back to article Clinton defence of personal email server fails to placate critics

Hillary Clinton's admission that she was perhaps unwise to make exclusive use of a personal email account while serving as US Secretary of State has failed to placate critics, some of whom are trying to use the affair to derail her expected challenge for the White House next year. Clinton has issued a minimal mea-culpa stating …

  1. Howard Hanek

    Nothing Is Illegal For A High Government Official

    Nothing. Absolutely Nothing. In fact people would be flabbergasted if one actually admitted to one. He wouldn't be prosecuted. He'd be sent away for psychiatric evaluation.

    1. Herby

      Re: Nothing Is Illegal For A High Government Official

      We had a president named Richard Nixon who might disagree with you.

      1. Chris Miller

        Re: Nothing Is Illegal For A High Government Official

        Richard Nixon: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

        The David Frost Interview

    2. ImpureScience

      Re: Nothing Is Illegal For A High Government Official

      You may be correct, but In this case it certainly wasn't illegal:

      "During Clinton’s term as secretary, regulations were tightened concerning the preservation of e-mail records, and concerns were raised about the use of personal e-mail accounts for official business. But the legal requirement to immediately preserve e-mails from nongovernment e-mail accounts was not made mandatory until nearly two years after she stepped down."

      3/10/2015 Washington Post Fact Checker: Hillary Clinton’s e-mails: a timeline of actions and regulations

      1. Tom 13

        Re: In this case it certainly wasn't illegal:

        Quoting a story from flacks working for the DNC doesn't work in this case.

        It's been illegal since she was too young to vote, specifically the Federal Records Preservation Act of 1950.

        I work as a contractor in IT Support for the government. There simple truth is a high level politician CAN'T have a single email account and comply with all the laws governing the use of email and government equipment. You can't use official government accounts for fundraising. You can't use personal accounts to transmit government sensitive information. Anything that is a record MUST be preserved. The only way you can work all of this is with separate email accounts for each function, and the government one has to be on government equipment to meet discovery and preservation requirements.

        1. Goopy

          Re: In this case it certainly wasn't illegal:

          Yes, currently , what you say in your MAIN paragraph is the LAW NOW, TODAY. But prior to Clinton stepping down, for EMAIL, was NOT the case. And, No person or government was using email in the 50s. And the Fed Pres Act for Records has NOTHING to do with Personal vs Federal vs Business classes of mail (let alone email, which didnt exist then for anyone).

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: In this case it certainly wasn't illegal:


            Actually Hillary did appear to BREAK a variety of laws, not just one. And there were and are applicable laws regarding the transmission and retention of communications of government officials which included emails. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that somehow that act of creating all those communications between Hillary and other government officials on her personal commuter (she has publicly admitted she had them) somehow some way did not constitute felonies; She still broke the law because she willfully failed to retain those records pertaining to her government related communications. A regular Joe would have already been convicted of multiple felonies. Never mind her outright refusal to appear before Congress. You see regular Joe doesn't have a right to refuse to appear. Hillary also lied outright both publicly and privately to a variety of government officials. You may recall that other mere mortals have gone to jail for doing just that.

            Not only is this a Red Flag in terms of Hillary's fitness for President; it is a condemnation of her complete lack of integrity, honesty, and basic moral values. In short, she is doing a great job of matching the scumbags on the Republican side of aisle illustrating to the American people what we don't want for President. Sadly the last honest candidate for President was Ron Paul. Even his son has turned out to be a true to his backers instead of the Republic.

          2. NumptyScrub

            Re: In this case it certainly wasn't illegal:

            Yes, currently , what you say in your MAIN paragraph is the LAW NOW, TODAY. But prior to Clinton stepping down, for EMAIL, was NOT the case.

            Really? The USDOJ guidance on Records has a link to's definition of "a record":

            Records include all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine-readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of the data in them

            Email is an "other documentary material" in that list, and I would be happy to argue as such in court (IANAL though). Looks to me like the Federal Records Act 1950 may indeed be relevant enough, even without any amendments that specifically mention email, to claim that Hilary's decision to only use personal email and then fail to properly record all of it in case it is required, may already have been an offense.

            Speed limit regulations do not specifically mention my make and model of motor vehicle, but I am still liable for exceeding them with my make and model of vehicle. Federal documentation legislation doesn't have to specifically mention email, for emails sent as official Federal correspondence to count as Federal documents...

      2. Goopy

        Re: Oh bugger!

        Correct. And the point of being able to BYOD is moot, as Clinton currently has two devices, BB for gov and iPhone for personal.

        Also, as there was no illegality, no voter would ever use this as a flipping point for their decision to vote for or not Clinton in as President.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "What difference does it make?" often retorted by queen Hillary...

    Nice quote, but try that in front of a judge when you are tagged for going 40MPH in a 25 MPH zone. You won't get far (and I've tried!).

    It is often said that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". I think it applies here.

    1. Goopy

      Re: "What difference does it make?" often retorted by queen Hillary...

      It could not possibly apply here - there was NO law in place during Lcinton's Sec of State Office holding governing the separation of personal, business or government email!

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

        Re: Goopy Re: "What difference does it make?" often retorted by queen Hillary...

        Democrats during the Sarah Palin investigation: "Personal email? She must be trying to hide something!" Same Democrats today now it's Shrillay's turn: "Nothing to see here, move, move on." (

        But it's not just the supporters, the Senior Democrats have just as conveniently selective memories. Nancy Pelosi's behaviour during Bibi's speech to Congress was of classically hypocritical levels. And now the Whitehouse staff are muttering about the Logan Act, conveniently ignoring Pelosi's little trip to Syria during Bush Jr's reign (

        The only real truth displayed is that Democrats will desperately excuse their nominee's behaviors and actions regardless if only because the Democrats have no real contender other than Shrillary for 2016.

  3. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Hindsight is 20/20

    I'm thinking that she is like most politicos and thinks no one would dare hack her account. If so, she's a schmuck. And that "convenience" reason is pure BS. Any one lower on the food chain would probably be fired and/or face some charges.

    To give her the benefit of the doubt.... did anyone give her a "serious" security briefing about email, etc.? The answer seems not to be apparent except that it was in the context of a "discussion". I mean, she was the Secretary of State for crying out loud. Not the head of the Secretarial Pool. In industry, we make all the higher ups use secure emails (the company's, not personal) for business purposes. So how did she fall through the cracks? Or do Cabinet members get to make the rules for secure computing?

