So, how many people actually researched the Clinton email story?

[brooklynite]

There are multiple "private email" threads, each with a variety of "she thinks she's above the law" posts, and then somewhere down at the bottom of the thread someone reveals that the rules everyone's in a tizzy over were passed two years after she left office. Do people bother to read up on an issue, or is reflexive criticism just too easy?

[closeupready]

1. Do YOU "actually" research every single news story you read????

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Reading isn't the question-- commenting is.

[closeupready]

3. Nonresponsive.

[still_one]

33. Is there a problem trying to be fully informed?

[roguevalley]

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

on those who feel the law should be followed and security maintained. frankly, what she did was severely bush league

[HereSince1628]

4. ME. And I gotta say, I found nothing

that suggest the use of private email is illegal.

For the national archives they are interested in capturing ALL documents that meet the criteria of being a documuent of federal interest.
Paper and electronic.

What I read said nothing about banning private email use

[Aerows]

11. So

nothing a SoS might communicate has an effect on National Security. Good to know where people stand on these matters. I mean, hey, having a security clearance should never interfere with you doing whatever the hell you want to do with regards to communications, right?

I must have missed 2006 when it was revealed that Cheney was doing exactly what Hillary was doing in people were rightfully pissed off about it. But hey, it's okay if you are a Republican, and now I guess it's okay if you have a D after your name.

[HereSince1628]

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

what I could find was about NATIONAL ARCHIVES RULES for managing email documents that meet the definition of 'federal records'

[Aerows]

25. Lord have mercy.

[Capt. Obvious]

19. Did you actually research the Cheney story?

[Aerows]

30. No. I also didn't

personally write Senator Leahy about it, either. I don't have any idea what I am talking about. I'm just dragging things out of thin air because I know absolutely nothing about journaling of email, the legalities involved and offered my completely clueless synopsis of the situation.

Insulting my intelligence isn't going to cut it. No one that works in a professional setting is unaware that email gets archived for a reason. No one.

Peddle that nonsense to somebody else.

[leveymg]

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

(machine readable message) violates the interpretation of the 1950 Act in place since the 1970s. HRC didn't turn over her records. See below.

[HereSince1628]

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

My interest was and -IS- understanding what if any law, reg, rule, or policy was violated.

I couldn't find it. But, I -AM- interested in knowing if such exists.

[leveymg]

31. Cornell law library on-line, here:

Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:00 PM - Edit history (2)

The statutory definition or records in the Federal Records Act (per the latest version shown at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3301:

As used in this chapter, “records” includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data in them. Library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes, extra copies of documents preserved only for convenience of reference, and stocks of publications and of processed documents are not included.

As can be seen, the definition is based on the anything made or received by a federal agency in connection with the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form. The specific things mentioned, like books and maps, do not limit that broader concept.

If you click on the notes tab, you find that "machine readable materials" was added in the 1970s. Again, though, the specific form in which data is embodied is not important. Here's that amendment in the attached Note:

› Title 44 › Chapter 33 › § 3301
44 U.S. Code § 3301 - Definition of records

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)

Source

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1299; Pub. L. 94–575, § 4(c)(2),Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2727.)
Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., § 366 (July 7, 1943, ch. 192, § 1,57 Stat. 380).
Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–575 expanded “records” to include “machine readable materials”.

[HereSince1628]

36. As I read that it DOES NOT ban the use of private email

it says that documents that meet the definition of federal records are supposed to be archived.

I don't know that documents have been withheld from the national archive.

Do you?

[Aerows]

54. You've never worked

for the government, have you?

[HereSince1628]

59. I have. Maybe not YOUR government. But, I have

[Aerows]

67. So you

aren't a United States citizen?

[HereSince1628]

69. you are off on a wild-goose chase my friend,

Avoid the non sequiturs and stay with the issues.

The issues have NOTHING to do with MY government service or my ignorance of where the hell you live.

[Aerows]

71. So you

haven't ever worked for the United States government and plainly don't know the regulations.

Did I get that right?

[HereSince1628]

82. I haven't worked under updated regulations now in effect, no

I've asked repeatedly to be shown that PRIVATE EMAIL use is a violation of federal records act. I've not yet been shown that.

If you have that, I am -very- open to reading it and accepting it.

But I haven't seen such, yet.

I suspect but obviously can't prove that beyond federal records consideration there are also yet to be named important issues about communicating classified content over non-secured carriers.

But the current dust up isn't about that at all.

[Aerows]

83. So you

haven't worked in telecommunications for the US government since before the 70's?

