10 ms·

> Yep, but it became under their jurisdiction when it was discovered that she did government business via the private server. No, it didn't. It's still her pr

> Yep, but it became under their jurisdiction when it was discovered that she did government business via the private server. No, it didn't. It's still her private email account. They can request nicely to see them, but they can't forcibly see them without a warrant.

danso 10y ago
Maybe you should tell the State Department that: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0801b24d47274f0fac60beedc5f2e6f8/clinton-failed-hand-over-key-email-state-department http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0801b24d47274f0fac60beedc5f2e... ^ Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday...The email was not among the tens of thousands of emails Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence. Abedin, who also used a private account on Clinton's server, provided a copy from her own inbox after the State Department asked her to return any work-related emails. The State Department did not get a warrant before asking Clinton and her staff to turn over emails that went through Clinton's server.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  > The State Department did not get a warrant before asking Clinton and her staff to turn over emails that went through Clinton's server. Only emails related to official business. The distinction is crucial to these questions of law, but is consistently forgotten or elided, even by this Hill article.
  - ars 10y ago
    > Only emails related to official business. The distinction is crucial to these questions of law, but is consistently forgotten or elided, even by this Hill article. It's not forgotten. No one believes her. (Except maybe you.) She deleted the personal emails. Who does that? At most you don't turn them over, and then store them somewhere. Hard disks are cheap. But no, she deleted them, making 100% sure no one could ever dispute her. And I seem to remember an official email she did not disclose being discovered when the other person in the email disclosed it. So she is known to have withheld official emails.
    - mozumder 10y ago
      It's fine that she deleted her personal emails. Everyone does that. No one really cares about this issue except the House Republicans. They really are trying their hardest to figure out something here, but are obviously coming up empty. It just makes them look foolish.
      - curried_haskell 10y ago
        Are you serious? Can you see you yourself right now? Take a step back, back from the politics, and think about the kind of behaviour you are defending right now. It's not even Hillary's behaviour that makes me lose the most faith in western democracy. It's people like you. The people who go around justifying this corruption because your candidate did it and the other candidate's party is trying to dig it up. You make me sick.
        sctb 10y ago
        We've asked you to please comment civilly and substantively or not at all, and now you've added personal attacks. We ban accounts that continue to post this way. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - stonetear 10y ago
        I'm not a Republican and I care about this issue deeply.
        imron 10y ago
        Please stay away from weight rooms, swimming pools, and avoid running alone at night.
    - snowwrestler 10y ago
      Deleting personal emails is common and legal, even for the Secretary of State. You're essentially arguing that a person who desires privacy is therefore suspicious. I would hope that folks here on HN recognize that's a bullshit argument.
stale2002 10y ago
There was a criminal investigation, and a freedom of information request. So yes, according to the courts, they WERE able to forcibly make her turn over the emails.
- mozumder 10y ago
  Later on, but not at the point here. He could delete all her private emails here if he wished.
  - danso 10y ago
    So what is the point? A discussion about what could be possible? He could dress up as Osama bin Laden and crash his car through the White House gate but that doesn't mean that it's something that Secretary Clinton believes is necessary for her campaign. Similarly, yes, he could delete the emails after being told they were part of an investigation, but that would lead to unwanted consequences. Could he have deleted them before any investigation started? Sure, then it would just be a cloud of suspicion, but no legal ramifications. My original point was that as soon as Clinton agreed to turn over the emails, it was in the State Department's ballpark to determine which were eligible for disclosure, as the emails were written during her time at State and ostensibly dealt with State business. Not sure why you felt you had to argue that she had the capability of just destroying her servers. If she had done that, we wouldn't be having this discussion because she likely wouldn't be in the race.
  - patrickg_zill 10y ago
    you raise the point: where in the timeline of subpoenas or other legal requests does the attempt at modifying the email archive, does Combetta's post fit? My understanding: Combetta's post comes 1 day after Hillary had reached an agreement about turning them over. So was she dealing in bad faith with the govt? To be determined I guess?
    - mozumder 10y ago
      Combetta is just trying to hide email addresses from spammers. How is that "bad faith"? "Bad faith" is trying to expose personal email addresses to spammers. The House Republicans would love it if they could publicize her private personal email address. It would render it useless. The IT guy's job here is to make sure that doesn't happen.
gozur88 10y ago
This is wrong, as a matter of law. It doesn't matter who set up the email account - any emails you generate as part of official business are official records. They're government property.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  > any emails you generate as part of official business are official records. They're government property. But not personal emails. Read the Hill article very carefully and see if it identifies whether we're talking about official business or personal. It doesn't. The House GOP is careful to avoid making that distinction, because their goal is to feed a sense of impropriety--a goal which seems to be well-met here on HN, judging by the comments. But the distinction matters, it does exist in law, and it is based on content and parties, not servers. Sending official State business email from a server does not automatically expose the full content of that server to federal record-keeping laws.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    >But not personal emails. That's true. >The House GOP is careful to avoid making that distinction, because their goal is to feed a sense of impropriety--a goal which seems to be well-met here on HN, judging by the comments. No, the sense of impropriety was fed by Hillary Clinton herself when she turned over a tiny fraction of emails relating to official business and then destroyed the rest so nobody could ever retrieve them. Honestly, that people can't see, by now, after the cattle futures, after the Rose Law documents, after the Clinton Foundation, after the destroyed emails, that this woman is crooked... I can't help but be amazed.
    - snowwrestler 10y ago
      Again, to make this perfectly clear: she was only required to turn over official business emails. And was legally permitted to do what she wanted with her personal emails, including delete them. It is nonsensical to say that following the law implies impropriety. On top of this, the FBI recovered and reviewed many of the emails that she deleted, and did not find anything damning. They declined to recommend a prosecution. Setting aside the politics of "it's Hillary Clinton and she's running for president," there is no evidence that she tried to break the law, or succeeded in doing so. The evidence shows that she wanted some privacy, and even Hillary Clinton is entitled to that under the law.