    I think the biggest shock to me is that until now, she got away with doing it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hindsight is 20/20

      What seems to have been pushed under the rug is that Department of State's email system have been multiply hacked (Russians? Chinese? ...) and the only reason that it came to light is that another foreign power informed them. Apparently they are still infested. True, that doesn't justify anything here. However, why is anyone shocked that some Executive, corporate or government, doesn't follow infosec rules of procedure? Duh!

      1. fajensen Silver badge

        Re: Hindsight is 20/20

        And So? This is what the NSA does to us foreigners (and congress also) - so - Hillary & Co can just suck it up, like the rest of us have to!

    2. Trixr

      Re: Hindsight is 20/20

      Someone working at the State Dept while Hilary was Secretary WAS fired under the regulations in force at the time for using his private email and failing to adhere to record-keeping standards.

      As for the wonk quoted in the article about "busy professionals", oddly enough, Hilary was a *public servant* at the time. While public service is a quaint old-fashioned notion to our corporate masters, part of the role of being a public servant is to carry out their business in a transparent (supposedly) manner that can be readily audited for the public good.

      Frankly, since Hilary doesn't seem to understand this basic principle, she's not suitable for govt (and of course, nor are nearly all the Repubs and a big chunk of the Democrats in the Senate or House).

      1. Someone Else Silver badge

        @ Trixr -- Re: Hindsight is 20/20

        Links, or it didn't happen.

        1. Joe User

          @Someone Else - Re: Hindsight is 20/20

          Links, or it didn't happen.

          Google search: state department fired use of private email

          Former ambassador under fire for private email use "Very surprised" to learn that Clinton was doing same thing

    3. Goopy

      Re: Hindsight is 20/20

      Your lack of being able to read is shokcing, most shocking.

  4. James Anderson

    Absolutely pathetic.

    President Johnson OKed the bombing of neutral Cambodia and Laos an act which eventually caused the death of over a million people.

    JFK had sex in the Whitehouse with various starlets (including Marylin Monroe -- the guy had taste)

    GW Bush embroiled the west in a useless war in Iraq -- meltdown still in progress and body count still rising.

    Hilary Clinton used a personal e-mail account -- shock horror has the girl got no morals! Is she fit to be president, how many innocents will die. Just what you'ed expect from a non Texan.,

    1. Trixr

      I don't know. Her "one rule for me and one for everyone else" doesn't distinguish her that much from any of the other examples you cite.

      1. Goopy

        Morons do that - ascribe.

    2. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Brevity in this case is a good thing. Otherwise your list could go all the way back to the beginning. As for morals, etc. I'm waiting for the Repubs to bring up Billy's affair... err... non-affair... (whatever) and her continuing to stay with him. That could be a strength or a weakness, depending on point of view.

      Yeah.. she's a threat to the Repubs... a serious one at this point.

    3. Desidero

      Politicizing technology

      More to the point,

      1) Karl Rove & cronies illegally used private email to plan & cover up the political firing of 70 attorneys, with the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' knowledge. No one charged or censured.

      2) Republican aides in Congress hacked into the Democrats' file store and kept this little advantage secret for some time... No one charged or censured.

      3) The NSA was (illegally) tapping into Congressional emails to find out what they were saying about... the NSA. No one charged or censured.

      Hillary is accused of using her email to... something. like not commit hara-kiri in front of a witch-hunt committee on Benghazi*, or anything else that Hillary Derangement Syndrome demands.

      *The Benghazi witch-hunt was started to look into why the Administration didn't see a terrorist link in Benghazi, even though the 1st day and ever-after, Susan Rice said the protest had been co-opted by armed extremists & that despite initially no indication of it being pre-planned or external Al Qaeda involvement, *we still don't know, still being investigated*

      In a sane world, checks on misuse of technology would be a good idea. In a politicized braindead & vindictive world, it's just fodder for petty tyrants. Points to Hillary. Screw 'em.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Politicizing technology

        So the argument does: Clinton's political opponents did some questionable things, thus, nothing she does can be considered wrong.

        Let's apply this to other situations. Al-Bashir did lots of nasty things, thus, we should not criticize IS.... Glad we cleared that one up.

        1. Desidero

          Re: Politicizing technology

          See - Hillary Derangement Syndrome's got you as well.

          Jump the shark from an offsite email server to approving of Islamic State.

          Have a lovely sharkety day.

    4. Keven E.

      Absolutely pathetic is correct.

      Shame on John Leyden for writing an article on this subject which really requires no more attention, and certainly not here. Justifying mentioning it would be palatable 'cuz it is an "IT" issue, but all this one does is a not-so-decent Howard Cosell emulation... describing talking about talking about it. We are over it... over here. Those that aren't are only partisan.

      Perhaps you can scribble an article about a certain letter that 47 senators should have used encrypted email to send instead of blatantly disrespecting a whole country. Perhaps on a different website.

    5. stanimir

      How did you miss her husband having sex in the Whitehouse (and lied in public about) but mentioned JFK?

  5. frank ly

    When politicians fail

    "I thought it would be easier to carry one device for my work and personal email account,"

    Is she being disingenuous, or is she really so (technologically) dumb? I suppose she could blame the decision on one of her 'technical advisors'; she probably needs a small army of them.

    1. Eddy Ito

      Re: When politicians fail

      It wasn't that long ago when she claimed to carry two phones so clearly her opinion of easy has changed quite a bit. Now a skeptical person might ask why she uses two phones now as her current employment status is somewhere between unemployed and freelance chin wagger but only one device for what is arguably a much more important job.

    2. Goopy

      Re: When politicians fail

      It IS easier, was NOT illegal THEN, and LATER, of about 2 years ago, WHEN she stpped down from office, having both wortk and personal emails on the same device became viable and secure. It's new, and it's called BYOD.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

        Re: Goopy Re: When politicians fail

        Axelrod, is that you? The astroturf is definitely strong with this one!

        "It IS easier......" I call male bovine manure on that one! As a contractor during the same period I used to carry THREE phones - my contract customer's BlackBerry (a 7230 tied to a secure BES), my work BlackBerry (a 7100 paid for by my employer on BIS) and a Nokia 6820 (with a personal email account on my own server at home). And I didn't have a big retinue of lackeys to carry them for me as Mrs Clinton did.