[HereSince1628]

88. But I CAN read!!! I read the relevant chapters of the law re Federal Records Act

and there is nothing about private email being illegal.

The FRA deals with requirements to submit federal records, it doesn't ban private email. It doesn't do that because the federal archives wants EVERYTHING that meets the definition of a federal record in whatever form it takes.

[Aerows]

94. Oh Lord

You've never been to a secure site. I won't even get into why none of that would happen if you followed protocol.

Maybe I can explain it this way, and it will get through. You have a sewage system, you have a purified water system. You drink from one, you pee in the other. Now what happens if you join those two networks together?

Do you want to drink it?

[Aerows]

101. ?

I'm not a he, it's widely available, and yeah, I guess I'm agreeing with you?

[karynnj]

98. I would agree if there were a turnover of all State Department emails

- say once a year -- or even a few months after the end of her tenure. There was obviously no procedure in place to do so and they were given to the SD only after the SD requested them and emails from other SoS.

I do think if there was intent to turn them over from the beginning, she could have had two accounts - one reserved for her SD work.

[Aerows]

90. You can keep posting it

until eternity, but those that have no clue are going to refute it because they don't want to hear it.

Believe me, I've tried.

[leveymg]

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

When it is, in fact, her turn to pout.

[TheBlackAdder]

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

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.

[leveymg]

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

We went through this when it was learned the Bushies didn't comply. The problem with the Act has always been that there are no specific criminal penalties attached, but violation may form the basis for departmental charges. Now, exactly who is going to fire the former SoS?

Unlawful, but no stated penalties for violation by the head of the agency. http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/fed-agencies.html#unlawful

§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records

(a) FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION.—The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.

(b) ARCHIVIST NOTIFICATION.—In any case in which the head of the Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

§ 3107. Authority of Comptroller General

Chapters 21, 25, 27, 29, and 31 of this title do not limit the authority of the Comptroller General of the United States with respect to prescribing accounting systems, forms, and procedures, or lessen the responsibility of collecting and disbursing officers for rendition of their accounts for settlement by the General Accounting Office.

[pnwmom]

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

So what part of this law are you referring to?

[leveymg]

24. What is deleting an email? What is not turning in the record, as required?

Sorry, that's not an exception to the rule. Plead that argument in court, and you'll meet the nice men with the handcuffs in the back room.

[pnwmom]

27. What evidence is there that she deleted any emails or failed to turn in any State Department emails?

All of this happened when she turned in thousands of emails.

[HereSince1628]

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

emails were submitted to the national archives.

The difference is obvious, but it suggests no wrong doing prima faciae to a reader ignorant of the wording of the Benghazi committee request.

[leveymg]

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

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department.

[pnwmom]

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

They decided which were personal emails and which were State Department and turned over the State Department emails.

[HereSince1628]

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

are required to be turned over. And they can come in many forms. Emails would be included -IF- they meet the criteria of being Federal Records.

[Aerows]

73. Incorrect

They are federal records as long as you are serving in an office as a public servant. It sucks, but that is the way it works.

[HereSince1628]

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

As far as I can tell so would be notes on toilet paper.

The form of the federal record doesn't seem to be the issue. The issue seems to be whether all documents meeting the definition of federal record have been submitted to the national archives.

I don't have evidence that documents that should have been federal records have not been submitted.

The obvious problem is proving that something now absent and unavailable was an unsubmitted federal record. I fully understand the knottiness. I understand how using government email would have avoided this.

But creating federal records with private email seems to be no more illegal than creating federal records with a pencil and paper.

[Aerows]

81. Rant at me

all day long. I don't even say I absolutely agree with it, but the law is the law.

Hell, the US telecommunication laws on governmental correspondence are even more stringent than the securities industry laws are on them.

I still have to make sure they are met, though.

[HereSince1628]

84. you keep claiming law. show me the text of the fucking law.

Yes. I worked in secure communications. But secure communication isn't the issue of this story. The issue of this story is a violation of national archives requirements under the Federal Records Act

[Aerows]

87. When did you work

in secure communications, because it obviously was before the 70's. I've been in telecommunications for decades, and I'm not even that old - I got started in the late 80's early 90's and it was protocol.

[leveymg]

89. See #5 and #31, above.

[leveymg]

86. Private email becomes a public document when used for official purposes.

Nobody says she had to turn over home email asking what's for dinner. The fact is, she didn't use both email systems, as I believe was the case with Powell, it's that she never used her State Dept account, and did not turn over any of her email until a couple months ago, and even then withheld some of it. That's a clear violation of law, even if she can't be fined or jailed for it.

