Former State Department employee hired to be "email czar"

[Joes Place]

Personal server, private server, what ever you want to call it, still against State Department guidelines. And now the FBI may start looking into the deleted emails.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/us/hillary-clinton-emails-take-long-path-to-controversy.html

As I'd already posted, it was NOT against policies, per government spokespersons, and prior precedent had been set by previous SoS's that had already used personal email accounts. Those were in Republican administrations. If the rules changed, did they change before, or after her stint as SoS? Was that formally communicated anywhere?

Do you not understand the difference between a 'server' and an 'email account'? The server is irrelevant.

The more Op-Ed disinformation that gets posted in this thread really makes me lean toward this as a completely political hatchet job and media circus, than a real investigation.

We'll see what the FBI investigation turns up, but what I've seen formally reported is that they are less concerned with her 'personal email' or 'server' as they are with how certain confidential information made it onto unsecure email systems (government systems or otherwise). That is most likely to be the ultimate issue here.

I'm not a HC apologist by any stretch, but I am amazed at the lemming-like stupidity of some folks here in reading generalized headlines and jumping off the cliff of conclusions....

 

[gusto79]

In addition to the FOIA issue, HC didn't follow State Department guidelines.

When Mrs. Clinton became secretary in February 2009, the State Department’s general policy was “that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized” government computer. Nine months later, federal regulations were toughened to say that government agencies that allow employees to use nongovernment email accounts must “ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/u...n-didnt-follow-government-email-policies.html

They are substituting AIS (automated Information system) with government computer. Here is where that comes from.

It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. The Department’s authorized telework solution(s) are designed in a manner that meet these requirements and are not considered end points outside of the Department’s management control.

So I guess the question is whether they consider email an AIS. This is also from the same document:

All users who process SBU information on personally owned computers must ensure that these computers will provide adequate and appropriate security for that information. This includes: (1) Disabling unencrypted wireless access; (2) The maintenance of adequate physical security; (3) The use of anti-virus and spyware software; and (4) Ensuring that all operating system and other software security patches, virus definitions, firewall version updates, and spyware definitions are current.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf

 

[Joes Place]

Nine months later, federal regulations were toughened to say that government agencies that allow employees to use nongovernment email accounts must “ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.”

If the emails were sent to a '.gov' email address at the State Dept (or any other government server address), then they are 'preserved' by default, because those servers will retain copies of any outgoing or incoming email.

Again, the ONLY case that can be made with respect to this clause is IF HC and other employees were BOTH conducting department business and communication mutually over personal email accounts, and EXCLUDING any government servers in the process, as this MAY be (probably IS) a violation of proper recordkeeping procedures and laws. This would have to be something more substantial than discussing a birthday cake or Pottery Barn decor.....it would need to materially pertain to official government activities where the work-related information was circumventing government servers.

Also, this clause SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGES employee use of 'personal email accounts', implying they are NOT against policy.

Are you actually READING the stuff you post?

 

[gusto79]

If the emails were sent to a '.gov' email address at the State Dept (or any other government server address), then they are 'preserved' by default, because those servers will retain copies of any outgoing or incoming email.

Again, the ONLY case that can be made with respect to this clause is IF HC and other employees were BOTH conducting department business and communication mutually over personal email accounts, and EXCLUDING any government servers in the process, as this MAY be (probably IS) a violation of proper recordkeeping procedures and laws. This would have to be something more substantial than discussing a birthday cake or Pottery Barn decor.....it would need to materially pertain to official government activities where the work-related information was circumventing government servers.

Also, this clause SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGES employee use of 'personal email accounts', implying they are NOT against policy.

Are you actually READING the stuff you post?

Would manually turning over emails to the state department like Hillary did “ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.”?

 

[Joes Place]

Would manually turning over emails to the state department like Hillary did “ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.”?

If all they are looking for is emails sent to/from State Dept '.gov' email accounts on her server, then they really already have those, so there wouldn't be any need to review those from another server (hers) unless it is to verify records match up.

