...earlier and loved it! So much of what is labeled 'news' is really just distraction and spin. I am so glad our current SOS has his priorities straight.

And probably very representative of others with heavy international responsibilities.

Bravo!

but let me check on that when I actually have time to pay attention to such an important issue when I get home," Kerry added with a deadpan expression.

Deadpanned as only a Bostonian can do!

for chocolate chip cookies.

Why isn't he shaking his fist and calling for her head? Doesn't he know that she (didn't) break a (law/rule/regulation/policy/guidance/suggestion) and that the Archivist of the United States said she did (NOT) commit any illegal act??

Ooooh, the huge manateeeeeeeeeeeee......

Some of the threads on this topic are both priceless and telling.

EMBARRASSING IDIOCY I might add

It is entirely possible to consider that having all her email - private and public - on her personal email server and to have had no regular, timely process for supplying the SD with emails as inadvisable and open to criticism, while at the same time noting that it did not violate the letter of the laws. Ignoring the possible security factors, the question is whether this preserves the historical record.

Had they set up a process where say every 6 months (or preferably more frequently) spooled off the emails for the SD to archive, it would have been more defensible as to not using her control to potentially edit what should be primary source information for history. Given that she could have eliminated messages not sent to state.gov accounts or edited them before transmission, their value as contemporaneous information on her position at a specific point in time could be diminished. (However, a series of email was never intended as a personal journal or diary.)

The hardest thing to defend is that she did not hand over the messages when she left office or set any process up to do so. The NYT says that the SD request to ask for them from HRC was pushed all the way up to Kerry's Chief of Staff, David Wade - who signed off on the request. I remember at a House hearing when Kerry was first SoS, he named David Wade, his very long time aide, as the person to get them what was needed when Representatives complained that there were requests not met. One thing this did do was to put the SD in the awkward position of being accused of stonewalling the Benghazi committee's request for HRC's emails relating to that --- when the truth was the SD did not have them -- and politically, it would be damaging to Obama to say so.

Now, everyone here knows the many Benghazi hearings were simply witch hunts, but the committees do have the right of oversight and they had a right to ask and get the emails. For months, the SD was accused of stonewalling on providing what was asked for - even though at the first hearing he testified to Kerry committed to giving them records that they had the right to see expeditiously. (Note that even as JK was threatened with a subpoena to explain the stonewalling - there was no proactive action by Clinton to give the emails to either the SD or the committee.)

Just as Whitewater likely dragged on far longer than it had to because the Clintons dragged their feet in providing all the records when they had done nothing wrong, I wonder if this has allowed the eternal Benghazi story to drag on.

On DU, there are many who for whatever reason, are not fans of Clinton. However, for many (I include myself) who had become resigned with HRC, because she is likely the best chance to retain the Presidency, something is very familiar in the frustration of seeing the Democratic party and other Democrats (here President Obama) harmed by actions the Clintons took that, even if legal, can't be justified.

public servant has done.

Do you seriously think that everyone sends their shit off to the archives the day they leave office? Hell to the no on that one! Anyone who is writing a book, or thinking about a Presidential library, or who wants to preserve materials for an alma mater collection, or something on those lines, takes their stuff, SORTS IT, and THEN hands it over to the archivists. If the archivist of the US says she did nothing wrong, why should anyone--never mind Democrats--take it upon themselves to INSIST otherwise, or try to ascribe nefarious intent to her.

Amazing how Clinton is always held to a higher standard. Amazing.

I guess she's the political equivalent of Ginger Rogers--dancing the routine backwards in heels, but getting far less credit than Fred Astaire.

If it was so normal that HRC alone had them, why didn't HRC bother to tell the committee or the public that. Why allow months of the Republicans threatening to subpoena Kerry for his department NOT providing them? Why not just announce that she alone had them.

She has given the Republicans a gift, on any issue relating to her time as SoS, they can say that the SD records are possibly incomplete. I assume this will mean more subpoenas directly to her. I also expect more whining from anonymous Clinton people that Obama and Kerry are not defending her enough on this.

It also is not something routinely done. This is also not her private diary or journal that is her personal material. Tell me any other SoS or Secretary of any department that had an off premises server for their and their top aide's email? (Note: most of the excuses given for this unusual arrangement defy logic. Even if you accept that she needed precisely that configuration - why not have it built and maintained by the SD IT people (or someone hired specifically for that) and placed in a secure room in the SD? )

This is NOT equivalent to Ginger Rogers. Rather, she is now for the second time being handed the chance to be the nominee on a silver platter - because of the forces that support her and Bill want her as President. She very likely will be President, but it is ridiculous to argue that she has not routinely been given chances that very few politicians are offered. (Like Nita Lowey standing down when HRC wanted to run for Senate or HRC being named SoS after losing the primary to Obama.)

