Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I worked in the space industry and had a TS clearance. I would have been fired and possibly prosecuted for using a personal email account for correspondence pertaining to business as it involved the military and it's various doings. NASA doesn't play around and neither do other facilities when national security is concerned.
Yep true, my husband worked defense and he would have been fired followed by an investigation. No email, no cell phone, couldn't even be late for work or the armed guards had to get authorization for entry and he didn't know nothing compared to Hillary.
I voted for defend, though I wouldn't say I defend it. I really just don't care.
Is something like this that big of a deal, really? If it's some policy violation, just tell her to forward what she has to an official email, and stop using it. The NSA probably has access to all that information anyway, so who cares? Personal or private email; the information is still shielded form the people.
This seems like a non-issue.
National security is the reason. Personal accounts are not as secure.
I don't break the law, I follow the rules. I expect the same of our Government officials. She knew better but did it anyway. Content of character.
National security is the reason. Personal accounts are not as secure.
I don't break the law, I follow the rules. I expect the same of our Government officials. She knew better but did it anyway. Content of character.
It was not against the law when she did it.
John Kerry is the first Sec of State in the age of email to use a government account. Albright, Powell, Rice and Clinton all did not. The law went into effect in 2014, after Clinton had left office.
John Kerry is the first Sec of State in the age of email to use a government account. Albright, Powell, Rice and Clinton all did not. The law went into effect in 2014, after Clinton had left office.
Wrong, as has been proven through multiple links in this thread, Rice did use government e-mail.
Additionally, Clinton criticized the Bush admin for personal e-mail accounts before she was Secretary of State. So she knew exactly what she was doing.
Wrong, as has been proven through multiple links in this thread, Rice did use government e-mail.
Additionally, Clinton criticized the Bush admin for personal e-mail accounts before she was Secretary of State. So she knew exactly what she was doing.
Originally Posted by TheDusty View Post
I voted for defend, though I wouldn't say I defend it. I really just don't care.
Is something like this that big of a deal, really? If it's some policy violation, just tell her to forward what she has to an official email, and stop using it. The NSA probably has access to all that information anyway, so who cares? Personal or private email; the information is still shielded form the people.
This seems like a non-issue.
You can't be that brain dead and naive are you? Hey, how about sending me a pic of your credit card by email (font and back please). While you're at it send your ss number. I promise, I won't show it to anyone.
John Kerry is the first Sec of State in the age of email to use a government account. Albright, Powell, Rice and Clinton all did not. The law went into effect in 2014, after Clinton had left office.
It was a matter of time before I found the information I needed to refute this (I was an intelligence analyst and there is no way she did not violate the rules, polices or regulations governing electronic communications):
She violated:
36 CFR Parts 1220, 1222, 1228, and 1234 Electronic Mail Systems August 28, 1995, 44 U.S.C. 31 and 36 CFR 1236.22
Fox News didn't make that claim. They reported what Jen Psaki said, hence the quotation marks.
WaPo and other outlets ignored Jen Psaki's qualified ("primarily") claim and reported that Rice used her government e-mal for official business.
Not appropriate even if it is apparently common practice for government officials to use their personal e-mail accounts to conduct business.
Not now. But 4 years ago, there wasn't nearly as much serious email hacking going on, and there was no official government email servers set up. No official government accounts, either, for anyone in government.
Senators and Representatives, Agency and Department Chiefs, Administration, no one. Nobody had an official server and account that restricted email use to only governmental matters.
The same was true in many industries other than the ones concentrated in the computer and internet sections. It was common 4 years ago to have in-house servers that were connected to in-house bosses and workers, but internet traffic coming into the business, especially at the executive levels, very often depended on an individual's exec's private accounts to have full contact with others connected to the business.
Over the past 4 years, that has all changed, but not completely. Look what happened to Sony Pictures just a few months ago. Their CEO was fired because of remarks she made on her private email accounts.
Eric Snowden has changed the nature of private vs. public email forever. He came along after Hillary was no longer Sec. of State. Until him, no one gave any thought as to what was 'appropriate' or not.
Even today, what is appropriate or not could vary widely by definition. For some, appropriateness means security, for others it could mean legality or lack of it, for others it could mean freedom of speech issues, etc. etc.
Sony Picture's CEO was fired because she made bigoted comments in her email. In messages she thought were private and would never be publicly disclosed, especially by a country like N. Korea. Who in the world would have ever thought N. Korea, or any other nation, would disclose email traffic of that nature? Or the script drafts that were undergoing the approval process?
N.Korea was just fishing for anything they could find that could damage Sony Pictures. The company was no more or less vulnerable than thousands of others who are still just as vulnerable now as then.
At least the government realized the dangers of the hackers much quicker than the rest of our country. Sony and Snowden were both huge wake-up calls.
It was a matter of time before I found the information I needed to refute this (I was an intelligence analyst and there is no way she did not violate the rules, polices or regulations governing electronic communications):
She violated:
36 CFR Parts 1220, 1222, 1228, and 1234 Electronic Mail Systems August 28, 1995, 44 U.S.C. 31 and 36 CFR 1236.22
Among others...
lol
Well, you clearly didn't go to law school, that much is clear.
44 USC 31 is the authority under witch 36 CFR is enacted.
If you can show me which subsection of 44 USC 31 has been violated, I'd like to see that.
36 CFR 1234 pertains specifically to record-keeping facilities, both at NARA and at each executive department. I'm not sure why you brought that one up, since nobody has claimed that State's record-keeping facilities are somehow lacking.
36 CFR 1228 Defines the authority of records disposition authorities. How exactly does Clinton violate this?
36 CFR 1222 Defines what constitute federal records and mandates that they be preserved. Again, not exactly sure how Clinton is in violation of this. She was required to keep her emails, she did. She was asked to turn them over for archiving purposes, she did.
36 CFR 1220 Defines federal records and NARA's role in preserving said records, including the setting of standards for defining, setting standards, and preserving record-keeping. Not sure why you even included this one.
Any other law you'd like to throw up there? Feel free.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
