Is that being assumed? If so, then fine, investigate both Clinton and Powell.
A less partisan approach, which has already been advanced, is to call for stricter regulations on the use of mail servers.
Sure, but that seems more comparable to the IRS Lerner missing emails. Both completely stink of corruption. I’m not sure either is a national security issue though. Maybe I’m wrong, but was there ever a thought that top secret information had gotten in the wrong hands in that Rove instance? I thought it was about hiding evidence in an investigation. A serious but completely different issue, right?
Is there anyone that doesn’t think Clinton used the private server to avoid FOIA issues?
Sure, if there’s evidence that either mishandled classified information (or anyone else) investigate them. Seems like the FBI is doing that, so I’m good. I don’t like the congressional partisan stuff so I’m against that. Change policies if they’re wrong or outdated. Seems like they’ve done some of that.
I just think it is crazy to try to equate what Powell supposedly did to what Clinton has supposedly done. One seems obviously more serious even if both are wrong and worth investigating.
Well, until he’s subjected to as thorough an investigation, we don’t really know what Powell may have done.
Which is the same accusation that people made in regards to the RNC issue - that senior WH people were using private email servers specifically to avoid the Hatch Act and Presidential Records Act.
But, bizarrely enough, all these principled people coming after Hillary for her use of a private server was silent in regards to this.
This I would agree with. She set up a system to avoid FOIA requests. Probably legal, but in my opinion immoral. Then the exclusive use of that system led to the far more serious issue of potentially mishandling classified material. We’ll find out if she did after the investigation is completed.
Of course, that is what the FBI is investigating BTW, the reason is because new rules and better procedures will be on place from now on. On another thread there were cases of other cabinet members of past administrations that were also caught treating information unsafely, because the ones at fault were not having any intension to pass the information to others or cause harm to our nation they indeed had what amounts to a reprimand but not much else.
Petraeus got in trouble because he knew the info he had was confidential or secret and he willfully did pass it to his writer.
From what I understand they are investigating the previous 5 secretaries of state as part of this investigation.
Right, so I guess I don’t get your prior point. Weren’t you trying to make some statement about holding Clinton’s personal email server/address against the now current requirements to use a departmental address (that didn’t exist when she held the position)? I thought that’s what you were trying to say.
Again, no, they are not the targets of the investigation. The FBI is investigating who may had gained access to the info, IIUC there is for example data backup companies that are being checked to see if anyone that had access to the data did had any nefarious intentions.
Weasels like Darrel Issa are using weasel words to not get into trouble with their constituents if the most likely outcome comes to pass: no indictment for Clinton. It is really weaseling when he tells his followers that the FBI would like to indict her. Indeed, they know already how hard it will be to find the criminal intent.
I guess I should also say I think there’s really only one other plausible reason that Clinton set up her own server. Maybe the government system is just total unworkable junk.
Cool! I look forward to all of 'em getting lots of jail time, regardless of party affiliation.
Pretend we have no idea what FOIA issues are. Can you explain your concerns?
since this is in Debates, I will add my 2 cents.
Clinton had to make a choice between two problems: maintain her own email service for government mail with the inherent problems that implies (cost being one of them), or use the Government email and constantly work to keep non-government business off that service. Given her many activities, not all of which were related to her Government employment the latter would have been a constant and inevitably losing struggle. And she knows everything she does will be parsed for attacks by her political opponents. If she had used the Government email service she likely would have faced criticism that she used Government resources for private gain. Given that she asked and no one in the State Dept told her should couldn’t go the private email server route, I think she figured that would entail less criticism. Probably but not certainly she was wrong and she now had publicly regretted the decision. But she was in for a hard time no matter.
And note that the classification issues would be the same regardless of which server she used. It is practically the same shit-storm when classified information goes out on the unclassified Government servers as when it goes out on private servers.
So she was faced with trouble no matter which course she took. Unless she could be a saint and never use Government resources for private use. If she could do that, I am certain she would be the only Government employee in history to achieve that. Remember, while it is explicitly allowed within reason, taking a call from your wife on a Government phone is using public resources for private purposes. And note receiving the call was allowed. Making a call to home was not. I am old enough to remember Government buildings having public pay phones in the lobby to allow employees to stay within the law. They weren’t used much…
Why would you think that? It clearly was not capable of avoiding FOIA and Clinton and any Government official would know that. It I take notes on a privately purchased notebook, that doesn’t make the notes exempt. FOIA wasn’t the reason- avoiding using Government resources for private purposes was the best reason I can think of.
“He did it first” is never a valid argument. This isn’t kindergarten.
Your framing is wrong because the laws and rules you want to apply were not there yet.
I think the republicans were really hoping on something nefarious turning up in these released e-mails. Maybe something giving credence to all of the murders the Clintons have arranged, or how she personally ordered the troops to stand down when they could have saved lives in Benghazi. Now that there’s nothing turning up, they have to somehow spin that Clinton received e-mails that someone later on thought should have been classified into Clinton being careless with the gov’t’s top secrets that any civil servant or military would be fired for.
I’m not a big fan of Hilary’s, I think she is completely poll-driven, but throwing this crap on her is ridiculous. But apparently it works.
I am confident there will be many occasions to quote this back to you, but this particular situation doesn’t apply. If Secretaries of State (or indeed any high-ranking government officials) are using potentially unsecured e-mail systems, doesn’t that suggest that more funding should be allocated to address the issue rather than using it as a “gotcha” against officials that Congress doesn’t like? The mature, less-kindergardenish approach would be to give Clinton and Powell and other past secretaries a pass (barring evidence of some kind of willful disclosure of classified information), while taking steps to ensure that future secretaries have adequate IT resources that are well-secured and -maintained.
Of course, even then, it helps to recognize that government officials are people and people like to get their jobs done by whatever method is easiest. If we want to have only officials who will always be strict about security and would never ever bypass it, even if they believe the security was actually impeding them or was unnecessary, we’ll probably find the talent pool is sharply limited.