"HRC ALONE" is your first big error, that you bought from the RW noise machine.

Further, any communications that HRC had with people at State were already IN the possession of people at State.

She hasn't given the GOP anything except something dumbass to gnaw on. They can keep it up all they want, and they'll look like the bullies they are.

Actually, any communications with anyone in state USING THE STATE.GOV DOMAIN they have. If it is true that any of her top people used something else -- it's not there.

You have your perspective - I have mine. What she did dwarfed what her predecessors did.

That "dwarfed what her predecessors did."

And since no one has talked about Powell's emails, we don't know how many he sent.

My guess is, if his number is low, it's because of his lack of experience on the net at the time of his service, not any particular "care" or worry. And Powell didn't travel nearly as much as Clinton did. Why email when the STU phone rings on both ends?

Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

My basic reaction has not changed since I read the NYT article. It is not helpful to HRC to claim that anyone who does not think her every action was kosher is believing either phony or RW perceptions.

When I said that what she did dwarfed what others did, I was referring to setting up her own private server, which I think was wrong (not legal, but from as far as transparent government is concerned). and then not bothering to set up a process that would in a routine, timely manner manner transfer copies of emails to the State Department. Note that President Obama said that everything from his blackberry gets archived.

The main factors that drove my perception were partly based (as all our perceptions tend to be) on my person experience and my own views on what is reasonable. I did not work for the government, but I did work for Bell Labs (AT&T), then highly regulated by the FCC and some work that I did was on government contracts that AT&T won. Our email was subject to being subpoenaed and there were strict guidelines whenever there was a possibility of that.

I assume that the State Department will find that they already have a copy of a high percent of the 55000 page PAPER dump that Clinton gave them - as they will have all of them that were sent to even one State.Gov account. (Had Clinton given them data files, it would likely have been much easier to split out those that had no state.gov addressee and process them first. All they would need to do for the remainder is verify that they have the email saved from the recipient side.) However, it would seem that there is a likelihood that there will be some emails in the 55000 that were not sent to a State.gov account and which should have been subject to one of the many FOIA or Congressional inquiries.

One question is how the SD on an ongoing basis deals with having not included what they didn't have. Do they require new inquiries on ones that the SD already sent what they have? Should the State Department make a commitment that they will look at whether any of this email falls under any inquiries-- and proactively submit them. That however could mean a steady stream of claims (as inaccurate as many already made) of various smoking guns. Did Clinton PROACTIVELY make the SD an unwitting participant in stonewalling or a coverup -- even when there was nothing to cover up?

It is troubling to read that last summer the State Department had to negotiate with her to get those emails and that it took several meetings to get agreement. It is easy to speculate why it was that difficult. It was a Democratic administration asking something of the likely next Democratic President. I assume that is why this could not be handled routinely at a low level, but was pushed up to David Wade signing the request. It could not have been an easy decision for them to push to get her emails given the political dynamic -- but if they didn't, once they understood what she did, wouldn't they have been guilty of stonewalling if they did not either demand the emails or make the situation public? Wouldn't not doing one of those two things compromise the current Secretary of State?

So, a second factor that drove my reactions is the view that this coming out hurts the reputation of the Obama administration and has created a possible ethics issue for the State Department. Not to mention, it is the State Department that will bear the burden of processing all these emails under pressure to get it done immediately. Given the political calendar, I would not be surprised if the Clinton people might be the ones offering more criticism on the slowness than the Republican committees. (Even more so with the call to make them all public - which means every single email needs to be carefully looked at to avoid Jeb Bush like incidents of putting out people's private information - for which the current SD will be blamed, not Clinton.

More and more, while it doesn't fit perfectly, I think of the Clintons in terms of the Great Gatsby passage about careless people:

A third factor is that I think HRC will be our nominee and I worry about this - even though the Republicans do not appear to have anyone decent to run. However, I think this has horrible political ramifications in that it does play into a few negative Hillary Clinton memes. It has always been said that the most damaging things are things that fit into the public's perception of the person -- the most famous example was that it was written in 1992, that had Bill Clinton misspelled potato -- it would not been a story. More importantly, it suggests that she will be a President, who will at some point be tripped up by this flaw - that we have seen since 1992.


As to the past, it is entirely likely that email has gradually replaced some phone calls/cables. The fact that HRC sent 55000 pages of emails shows that she extensively used email for correspondence. I have never defended her predecessors, but their practices really do not change the fact that Clinton extensively used email and ignored that it should have been subject to the various inquiries. While having the email on her own server may have been legal, she should have assumed responsibility for getting the email to the SD.

untruths were exposed. There was no illegality, therefore, none of that Oh The Huge Manatee "dwarfing."

