5 ms·

Removing classified material from the state department and storing emails on a personal server @ her house after stepping down as Sec. State. It's against the l

Removing classified material from the state department and storing emails on a personal server @ her house after stepping down as Sec. State. It's against the law; I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is the relevant text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

gizmo686 10y ago
Even before stepping down, it was wrong of here to store the emails on her personal server. I'm not sure, however, if that is criminal, civil, or legal but an OPSEC violation. There is also concerns because these servers were used (either deliberately or through incompetence) to hide documents from FOIA requests.
- threeseed 10y ago
  It was definitely wrong but the issue is that it wasn't unprecedented. Kerry was in fact the only Secretary of State to use the State Department email address. And with regards to FOIA under the Federal Records Act it was permissible to use a private email server so long as the requisite records were preserved which it appears they were. Anyone who thinks this is some cut and dry issue is deluding themselves.
  - marcusgarvey 10y ago
    >storing emails on a personal server @ her house has precedent? other Secretaries of State have done so? who?
    - mistermann 10y ago
      I'd also like to know the answer to this, it seems rather unlikely to me that secretaries of state are running their own email servers, or using something like gmail for confidential emails.
      - headShrinker 10y ago
        The server was maintained by the Clinton's tech guy. The deceive was housed in a utility closet off the bathroom in one of their mega houses. This isn't a gmail yahoo type deal. This is a high school kids email setup. Not professional in the least.
    - howlingfantods 10y ago
      According to the State Department, Colin Powell as well as high level aides to Condeleeza Rice handle classified info on their personal email addresses. Clinton is the only one who set up her own private server though.
      - rdancer 10y ago
        Source?
      - headShrinker 10y ago
        The law restricting government officials to use government email was only passed in 2009. Powell or rice weren't abusing any written rules, Clinton was.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - headShrinker 10y ago
    It's pretty cut and dry. Clinton was the only SoS that was legally required to maintain government email account for record keeping. Kerry is following the new laws as he should be. Oct. 2, 2009: federal regulations on handling electronic records is updated: “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” The responsibility for making and preserving the records is assigned to “the head of each federal agency.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/10/hillary-clintons-emails-a-timeline-of-actions-and-regulations/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/...
threeseed 10y ago
From what has been shown to date storing emails on her personal server was authorized and there is no clear evidence she removed classified material. There are a lot of allegations going around but only the FBI is going to know what is true or not. But even if everything she did is true the issue is around malicious intent. That will be the key factor in whether she is indicted or not.
- adrenalinelol 10y ago
  She didn't have a reason to have classified material on the server after she stepped down. Even if she had the OK from the administration for it during her tenure, she should have given the emails back to the government after resigning (as they aren't her property, and as mentioned are on some occasions deemed top secret).
- marcusgarvey 10y ago
  >was authorized do you have a source for this?
  - rdancer 10y ago
    Judging by your being downvoted, apparently they don't.
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago
  >But even if everything she did is true the issue is around malicious intent. That's completely false even though that talking point has been oft repeated in the media lately. Intent is not required to be guilty of the crime of mishandling classified information. The Relevant law is 18 USC 793 >793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document … or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 Aside from the fact that intent isn't required in order for a crime to have been committed, even a cursory examination of the emails clearly prove intent. >one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means. >In response to Clinton’s request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hillary-e-mail2.jpg http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hillar... Nothing says intent more then a clear and direct command to strip classifying headers off classified documents and send "nonsecure". >That will be the key factor in whether she is indicted or not. The only factor in whether or not she is indicted is unfortunately the fact that our legal system has entirely broken down. She will not be indicted by the Obama administration no matter what she does. It seems much more likely she will be impeached by the Republican Congress if she wins the election.

gizmo686 10y ago

Even before stepping down, it was wrong of here to store the emails on her personal server. I'm not sure, however, if that is criminal, civil, or legal but an OPSEC violation. There is also concerns because these servers were used (either deliberately or through incompetence) to hide documents from FOIA requests.

threeseed 10y ago
It was definitely wrong but the issue is that it wasn't unprecedented. Kerry was in fact the only Secretary of State to use the State Department email address. And with regards to FOIA under the Federal Records Act it was permissible to use a private email server so long as the requisite records were preserved which it appears they were. Anyone who thinks this is some cut and dry issue is deluding themselves.
- marcusgarvey 10y ago
  >storing emails on a personal server @ her house has precedent? other Secretaries of State have done so? who?
  - mistermann 10y ago
    I'd also like to know the answer to this, it seems rather unlikely to me that secretaries of state are running their own email servers, or using something like gmail for confidential emails.
    - headShrinker 10y ago
      The server was maintained by the Clinton's tech guy. The deceive was housed in a utility closet off the bathroom in one of their mega houses. This isn't a gmail yahoo type deal. This is a high school kids email setup. Not professional in the least.
  - howlingfantods 10y ago
    According to the State Department, Colin Powell as well as high level aides to Condeleeza Rice handle classified info on their personal email addresses. Clinton is the only one who set up her own private server though.
    - rdancer 10y ago
      Source?
    - headShrinker 10y ago
      The law restricting government officials to use government email was only passed in 2009. Powell or rice weren't abusing any written rules, Clinton was.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- headShrinker 10y ago
  It's pretty cut and dry. Clinton was the only SoS that was legally required to maintain government email account for record keeping. Kerry is following the new laws as he should be. Oct. 2, 2009: federal regulations on handling electronic records is updated: “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” The responsibility for making and preserving the records is assigned to “the head of each federal agency.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/10/hillary-clintons-emails-a-timeline-of-actions-and-regulations/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/...

threeseed 10y ago

From what has been shown to date storing emails on her personal server was authorized and there is no clear evidence she removed classified material. There are a lot of allegations going around but only the FBI is going to know what is true or not. But even if everything she did is true the issue is around malicious intent. That will be the key factor in whether she is indicted or not.

adrenalinelol 10y ago
She didn't have a reason to have classified material on the server after she stepped down. Even if she had the OK from the administration for it during her tenure, she should have given the emails back to the government after resigning (as they aren't her property, and as mentioned are on some occasions deemed top secret).
marcusgarvey 10y ago
>was authorized do you have a source for this?
- rdancer 10y ago
  Judging by your being downvoted, apparently they don't.
StanislavPetrov 10y ago
>But even if everything she did is true the issue is around malicious intent. That's completely false even though that talking point has been oft repeated in the media lately. Intent is not required to be guilty of the crime of mishandling classified information. The Relevant law is 18 USC 793 >793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document … or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 Aside from the fact that intent isn't required in order for a crime to have been committed, even a cursory examination of the emails clearly prove intent. >one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means. >In response to Clinton’s request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hillary-e-mail2.jpg http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hillar... Nothing says intent more then a clear and direct command to strip classifying headers off classified documents and send "nonsecure". >That will be the key factor in whether she is indicted or not. The only factor in whether or not she is indicted is unfortunately the fact that our legal system has entirely broken down. She will not be indicted by the Obama administration no matter what she does. It seems much more likely she will be impeached by the Republican Congress if she wins the election.