FBI may pillory Hillary with email spillery grillery

Re: Only to be expected (For good reasons)

Hillarity Clinton has repeatedly shown that she can't tell the truth since the days in Arkansas with Whitewater and scoffs at any law that might apply to her.

Most recently at the State Department she was deeply involved in a "pay to play" scheme where anyone who wanted some favorable decision from the state department had to hire Bill Clinton as a paid speaker. Let's not even get into the fact that she was derelict and negligent in her duties at the State Department, deleted emails from a server she legally wasn't supposed to use because they would prove "the haters" as you call them are completely correct about what happened at the Libyan Consulate.

Oh, and by the way she lies saying she's "just like us" when the Clintons are worth over a hundred million dollars.

Do you really want another baldface, thieving liar in the office of the President?

Re: Only to be expected

officials have vocalised their concerns regarding Clinton's email practices, much to the delight of her political opponents.

By "her political opponents", you should clarify that you mean "Obama and other Democrats, specifically, Obama".

Re: Only to be expected

Re: "US Democracy... aka who has the biggest pile of $$$$$ wins"

For Pete's sake, you have a House of Lords. I think I just got hypocrisy poisoning.

Re: Only to be expected

Holy shit, that was fast. I expected your ilk to be out no sooner than five comments in, but first post? Bravo!

Re: Only to be expected

it's too bad this revelation gets a political spin and this commentator ignores the legal facts. If anyone other than a current candidate had broken the law it would be investigated by the FBI since it involves slips in the protection of national security information. Please ignore the political mis-mash and just look at the crime on its own merit. At least Edward Snowden's release of national security information has so far escaped the political smear and folks are weighing in based on the risk of harm to the US verses people's right to know what is going on in the government. The only case I am hearing on Clinton's case is that it is all political and no one seems to care that mis-handling of information is in its self dangerous.

Re: My boss would never allow it

Politicians have always been above the law, you silly peasant! Go back to your hut and let your betters worry about big things you can't wrap your head around.

;)

Re: My boss would never allow it

Because the official email is subject to FOI requests - like many employees in highly regulated industries you never say anything in an email that you don't want to read out in court

Re: Rand Paul (R-KY)?

I'm not falling for this again

Re: Rules when she was in office....

Excellent judgement, rather, from the perspective of avoiding scrutiny of her email, official or otherwise.

But the claim that one can read any of her emails anyway because "anything official she sent to other Federal employees is on their .gov mail server" (unless it was sent to Lois Lerner, natch) suddenly breaks down as it turns out that other people also had accounts on the private Clinton mail server, and at least one of them is claiming rather vehemently to have been a State Dept employee at the time.

Re: Rules when she was in office....

On the other hand there was a law, the Federal Information Security Management Act - FISMA - of 2002, with plenty of rules and regulations in place by around 2005 or 2006.

In general, the law and instructions that followed from it required computer systems used to process and store government data to be particularly configured to ensure data security, be backed up regularly, and have a disaster recovery plan in effect that provided for continuity of operations if the primary system became inoperative. All that has to be documented in excruciating detail, and conformity verified before the system is approved by the agency's approving official (usually the CIO) and attached to a network. Conformity is required to be reverified periodically, including testing of the business continuity plan.

If the servers behind clintonemail.com met the standard, Ms. Clinton and her supporters could have brought it out immediately and effectively ended the discussion by requesting the State Department to release the systems' certification and accreditation documents. Instead, she diverted attention by delivering printed email copies to the department and requesting they be released, and erased them from the server or servers. It is quite safe, therefore, to conclude that the servers used were operated in violation of the law and contrary to established Department of State instructions.

Ms. Clinton, however, was not just a State Department employee presumably violating the law and agency instructions; she was the department director, responsible to see that the department and its employees, including herself and others who had clintonemail.com accounts, operated within the law and in accord with the departments established instructions.

It appears she did not do so. That is far more than poor judgment; it is, arguably, a disqualifier for election to the office of President, the duties of which include, among other things, to "take Care that the Laaws be faithfully executed".