How 'The New York Times' Bungled the Hillary Clinton Emails Story
July 26, 2015 8:43 AM Subscribe
Wow. The first time that the story—which readers cannot possibly know is about FOIA requests—finally mentions FOIA requests, it just manufactures a reality out of thin air. Using a private account would not, in any way, shield Clinton’s correspondence from congressional or FOIA requests.
As understand it Clinton sorted through her e-mails, decided which were personal, and destroyed the e-mails she deemed irrelevant. She may legally be subject to FOIA requests but in practice running her own server has shielded her from FOIA and congressional requests because congress is not going to have the political weight to push the issue. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this all through President Clinton term(s) but after birtherism, muslim Obama, Benghazi, Whitewater, Vince Foster paranoia, etc. republicans are not going to be taken seriously.
posted by rdr at 9:04 AM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
As understand it Clinton sorted through her e-mails, decided which were personal, and destroyed the e-mails she deemed irrelevant. She may legally be subject to FOIA requests but in practice running her own server has shielded her from FOIA and congressional requests because congress is not going to have the political weight to push the issue. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this all through President Clinton term(s) but after birtherism, muslim Obama, Benghazi, Whitewater, Vince Foster paranoia, etc. republicans are not going to be taken seriously.
posted by rdr at 9:04 AM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
As understand it Clinton sorted through her e-mails, decided which were personal, and destroyed the e-mails she deemed irrelevant.
you or i would be looking at possible criminal charges for doing that, assuming the government hadn't seized the server to begin with
posted by pyramid termite at 9:11 AM on July 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
you or i would be looking at possible criminal charges for doing that, assuming the government hadn't seized the server to begin with
posted by pyramid termite at 9:11 AM on July 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
"That the Times article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clinton’s emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable."
It is becoming painfully obvious that all the rumors about the Times going after Hillary are true. This article is particularly embarrassing, and stupid.
What I can't fathom is "Why?" Why further tarnish your reputation with bullshit stories against someone who is almost certainly the next President of the United States? I'd understand if it were, say, the Washington Times, but why would the NYT do this? It's not as though Clinton is Bernie Sanders, either, she's absolutely a DLC centrist in the mold of Bill. Whose axe is grinding here?
posted by leotrotsky at 9:17 AM on July 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
It is becoming painfully obvious that all the rumors about the Times going after Hillary are true. This article is particularly embarrassing, and stupid.
What I can't fathom is "Why?" Why further tarnish your reputation with bullshit stories against someone who is almost certainly the next President of the United States? I'd understand if it were, say, the Washington Times, but why would the NYT do this? It's not as though Clinton is Bernie Sanders, either, she's absolutely a DLC centrist in the mold of Bill. Whose axe is grinding here?
posted by leotrotsky at 9:17 AM on July 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's worth looking at the corrections appended to the original Times piece, which essentially turn the article into mush.
Correction: July 25, 2015
An article and a headline in some editions on Friday about a request to the Justice Department for an investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state misstated the nature of the request, using information from senior government officials. It addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.
Correction: July 26, 2015
An article in some editions on Friday about a request to the Justice Department for an investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state referred incorrectly, using information from senior government officials, to the request. It was a “security referral,” pertaining to possible mishandling of classified information, officials said, not a “criminal referral.”
rdr - "in practice running her own server has shielded her from FOIA and congressional requests because congress is not going to have the political weight to push the issue."
It what sense do the Republicans currently running Congress not have the "weight" to push the issue? They have the weight to push the Benghazi nonsense, after all.
Also, according to the Newsweek piece:
Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control.
posted by univac at 9:20 AM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Correction: July 25, 2015
An article and a headline in some editions on Friday about a request to the Justice Department for an investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state misstated the nature of the request, using information from senior government officials. It addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.
Correction: July 26, 2015
An article in some editions on Friday about a request to the Justice Department for an investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state referred incorrectly, using information from senior government officials, to the request. It was a “security referral,” pertaining to possible mishandling of classified information, officials said, not a “criminal referral.”
rdr - "in practice running her own server has shielded her from FOIA and congressional requests because congress is not going to have the political weight to push the issue."