        "....was NOT illegal THEN....." Very debatable, but really needs to be decided in a court of law to confirm legality or illegality. And seeing as there are probably far too many on both sides of the House not wanting an in-depth look into email, unlikely to happen. In the meantime, you, not being an US court, are not qualified and have exactly zero ability to declare it as "legal". Your blind and unquestioning rebleating of Mrs Clinton's excuses without any form of supporting argument is certainly not qualification.

        "......and LATER....." Again, you are unqualified to make that statement. Try a supporting argument instead of blind faith.

        "'s called BYOD." There is absolutely nothing new about bring your own device. It seems you are also just as unqualified to comment on technical issues as legal ones.

    3. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: When politicians fail

      If she were doing it properly, it probably is true that she would not be permitted to access a private email account from a government provided secure cell phone. That was the case in the (DoD) agency in which I worked ~2007 or 2008, when supervisors and up first were issued Blackberries. Accessing the agency's Exchange from personal equipment was forbidden, and commingling personal and government activity was discouraged strongly , although not totally forbidden for practical reasons. Ms. Clinton chose to operate a private and probably unauthorized server and commingle her official and personal email.

      This speaks ill of her judgment, her dedication to public service, and her suitability for any executive branch office, including the presidency.

  6. Ian Michael Gumby


    The only reason she did this was so that she could avoid FOIA requests and to hide her activities from the US Government and US Citizens.

    There's more, but you can read the Guardian, WSJ, NYT , etc ...

    She should be up on charges not trying to make a run for the WH.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Criminal

      Of course she's trying to hide her activities. I hope you aren't so naive as to think it is only her. Anyone can use their official government email for non controversial stuff and use back channels (personal email, texts/phones that aren't subject to FOIA, or telling people in person for really shady stuff) for anything they don't want dug up when they run for office.

      The only surprise is that she went about it in such a ham fisted way. Maybe she really had given up on the idea of the White House for a time, or she would have had advisors who told her what a bad idea that was. Most politicians would want to at least give the appearance of doing things on the up and up, but don't think that because there's no smoking gun that guys like Christie are clean. They're just smarter about covering their tracks when they order lanes to be closed to spite a mayor.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby

        Re: Criminal

        The point is that there's no 'front channel' to have a 'back channel'.

        That's the issue. Her private email was the only communication and therefore any official emails sent from this address means that the government has the right to seize the equipment to protect what's left of the digital data.

        The law says that while its ok to use a back channel in the event of an emergency, the emails are to be preserved.

        The fact that she printed the emails and sent the printed copies, again doesn't comply with the law because it prevents e-discovery along with the fact that the email copies printed could have been altered before printing.

        Again, there's more.

        Sorry no naivety here. Just trying to keep it simple... she broke the law but proving it will be difficult because she destroyed the evidence. (Which is breaking the law).

        1. Goopy

          Re: Criminal

          Once again, morons, she did not break the law because there as no LAW THEN about this.

          1. tom dial Silver badge

            Re: Criminal

            @Goopy: It might depend on what law we are thinking of. I am thinking of the Federal Information Security Management Act, enacted in 2002, 6 or 7 years before Ms. Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State. This law establishes standards that apply to all systems that process or store government records. Based on available reports and analysis, the servers supporting probably were not FISMA complaint.

            I might be wrong in that conclusion. If so, it should be a simple matter for the State Department (or possibly a different agency that acts as its CIO) to produce the voluminous documentation that would prove the systems were certified and accredited for their purpose

      2. CarbonLifeForm

        Re: Criminal

        We know it isn't only her. But the almost Nixonian quality of aggrieved arrogance I see in her does not speak well to her Presidential aspirations. I don't think every politician is a crook - some are honest, some are middling, some are corrupt.

        Her imperial disdain for rules truly makes me uneasy.

    2. Goopy

      Re: Criminal

      N one in office now or past can refuse an FOIA req for business OR personal records.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby

        Re: Criminal

        FOIA only covers Government servers and their ability to provide the emails provided that they exist and that they don't violate national security. (And there are established guidelines to determine if the data can be released.)

        The problem is that Clinton refuses to hand over the data and/or the servers.

        That should be considered obstruction.

        Deleting the emails... obstruction and more.

        Even turning over printouts would be obstruction.

        If she's ordered and refuses... that's contempt of court.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Record keeping

    It would seem that Clinton learned from her first foray into running the country not to keep records, since these can come back to bite.

    I mean, what is it with Clinton and records? Misusing FBI files on White House personnel (remember the travel scandal), or property transfers (Whitewater). Perhaps having practical knowledge and experience in misusing records has taught her the value of ensuring none are kept, or can be appropriately sanitised or amended.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: Record keeping

      The start of her political career has forever foreshadowed her path: she was booted from the House

      committee investigating Nixon's Watergate break-in for unethical behavior.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby

        @Tom Re: Record keeping

        I've been trying to get to the bottom of that.

        Even that's not 100% clear.

        They say that Nixon's resignation made her work moot which is why it never went to court.

        But yes, she's a devious little B, and should be barred from holding office after this.

  8. tzx4

    Let's face reality,

    The only thing that would placate many of her critics is if she literally died.

    1. Preston Munchensonton

      Re: Let's face reality,

      Please. They would claim that she faked her death to avoid a thorough investigation.

      Do try to keep up!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Let's face reality,

        You're not wrong. They claimed she faked her head injury to avoid Bengazi hearings. They were just worried it would drop off the news since the public only cares about a scandal for the first week or so and then lose interest.

        1. Tom 13

          Re: Let's face reality,

          Well the timing of it was quite odd. Maybe not faked, but she certainly could have made arrangements to testify. Oh, and on that whole email FOIA thing, seems most of what we're learning now is because Judicial Watch has continued to press for Benghazi emails. Guess what? Yep, they found she sent a lot of them from exactly this personal email account. And no, they don't quite match up with public pronouncements.

        2. Goopy

          Re: Let's face reality,

          Thanks for proving the Democrats' point: this will be a non-issue in a few weeks.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Let's face reality,

      I feel that way about most politicians and government employees.

