[3am]

So, anyone with a brain realizes this is a political hit job leading up to the 2016 presidential election. So the promotion of this story has very few honest brokers involved & a lot of partisan motivation.

But I am genuinely curious about this. It doesn't seem like wrongdoing per se, or even anything unethical. But I don't like the trend of losing documents from the historical record. And I think that (while her email security is probably better than State Dept. as a whole) it probably would have been better as the leader to hold herself to the same standards as everyone in the organization as a general principle.

Curious to hear if anyone here has .gov experience and can give useful insight into the story.

[jeffdavis]

Was a record keeping law broken or not? Real question; I don't know.

Obviously there are political motivations. But any time a law is broken by a candidate or official, it's hard to argue that it's not honest news. May be blown out of proportion, etc., but still legitimate news.

If a law wasn't broken, it might look like she's hiding something, but I agree that it's probably going to be quickly forgotten.

Also, the political motivations might not be partisan. Partisans would choose timing carefully for maximum effect, and this doesn't seem like bad timing for Democrats. If the story blows up huge, they can nominate someone else; and if not, they nominate Clinton and this is forgotten by the time of the general election.

[meragrin]

A political hit job? I'm sorry, but any high level federal employee with a high security clearance sending all official email communications from their personal email server should be investigated. The government is going to have a system in place far better than most can provide.

The only two reasons I can think of why she would choose private over government issued is ease of use and control over access. If it is too bothersome for her to use a government account, then she shouldn't be in the position. If she's afraid she'll leave incriminating evidence, we don't need her.

[redblacktree]

Could she have been dodging the NSA?

[whoisthemachine]

It is unethical if she used it to hide government business that should be available to the public.

[mullingitover]

> So, anyone with a brain realizes this is a political hit job leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

This. Recall that only a few weeks ago, the leading republican candidate was falling all over himself announce that he was publishing all his emails from his time in office. In the seemingly desperate rush to make a spectacle of it, he didn't even redact the emails [1], and released a big pile of private data as a result.

Also, given the state of the State Department's computer network [2], who can blame her? But the most telling part is that she wasn't even the first Secretary of State to do this, she was the last.

I don't say this because I'm a supporter, it just seems like obvious political theater being run by the rival camp and merits being called out. Personally I'm disappointed that both the Clinton and Bush campaigns aren't being laughed off the stage. Political aristocracy is repugnant and has no place in this country.

[1] http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/10/8013531/jeb-bush-florida-e...

[2] http://gizmodo.com/state-department-computer-systems-hit-by-...

[frogpelt]

This is reporting. Fox News is the only media outlet that has any significant share of the audience in America that would even remotely consider expending an ounce of resources trying to keep a liberal democrat out of office.

If you don't believe that, then you are probably a liberal democrat.

So, to call this news story about a politician acting in a premeditated, unscrupulous/unethical manner a "hit job" shows your deep political bias.

To turn it around, would you feel it was a "hit job" if a politician whose ideas and agendas you disagree with, set up an outside email server for the express purpose of discussing official government business so that it wouldn't/couldn't be easily tracked? I don't think you would.

[3am]

I find your response a bit insulting and presumptuous.

I'm sufficiently well developed to separate my feelings about a politician from their political party, and in turn from my own feelings about an abstract ethical scenario. And none of this is to say anything about my political beliefs, which are personal and none of anyones beeswax.

This isn't abstract either, as some other poster mentioned, this is widespread, bipartisan behavior. I think that if there is evidence of malfeasance, then they should be required to produce their email (privately served or not) via subpoena. I can see the loophole about having people policing their own email archiving, but I honestly do not know if that is illegal, hence why I asked if any experts here knew if this violated any laws or policies.

EDIT: also, you assume this is sourced from a conservative or Republican group? Primaries happen before generals.

[zaccus]

As someone who does have a deep leftist bias, I honestly would not care if a Republican was doing this, unless the law was actually broken.

Didn't Cheney have a man-sized safe in his office or something? I don't remember anyone on the left screaming about that.

[rian]

hehe someone has been watching house of cards a bit too earnestly.