It what sense do the Republicans currently running Congress not have the "weight" to push the issue? They have the weight to push the Benghazi nonsense, after all.
Also, according to the Newsweek piece:
Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control.
posted by univac at 9:20 AM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
From the Lifestyle section:
Forget Valets, Personal Mail Servers Are A Park Slope Necessityposted by ethansr at 9:25 AM on July 26, 2015 [25 favorites]
When Reginald and his new wife Kim moved in to their 2nd story walk up, they knew they needed one thing, no it wasn't a vintage caviar tureen tempered in the waters of the Caspian Sea (so last year), and this health conscious couple definitely didn't want to install an elevator to help lift their luggage to a new level (they travel often).
What this young power couple knew they needed was an IBM P8, at $35,000 this sleek computing machine provides the couple with reliable email delivery without breaking the bank. "This email server uses PowerPC processors, just like high end Apple computers used to use until they... Started to make compromises...", Reginald (or Regipookins as his friends call him) informs us.
This couple makes no compromises when it comes to storing their email. "Hillary really has been an inspiration to us," Kim says, "Private email accounts for official business were so trashy when Sarah [Palin] did it on Yahoo!, now we feel like we have an email server we can be proud of."
"If we were going to have kids, they would be fighting over who would inherit this email server," Regipookins adds, "It's such a great investment"
Forget Valets, Personal Mail Servers Are A Park Slope Necessity
Not excerpted from 'The Onion'?
posted by uraniumwilly at 9:30 AM on July 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
Not excerpted from 'The Onion'?
posted by uraniumwilly at 9:30 AM on July 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
The latest Times story seems to be bullshit and that's a win for Clinton. If she can make the discussion be about whether she knowingly sent classified information from her server, it's a win for her. My problem is with private server set up in the first place.
Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department.
That's only true if you accept Clinton's determination of which e-mails on her server were work related. That's why she had a private server.
posted by rdr at 9:34 AM on July 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department.
That's only true if you accept Clinton's determination of which e-mails on her server were work related. That's why she had a private server.
posted by rdr at 9:34 AM on July 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hillerary, I believe, not the only political figure to use private servers. What might be noted: information now listed as classified might not have been so listed when on her private server.
As for the idea that the Times is out to do her in, does that imply that they prefer Bernie, Donald, or Jeb? I do recall a piece that was not kind to Jeb.
posted by Postroad at 9:36 AM on July 26, 2015
As for the idea that the Times is out to do her in, does that imply that they prefer Bernie, Donald, or Jeb? I do recall a piece that was not kind to Jeb.
posted by Postroad at 9:36 AM on July 26, 2015
As for the idea that the Times is out to do her in, does that imply that they prefer Bernie, Donald, or Jeb? I do recall a piece that was not kind to Jeb.
As a NY Times subscriber, I'm OK with solid scrutiny of Hillary. But there is no excuse for the Times to post some of the sloppiest journalism in town, possibly due to to their emphasis on pursuing her.
I think they did a crappy job on the Marco Rubio piece too.
posted by uraniumwilly at 9:48 AM on July 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
As a NY Times subscriber, I'm OK with solid scrutiny of Hillary. But there is no excuse for the Times to post some of the sloppiest journalism in town, possibly due to to their emphasis on pursuing her.
I think they did a crappy job on the Marco Rubio piece too.
posted by uraniumwilly at 9:48 AM on July 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
The NYT really fucked up here. To an extreme degree. Frankly, I wonder whether the first version of this article could support a defamation suit.