    3. Tom 13

      Re: Let's face reality,

      Not at all. We'd be happy if she simply did the time required for at least a couple of her blatant felonies.

    4. Goopy

      Re: Let's face reality,

      You need serious professional help, and far away from us.

  9. veti Silver badge

    Strange assumption

    What seems odd to me here, is the baseline assumption that everything a high official does in office should be a matter of public record.

    The US Freedom of Information Act became law in 1966. Since then, who hasn't had at least one "scandal" that centres on "the top dogs trying, often clumsily, to keep their laundry private"?

    - Nixon - 'nuff said

    - Ford, Carter - actually these two were pretty clean, and much good it did them.

    - Reagan, Bush - Iran/Contra

    - Clinton - Whitewater, Lewinsky

    - Bush - misrepresentations leading to the Iraq war. See also "Snowden, E."

    - Obama - Snowden

    The US hasn't had a decent president since 1960. If the purpose of the FoIA is to improve governance, it's clearly not only "not working", but actually counterproductive. Just repeal it already and give the executive branch their privacy back. (That is to say, let them work under the same rules that Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower worked under.) We'll all be better off if we don't have to spend months at a time fixating on this kind of crap.

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: Strange assumption

      Go back... and re-check history. Just about every President had things to hide or things that today would get them on the front page of a scandal rag. 3 of 4 examples you gave had mistresses plus other scandals that came out after the fact.

      A bigger question in all this... are any of us perfect? We always, always, always do the right thing? If you, me, or anyone else on this forum ran for a high office, could we stand the scrutiny of the press and the opposing party? Politics is dirty and corrupting. I'm not defending her, but just pointing out that so far, no one at the top of the various piles in the country have been what some would call a saint.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Strange assumption

        The bigger question is, why are mistresses such a big deal? It was consensual sex, why does everyone have a problem with it?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Strange assumption

          Mistresses aren't a big deal. Why do people keep confusing perjury with consensual sex?

          1. Goopy

            Re: Strange assumption

            If you take the premise that congress has no business knowing anything about a BC mistress, then anything BC says in response to that congress can be a lie: because it is none of their business. Is that what you think?

            1. O RLY

              Re: Strange assumption

              President Clinton did not lie to Congress under oath. He lied under oath to a grand jury investigating sexual harassment in the Clinton administration of Arkansas. Congress impeached him for perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice. If he HAD admitted his "sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinksy", then his Republican opponents wouldn't have had criminal grounds to impeach. Mr Clinton lied under oath about a blowjob. He was impeached for lying under oath, not the blowjob.

              On a different topic, but related to secrets and perjury by high government officials, where is the indictment of James Clapper for perjury for his "least untruthful" answers to Congress while under oath?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Strange assumption

      You should re-read your timeline again. You say the last decent president was in 1960 (do you mean Ike, or JFK?) but FOIA became law in 1966. Maybe the reason you think the last decent president was in 1960 was because all his dirty laundry was never aired? If FOIA had become law in 1866 you might be saying the last good president was Lincoln :)

      1. Eddy Ito

        Re: Strange assumption

        We can rule the 60s right out as among other things JFK had the Bay of Pigs and carried the lit torch for LBJ to stoke the fires of Vietnam. Likewise I'm sure the same can be done turning back every decade and President. The nice thing about FOIA is that it can be used to pull historical records as long as they haven't been sealed for "national security" reasons and there is likely plenty of dirt on all of them if anyone can be bothered to look but as they're all dead there isn't much point and slinging mud now just looks petty. Besides, a lot of the bigger cockups were hard if not impossible to conceal.

  10. Anonymous Coward

    I don't think this is going to amount to anything illegal...

    But it does feed the old "The Clintons will attempt any legal/verbal dodge" archetype. And it even has been used to vindicate Sarah Palin some, as a picture of her juggling 2 smartphones and her infant grandson has been circulated by Republican supporters in response to Hillary's bit about the difficulty of "using two devices"

    (So yes, Hillary, it would have been more intelligent to have two accounts.)

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: I don't think this is going to amount to anything illegal...

      "juggling 2 smartphones and her infant grandson"

      Is she going to join a circus? Other than the political one, of course.

      1. Someone Else Silver badge

        @ Doctor Syntax -- Re: I don't think this is going to amount to anything illegal...

        Is she going to join a circus?

        Joined a long time ago....

    2. Tom 13

      Re: I don't think this is going to amount to anything illegal...

      Clinton added that she deleted all of her personal emails from her private account of the more than 60,000 emails in total that were sent and received. About half of them were personal emails, she said. Some of those emails pertained to her daughter Chelsea’s wedding, her mother’s funeral arrangements, and her yoga routine.

      Hillary Clinton is defending her use of a private email address, hosted at, to conduct official State Department business by claiming that her emails were captured by official accounts that other agency employees were instructed to use to contact her. But according to a knowledgeable source, at least two other top Clinton aides also used private email accounts to conduct government business—placing their official communications outside the scope of federal record-keeping regulations.

      Yes, it was illegal. No, like her husband raping women and creating what would otherwise be deemed a "hostile work environment" by feminazis, I doubt we'll get a conviction.

  11. Shannon Jacobs

    Don't you UNDERSTAND?!? It was in her spam!

    You see the real reason for using Gmail was so that her communist bosses could send her orders disguised as spam. Of COURSE she won't remember to reveal her spam, no matter how many times the patriotic neo-GOP politicians investigate her! What a cover up!

    Need proof? Why do you think the google is so spam friendly? Why is their anti-spam webform such a sick joke? Hillery's orders! She wants lots of spam to disguise her secret communications!

    1. fajensen Silver badge

      Re: Don't you UNDERSTAND?!? It was in her spam!

      It could work, after all Radio London (BBC) was sending instructions to saboteurs in Europe in plain English - "Before we begin, please listen to some personal messages.", "Message to John, the hotel is fully booked", et cetera.

  12. tom dial Silver badge

    Most of the reporting on this revolves around the question of whether Ms. Clinton "possibly" violated the Federal Records Act. However, systems that store and process government records also are governed by the Federal Information Security Management Act, enacted in 2002, which establishes standards that these systems must satisfy. FISMA requires documentation of such things as

    - System Security Plan

    - Configuration Management Plan

    - Contingency Plan covering various system failure possibilities

    - Incident Response Plan covering potential breaches

    - Rules of Behavior under which the system is operated

    - Security Controls Assessment.