[HereSince1628]

91. Yes, I never said email couldn't be a federal record, note on toilet paper could be

As I recall what I read, there isn't a specific time frame mentioned for submission of federal records.

I think the authors of the chapters assumed that employees acting in good faith would submit them ASAP. Obviously using the government system it's possible to transfer electronic records at almost any data back-up

[leveymg]

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

business, personal email for his own private uses. That's explained here:

“(Powell) was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” the statement says. “He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends." http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707.html#ixzz3TM68YgZW

[Aerows]

121. Nailed it.

Cheney did the same damn thing and was taken to task for it. Why the hell does somebody think Hillary Clinton shouldn't be taken to task for it, either?

I am a Democrat that despises double standards. If we can't be better than Republicans, what in the hell do we stand for?

Not much.

[prayin4rain]

17. That says "in the custody of the agency"

The private emails were never in the custody of the agency, for one. For two, there is no evidence that she deleted anything.

[leveymg]

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

Next.

[prayin4rain]

29. Where does it say that?

If I send a work email from my private account, it does not mean that my work has custody of the email. It may mean that they have a right to custody of the email. Maybe you're confused about what actual custody means versus a right to custody.

[leveymg]

48. If the Judge orders you to produce all work-related email, and you produce none because it was all

held in your home email account, you will likely go to jail for contempt. Same principle applies.

The difference with the 1950 Records Act is there is no criminal penalty for the head of the agency for failing to comply with the statute. But, it's still a technical violation of law.

Remind me not to send my legal work to you.

[prayin4rain]

53. That is clearly a COMPLETELY separate issue.

You began by saying she violated a statue. Your last argument relates to a judicial order. You're not making any sense.

On edit: If the statue read "all documents and communications pertaining to official business" instead of "in the custody of the agency" then your argument might make some sense.

[leveymg]

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

law. However, there is no penalty attached for the head of agency.

I gave the example of failure to comply with a judicial order, and distinguished that from failure to comply with this Act. I'll take that a step further - if the same records fall under a subpoena, and that order isn't fully complied with, there may be criminal penalties for failure to comply. Both the courts and Congress have the power of subpoena to compel production and to penalize noncompliance.

At the very least, HRC has handed the Republicans grounds to hold more hearings and to subpoena more records, and all of us can now thank her for this latest spectacle.

[prayin4rain]

85. If a statue, order, or subpoena called for my work

Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:51 PM - Edit history (1)

to turn over all information in their custody, they would not have a responsibility to search each employees personal accounts for work related emails. Their employee's private accounts would not be considered in their "custody".

If I was ordered, by statue, judge, or subpoena to turn over all work related emails, I would have to turn over all work documents in my custody, including personal and work accounts. I would not have to turn over non-work related information from either account.

The statue says "in the custody of the agency". If they intended all official business information, regardless of whose custody it is in, it would say that.

That statue forbids interfering with the storage government records that are in the custody of the agency. Documents that could contain official business information that are not in the custody of the agency, are not mentioned.

On edit: Statute, obviously. Haha

[pnwmom]

35. Colin Powell exclusively used private emails. The NYTimes never suggested that was illegal.

Probably because it was too busy helping to promote his Iraq war.

It's no coincidence that this story -- intended to discredit HRC and the Obama state department -- got released the day before Netanyahu's war mongering speech. The NYTimes has already started to pave the way for the JEB administration.

[snooper2]

42. LOL

[HereSince1628]

51. What I read suggest policies and procedures must be in place in the agency

to ensure that documents meeting definition of federal records are submitted to the archives.

I didn't see anything that said all communication must always be in possession of the agency. We wouldn't really expect paper correspondence, notes, etc, written in an officials residence to 'always' be in the possession of an agency.

BUT

The national archives WANTS such records that meet defitions of Federal Records to be submitted.

[prayin4rain]

68. Agreed. And it could have been handled better, but

I don't see where any laws were violated.

[HereSince1628]

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

I'm not even pro-Clintion. I am pro-fair assessment compared to law, regulations, policy that was in place.

Up to this point, no one seems to be able to show that use of private email is a violation.

Instead I'm getting ad hominems

[leveymg]

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

turning that over is a violation of the 1950 Records Act. HRC did neither until recent weeks, and has not fully produced her email. She is technically in violation of that Act.

[SidDithers]

6. The right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary

And neither is terribly interested in details.