However, it's fairly possible they are concerned about or are checking for patterns of government work-related emails sent to other employees' personal email addresses, which circumvents the government servers completely. If they were to find significant numbers of communications, and ones containing 'reasonable' amounts of work-related material, she might "have some 'splaining to do".

My understanding is that FBI's focus is on where certain elements of classified material originated (not on what I've written above); they may also require her server files to verify or debunk that any of those 'leaks' were initiated by her. Timestamps are also critical, because some of that 'classified' info was not considered as such at the time, or may have had different 'classified' categorization among different departments/groups before a final 'consensus' tag was assigned to it. You cannot hold someone accountable for 'classified' information which was considered benign when they sent it or forwarded it, regardless of who's email it was sent to/from.

 

[N_fuego]

Again, the ONLY case that can be made with respect to this clause is IF HC and other employees were BOTH conducting department business and communication mutually over personal email accounts, and EXCLUDING any government servers in the process, as this MAY be (probably IS) a violation of proper recordkeeping procedures and laws. This would have to be something more substantial than discussing a birthday cake or Pottery Barn decor.....it would need to materially pertain to official government activities where the work-related information was circumventing government servers.


You mean like Huma Abedin, who also had an account on Hillary's server?

 

[gusto79]

If all they are looking for is emails sent to/from State Dept '.gov' email accounts on her server, then they really already have those, so there wouldn't be any need to review those from another server (hers) unless it is to verify records match up.

However, it's fairly possible they are concerned about or are checking for patterns of government work-related emails sent to other employees' personal email addresses, which circumvents the government servers completely. If they were to find significant numbers of communications, and ones containing 'reasonable' amounts of work-related material, she might "have some 'splaining to do".

My understanding is that FBI's focus is on where certain elements of classified material originated (not on what I've written above); they may also require her server files to verify or debunk that any of those 'leaks' were initiated by her. Timestamps are also critical, because some of that 'classified' info was not considered as such at the time, or may have had different 'classified' categorization among different departments/groups before a final 'consensus' tag was assigned to it. You cannot hold someone accountable for 'classified' information which was considered benign when they sent it or forwarded it, regardless of who's email it was sent to/from.

You seem to be under the assumption work related email can only go to/from other employees. She could could be in contact with people outside the state department or the us government.

 

[Joes Place]

You mean like Huma Abedin, who also had an account on Hillary's server?

The FBI has the files and information. To my knowledge, that aspect of the 'emails' issue has not been what they are focusing on - the issue has been looking into sources of 'classified' information.

I would presume this would be a concern if there were regular, work related communications outside the govt email systems among staffers.

Again: most of the information posted in this thread is Op Eds and overblown generalizations. That's Politics: 101. Let the fed agencies who are in charge of looking into this do their jobs, and form your opinions from facts, not Op Eds.

 

[Joes Place]

You seem to be under the assumption work related email can only go to/from other employees. She could could be in contact with people outside the state department or the us government.

True, but most of that communication is formally written (paper) or verbal, not emails. Condi Rice hardly used email at all when SoS.

 

[N_fuego]

You seem to be under the assumption work related email can only go to/from other employees. She could could be in contact with people outside the state department or the us government.

We already know that her emails to Sidney Blumenthal were hacked and for sale by some Romanian guy.

 

[Joes Place]

We already know that her emails to Sidney Blumenthal were hacked and for sale by some Romanian guy.

So?

Email, in general, is not considered to be a 'secure' communication mode, which is why it's not used for secure information. Even '.gov' emails which are moving outside government networks and onto the internet are 'hackable'.

 

[N_fuego]

So?

Email, in general, is not considered to be a 'secure' communication mode, which is why it's not used for secure information. Even '.gov' emails which are moving outside government networks and onto the internet are 'hackable'.

I guess that's why the FBI is now investigating her for violating the espionage act.

 

[N_fuego]

If the emails were sent to a '.gov' email address at the State Dept (or any other government server address), then they are 'preserved' by default, because those servers will retain copies of any outgoing or incoming email.