    It is augmented by a number of NIST publications and additional regulations within each department or agency that specify the requirements in exhaustive detail. Obtaining FISMA certification and accreditation is a time consuming laborious process in most cases.

    Nobody speaking for either the Department of State or Ms. Clinton has issued a statement that the system she and others used for official State Department email during her tenure as Secretary of State was certified for FISMA compliance and accredited by the responsible State Department officer. Given the ease of doing so if the system was approved, we may reasonably conclude that it was not.

    On the other hand, Ms. Clinton was the top level department manager, responsible for ensuring that her department followed and enforced the applicable laws.

    The facts as known might reasonably be taken to call into question her judgment and suitability for another public trust position under the United States, or for election to a public office.

    1. Bill Cumming

      Heard at least one report about the email system that was used and it was basically the same setup as her husband used while he was president. It was installed under orders from the state department.

      It was not illegal to use private emails systems (virtually everyone was using the official network as little as possible) both democratic and Republican.

      All the law required at that time was that all work related emails were logged onto the official system if they ware not using official channels. The law requiring everyone to only use official email system can't into effect 18 months after she left.

      1. T. F. M. Reader Silver badge

        @Bill Cumming: "All the law required at that time was that all work related emails were logged onto the official system..."

        So all that was required of her was to never forget to Bcc: on non-personal emails sent? Did I get it right? And a set of procmail rules (or other filters) to forward every non-personal mail received, of course. Separate accounts seem much easier to set up, frankly.

        1. tom dial Silver badge

          Government work, generally speaking, is and was required to be done using systems approved by the government for the purpose. That is why I and others who had to work remotely on occasion were issued government owned and configured laptops with provision for VPN connectivity to the agency. Ms. Clinton almost certainly would have been issued such a laptop, and probably of considerably higher spec than mine.

          There were exceptions, but it was understood that they were to be rare. Toward 2010 and forward, live Linux images tailored for specific agencies were available that could run securely on private hardware and be certified for connection to DoD networks and mitigate the need to issue laptops. It was not possible to access the agency's Exchange server except from government issued computer or Blackberry. While this was in a DoD agency, none of the data was classified higher than Personally Identifiable Information and the standards for the Department of State should have been at least as strict.

          Use of a private system, as against a private commercial email account, raises a large number of security and compliance issues completely aside from the Federal Records Act. Much more is required in this case than simply Bcc to a government department account.

    2. Tom 13

      FISMA does not supplant FRA, it supplements it. She still had to comply with both. Given

      “Her top staffers used those Clinton email addresses” at the agency, said the source, who has worked with Clinton in the past. The source named two staffers in particular, Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin, who are said to have used private email addresses in the course of their agency duties. Reines served as deputy assistant secretary of state, and Abedin as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. Both rank among Clinton’s most loyal confidantes, in and out of the State Department.

      there's a higher likelihood I will win both lotteries (Mega Millions and Lotto tickets) I bought this morning than that she didn't violate FRA.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I did not have server relationships with that webmail


    1. Robert Helpmann??

      Re: I did not have server relationships with that webmail

      Hillary Clinton's admission ...has failed to placate critics, some of whom are trying to use the affair to derail her expected challenge for the White House next year.

      I see what you did there. She has actually stayed within the letter of the law on this and has admitted that even if it was legal, it was not a well-thought out plan. Not good, but better then most pols. The biggest legal issue in this is the preservation of the official record, so she is stuck in trying to prove a negative. This will probably not go away until after the next election cycle or if it comes out that most of her opponents have seriously misused e-mail as well.

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: I did not have server relationships with that webmail

        There is only a remote possibility that Ms. Clinton was within the letter of the law. It was not only not well thought out, but an unbelievably dumb and self-centered thing to do.

        On the other hand, she could go a fair distance toward defusing it by delivering the computer equipment that supported and all backups (assuming there are some that haven't been degaussed) to the State Department without further delay. Rather than asking them, and us, to trust her judgment about what is government and what is personal, she should trust Secretary Kerry to ensure that the proper decisions are made.

  14. PoliTecs

    Or the government!

  15. T. F. M. Reader Silver badge

    Her defence seems to be that it was convenient to use a single device rather than separate devices for official and personal emails. Why separate accounts could not be used on a single device? Any particular security considerations would also apply to running official business through one's personal account, I imagine. Frankly, it sounds like a "get off my back already" bullshit response from an arrogant powerful politician.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Did anyone sending or receiving an official email...

    Not question the odd email address that was used?

    1. Tom 13

      Re: Did anyone sending or receiving an official email...

      What? And get Vince Fostered? Not a chance.

      They knew what they were doing. They were pre-emptively covering up what she did.

  17. SolidSquid

    Honestly I'm a little sympathetic with the idea that she might not have considered this, since understanding of this kind of thing can be a toss up outside tech fields. What I *am* wondering about though is why the hell nobody in her office told her not to pull this shit because it'll cause trouble down the line for her, and why there wasn't an official email already created for her which she was supposed to use.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      I don't understand the downvotes; they seem fair questions, and one that the appropriate Senate and House oversight committees might well consider asking them in due course. The thing is, someone in State Department IT probably did tell her what the rules are, and her admin assistant probably provided her the computer access request form that would have resulted in creation of or similar. Those would be the SOP for any new employee, even the new head of department.

      It does not matter much if she didn't pay attention, didn't submit the form, or simply went about establishing and using her private setup. It could well have gone unnoticed that the internal email account went unused unless it grew too large, whereupon her admin assistant would be told to ask for a larger quota. Those accustomed to receiving email from her would have grown accustomed to the unusual address and gone about their business. Security awareness is as unusual among executives, or more, than among the general run of non-IT employees.

  18. SW10


    Oh yes, I've always noticed that users find it a lot easier to set up, configure and administrate their own email server at home rather than the one provided as standard by the organization they work for.

    1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

      Re: Convenience

      I would imagine that she has 'satff' to do it for her. All she had to do was make sure they were paid, and that was probably being done by someone else anyway.

      The convenience was only having to carry around one device, with one account on automatic login.

    2. Preston Munchensonton

      Re: Convenience

      Given the number of servers that I've found running under people's desks over the years, I'm not in the least surprised by this. Shadow IT lurks in every corner. Surely the BOFH and PFY have tackled this before.

