Yeah, if I get an email from someone and I hit reply, I don’t see their email. Or if they are in my organization or in the contact list for any reason, I just see the name.
Only if I manually enter the email will I see the address (unless the person does not have a name on the account).
Alert, alert! Liberal media bias in action!
As long as it wasn’t a .AOL account, I’m OK.
However much the media is biased in favor of liberals, they’re even more biased in favor of the media.
I find this hard to believe. Wouldn’t the POTUS, especially, have to know with whom he is communicating before hitting the ‘send’ button?
Let’s say he was talking smack about a foreign leader. And the clintonemail address was really James O’Keefe, Breitbart, or even the North Koreans?
He knew Clinton was using a personal email account, and he didn’t learn about it on the news like this rest of us, as he claimed on Sunday.
And you know this absolutely, positively for certain, exactly how? It was already mentioned that many email systems may not by default show you the full email address in all or any circumstances but may only map to the name on the contact list, and I seriously doubt that Obama is personally engaged in such email administration as maintaining contact lists.
Incidentally, you may be interested in another private email domain that’s of considerably greater interest because it was actually used for illegal activities. It’s “gwb43.com” and it was used by the denizens of the GWB White House:
Democrats say evidence suggests the RNC e-mail system was used for political and government policy matters in violation of federal record preservation and disclosure rules. In addition, Democrats point to a handful of e-mails obtained through ongoing inquiries suggesting the system may have been used to conceal such activities as contacts with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was convicted on bribery charges and is now in prison for fraud…
… Abramoff’s response, according to a copy of his e-mail released by Waxman’s committee, was: “Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her RNC pager and was not supposed to go into the WH system.” Ralston later resigned in connection with the lobbying scandal.
Waxman told RNC Chairman Mike Duncan in a letter that such exchanges “indicated that in some instances White House officials were using nongovernment accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of communications” that could be reviewed by congressional committees or released under the Presidential Records Act.
… The gwb43 .com account, and others like it, have been traced to the Republican National Committee computer servers, Waxman’s staff said.
Then too, he may have been kinda busy, what with being President, and all. Might not have given it a lot of thought. Those guys gotta pray five times a day, you know.
It’s a ridiculous assertion. Do you know the @-part of the email address of all your friends, family, and co-workers? I certainly don’t. Aren’t you aware that many email servers and programs list by default the names and not the email addresses of contacts?
20 days. Heh. Last time I filed a FOIA with State it took over 3 years.
No. The POTUS was born August 4, 1961. When he was a teenager, there was no such thing as e-mail. It’s not at all surprising to learn that he doesn’t routinely notice such things.
I would bet he probably noticed it at the time but has no recollection of it now. When you’re the president of the US you’re dealing with much bigger things than whether the email address of the sender is in compliance with Best Practices, and he probably didn’t give it much thought if any at all.
Notably, they waited until the story had been broken elsewhere before they moved forward. Further, Clinton is not the liberal wing of the party; journalists may reasonably believe (in addition to the independent news value of this matter) that planning obstacles in Clinton’s way creates space for a Warren candidacy.
Yeah, let’s say he was using email to do something that could torpedo America’s diplomatic initiatives around the world–email that can be hacked, email that can be requested via FOIA, email that can be leaked ferchrissake.
Why on earth would we say that?
I presume that Obama is gonna talk smack about foreign leaders. I also presume that he’s smart enough to do it where there’s no recording device around, and especially where the recording device isn’t the method of communication.
Sorry I haven’t read the entire thread.
Just wanted to weigh in as a longtime (28 yrs) fed employee (not Dept of State). Every year we have to sign forms and take training re: record keeping requirements. E-mails clearly are fed records, and I’d bet a healthy sum that the burden rests on both the sender and the recipient to preserve them. Retaining and managing e-mails is a major pain in the ass, but no employee I know wants to be caught for not having complied.
One of our office’s staff is currently being investigated for e-mail misuse - sent info from his work e-mail to his private acct. Hell, the Hatch Act provides for termination if you use gov’t e-mail to forward a political cartoon! IME - e-mail misuse is taken VERY seriously in the fed gov’t.
Without exception, every fed employee I’ve discussed this with was shocked at Hillary’s practice, and would never have dreamt of doing same. Perhaps it is different at State or at the cabinet level…
I would go with the second. These types of rules and training procedures are for the little people - I wouldn’t think cabinet members are subject to the same system.
[See also: Clinton Written Up By ‘Total Bitch’ Supervisor, from The Onion.]
What’s this bit from her about “wanting to use only one device for e-mail instead of two”. Is she using some obscure “device” that can only access one e-mail account? Maybe Bill should’ve bought her an iPhone as a “Welcome to your new SecState Post” present.
This is a good catch. I ask you: is this the sort of defense that someone who is savvy about technology would make?
With the Clintons, unfortunately, the default assumption is that they know exactly what they are saying and why. And I doubt very seriously that she wrote that herself, although I bet she was very much involved with the crafting of each and every word.
Then why would she say that? It’s an obviously lame excuse.
It’s the best excuse she could think of without giving the real reason?
I don’t know. I just thought it sounded really funny when I heard it.
Device! Device and Device, what is Device!! 