If, when falsehoods are exposed, one continues to hold one's position, there's just no point in continuing a conversation. You use dire words like "wrong" and "ethics" and "troubling" and you ascribe the worst motives to her--when you don't ascribe them to anyone else the SD asked for THEIR emails. And NOTHING was in actual fact, wrong, unethical or troubling at all--except to RNC spinmeisters.

Note that NOTHING I wrote pertained to the legality of what she did, nor suggested that I agreed with what any predecessor did.

It is easily observed that over time, email has greatly replaced other ways to communicate.

I DO think it great that the State Department is working to get ALL Secretaries' emails that were on personal accounts.

However, Media Matters concentrates on the emails being on personal accounts - and ignores comments (sometimes from the same source) that work related emails written on personal accounts should be archived. I seriously doubt that when that was written the spirit of that requirement meant they could be saved on a server in Secretary's home -- even after she left office.

As to the silly comment that no one asked for them, that would have meant that they knew they existed. Additionally, it seems that to get them it had to be pushed up to Chief of Staff level.

At any rate, I have explained at length why I think it wrong. You clearly disagree. However, I know exactly what my reasons for believing what I believe -- and nothing that Media Matters has written has changed my opinion.

The basic reason is that these should have been State Department records and they should have been in State Department possession. As to why it is at least subtlety different than Rice's, Powell's and Allbright's - is that as she was part of Obama's administration AND there have been many investigations (that they found nothing does not excuse withholding documents). It is NOT good government and it might mean that (however unintentionally) the State Department did not give the committees everything that they should have.

It was not the private email, but that Clinton did not give copies of the emails to State Department.

I've heard it all.

There's nothing "partisan" about those things called "facts." And that's what's in the article at that "partisan" (good grief!!!!!!!) site.

Your mind is made up--and those pesky facts are in your way. That's your problem.

I have explained in more detail than I had to give why I really have a problem with what was done.

The reason you - and media matters - for that matter - are defending this is because it is Hillary. ( I will admit that I care more because it leaves Obama/Kerry holding the bag.)

Those "cherry picked" facts address the central gripes.

You've certainly got an amusing perspective...and it shows!

that neither JK nor HRC should have voted for the Iraq War Resolution.
THAT is an issue with both of them.
And neither one of them seems to grasp that the military solutions
which have been tried over the past 15 or so years have been
nothing short of disastrous.

As someone who seemed to understand the folly of Vietnam,
as a member of the Vietnam Vets Against the War, JK has been a
real disappointment.

Veterans For Peace

the daily bullshit Hillary outrage of the day is NOT

In fact, the New Yorker recently had a humorous article (not particularly kind) that used some of the more exaggerated expressions.

It also looks like the SD had to struggle pretty hard to get the emails - that they should have had within a short time of being written even if they were on a private server.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-asks-state-dept-to-review-emails-for-public-release.html

At one of the early House hearings, Kerry designated his very trusted chief of staff, David Wade, as the person to get everything the committee needed so they would be done with Benghazi.

Later, even as Issa, and the new committee threatened Kerry with subpoenas accusing him of stonewalling - there was obviously no proactive action by the Clinton people to give them the records the SD should always have had!

Reading the rest of the article, it is clear that the SD spokesperson is actually trying to put Clinton in the best possible light. However, from another behind the scenes NYT article, there are Clinton people angry that Obama aides are not doing enough to protect HRC.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/politics/when-hillary-clinton-joined-obama-administration-friction-was-over-staff-not-email.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Note also that they speak of Kerry as using both private and personal accounts - which in fact contradicts what the SD has said - he is exclusively using the government server for his State Department work. Obama also uses the government account. Note also the sneakiness in the language in that sentence -- it does not say for government business. This sentence would be true if Obama or Kerry had a private account that was used exclusively for 100% private (not work) messages - to their wives, children, family. Yet it is implicitly equated to HRC using EXCLUSIVELY a commingled account for all her work and personal emails, which is completely ridiculous.

This is really a mess that HRC's fear of transparency has created for the SD, the administration and Kerry and Obama personally. The behind the scenes articles are interesting because the one thing I absolutely do not see is the Clinton aides taking any responsibility for anything here.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/06/244410.htm
Yesterday, the state department told the committee and media that they did not get all the Blumenthal emails that Blumenthal gave the committee. It seems they are handling this very professionally, spending the time needed to check things out thoroughly.

