The editors of the Washington Post are appalled at the revelation that Hillary Clinton as the waggish phrase has it “privatized her email”:
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON has served as first lady, a senator from New York and secretary of state. She is no newcomer to the corridors of power. Her decision to exclusively use a private e-mail account while secretary suggests she made a deliberate decision to shield her messages from scrutiny. It was a mistake that reflects poor judgment about a public trust.
Under the rules as they existed during Ms. Clinton’s time as secretary, from 2009 to 2013, government officials were not strictly required to use official e-mail accounts. However, in 2011 the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said, “We are definitely instructed that we need to conduct all of our work on our government accounts . . . .†He said it was “administration policy†to use government accounts. Did this not apply to Ms. Clinton at the State Department?
I wonder how the defenders of the former First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State would be reacting if she didn’t have a “D” behind her name?
I’ve made no secret of my views on Hillary Clinton. I am a small “r” republican and a small “d” democrat and I do not vote for dynasties. That was one of the reasons I did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000 and wouldn’t vote for his brother in 2016. It is a sufficient reason for me not to vote for Hillary Clinton (assuming she’s running for president) in 2016.
I wonder how many reasons it will take for her support to start flagging? For it to reduce turnout?
“I wonder how many reasons it will take for her support to start flagging? For it to reduce turnout?”
“……singin’ songs, and carry’n signs, mostly say hooray for our side….”
In the decadent phase of the imperium, I believe snow will rent space in hell before Democrats show any principle. Russell Brand’s “why bother voting” philosophy makes more sense with each passing year, given what we keep getting.
When I was at State (I retired in 2004), the importance of the Official Records Act was drummed into us. We were told, in no uncertain terms, that official business had to be conducted through official email addresses and could not be conducted through personal accounts.
And of course, classified information could not be held on or transmitted through unclassified computers.
As head of my section, I had two PCs in my office, one unclassified and one classified. They were “air-gapped.” Neither had any USB ports. The classified PC had a removable hard drive that had to be locked in a safe whenever I left the office. And you needed a pass code to even get into the office.
Maybe Secretaries of State had different rules about email and classified information. If they did, it is very much a surprise to me.
John,
That’s exactly the way it is in my office now, except the new law in 2014 added another layer of bureaucracy and requirements as well as additional duties as records administrators.
It’s kind of sad how the Clinton’s supporters are bending themselves to justify this using many of the same arguments my 5 year old uses.
What she did was not illegal, but it was, IMO, unethical, dangerous from an info security standpoint, and contrary to transparency in government and for establishing a historical record.
Nonetheless, Hillary is a woman, a democrat, and a “Clinton.” Add all those components up and she will get a pass.
Can’t speak to the specific legal issues, but state law where I live considers documents, including e-mails, property of the state if they came into possession of an individual in an official capacity. The implications seem endless from that point because there is a whole body of regulations and controls that flow from this initial recognition, including things like transmitting the information by a simple forward/reply, or by limiting the control of state record by the designated record-keeper. Federal law may be more amiable, but I suspect we don’t know the extent of the issues yet.