Hillary Clinton exclusively used personal emails at st dpt

[Bowfinger]

I doubt there's a law per se, but an extremely strict policy to safeguard national security. State Department employees should automatically suffer consequences for not signing this document, the first being a full investigation of potential security violations. Is this not reasonable?

So are you retracting your assertion that, "it's a legally REQUIRED separation statement" in favor of a DSF-wishes-this-were-true? See my many previous comments about replacing facts with speculation and innuendo.

To be clear, I do agree it seems reasonable to require it. It just isn't a law.


Here are a couple of links that might shed a bit more light than you'll ever get from the professional liars of the wing-nut media:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-state-department-exit-form-116152.html
[ ... ]
“We have reviewed Secretary Clinton’s official personnel file and administrative files and do not have any record of her signing the” form, State spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters at a regular briefing.

Psaki said there also is no record of the form being completed by Clinton’s two most recent predecessors, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell.

While Clinton critics have described the form as a routine part of the State Department’s processing of departing employees, Psaki said that the document — found in State’s policy manual — may not have been filled out so widely.

“It’s not clear that this form is used as a part of a standard part of checkout across the federal government or even at the State Department,” she said. “We’re looking into how standard this is across the federal government and certainly at the State Department. … I don’t want to characterize how common practice it is.” ...

Two key points bolded above. First, it appears neither Powell or Rice completed that form either. While three wrongs don't make a right, it undermines the argument that Clinton was somehow unusual in not completing the form.

Second, the State Department spokesperson further corroborates the point that completing the form is NOT universally required and rigidly enforced.


Also, here's a link to the State manual establishing this policy (not a law): http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88406.pdf

See page 5. Note that although the wording implies an OF-109 should be completed, it does not actually state it must be completed. It also defines no penalties or other consequences for failing to follow the policy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I retract the work "legally"...although DSF-wishes-this-were-true.

That said, I also wish that our current administration would ask Hillary to fill out the form...and I wish Democrats would put pressure on her to do so.

 

[First]

I retract the work "legally"...although DSF-wishes-this-were-true.

That said, I also wish that our current administration would ask Hillary to fill out the form...and I wish Democrats would put pressure on her to do so.

 

[Knowing]

I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand. Executives have people to handle such mundane work.

So a government employee went to Hillary's home to setup the computer? I recognize that state department has IT staff, that's why I referenced the people who create their accounts. I was just unaware that they did house calls and blessed home servers.

Can you cite this?

 

[Bowfinger]

So a government employee went to Hillary's home to setup the computer? I recognize that state department has IT staff, that's why I referenced the people who create their accounts. I was just unaware that they did house calls and blessed home servers.

Can you cite this?

Let me borrow this, since it's even more appropriate here:

Care to cite where I said the Clintons' server was set up by a State employee? I didn't think so.

Hint: the Clintons have their own staff, plus an army of associates, supporters, and other assorted FoBs with virtually unlimited resources. Plus, since you seem to have missed this again, the server was originally set up for Bill, before Hillary got her State job. You're a smart guy. Surely you can figure it out from here.

 

[Knowing]

Care to cite where I said the Clintons' server was set up by a State employee? I didn't think so.

Hint: the Clintons have their own staff, plus an army of associates, supporters, and other assorted FoBs with virtually unlimited resources. Plus, since you seem to have missed this again, the server was originally set up for Bill, before Hillary got her State job. You're a smart guy. Surely you can figure it out from here.

Then please clearly state for the record what you meant by your implication that they have people for that. Also, if you could tell me how that makes her less responsible for her actions. In the military (gubmint lol, rules lol) we have a saying, "You can delegate authority, but not responsibility." If it's all the same, she could have had her people (in the state department) make her a proper account. She clearly chose a different option for some reason, I wonder what it could possibly be if it wasn't handily avoiding record keeping requirements.

 

[Bowfinger]

Then please clearly state for the record what you meant by your implication that they have people for that.

"Hint: the Clintons have their own staff, plus an army of associates, supporters, and other assorted FoBs with virtually unlimited resources." The answer is right there, you just have to read it.

Also, if you could tell me how that makes her less responsible for her actions. In the military (gubmint lol, rules lol) we have a saying, "You can delegate authority, but not responsibility."

That's another straw man. Once again, would you care to cite where I said Clinton was not responsible, or was even "less" responsible? Kindly address things I've actually said instead of things you've imagined I said or wish I said.

If it's all the same, she could have had her people (in the state department) make her a proper account.

Another straw man. I never said it was all the same. Clearly the two approaches are very different. I just said it was convenient for her because she didn't have to do it herself. This was in response to you and others who suggested it was a huge inconvenience for Clinton, as if she was personally installing hardware and configuring an email system.

She clearly chose a different option for some reason, I wonder what it could possibly be if it wasn't handily avoiding record keeping requirements.

I'm not about to repeat the whole thread just because you're unwilling to inform yourself. Have you read the thread? Have you read any of the news articles covering Clinton's press conference or statements about it? What did she say her reason was? Do you know?

 

[Knowing]

She said it was more convenient but never qualified how "Please setup a a domain, email server, and my device" is easier than "Hello, I would like an account please."

Once again, if it's "all the same" then she for some strange reason elected the choice that would call for a press conference in the first place rather than the "just as easy" one that wouldn't have.

It wasn't okay when Bush did it. I understand that her cheerleaders are lying to me about responsibility, I wonder if they're so deranged that they're lying to themselves.