    3. Bob Camp

      Re: Convenience

      The Secret Service (Department of Homeland Security) was responsible for securing and maintaining the server. She used her husband's (former President) e-mail server. She also asked if it was allowed and she was told that it was. Now maybe that's bad information, but it isn't like she was secretly using it or was blatantly disregarding what she was told.

      Colin Powell did the same thing when he was Secretary of State. Nobody in D.C. knows what the hell they're doing, this is just another example of it.

      At first I thought it was a huge deal, but the more I read about it the less worried I get. I still wish she hadn't used that private e-mail account, but the NSA probably has an archive of all those e-mails anyway.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby

        Re: Convenience

        "She also asked if it was allowed and she was told that it was. "

        Funny. I live in a condo and its against the rules for anyone to rent their units for less than 6 months, they have to present a lease to the building management and perform a background check on the potential tenant. Which makes it against the rules to allow someone to post their unit up on AirBnB.

        We had so far two residents that we caught doing this claimed that they were told that it was ok to do this.

        The point is that its very easy to have selective hearing. Especially if you're a lawyer.

        Lawyer Question: " Can I do X? "

        Answer: " Yes, but only in extreme emergencies and you have to report it."

        Lawyer: " Ok, so I can do it. "

        5 years later... Lawyer: " But they said I *could* do it."

        And actually it is a huge deal.

        She's obstructed several investigations. Most importantly the ones in to the happenings around Benghazi.

  19. ImpureScience

    Not Illegal Yo

    From the Washington Post: "During Clinton’s term as secretary, regulations were tightened concerning the preservation of e-mail records, and concerns were raised about the use of personal e-mail accounts for official business. But the legal requirement to immediately preserve e-mails from nongovernment e-mail accounts was not made mandatory until nearly two years after she stepped down."

    You may have concerns about Clinton's judgement or intent, but for those who are hyperventilating that OMG NOTHING IS ILLEGAL FOR HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS: what she did was not actually illegal. Clueless, maybe, but not illegal.

    1. Preston Munchensonton

      Re: Not Illegal Yo

      Don't forget required compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (2002). The explanation above (thanks to @tom dial) should suffice.

    2. Dan Paul

      Re: Not Illegal Yo (BS and Spin)

      The OFFICIAL link below was from a Whitehouse blogger in 2009 and covers this scandal like no other.

      The Presidential Records Act was instituted in 1978 and it's now 2015.

      It covered all electronic communications. Most assume that includes email. Avoidance of these rules was illegal.

      This link below is regarding the actual rules and regulation as well as others.

      These newer rules specifically mention Email now.

      1. Tom 13

        Re: The Presidential Records Act was instituted in 1978 and it's now 2015.

        The FRA covered it back in 1950 and still applies.

        Every time there's a new scandal, instead of punishing the guilty parties under existing law, they get excused and Congress passes a new law (1978 would be fall out from Nixon) which fixes nothing.

  20. Someone Else Silver badge

    Of COURSE her defense/defence "fails to placate critics"

    What "critics" are those, now? The same folks who sent a felonious, and quite possibly treasonous, letter the Grand Ayatollah Whatzisface of Iran stating, in effect: Don't pay any attention to the President, 'cus he's blaaack, and you can't trust him? Those critics??? Those racist, sexist, homophobic, plutocratic brain-dead, disrespectful, and oh yes, completely ignorant of the Constitution they are so willing to wave in your face just like Mao's sycophants used to do with his li'l red book?

    Hillary should take it as a badge of honor that their undies are in a wad.

    (By the way, the correct response to all this manufactured indignation is: Secretary of State Colin Powell. It is left as an exercise to the reader as to why that is.)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Of COURSE her defense/defence "fails to placate critics"

      And the correct response to you is TROLL.

      Hilary was out there soliciting bribes, sorry, contributions to "The Clinton Foundation" from foreign governments while secretary of state, and we have no records of anything that she said while soliciting those, but gosh, I'm sure we can take your word that she did nothing illegal and only deleted "personal" emails.

      Plainly put, she's unfit to be president, and about the only reason people put forward that she is suited is because "lady parts".

      And the letter, try Nancy Pelosi visiting Syria, Obama assuring the mullahs that once he was president he's be easier to deal with, democratic senators going to visit Saddam Hussein....fair bit of deliberate treason there one could say. But an open letter, setting out the constitutional position that treaties have to be ratified to be binding, nope, not even close.

      1. ImpureScience

        Re: Of COURSE her defense/defence "fails to placate critics"

        "...try Nancy Pelosi visiting Syria, Obama assuring the mullahs that once he was president he's be easier to deal with, democratic senators going to visit Saddam Hussein....fair bit of deliberate treason there one could say."

        Nice try, but horsehockey, nonetheless.

      2. Someone Else Silver badge

        @AC -- Re: Of COURSE her defense/defence "fails to placate critics"

        And the letter, try Nancy Pelosi visiting Syria, Obama assuring the mullahs that once he was president he's be easier to deal with, democratic senators going to visit Saddam Hussein....fair bit of deliberate treason there one could say.

        You know, you can have your own opinion, but you cannot have your own facts. Since you insist on living in a world devoid of the latter, let me help you. Nancy Pelosi's trip to Iraq was:

        1) authorized by the President (a feller named Bush)

        2) Was a bipartizan trip (excuse me, I shouldn't use such big will not understand them. This was a trip that had both Democratic and Republican members of Congress on it.)

        Now that you've been exposed to something other than the blather, tripe, and outright lies spewed by Rush, Bill-o, and Fox Noise, I'll stand back and wait for your head to explode.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby

      Re: Of COURSE her defense/defence "fails to placate critics"

      No the same critics who have seen IL Gov 'Blago' go to prison.

      The same critics who have seen IL Congress Critter Jesse Jackson Jr. go to prison.

      1. Someone Else Silver badge

        Re: Of COURSE her defense/defence "fails to placate critics"

        ...and the same critics that saw Oliver North go to prison...oh..wait....

  21. zen1

    30,000 personal emails?

    jeezus, I've been in IT for 25 years and I don't think I've sent that many emails, period. Irrespective of politics (both parties are a bunch of fking criminals), as a state department employee, don't you think someone would at least question an email coming from Seriously? As much security (lol) that the state department has implemented, you can't tell me they didn't know she had her own mail server.

