The Federal Records Act of 1950 did not cover electronic communications, and was not updated until November 2014, after Clinton left the State Dept. No crime was committed by Bush SecState Colin Powell either, who used a personal email address for State Department business.
In Republican leaning Bricker’s thread there’s plenty of Dems uncomfortable with this, just no one (of either affiliation) jumping up and down calling for jail time.
Eta: didn’t read all 11 pages though.
Are they “secret” because they were deleted or were they deleted because they’re secret.
As to Rumsfeld, there are plenty of reasons to hate the guy without worrying about his emails.
i think you are deliberately missing the point
The notion that the pre-2014 FRA magically doesn’t cover emails is at odds with how it was applied when the Bush adminstration used a non-government address and deleted emails in 2007, and, unsurprisingly, is a notion advanced by no Democrats prior to the Hillary scandal.
Which is that Clinton was only required under the law to turn over State Department emails, which she did. Republicans want to go through all her personal email in hopes of finding something to tar her with, like a blow job. I don’t see any Republicans turning over all their personal email to Democrats, so all is fair since everyone obeyed the law. I get it, you wish the law was different, but it wasn’t.
Sorry, you must put “scandal” in quotes if you’re going to use it this way.
No, you’re just fucking stupid and you think it’s amusing because you don’t know how to deal with shit that doesn’t run through your dipshit programming.
The server predates her time as SoS, you fucking ignorant clot of shit.
Are you fucking stupid enough to think she set up the server herself? Jesus merciful fuck.
No, it’s unbelievable that someone who can type would internalize RW nonsense to such an extent that they are unable to reason. But I see evidence for it every day on this board, so I guess it must be true.
You’re not questioning. You’re bleating nonsense you were fed by RW media. You aren’t thinking. You’re a phonograph constantly repeating the same stupid tune, over and over.
I always assume I may be wrong. The trouble is that the more I engage with thoughtless imbeciles like yourself, the more I find that very little you say is based in reality.
Make an argument that isn’t utter shit, and I’ll let you know.
So why was the 2014 law necessary, if email was already covered?
Actually, I’m looking for consistency. We (the left) can’t point the finger at conservatives and their moral failings unless we keep ourselves equally accountable.
I don’t really care if she broke some rule or law or protocol when she mixed up private emails and govt emails in the same private email account. That would be bad/wrong but a mistake that is forgivable, regardless of the persons political position. But to cover up what you did and try to hide it from review, that is clearly wrong, no matter who does it. If a republican had deleted 300,000 emails that needed to be reviewed democrats would be going ballistic.
Yeah, but they didn’t need to be reviewed. That’s the real issue.
if its govt business it needs to be open for review
She turned over all government business. Republicans say they don’t trust her, but they are really just on a fishing expedition to find something, anything to derail her in 2016. I see no reason she should assist them in this scheme, if no law has been broken.
Yup – you might have accidentally used your brain before checking Gawker for today’s talking points. The greatest fear of every Democrat is that they might fail The Leader.
I’m not “defending Hillary”, not least because no one has made it clear what, if anything, I should be defending her against, but I’m pretty sure I would have first expressed surprise that an old coot like himself was even using E-mail, then greeted this with the same yawn I did concerning Mrs. Clinton’s so-called E-mail scandal.
Now, one for you: If Mrs. Clinton has indeed broken the law, why are the Republicans not torpedoing her chances for election by prosecuting her? I’m genuinely curious what your thoughts are on this.
She should not be trusted. Nor should anyone in that position.
Let’s be clear. You’re the one spouting lies that you’re too credulous to check on.
I like Obama, and I think he’s certainly the best president since Clinton, but insinuating that I blindly follow a cult of personality is a bit far fetched.
My greatest fear as a person that votes Democrat, is that the imbeciles like you, who are deceived by naked nonsense and who internalize ideological lies, are going to vote in some GOP retard that will cause still more lasting damage to the country. Bush II was a terrible president, but at least he wasn’t stupid enough to be in the Tea Party.
Wether or not she broke the law is not really the point. To whatever degree she did something criminally wrong she should be legally prosecuted (but fancy lawyering would probably get her off, regrettably). I’m actually more concerned with the moral ramifications of what she has done. It is further proof she is dishonest and untrustworthy.
Should we trust any federal office holder who had a personal email address prior to 2014? Who knows whether they might have used it for government business? Better read all Dick Cheney’s personal email just to be sure, 'cause I sure as hell don’t trust that bastard. OK with you?
Who told you that it’s legal to destroy evidence in response to a Congressional subpoena? Was it Vox?
It’s more of a cult-of-no-personality in Hillary’s case.