail went WAY up. The likelihood of some of that being classified business is pretty high.

      2. Powell did not exclusively use a private email account. IIRC he also did most of his business by telephone, as the whole email thing was a bit newfangled to him.

      3. Using a personal email account is not the same thing as setting up your own email service provider.

  10. The two Blueteam fellatio squad responses – so far:

    Colin Powell had private email address – no idea if he used for SoS business.

    Chaffetz’s has a gmail account on his business card – really, this is all they got. He’s a cunt and all but this what they’re going with?
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics…..d=29368587

    1. Interestingly, the Hillary Minions have also launched a Tu Quoque attack on Jeb Bush. While I am no fan of his, I note with amusement that he’s not a federal employee.

      1. “, I note with amusement that he’s not a federal employee.”

        See, if the point devolves down to this kind if technicality, good luck with it being a big deal to most people.

        1. Note that a governor does not have a security clearance.

          1. So security clearance is the critical point and not this refrain I keep hearing here that ‘no business would ever allow this/no businessperson would ever consider doing this.’

            1. Security clearance is what gets you in ultra-deep trouble with the Feds.

              Businesses ALSO – if they give any shit whatsoever about keeping their noses out of any lawsuits – do it for said reasons. You can get fired from many, many companies for behaving that way.

              1. So Bush and Powell should have been fired?

                1. Did Jeb work for the Feds?

                  I already explained the Powell situation and more importantly how THIS situation differs both in degree and kind from that one.

                  Hillary DELIBERATELY set out to deceive. Powell was working with a system in transition, during a time when everyday business was most likely still being conducted primarily by STU phone, secure discussions, labeled and cover-sheeted documents, and work on air-gapped/secure (non-Internet accessible) information systems.

                2. To be clear, I’m not missing your point that Bush and Powell operated under different security rules, I understand Clinton violated some security rule, I’m talking about the inherent wrongness of this type of thing. I’m just saying that the fact that Bush and Powell did it undercuts the charge that this is some inherent, obvious wrong that ‘no one would allow or do.’

                  1. Clinton quite possibly and knowingly committed one or more felonies.

                    Bush is completely fucking irrelevant to this discussion.

                    Powell used private e-mail that was almost certainly one or more of the known services, backups of which are easily obtainable.

                    Hillary did something completely different, and deliberately evasive. Deliberate evasion is essentially a big “I’m guilty of releasing state secrets” banner for any normal person holding even a low clearance that covers mundane stuff that shouldn’t even be classified.

            2. So security clearance is the critical point and not this refrain I keep hearing here that ‘no business would ever allow this/no businessperson would ever consider doing this.’

              Christ, but you are dense.

              What we are saying is that “Even businesses that don’t handle “Top Secret” government data don’t allow this.”

          2. Note that a governor does not have a security clearance.

            More importantly, a governor is not a federal employee bound by federal rules.

            1. Do you have short term memory loss?

              “, I note with amusement that he’s not a federal employee.”

              See, if the point devolves down to this kind if technicality, good luck with it being a big deal to most people.

              1. Do you not get she was Secretary of State? She was communicating secretly with foreign governments! This is way, way, way past someone working for GM in management using a gmail account. And, that would get you fired most likely.

                All her emails have to be pulled, from the NSA, from her server. Her aides must be subpoenaed (provided they don’t ‘commit suicide’ first). Clinton likely committed treason. If she didn’t, she covered her tracks as if she were doing that.

                Bo….this is a big deal to a lot of people.

    2. Of course, everyone has private email accounts. They just don’t use them for work related matters unless they’re fucking retarded.

      I’ve never worked for any company that this would not be a get your ass fired offense. And working for the State Department? Lol, anyone defending this is dumber than shit.

      1. Lol, anyone defending this is dumber than shit.

        Or a dishonest partisan hack.

      2. “I’ve never worked for any company that this would not be a get your ass fired offense.”

        I guess you didn’t work for the government when Powell did or for Jeb Bush then, because it seems like they did some of this (albeit it seems they may have done it on a much smaller scale and/or under a different time and legal environment).

        1. Bo, Bo, Bo.

          This all about the double standard, so you pointing out that there is a double standard isn’t doing you much good.

      3. “anyone defending this is dumber than shit.”

        Who is the person defending this?

        I assume they noted that David Petraeus nearly got slapped with jail time for basically doing the same thing = using unsecure, non-government email for transmitting classified material

        But when its a politician, you see….

  11. As the political class continues to transform itself from representative to ruler, secrecy becomes increasingly important in order to disguise the connection between its motives and its actions.