Again, the ONLY case that can be made with respect to this clause is IF HC and other employees were BOTH conducting department business and communication mutually over personal email accounts, and EXCLUDING any government servers in the process, as this MAY be (probably IS) a violation of proper recordkeeping procedures and laws. This would have to be something more substantial than discussing a birthday cake or Pottery Barn decor.....it would need to materially pertain to official government activities where the work-related information was circumventing government servers.

Also, this clause SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGES employee use of 'personal email accounts', implying they are NOT against policy.

Are you actually READING the stuff you post?

Yes, I read it, and I also found this regarding who Hillary was corresponding with.

Some 90 people, including lobbyists for foreign governments, lawmakers, top Obama aides and State Department employees, communicated directly with Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state using her personal email address, according to a McClatchy review of thousands of her recently released emails.

Many people said they were surprised when it was revealed in the spring that Clinton relied on a private email account on a private server in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home to conduct official business during her four years as Obama’s secretary of state. But the review of emails shows influential people in Washington and around the globe not only knew she used a personal account, but corresponded with her on that personal account.


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article31025682.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Joes Place]

But the review of emails shows influential people in Washington and around the globe not only knew she used a personal account, but corresponded with her on that personal account.

Wow.....that is indeed a STUNNING development....
Famous, influential people have personal email accounts....who knew!!!???

 

[N_fuego]

Wow.....that is indeed a STUNNING development....
Famous, influential people have personal email accounts....who knew!!!???

You implied previously that she was only emailing people in the State Department, so that there would be no issue with compliance with the FOIA.

 

[N_fuego]

Oh, and I guess you forgot that her personal email account was also her State Department account.

 

[Joes Place]

You implied previously that she was only emailing people in the State Department, so that there would be no issue with compliance with the FOIA.

hhhhhhwut?

Her personal emails, unrelated to dept or government activity in her official capacity as SoS, are not subject to any FOIA requests.

You aren't making any sense here; perhaps this is why you are so 'taken in' by sensationalized headlines vs facts.

 

[N_fuego]

We haven't seen any examples of Hillary's personal emails. She, herself determined which emails were personal and which were business related. Of course her use of a private email exclusively for business use was unprecedented.

 

[Joes Place]

We haven't seen any examples of Hillary's personal emails. She, herself determined which emails were personal and which were business related. Of course her use of a private email exclusively for business use was unprecedented.

You have a very bad reading comprehension problem. Her 'private email' was not used 'exclusively for business use'; it was used for both personal and business purposes. Furthermore, prior SoS's used personal email accounts for communication as well, which has been admitted by them personally. I'm not sure how to make that more clear to you.

Because the 'personal' and 'business' emails cannot be easily separated (from the same account), it makes this a much bigger mess for her to sort out. Any emails sent directly to '.gov' accounts are fairly simple; emails sent to other personal accounts or non-US-government personnel or to other employees' personal accounts are a more complex matter, and if that is what FBI is targeting then she will have a bigger problem. As it stands today, the information provided is that FBI was 'only' targeting sources of classified information sent through emails.

 

[N_fuego]

Colin Powell had 2 devices. He used one for private correspondence, and one for work. Furthermore, more the FBI is not investigating him for violating the espionage act, as they are Hillary.

 

[Joes Place]

Colin Powell had 2 devices. He used one for private correspondence, and one for work. Furthermore, more the FBI is not investigating him for violating the espionage act, as they are Hillary.

Again....reading comprehension. Colin Powell is QUOTED as claiming he used a 'personal email' for work correspondence; who cares which 'device' he used for them? You can access your email from multiple devices. You really look foolish with your continued wild accusations here - might want to reconsider where you are getting your 'news' stories from - I think your 'news' is coming from pundits and Op Eds, not actual news organizations.

You have NO IDEA what the FBI's investigation is about, and if HC is even being 'targeted' by them specifically. All they have stated is that they are following up on email trails for possibly classified information, AND it has been affirmed (so far) that NONE of those email trails STARTED with HC.