(And I can confirm that errors in processing and responding to FOIA requests is common and widespread across every government agency I've ever dealt with, including State. In my opinion it typically (not always, typically) has zero to do with malice or secrecy, but happens because many government agencies give responsibility for handling FOIA requests to employees whose "real"/primary jobs have nothing to do with this and therefore are no more talented at crafting search terms or looking through databases than any random citizen on the street.)
posted by sallybrown at 9:50 AM on July 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
(And I can confirm that errors in processing and responding to FOIA requests is common and widespread across every government agency I've ever dealt with, including State. In my opinion it typically (not always, typically) has zero to do with malice or secrecy, but happens because many government agencies give responsibility for handling FOIA requests to employees whose "real"/primary jobs have nothing to do with this and therefore are no more talented at crafting search terms or looking through databases than any random citizen on the street.)
posted by sallybrown at 9:50 AM on July 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
BULLGHAZI
posted by Artw at 9:52 AM on July 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 9:52 AM on July 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
The whole private server thing is so transparently an attempt to duck the law that I'm surprised she was foolish enough to try it.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:53 AM on July 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 9:53 AM on July 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
As understand it Clinton sorted through her e-mails, decided which were personal, and destroyed the e-mails she deemed irrelevant.
-----
you or i would be looking at possible criminal charges for doing that, assuming the government hadn't seized the server to begin with
I've been employed by companies that have been sued (many times, actually--it's a field rich in IP disputes), and that's exactly how we do it. Basically a memo saying "Do not destroy records relevant to X." (More precisely worded and with a lot of bold and all caps, but that's the gist.) Other records continue to be destroyed under records retention policies. So at least in my experience no, it's not something that would lead to criminal charges to me.
I'll also add the the "determination of what is personal and what is not" is something that every government official does when they have an official e-mail account as well. They send some from a personal account, and some from the government account. They obviously do not send e-mails they think are personal to some government official for an independent determination of "personalness."
posted by mark k at 9:54 AM on July 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
-----
you or i would be looking at possible criminal charges for doing that, assuming the government hadn't seized the server to begin with
I've been employed by companies that have been sued (many times, actually--it's a field rich in IP disputes), and that's exactly how we do it. Basically a memo saying "Do not destroy records relevant to X." (More precisely worded and with a lot of bold and all caps, but that's the gist.) Other records continue to be destroyed under records retention policies. So at least in my experience no, it's not something that would lead to criminal charges to me.
I'll also add the the "determination of what is personal and what is not" is something that every government official does when they have an official e-mail account as well. They send some from a personal account, and some from the government account. They obviously do not send e-mails they think are personal to some government official for an independent determination of "personalness."
posted by mark k at 9:54 AM on July 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
Totally offtopic but:
IBM P8, at $35,000 this sleek computing machine provides the couple with reliable email delivery without breaking the bank
Lolwut. I'll build you a reliable email server for $500. Can I do that and then charge these fools $10k? It'll be a bargain!
posted by dis_integration at 9:55 AM on July 26, 2015 [14 favorites]
IBM P8, at $35,000 this sleek computing machine provides the couple with reliable email delivery without breaking the bank
Lolwut. I'll build you a reliable email server for $500. Can I do that and then charge these fools $10k? It'll be a bargain!
posted by dis_integration at 9:55 AM on July 26, 2015 [14 favorites]
The whole private server thing is so transparently an attempt to duck the law that I'm surprised she was foolish enough to try it.
The thing that bothers me is, was there no one on her staff who felt that they could stand up and say, hey, this is a terrible idea?
posted by thelonius at 10:06 AM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
The thing that bothers me is, was there no one on her staff who felt that they could stand up and say, hey, this is a terrible idea?
posted by thelonius at 10:06 AM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
It is becoming painfully obvious that all the rumors about the Times going after Hillary are true. This article is particularly embarrassing, and stupid.
No less embarrassing than the hit pieces against Snowden and Assange, I guess. Maybe their editorial board wants to be fairer about its targets. The only difference, perhaps, is that Hillary is in a position to fight back. The other victims were not so lucky.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:07 AM on July 26, 2015
No less embarrassing than the hit pieces against Snowden and Assange, I guess. Maybe their editorial board wants to be fairer about its targets. The only difference, perhaps, is that Hillary is in a position to fight back. The other victims were not so lucky.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:07 AM on July 26, 2015
Power PC, not like that useless Intel trash that ruined Apple.
posted by Artw at 10:22 AM on July 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:22 AM on July 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
As for the idea that the Times is out to do her in, does that imply that they prefer Bernie, Donald, or Jeb?