    Just about every government agency (fed, state, county & local) has a very strict policy that expressly forbids the use of personal email for official business. She may have been the secretary of state, but she clearly broke the law.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Wake up

    This is all very interesting if you have a vote in the 2016 election. But what analogous horrors are unfolding in secret in the boardroom of 2015?

    Occasionally I see a presentation by a member of senior management who drops out of full-screen. I have never seen this happen without glimpsing evidence of an infosec risk of some kind. A personal mail tab open in Firefox is the least alarming; they aren't using Dropbox, Evernote and Skype just for personal stuff. They will typically have a raft of other unknown crapware running, with telltale icons, and presumably some without. This goes for Mac and Windows users. Their hard disks are encrypted, but they'll often be running a presentation off a random FAT drive.

    All of these people would advance exactly the Hillary argument in their defence, if they even knew there was an issue.

    Nobody's doing anything about it; this battle has been lost. However let's remind ourselves where the war is:

    Your least sophisticated users (execs) have access to the most valuable information and are the most publicly visible.

    People who aren't publicly known now publish a spearphishing kit on social media.

    The security of modern business comms depends ostensibly on SSL alone as traffic migrates to http. The eventual compromise of SLL will have interesting implications. But no scheme will help you if you're just encrypting malicious traffic.

    If you're worried about deliberate sharing, Dropboxes can be shared. That evidence can be discovered, at some cost, because the parties can be made to divulge it.

    If everyone's using Dropbox, from the boardroom on down, a compromised client can simply siphon data to a Dropboxalike and the traffic looks benign. There is no evidence to discover because the traffic was encrypted and the parties unknown.

    Assume this has already happened. Still worried about email?

  23. JustNiz

    intelligence of Hillary Clinton

    This stupid woman clearly doesn't even understand basic concepts like email security or even the need for it over her own convenience..... Its VERY scary that she wants to be the president, a person that will regularly handle the most classified material and have significant input into complex issues like net neutrality. She has clearly demonstrated serious failure to grasp basic issues even in her current role.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: intelligence of Hillary Clinton

      In all honesty, there are others far more lacking in intelligence that are running for any state and federal office.

      Politicians that think the world is less than 6,000 years old, think evolution isn't valid, think the U.S. is founded on christianity (in spite of the fact that the Constitution violates quite a few commandments) or want to establish christianity as the defacto religion of the U.S., think that environmental laws hurt our country, think that labor laws hurt our country, think that businesses will reward hard work (OMG... that one is funny), think that corporations should have more rights than people, think that religion should have the right to interfere with the rights of others, think that school text books should only show a conservative view of America (the David Barton made-up variety)...

      Hillary did something stupid, but she's far more intelligent than Bush v2.

  24. Keven E.

    Hilarious wankage

    "Judicial Watch"

    LOL! Completely irrelevant corporate folly. Just like "Citizens United". Bullshit.

    Put down the puppets and step away from our civilization.


    I can't believe anyone hasn't yet suggested that she was letting people "hack" her systems just so NSA could follow the trail of those who would be so arrogant to believe they could do so without being *watched. Do I sense naivety?


    veti - We've been here before. Don't put Snowden under Obama just because it happened to be revealed during his time. Those *revelations are about way before him.

  25. tekHedd

    Benghazi benghazi benghazi

    I had this explained to me. Apparently this is a Liberal Cover Up of Benghazi, and it's all about the War Between The Parties:

    "We" are afraid that "our" precious hillary will be exposed for her role in Benghazi, and that's why "we" are trying to defend her actions. Never mind that I was quite clearly saying that I totally disapprove and this I would not vote for her anyway, but especially after this. Just by talking rationally about how stupid this is I expose myself as a Liberal and am still the enemy.

    Divide phase completed. Conquor phase proceeding as planned.

    Meh; we know they all do it. The real scandal isn't the coverup, it's her incompetence in keeping her corruption out of sight. Is that just sad, or is it also very sad?

  26. Just-the-facts
    Big Brother

    Going back to but not including Nixon

    This list consists of American politicians convicted of crimes either committed or prosecuted while holding office in the federal government. It includes politicians who were convicted or pleaded guilty in a court of law; and does not politicians who have only been arrested or indicted. The list also does not include crimes which occur outside the politician’s tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office.

    2009– (Obama (D) presidency)

    1. General David Petraeus (R) Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years’ probation plus a fine of $100,000 for providing classified information to Lieutenant Colonel Paula Broadwell.

    2. Michael Grimm (R-NY) pleaded guilty of felony tax evasion. This was the 4th count in a 20 count indictment brought against him for improper use of campaign funds. The guilty plea has the maximum sentence of 3 years. He was sentenced to three months in prison. (2015)

    3. Trey Radel (R-FL) was convicted of possession of cocaine in November 2013. As a first time offender, he was sentenced to one year probation and fined $250. Radel announced he would take a leave of absence, but did not resign. Later, under pressure from a number of Republican leaders, he announced through a spokesperson that he would do so. (2013)

    4. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was found guilty on 17 of 32 counts against him June 12, 2013, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators. (2013)

    5. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) pleaded guilty February 20, 2013, to one count of wire and mail fraud in connection with his misuse of $750,000 in campaign funds. Jackson was sentenced to two and one-half years imprisonment. (2013)

    2001–2009 (George W. Bush (R) presidency)

    1. Lewis Libby (R) Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney (R). 'Scooter' was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Plame Affair on March 6, 2007 and was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000. His sentence was commuted by George W. Bush (R) on July 1, 2007. (2007)

    2. Mel Reynolds (D-IL) was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. (1997) He was later convicted of 12 counts of bank fraud. (1999)

    3. Walter R. Tucker III (D-CA) was sentenced to 27 months in prison in 1996 for extortion and tax evasion. (1995)

    4. Wes Cooley (R-OR), was convicted of having lied on the 1994 voter information pamphlet about his service in the Army. He was fined and sentenced to two years probation (1997) After leaving office, Cooley was convicted of income tax fraud connected to an investment scheme. He was sentenced to one year in prison and to pay restitution of $3.5 million to investors and $138,000 to the IRS.