My observations from this press conference is that:
1) they are refusing to be pushed to speculate on how many other emails could be missing (really stupid question as it is impossible without an inventory of all emails received and sent by HRC for work - which does not exist).
2) Kirby, the spokesman, went out of his way to detail that Kerry's direction is to be cooperative -- even if they are expanding their charter.
3) What was clear is that defending Clinton was definitely not as much their goal as carefully and methodically processing the emails as promised is.

Posted at the end of this thread because I did not want to attract outside attention, but knew some here might want to see it - Kerry is clearly not covering for HRC.

Last edited Sat Jun 27, 2015, 04:03 AM - Edit history (2)

Your observations feel right to me.
.. . especially because it's also pretty clear that, from the first microsecond of his appointment, Sec. Kerry himself went out of his way, from Day 1, to set up his own email (and every other process) 100% by the book. His own M.O. is 180 degrees different.

Later: I just went and read the transcript of the press briefing in question . http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/06/244410.htm#DEPARTMENT

Reading that, I was struck once again by the staggering amount of work that the State Department has had to do on this...the fault BOTH of Sec. Clinton's non-standard approach to email (if she had used the State Dept email, this would have been much more straightforward a task) and the ludicrous demands (and mission) of the "Benghazi" committee.
Given the urgent world issues pressing on them right now, the current State Dept. has got to be less than pleased by this distracting, and unnecessary, addition to its workload. They've got so many international crises to deal with -- they last thing they need is having to clean up someone else's internal mess. Oh, and third: the informal but clearly close involvement of and association with Blumenthal, despite the fact that the White House (for good reason IMO) would not allow HRC to appoint him formally to the State Dept., was an eyebrow-raising moment for me.

And, lastly, the fourth: JK is handling this just right. Being cooperative, but keeping his distance.

I saw this a long time ago, but hesitated in posting it. It is the back story of the NYT writer who first wrote the story. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/new-york-times-clinton-email-scoop_n_6911502.html

I may be making incorrect inferences, but between this and the original story, it would seem that his source or sources were almost certainly from the State Department - even though they are not mentioned in the speculation. My reasoning is that they say that neither this committee or any previous committee was aware that Clinton used a private email -- and they said the State Department had not told them that - apparently even when they gave them the 300 emails. That lack of knowledge - if real and as they now take credit for forcing this info out it almost certainly was - means it was not them.

In the NYT article itself, there was mention of some heavy duty negotiating with Clinton to get the emails. In the article, it is clear that the negotiating was in spring 2104 and they did not get the emails until fall 2014. (That and there was the cover of asking all prior Secretaries of State). To me, this suggests that 1) It may have taken them much of the first year to see that they really did not have what they needed. If they knew she had a private email, they likely were told -- as the country was after the NYT story -- that all work emails hit the State.gov server - which would not have been hard to set up on the outbound side and there WERE HRC emails that were put out - even when she was SoS that went to people on State.gov. 2)When they figured out they were missing email, the State Department probably had little or no leverage over Clinton to get the emails. The NYT article mention the demands went up to Kerry's chief of staff (David Wade). I suspect their ONLY leverage was that someone would have been willing to go public if it were not done. 3) Clinton's reluctance likely continued and led to the idiotic giving the emails on paper.

To me, this suggests that his source was likely someone in the State Department working on the FOIA or committee requests who was really angry about the situation that Clinton put them in. It could have been a career professional or someone committed to current secretary and working hard to avoid him and his team being involved in a coverup -- on an issue where there really is nothing to cover-up! (Remember that the article made a big point that Kerry was using State.gov and that they pushed to get the emails back - both distancing this term's secretary.)

As you said, JK is handling this just right. Cooperation is exactly the right thing to do - even if it means that every time the SD people state that they only have HRC's word that their cache is complete is taken as not defending her. Her actions here are not defensible. Delegating this to the professionals is also exactly right - and leaves him to use his brain on the real important things that he is working on - from Iran to climate change to things that might lead to a more peaceful world. Even with his broken leg, he looks so happy and at peace with himself especially when he spoke of work with China on climate change -- and the same goes for our incredible President, who just had an amazingly awesome week. As you noted when he was on a Sunday talk show, he seemed very happy that he is outside politics at this point. (which I assume includes being outside any tawdry effort to defend Clinton on this.

"this suggests that his source was likely someone in the State Department working on the FOIA or committee requests who was really angry about the situation that Clinton put them in. It could have been a career professional or someone committed to current secretary and working hard to avoid him and his team being involved in a coverup -- on an issue where there really is nothing to cover-up!"

If so, I totally get where they are coming from. If I found myself angry about the situation, surely some of the people who actually had to handle it must have shared my feelings. . and more.