It's not that the mainstream media and the right prefer anyone else, they just hate hate hate Hillary with a passion. They wouldn't care if her opposition was a rutabaga with googly eyes and a Brillo pad for a wig. It's been that way since 1990. I've never understood the reason for it, and I doubt I ever will. It's like dogs and cats. She could f****** cure cancer overnight, and the nation would be up in arms about how horrible she was for putting all those chemotherapy nurses out of work.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:36 AM on July 26, 2015 [20 favorites]
It's not that the mainstream media and the right prefer anyone else, they just hate hate hate Hillary with a passion. They wouldn't care if her opposition was a rutabaga with googly eyes and a Brillo pad for a wig. It's been that way since 1990. I've never understood the reason for it, and I doubt I ever will. It's like dogs and cats. She could f****** cure cancer overnight, and the nation would be up in arms about how horrible she was for putting all those chemotherapy nurses out of work.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:36 AM on July 26, 2015 [20 favorites]
They sure kept the Whitewater story alive, that's true.
posted by thelonius at 10:40 AM on July 26, 2015
posted by thelonius at 10:40 AM on July 26, 2015
ethansr's post about Regipookins was satirical by the way
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:44 AM on July 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:44 AM on July 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
Power PC, not like that useless Intel trash that ruined Apple.
30K worth of heatsink, 5k of processor.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:55 AM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
30K worth of heatsink, 5k of processor.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:55 AM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
I dunno how much they're in the tank against Hillary when they'll make late night stealth edits (7/24 12:47 & 1:39 AM) upon her camp's request.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 11:00 AM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 11:00 AM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
They wouldn't care if her opposition was a rutabaga with googly eyes and a Brillo pad for a wig
Come on, now- even they know Rand Paul doesn't really have a shot.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:04 AM on July 26, 2015 [25 favorites]
Come on, now- even they know Rand Paul doesn't really have a shot.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:04 AM on July 26, 2015 [25 favorites]
If this was Trump, he'd be like "Fifteen years of digging through my garbage, and all you can come up with is I used the wrong email account? Next question." And that would be the end of that.
posted by fungible at 11:11 AM on July 26, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by fungible at 11:11 AM on July 26, 2015 [15 favorites]
With any luck, her campaign will disintegrate and Biden will enter the race. President Biden would be a damn sight better than President Clinton.
posted by jayder at 11:32 AM on July 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by jayder at 11:32 AM on July 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
Substantive problems aside, let's all take a step back and appreciate this moment: Newsweek just led an article with, "What the hell is happening at The New York Times?"
*headdesk*
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:33 AM on July 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
*headdesk*
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:33 AM on July 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
Interesting to see this right on the heels of questions about the NYT's nail salon story.
posted by salvia at 11:42 AM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by salvia at 11:42 AM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
So what I'm hearing is, it's about ethics in journalism?
posted by pwnguin at 11:50 AM on July 26, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by pwnguin at 11:50 AM on July 26, 2015 [10 favorites]
Regardless of what really happened, a lot of conservative media and politicians sure sound a lot like an out of shape forty-something re-litigating that big high school football game where they blame the referee for robbing them of the winning touchdown pass.