Sid

[trumad]

9. +1

[leveymg]

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

[FSogol]

22. True. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. I would be amzed of all the presumabled Democrats on DU ...

that are so quickly, and willingly, to jump on this nakedly transparent attempt to revive BENGAZ!!!; but this is DU, the land of presumptively valid media reports ... except everything before January 2009 and anything with an anti-Democratic spin, since.

[uponit7771]

108. Amen!!

[NYC Liberal]

119. And neither, thankfully, are in the majority.

[BainsBane]

7. These stories are a dream come true for some folks

And now you want to mess the whole thing up by talking about laws?

[JustAnotherGen]

37. +1

Next they will be calling for her to be thrown in jail because her son in law is a banker.

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. Next? ...

That angle was floated awhile back ... well, not in jail; but certainly, a Whitehouse disqualifier.

[JustAnotherGen]

61. Keep in mind

What Wall Street did in 2008? There were no laws on the books that allowed us to just round 'em up and throw 'em all in the jail house.

So - will the Capitol Police arrest S.O.S. Clinton? Even though the law that specifically relates to emails wasn't passed until well after she left office?

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. But face it ...

this is nothing but the latest Bengazi revival.

[JustAnotherGen]

72. But - you - you said

The B - word!

Run for the hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllls!

[uponit7771]

109. +1

[DanTex]

8. Most people don't seem to have read past the headline.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. Or, the 1st paragraph of the blog of their preference

[bravenak]

10. I, personally find the email 'scandal' boring.

[Aerows]

21. It is easy to find it boring

until you consider the implications. There is a reason that since the 70's all communication was archived. SoS isn't a position that is neglectful of national security, either.

Cheney did it and was rightfully excoriated for it in 2006, and as usual, suffered no consequences. Now we have a Secretary of State that did it.

This is what happens when you allow public officials to backslide in obeying the very laws they themselves are supposed to uphold. This might be boring, but it is far from a non-issue.

[bravenak]

28. I archive my emails, and i am a nobody.

I guess I just assume she does too. There are so many things that I'd like to ask her. This just doesn't rank up there. I guess my own issues with her are more important to me. I have a list of things I'd like for her to be asked. Big long list. (I try to be diplomatic about people I cannot stand)

[Aerows]

39. As Secretary of State

There are a few things that you have to be aware of. She had control over a large governmental body, the funds of it, the personnel of it, and our national security.

It is required by law that governmental, financial and security related individuals (which she was all three) have archives of all written forms of communication. It's nothing new, it has been that way since the inception of email, and even before then, all correspondence was archived by heads of state, etc. Why? Oversight.

This isn't just some out of the blue idea - it has absolutely been in place. Cheney violated it, got away with doing exactly what she did and was excoriated for it. I griped about it then, and I'll gripe about it now. It is a necessary part of our governing body to be available for oversight.

[bravenak]

56. I understand completely.

Some things just bother us no matter who does it. If she cannot answer questions about it, I don't think a presidential run will be the best of ideas. I wish I could get excited but I have no energy for Hillary. Sorry. Nothing she can do will surprise me. Her running for president will just make me less interested in politics. After she started the 'Barack Hussein Obama' extra emphasis on the HUSSEIN thing (well, her 'people') I really had no use for her. But, you're right. There are rules. And there are good reasons for those rules.

[DanTex]

60. Did she not archive her emails?

[Aerows]

65. Are

we currently having this conversation?

[DanTex]

80. What does that mean?

[ScreamingMeemie]

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

[Agnosticsherbet]

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

I am sort of bored with this stage.

So far, what I read does not indicate that she broke any law.

But if the shit sticks, people will try to make her wear it.

[Nye Bevan]

19. Easier just to quote Breitbart (nt)

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. +1. n/t

[uponit7771]

111. +1

[nichomachus]

34. There's no law

that says you can't leave your files on a table in Denny's. but you would be irresponsible to do so.

You cite a specific law as a "gotcha," but there were federal rules on email use and email retention prior to 2014.

Hillary was irresponsible at best, secretive at worst.

I know the Hillary gang is trying to twist and turn on this to minimize her bizarre behavior, but she put herself in the position of being easily hacked -- and probably was.

[Capt. Obvious]

38. I'm sure if Hillary left her files on the counter at Denny's

the fight here would be over her not leaving a tip.

[Aerows]

46. Except she isn't some

anonymous nobody having breakfast at Denny's. If she is that reckless and irresponsible, she shouldn't have been SoS.

[Capt. Obvious]

57. Show me the law that says she can't eat at Denny's

[Aerows]

43. Bingo!

"she put herself in the position of being easily hacked" not to mention avoiding oversight which is a necessary function if you have a Democracy.