  12. I’m going to predict the next act in this charade.

    Hillary: Here’s my emails, well, there’s only these 3 left, the hard drive crashed.

  13. Who was Clinton really hiding from, the public, or perhaps the NSA?

  14. Fake scandal. Look over here…Scott Walker said something mean to a girl in his 2nd grade class and eight year old Rand Paul once burned ants with a magnifying glass while his dad laughed and joked about fleet-footed black track stars.

  15. Look, it’s really simple: official business is done on official email accounts for security reasons. If I conducted company business on my personal account and confidential information got leaked – I would be packing my things and walking out the door right now.

  16. I work in financial services, where any email to a customer must go through the work email system for supervision and backup. An isolated lapse might get a slap on the wrist, but doing it deliberately is a no-question firing offense. Fail to fire for that, the supervisor is risking his/her license in the next regulatory audit. That’s for a private company with no national security implications.

    1. I was going to bring this up

      FINRA requires like 3-4 layers of regulatory controls over communication, either to customers or in ‘regular course of business’.

      1 is that they always need to be recoverable and ‘available’ in case of any subsequent questions; 2 is that they always include disclosures and not include any materials that could be considered ‘marketing’ (*that hasn’t been pre-approved by your Supervising Analyst/Agent/regulatory officer), and 3 is that they need to have approved encryption if they include client-sensitive/account info…etc.

      then there’s the company-specific communications protocols.

      IOW… exactly what you’re saying = anyone in the professional world already adheres to standards far less rigid than that of senior Federal Government officials – and would be canned outright for anything less than strict adherence to standard.

      However, politicians follow the “why does a dog lick its balls” line of reasoning = they do what they do *because they can*.

      Under the Obama admin, Hillary seems to have believed that flouting law was AOK because …. well, maybe she’s just untouchable.

      again – i find it hard for anyone to play this “but everybody does it!” card when only a month or so ago the Federal Government was threatening David Petraeus with jail time over the same exact shit.

  17. She was the Sec of State and she hid emails from her own government. This is the first time I’ve thought ‘hey, maybe there is a use for the NSA after all’.

    They have copies. Thanks to Ed we all know that. They have to be pulled. Every one of them. Personal, or otherwise. Even the ones about carpet munching with Huma, and her being upset Bill was doing 14 year olds. All of them.

    1. Seize and subpoena the damn server out of her house.

      Subpoena all copies of her email that the NSA has as well.

      Publish everything that you don’t need a security clearance to see.

      Prosecute her for everything that you do need a security clearance to see.

      1. Absolutely.

      2. If her IT cronies are the least bit competent/loyal, they either did a ‘shred’ on the things that needed that treatment, or they off-sited things even deeper in some backup system only they know about.

        Or they already took a sledgehammer to the disk array.

        1. If the disc is unavailable and smashed or burnt, then there is no explanation other than treason. Love notes between her and Huma might even help her politically. She could survive that. It would only be criminal or treasonous acts that would cause her to destroy evidence at this point.

          1. Well, if she deleted everything Bengazi related years ago, I suspect that would be unrecoverable.

            I have no doubt that combing her email and deleting anything “sensitive” is a regular activity. She probably has aides that do it for her.

      3. If you or I had done this in a position that was 1/100th as sensitive we would have had a SWAT team surrounding our house years ago.

    2. … and her being upset Bill was doing 14 year olds.

      Oh, you know how Cigar Bill is: he smoked, but he didn’t inhale. 🙂

    3. They have copies. Thanks to Ed we all know that.

      Well if she was using a personal email server, it’s not really clear that they would have copies, although supposedly they were backed up on Google servers, so maybe.

      1. That was only for a short period of time, I think, and it was after she was out as SoS.

  18. Just as Joseph said I’m alarmed that a stay at home mom can earn $5046 in 4 weeks on the computer .
    check out the post right here …… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  19. “”I want the public to see my email, ” she wrote in the Tweet. “I asked State to release them.”

    THESE ARENT THE DROIDS YOU’RE LOOKING FOR

    Is she really doing the “answer a question that wasn’t asked” thing now?

    i.e.
    “We want to see the emails you purposely kept on your private server at home”
    OF COURSE YOU CAN SEE MY WORK EMAIL THAT STATE DEPT ALREADY HAS
    “no, we’re asking for the stuff you hid which state does not have”
    YES THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID
    “no, we want access to your separate email server”
    ITS BECAUSE I’M A WOMAN ISNT IT

  20. Hillary is just another political criminal.

  21. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… ……

    http://www.wixjob.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.