Most of us "lefties" have given up on the possibility of indictments for Bush administration officials regarding Iraq, so my advice to conservatives: "Try to move on to things you can actually get accomplished."
posted by Muncle at 12:05 PM on July 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
Most of us "lefties" have given up on the possibility of indictments for Bush administration officials regarding Iraq, so my advice to conservatives: "Try to move on to things you can actually get accomplished."
posted by Muncle at 12:05 PM on July 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
Most of us "lefties" have given up on the possibility of indictments for Bush administration officials regarding Iraq, so my advice to conservatives: "Try to move on to things you can actually get accomplished."
such as sabotaging clinton's chances of getting elected?
this isn't a totally futile thing they're trying to do here - if it doesn't have legal consequences, it could well have political ones
posted by pyramid termite at 12:47 PM on July 26, 2015
such as sabotaging clinton's chances of getting elected?
this isn't a totally futile thing they're trying to do here - if it doesn't have legal consequences, it could well have political ones
posted by pyramid termite at 12:47 PM on July 26, 2015
Do politicians even use encryption for emails?
posted by benzenedream at 1:30 PM on July 26, 2015
posted by benzenedream at 1:30 PM on July 26, 2015
That's only true if you accept Clinton's determination of which e-mails on her server were work related. That's why she had a private server.
I've thought about this particular problem a lot and I'm realizing that the only potential "work related" e-mails in this case that could be potentially lost would be ones that are sent from her private e-mail server to other private or non-US governmental e-mail servers. I haven't seen anyone talk much about this aspect because it's a probably sexier headline to imply that Clinton is all powerful and make people think that every single e-mail she's ever sent or received is entirely under her control.
Given that 99% of her work e-mails are probably going to be dealing with other employees with US governmental e-mails, so long as someone in the list of recipients of her e-mail had a US governmental e-mail, it means it's being kept as a record; which means an appropriate FOIA request (no doubt State Department and other agencies have already been bombarded with the request) of simply "All e-mails to or from [clinton private e-mail account" would snag those messages at those agencies.
Thus, I don't think it's as simple as saying Clinton has full control over the vast majority of her work e-mails - the agencies absolutely have access to those records where other government employees are looped in.
The risk of records that aren't turned over then, should focus on what I'd imagine the small amount of records would be in the following situations:
1) She's e-mailing about work related issues to other governmental employees who only have private, non-governmental e-mails as well.
This is possible, but then problem goes beyond Clinton in this case.
2) She's e-mailing about work related issues to other foreign government e-mail addresses, and nobody else with a governmental e-mail is looped in at all in the conversation.
Again, possible, but this seems exceedingly dumb and assumes that she had no need for any other employees to know about conversations she's had with foreign entities.
None of this is to excuse her usage of a private e-mail account - It's dumb and irresponsible and ends up putting a lot of strain on her former colleagues at State to deal with the aftermath of this. It's probably more than likely someone internally at some point questioned this process and was told to shut up. That being said - I have less concerns about the potential for lost records, certainly ones of any real consequence.
posted by Karaage at 1:46 PM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
I've thought about this particular problem a lot and I'm realizing that the only potential "work related" e-mails in this case that could be potentially lost would be ones that are sent from her private e-mail server to other private or non-US governmental e-mail servers. I haven't seen anyone talk much about this aspect because it's a probably sexier headline to imply that Clinton is all powerful and make people think that every single e-mail she's ever sent or received is entirely under her control.
Given that 99% of her work e-mails are probably going to be dealing with other employees with US governmental e-mails, so long as someone in the list of recipients of her e-mail had a US governmental e-mail, it means it's being kept as a record; which means an appropriate FOIA request (no doubt State Department and other agencies have already been bombarded with the request) of simply "All e-mails to or from [clinton private e-mail account" would snag those messages at those agencies.
Thus, I don't think it's as simple as saying Clinton has full control over the vast majority of her work e-mails - the agencies absolutely have access to those records where other government employees are looped in.
The risk of records that aren't turned over then, should focus on what I'd imagine the small amount of records would be in the following situations:
1) She's e-mailing about work related issues to other governmental employees who only have private, non-governmental e-mails as well.
This is possible, but then problem goes beyond Clinton in this case.
2) She's e-mailing about work related issues to other foreign government e-mail addresses, and nobody else with a governmental e-mail is looped in at all in the conversation.
Again, possible, but this seems exceedingly dumb and assumes that she had no need for any other employees to know about conversations she's had with foreign entities.