 

[bshole]

She said it was more convenient but never qualified how "Please setup a a domain, email server, and my device" is easier than "Hello, I would like an account please."

Once again, if it's "all the same" then she for some strange reason elected the choice that would call for a press conference in the first place rather than the "just as easy" one that wouldn't have.

It wasn't okay when Bush did it. I understand that her cheerleaders are lying to me about responsibility, I wonder if they're so deranged that they're lying to themselves.

Well you can flog this dead horse as much as you like, but surely you must realize none of this shit is gonna stick. If you are attempting to whip a scandal for partisan gain, you is gonna have to do a whole hell of a lot better than this.

 

[Bowfinger]

She said it was more convenient but never qualified how "Please setup a a domain, email server, and my device" is easier than "Hello, I would like an account please."

You're being willfully obtuse here because you are focused on attacking, not on comprehending. You continue to insist Clinton somehow immersed herself in such technical minutiae. That seems extraordinarily unlikely. Instead, what is far more likely is Clinton simply told one of her aides or staff members, "I already have email on my Blackberry. Let's use that for my State email too. Make it so." If you can't get how easy that is -- for HER -- you aren't considering the situation honestly.

That doesn't mean it was appropriate, but it certainly was convenient.

Once again, if it's "all the same" then she for some strange reason elected the choice that would call for a press conference in the first place rather than the "just as easy" one that wouldn't have.

Once again, you're the one saying "all the same." Pretty dishonest for you to keep flogging that straw man after you've been called on it. Also again, for anyone focused on comprehension instead of dishonest attacks, it's clear Clinton didn't expect she'd have to hold a press conference to address her use of personal email. Why would she? Her predecessors used personal email too, without any controversy. But I'm sure the fact they were Republicans is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with this sudden attention to SoS email preferences.

It wasn't okay when Bush did it. I understand that her cheerleaders are lying to me about responsibility, I wonder if they're so deranged that they're lying to themselves.

Sounds like another straw man. Once again, please provide specific quotes of those purportedly "lying to [you] about responsibility." I'm thinking the one lying to himself here is you.

 

[hal2kilo]

So a government employee went to Hillary's home to setup the computer? I recognize that state department has IT staff, that's why I referenced the people who create their accounts. I was just unaware that they did house calls and blessed home servers.

Can you cite this?

"It's good to be the king" - History of the World Part 1.

 

[Zorkorist]

LOL, and post of the year nomination.

-John

 

[MongGrel]

This whole thread is just BS more or less.

She was never legally required to do other than she did at the time.

Just a bunch of blah blah blah.

 

[Zorkorist]

Legality, is a whole bunch of BS, but Ethics, we all know ethics.

This lady has no ethics.

-John

 

[halik]

You really have to have a room temperature IQ to think there's any other reason to have a private mail server, other than complete control over the content.

On Friday Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, disclosed that he couldn’t cooperate with the Benghazi committee’s request that she turn over her private server to an independent third party for examination. Why not? Well, the former first diplomat had already wiped the computer clean.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-obstructs-congress-1427846545?mod=hp_opinion

 

[soundforbjt]

You really have to have a room temperature IQ to think there's any other reason to have a private mail server, other than complete control over the content.



http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-obstructs-congress-1427846545?mod=hp_opinion

Kinda like Rove & Co using the RNC server instead of the Govt server?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Kinda like Rove & Co using the RNC server instead of the Govt server?

Well if you put it that way...it must be OK. /s

 

[cabri]

She is now being formally requested to show up before a committee prior to 1 May to answer questions

 

[Genx87]

You really have to have a room temperature IQ to think there's any other reason to have a private mail server, other than complete control over the content.



http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-obstructs-congress-1427846545?mod=hp_opinion

Bu bu but Clinton assured us she turned over every work related email. You dont trust her?

 

[Genx87]

Kinda like Rove & Co using the RNC server instead of the Govt server?

Ahh yes the two wrongs make a right argument.

 

[rudeguy]

You really have to have a room temperature IQ to think there's any other reason to have a private mail server, other than complete control over the content.



http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-obstructs-congress-1427846545?mod=hp_opinion

It will be really interesting if the leaked screenshots get brought up.

 

[soundforbjt]

Ahh yes the two wrongs make a right argument.

It's strictly fishing for dirt for the election, nothing more, they can wrap it in a benghazi flag but everyone knows the real reason for it.

 

[HomerJS]

Obama had a rule everyone had to keep their emails on said department server.

Maybe a question, do we trust a person who would directly flout the rules of the POTUS.

If she became POTUS how would she handle someone doing it to her?

 

[fskimospy]

Ahh yes the two wrongs make a right argument.

I agree. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for doing that. It's against one of the primary principles of good governance. I find the selective conservative outrage to be pretty transparent, but conservatives being hypocrites doesn't make what she did any better.

 

[Genx87]

I agree. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for doing that. It's against one of the primary principles of good governance. I find the selective conservative outrage to be pretty transparent, but conservatives being hypocrites doesn't make what she did any better.

It is ridiculous any politician or public servant is allowed to use private email for official business. It should and may be against the law. I haven't looked into it enough to know. From a legal standpoint what Clinton or Rove did would not be viewed kindly in a court of law if they were required to turn over their emails. And that is the primary driver for many organizations to utilize email archiving that is only accessible in read only instances for end users.