danso 10y ago

Maybe you should tell the State Department that: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0801b24d47274f0fac60beedc5f2e6f8/clinton-failed-hand-over-key-email-state-department http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0801b24d47274f0fac60beedc5f2e... ^ Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday...The email was not among the tens of thousands of emails Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence. Abedin, who also used a private account on Clinton's server, provided a copy from her own inbox after the State Department asked her to return any work-related emails. The State Department did not get a warrant before asking Clinton and her staff to turn over emails that went through Clinton's server.

snowwrestler 10y ago
> The State Department did not get a warrant before asking Clinton and her staff to turn over emails that went through Clinton's server. Only emails related to official business. The distinction is crucial to these questions of law, but is consistently forgotten or elided, even by this Hill article.
- ars 10y ago
  > Only emails related to official business. The distinction is crucial to these questions of law, but is consistently forgotten or elided, even by this Hill article. It's not forgotten. No one believes her. (Except maybe you.) She deleted the personal emails. Who does that? At most you don't turn them over, and then store them somewhere. Hard disks are cheap. But no, she deleted them, making 100% sure no one could ever dispute her. And I seem to remember an official email she did not disclose being discovered when the other person in the email disclosed it. So she is known to have withheld official emails.
  - mozumder 10y ago
    It's fine that she deleted her personal emails. Everyone does that. No one really cares about this issue except the House Republicans. They really are trying their hardest to figure out something here, but are obviously coming up empty. It just makes them look foolish.
    - curried_haskell 10y ago
      Are you serious? Can you see you yourself right now? Take a step back, back from the politics, and think about the kind of behaviour you are defending right now. It's not even Hillary's behaviour that makes me lose the most faith in western democracy. It's people like you. The people who go around justifying this corruption because your candidate did it and the other candidate's party is trying to dig it up. You make me sick.
      - sctb 10y ago
        We've asked you to please comment civilly and substantively or not at all, and now you've added personal attacks. We ban accounts that continue to post this way. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - stonetear 10y ago
      I'm not a Republican and I care about this issue deeply.
      - imron 10y ago
        Please stay away from weight rooms, swimming pools, and avoid running alone at night.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Deleting personal emails is common and legal, even for the Secretary of State. You're essentially arguing that a person who desires privacy is therefore suspicious. I would hope that folks here on HN recognize that's a bullshit argument.