None of this is to excuse her usage of a private e-mail account - It's dumb and irresponsible and ends up putting a lot of strain on her former colleagues at State to deal with the aftermath of this. It's probably more than likely someone internally at some point questioned this process and was told to shut up. That being said - I have less concerns about the potential for lost records, certainly ones of any real consequence.
posted by Karaage at 1:46 PM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
It what sense do the Republicans currently running Congress not have the "weight" to push the issue? They have the weight to push the Benghazi nonsense, after all.
Last I heard the Oversight Committee was ready to send out a subpoena for her e-mail records, but I believe the Benghazi committee was already using the Benghazi issue as a vehicle to subpoena the e-mail records, so it's possible Chaffetz backed off because Gowdy wanted the glory.
It may also be that they don't want to push the issue too hard because god forbid people realize that Congress isn't subject to FOIA and they can use all the personal email they want because we aren't able to read their e-mails either.
posted by Karaage at 2:12 PM on July 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Last I heard the Oversight Committee was ready to send out a subpoena for her e-mail records, but I believe the Benghazi committee was already using the Benghazi issue as a vehicle to subpoena the e-mail records, so it's possible Chaffetz backed off because Gowdy wanted the glory.
It may also be that they don't want to push the issue too hard because god forbid people realize that Congress isn't subject to FOIA and they can use all the personal email they want because we aren't able to read their e-mails either.
posted by Karaage at 2:12 PM on July 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
If only she was a neo-con she could just delete everything and tell the press - and the country - to piss up a rope and "get over it".
posted by Alter Cocker at 3:10 PM on July 26, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Alter Cocker at 3:10 PM on July 26, 2015 [9 favorites]
That's only true if you accept Clinton's determination of which e-mails on her server were work related. That's why she had a private server.
And that is perfectly legal and standard practice in government, for example for paper documents. All government employees save the work related documents and destroy the others. Standard procedure.
If she were improperly destroying documents, then somewhere, someone would turn up those documents in the government servers Hillary's emails were sent to or from. Has anyone found even one of these that would indicate intentional obstruction?
As to the claim from your link that some of the government servers on the other end did not preserve their data, then we can only conclude that its a good thing Hillary had her own server or there might be no records at all.
posted by JackFlash at 3:13 PM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
And that is perfectly legal and standard practice in government, for example for paper documents. All government employees save the work related documents and destroy the others. Standard procedure.
If she were improperly destroying documents, then somewhere, someone would turn up those documents in the government servers Hillary's emails were sent to or from. Has anyone found even one of these that would indicate intentional obstruction?
As to the claim from your link that some of the government servers on the other end did not preserve their data, then we can only conclude that its a good thing Hillary had her own server or there might be no records at all.
posted by JackFlash at 3:13 PM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
The whole private server thing is so transparently an attempt to duck the law that I'm surprised she was foolish enough to try it.
Republicans are not going to push very hard to make this sort of thing difficult - after all, it's been common knowledge for a while that Republican administrations take the same route around FOIA "damage".
Hell, Gov. Walker is so brazen as to not only set up a private email server, he set up a private a private Economic Development Consortium (the WEDC) that has given out ~400 million dollars in taxpayer funded "loans" and collected ~11 million in loan payments. He's currently arguing before his Toady WI Supreme Court that because it's a private company handing out taxpayer money to god knows who that FOIA laws do not apply. He will win, because the Toady WI Supreme Court is bought and paid for.
So, yeah, of course Hillary thought she would get away with it. The Republicans are not going to work too hard to close that loophole.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:17 PM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Republicans are not going to push very hard to make this sort of thing difficult - after all, it's been common knowledge for a while that Republican administrations take the same route around FOIA "damage".
Hell, Gov. Walker is so brazen as to not only set up a private email server, he set up a private a private Economic Development Consortium (the WEDC) that has given out ~400 million dollars in taxpayer funded "loans" and collected ~11 million in loan payments. He's currently arguing before his Toady WI Supreme Court that because it's a private company handing out taxpayer money to god knows who that FOIA laws do not apply. He will win, because the Toady WI Supreme Court is bought and paid for.
