2 ms·

No they both had a .gov address, Hillary never did. That is a huge difference. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-em

No they both had a .gov address, Hillary never did. That is a huge difference. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto...

epistasis 10y ago
It does seem like it might be worse that they would use their private address even when they had a .gov, because it's more clearly a distinction. But in the end the effect is the same, if it were additional malfeasance than there would be some evidence of selection of particular topics to go off the .gov address. Not really sure what the huge difference is in this case.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  Very huge, that means unlike the others she had NO WAY to access the .gov through an official account unlike Powell etc, And private emails by law must have been kept at the time of her tenure. "Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. But her exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual, Mr. Baron said. The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency’s computer server is not working. “I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013. Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so."
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    > Very huge, that means unlike the others she had NO WAY to access the .gov through an official account unlike Powell etc That is pretty much the most minor and least relevant issue with Clinton's case.

epistasis 10y ago

It does seem like it might be worse that they would use their private address even when they had a .gov, because it's more clearly a distinction. But in the end the effect is the same, if it were additional malfeasance than there would be some evidence of selection of particular topics to go off the .gov address. Not really sure what the huge difference is in this case.

Mendenhall 10y ago
Very huge, that means unlike the others she had NO WAY to access the .gov through an official account unlike Powell etc, And private emails by law must have been kept at the time of her tenure. "Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. But her exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual, Mr. Baron said. The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency’s computer server is not working. “I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013. Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so."
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  > Very huge, that means unlike the others she had NO WAY to access the .gov through an official account unlike Powell etc That is pretty much the most minor and least relevant issue with Clinton's case.