stale2002 10y ago

There was a criminal investigation, and a freedom of information request. So yes, according to the courts, they WERE able to forcibly make her turn over the emails.

mozumder 10y ago
Later on, but not at the point here. He could delete all her private emails here if he wished.
- danso 10y ago
  So what is the point? A discussion about what could be possible? He could dress up as Osama bin Laden and crash his car through the White House gate but that doesn't mean that it's something that Secretary Clinton believes is necessary for her campaign. Similarly, yes, he could delete the emails after being told they were part of an investigation, but that would lead to unwanted consequences. Could he have deleted them before any investigation started? Sure, then it would just be a cloud of suspicion, but no legal ramifications. My original point was that as soon as Clinton agreed to turn over the emails, it was in the State Department's ballpark to determine which were eligible for disclosure, as the emails were written during her time at State and ostensibly dealt with State business. Not sure why you felt you had to argue that she had the capability of just destroying her servers. If she had done that, we wouldn't be having this discussion because she likely wouldn't be in the race.
- patrickg_zill 10y ago
  you raise the point: where in the timeline of subpoenas or other legal requests does the attempt at modifying the email archive, does Combetta's post fit? My understanding: Combetta's post comes 1 day after Hillary had reached an agreement about turning them over. So was she dealing in bad faith with the govt? To be determined I guess?
  - mozumder 10y ago
    Combetta is just trying to hide email addresses from spammers. How is that "bad faith"? "Bad faith" is trying to expose personal email addresses to spammers. The House Republicans would love it if they could publicize her private personal email address. It would render it useless. The IT guy's job here is to make sure that doesn't happen.

gozur88 10y ago

This is wrong, as a matter of law. It doesn't matter who set up the email account - any emails you generate as part of official business are official records. They're government property.

snowwrestler 10y ago
> any emails you generate as part of official business are official records. They're government property. But not personal emails. Read the Hill article very carefully and see if it identifies whether we're talking about official business or personal. It doesn't. The House GOP is careful to avoid making that distinction, because their goal is to feed a sense of impropriety--a goal which seems to be well-met here on HN, judging by the comments. But the distinction matters, it does exist in law, and it is based on content and parties, not servers. Sending official State business email from a server does not automatically expose the full content of that server to federal record-keeping laws.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >But not personal emails. That's true. >The House GOP is careful to avoid making that distinction, because their goal is to feed a sense of impropriety--a goal which seems to be well-met here on HN, judging by the comments. No, the sense of impropriety was fed by Hillary Clinton herself when she turned over a tiny fraction of emails relating to official business and then destroyed the rest so nobody could ever retrieve them. Honestly, that people can't see, by now, after the cattle futures, after the Rose Law documents, after the Clinton Foundation, after the destroyed emails, that this woman is crooked... I can't help but be amazed.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Again, to make this perfectly clear: she was only required to turn over official business emails. And was legally permitted to do what she wanted with her personal emails, including delete them. It is nonsensical to say that following the law implies impropriety. On top of this, the FBI recovered and reviewed many of the emails that she deleted, and did not find anything damning. They declined to recommend a prosecution. Setting aside the politics of "it's Hillary Clinton and she's running for president," there is no evidence that she tried to break the law, or succeeded in doing so. The evidence shows that she wanted some privacy, and even Hillary Clinton is entitled to that under the law.