So, yeah, of course Hillary thought she would get away with it. The Republicans are not going to work too hard to close that loophole.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:17 PM on July 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Congress isn't subject to FOIA
wait what
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:33 PM on July 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
wait what
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:33 PM on July 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Whitewater investigation: Six-plus years, $60 million.
9/11 Commission: One year and eight months, $15 million.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:11 PM on July 26, 2015 [12 favorites]
9/11 Commission: One year and eight months, $15 million.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:11 PM on July 26, 2015 [12 favorites]
The Times' public editor weighs in. TLDR: mistakes were made.
posted by octothorpe at 10:26 AM on July 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 10:26 AM on July 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Josh Marshall ain't having it
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:10 PM on July 27, 2015
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:10 PM on July 27, 2015
The thing about this is, to pull out an old cliche, the usual suspects have been crying of "wolf!", w/r/t the Clintons for so long and so often -- more than 20 years -- that even if she does something legitimately scandal-worthy, it's going to take a lot for it to stick, now.
posted by JKevinKing at 7:24 PM on July 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by JKevinKing at 7:24 PM on July 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
Democracy may not be a game, but it's hardly relevant anyway. US Politics is absolutely a game, with fucked up rules, and if you're a pawn you don't even really get to make your own moves.
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:08 PM on July 30, 2015
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:08 PM on July 30, 2015
They write letters:
At 10:36 pm, our staff attempted to reach your reporters on the phone to reiterate this fact and ensure the paper would not be going forward with any such report. There was no answer. At 10:54 pm, our staff again attempted calling. Again, no answer. Minutes later, we received a call back. We sought to confirm that no story was imminent and were shocked at the reply: the story had just published on the Times' website.posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:48 AM on July 31, 2015
...
However, the Times appears to have performed little, if any, work to corroborate the accuracy of its sources' characterizations of the IG's referral. Key details went uninvestigated in the Times' race to publish these erroneous allegations against Mrs. Clinton. For instance, high in the Times' initial story, the reporters acknowledged they had no knowledge of whether or not the documents that the Times claimed were mishandled by Mrs. Clinton contained any classified markings. In Mrs. Clinton's case, none of the emails at issue were marked. This fact was quickly acknowledged by the IC inspector general’s office within hours of the Times' report, but it was somehow left unaddressed in the initial story.
This part of the Newsweek article really bothers me:
"Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 pages of emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control."
She provided the 55,000 emails to the State Department from her own server.
http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-15-emails-missing-clinton-cache-221215204--politics.html#
She claimed that she handed over all the relevant emails but emails that she handed over referenced other emails that were never handed over.
"If only she was a neo-con she could just delete everything and tell the press - and the country - to piss up a rope and "get over it"."
All of the emails were deleted after the 55,000 were handed over.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-deleted-everything-on-her-email-server-2015-3
posted by I-baLL at 7:39 AM on August 3, 2015
"Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 pages of emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control."
She provided the 55,000 emails to the State Department from her own server.
http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-15-emails-missing-clinton-cache-221215204--politics.html#
She claimed that she handed over all the relevant emails but emails that she handed over referenced other emails that were never handed over.
"If only she was a neo-con she could just delete everything and tell the press - and the country - to piss up a rope and "get over it"."
All of the emails were deleted after the 55,000 were handed over.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-deleted-everything-on-her-email-server-2015-3
posted by I-baLL at 7:39 AM on August 3, 2015
« Older Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave... | This is what finally kills my dual shock Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"That the Times article never discloses this is about an after-the-fact review of Clinton’s emails conducted long after she left the State Department is simply inexcusable."
It is becoming painfully obvious that all the rumors about the Times going after Hillary are true. This article is particularly embarrassing, and stupid.
posted by uraniumwilly at 8:55 AM on July 26, 2015 [6 favorites]