I don't believe that anyone who is saying she did nothing wrong isn't aware that what she was doing was a danger to both national security and oversight. We aren't talking about Mary Margaret in Hoboken, we are talking about the damn Secretary of State here.

[Lee-Lee]

45. I've held several government jobs where use of private email was

Both prohibited (for some an offense worth termination) and always viewed as irresponsible and foolish.

I can't imagine why Secretary of State would in any way be held to a lower standard.

[Aerows]

49. If anything

She should have been held to a *higher* standard.

You know what I am talking about, obviously, since you worked for the government. It's not taken lightly, nor should it be.

[Aerows]

76. That isn't "anecdote"

That the law. It's in place for very good reasons, too.

[Aerows]

102. Oh Lord.

You know what? You have access to DU. The law has been posted about umpteen hundred times already, and I'm not wasting my time finding it for you, since you are arguing from a position that indicates that you already know this.

I'm just going to LOL at you at this point.

[Lee-Lee]

93. She may not have violated the law- that doesn't mean

It still wasn't incredibly stupid and irresponsible, does it?

[Pacifist Patriot]

58. Then you might be interested in reading this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026304514

[Aerows]

77. Not understanding the law

is not an excuse for not following it.

[Pacifist Patriot]

96. Did you intend to reply to someone else?

You comment doesn't make sense as a response to what I said.

[Aerows]

97. I replied in the context

that maybe SoS Clinton was unaware of the laws that made her communications subject to review by archiving.

I hope that makes sense

[Man from Pickens]

62. have some source data

http://who.is/whois/clintonemail.com

You can confirm to your satisfaction that the date the domain was registered matches the date of her confirmation hearing.

[Orsino]

66. DU is my research, quite frequently.

I know that on matters of fact, we find our way past misleading headlines. Not always right away, but we get there.

Those of us who leap too soon get potentially valuable reminders. It's okay.

[wyldwolf]

70. What you're noticing is factually-challenged 'progressive' poutrage.

Apparently, DU-proper agrees.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017249171

[NCTraveler]

79. Right wingers aren't into facts. Just not their thing. nt.

[Xyzse]

92. I can't comment on it yet since I haven't heard enough.

I figured that this story has been sensationalized, but I don't know enough about it which is why I waited to see details.

[ismnotwasm]

103. I did-- it was a big meh

And half the people criticizing are big fans of Snowden. Don't see the reason for their angst myself.

[Agnosticsherbet]

105. Daily Beast proves story is not true and Clinton was 100% legal.

DU thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11071930#post1

Link to the Daily Beast

Well, this might be the explanation: The new regs apparently weren’t fully implemented by State until a year and half after Clinton left State. Here’s the timeline: Clinton left the State Department on February 1, 2013. Back in 2011, President Obama had signed a memorandum directing the update of federal records management. But the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) didn’t issue the relevant guidance, declaring that email records of senior government officials are permanent federal records, until August 2013. Then, in September 2013, NARA issued guidance on personal email use.

This should be posted on all the "emailgate scandal" threads.

[leveymg]

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

Since the 1970s, the Records Act has expressly required heads of agency to preserve and turn-over all "machine readable" official messages and documents no matter what format. For more than 25 years, that's been understood to include email. The change in regulation merely clarified that long-standing requirement.

[elleng]

106. Looks like Dailybeast did, at least.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11071930

[KeepItReal]

107. My issue is the lack of security for those emails.

Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo Mail or her own domain exist outside of the State Department's email network.

That is not secure, unless the 3rd party email service user enables encryption at the point of origination and on the machine of the recipient of the email. That is not an automatic thing.

[McCamy Taylor]

112. Me! Me! And so did Media Matters

Here's MY thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026306639

[Autumn]

114. The House Oversight Committee is on it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-03/house-oversight-committee-to-explore-clinton-s-e-mail-use-chairman-says

I think we will hear all about it 24/7 Let us know what Hillary says.

[Autumn]

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

They just have to be looking and looking and looking. Remember Ken Starr from the Clinton years?

[wyldwolf]

122. "we would be talking about us out-dumbing them"

Some on DU are already out-dumbing them. It's called Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

[hrmjustin]

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

[wyldwolf]

123. It fell apart pretty fast, too.

[hrmjustin]

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

[riqster]

118. I did.

Plus I work in IT so I know better than to buy into the BS.

[William769]

120. Kick & recommended.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

126. Reflexive criticism is just as easy as reflexive defense. nt