    5. Austin Murphy (D-PA) was convicted of one count of voter fraud for filling out absentee ballots for members of a nursing home. (1999)

    6. House banking scandal The House of Representatives Bank found that 450 members had overdrawn their checking accounts, but not been penalized. Six were convicted of charges, most only tangentially related to the House Bank itself. Twenty two more of the most prolific over-drafters were singled out by the House Ethics Committee. (1992)

    7. Buz Lukens (R-Ohio) convicted of bribery and conspiracy

    8. Carl C. Perkins (D-Kentucky) pleaded guilty to a check kiting scheme involving several financial institutions (including the House Bank).

    9. Carroll Hubbard (D-Kentucky) was convicted of illegally funneling money to his wife's 1992 campaign to succeed him in congress.

    10. Mary Rose Oakar (D-Ohio) pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor campaign finance charge not related to the House Bank.

    11. Walter Fauntroy (D-District of Columbia) was convicted of filing false disclosure forms to hide unauthorized income.

    12. Congressional Post Office scandal (1991–1995) was a conspiracy to embezzle House Post Office money through stamps and postal vouchers to congressmen.

    13. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison, in 1995.

    14. Joe Kolter (D-Pennsylvania) pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and sentenced to 6 months in prison.

    15. Jay Kim (R-CA) accepted $250,000 in illegal 1992 campaign contributions and was sentenced to two-months house arrest and a $5,000 fine. (1992)

    1989–1993 (George H. W. Bush (R) presidency)

    1. Catalina Vasquez Villalpando, (R) Treasurer of the United States, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and tax evasion. (1992)

    2. Nicholas Mavroules (D-Massachusetts) was convicted of extortion, accepting illegal gifts and failing to report them on congressional disclosure and income tax forms. Mavroules pleaded guilty to fifteen counts in April 1993 and was sentenced to a fifteen-month prison term. (1993)

    3. Albert Bustamante (D-Texas) was convicted of accepting bribes and sentenced to three and one-half years in prison. (1993)

    4. David Durenberger Senator (R-Minnesota) denounced by Senate for unethical financial transactions and then disbarred (1990). He pleaded guilty to misuse of public funds and given one year probation (1995)

    1981–1989 (Reagan (R) presidency)

    1. Housing and Urban Development Scandal was a controversy concerning bribery by selected contractors for low income housing projects.

    2. James G. Watt (R) United States Secretary of the Interior 1981–1983, was charged with 25 counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. Sentenced to five years probation, fined $5,000 and 500 hours of community service

    3. Wedtech scandal Wedtech Corporation was convicted of bribery in connection with Defense Department contracts.

    4. Mario Biaggi (D-New York) sentenced to 2½ years. (1987)

    5. Robert Garcia (D-New York) sentenced to 2½ years.

    6. Iran-Contra Affair (1985–1986); A secret sale of arms to Iran, to secure the release of hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, in violation of the Boland Amendment.

    7. Elliott Abrams (R) Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, convicted of withholding evidence. Given 2 years probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.

    8. Michael Deaver (R) White House Deputy Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan 1981–85, pleaded guilty to perjury related to lobbying activities and was sentenced to 3 years probation and fined $100,000

    9. Donald E. "Buz" Lukens (R-Ohio), was convicted of two counts of bribery and conspiracy. (1996)

    10. Abscam FBI sting involving fake 'Arabs' trying to bribe 31 congressmen.(1980) The following Congressmen were convicted:

    11. Harrison A. Williams Senator (D-New Jersey) Convicted on 9 counts of bribery and conspiracy. Sentenced to 3 years in prison.

    12. John Jenrette Representative (D-South Carolina) sentenced to two years in prison for bribery and conspiracy.

    13. Richard Kelly (R-Florida) Accepted $25K and then claimed he was conducting his own investigation into corruption. Served 13 months.

    15. Michael Myers (D-Pennsylvania) Accepted $50K saying, " talks and bullshit walks." Sentenced to 3 years and was expelled from the House.

    16. Frank Thompson (D-New Jersey) Sentenced to 3 years.

    17. John M. Murphy (D-New York) Served 20 months of a 3-year sentence.

    18. Mario Biaggi (D-New York), Convicted of obstruction of justice and accepting illegal gratuities he was sentenced to 2½ years in prison and fined $500K for his role in the Wedtech scandal, see above. Just before expulsion from the House, he resigned. The next year he was convicted of another 15 counts of obstruction and bribery. (1988)

    19. Pat Swindall (R-Georgia) convicted of 6 counts of perjury. (1989)

    20. George V. Hansen (R-Idaho) censured for failing to file out disclosure forms. Spent 15 months in prison.

    21. Frederick W. Richmond (D-New York),Convicted of tax evasion and possession of marijuana. Served 9 months (1982)

    22. Dan Flood (D-Pennsylvania) censured for bribery. After a trial ended in a deadlocked jury, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year's probation.

    23. Joshua Eilberg (D-Pennsylvania) pleaded guilty to conflict-of-interest charges. In addition, he convinced president Carter to fire the U.S. Attorney investigating his case.

    1977–1981 (Carter (D) presidency)

    1. Fred Richmond (D-New York) – Convicted of tax fraud and possession of marijuana. Served 9 months in prsion. Charges of soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy were dropped after he submitted to counseling. (1978)

    2. Charles Diggs (D-Michigan), convicted on 29 charges of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms which formed a kickback scheme with his staff. Sentenced to 3 years (1978)

    3. Michael Myers (D-Pennsylvania) Received suspended six-month jail term after pleading no contest to disorderly conduct charged stemming from an incident at a Virginia bar in which he allegedly attacked a hotel security guard and a cashier.

    4. Frank M. Clark (D-Pennsylvania) pleaded guilty to mail fraud and tax evasion on June 12, 1979 and sentenced to two years in prison.

    5. Richard Tonry (D-Louisiana) pleaded guilty to receiving illegal campaign contributions.[68]

    1974–1977 (Ford (R) presidency)

    1. James F. Hastings (R-New York), convicted of kickbacks and mail fraud, he also took money from his employees for personal use. Served 14 months at Allenwood penitentiary. (1976)

    2. John V. Dowdy (D-Texas), Allegedly tried to stop a federal investigation of a construction firm. He served 6 months in prison for perjury. (1973)

    3. Bertram Podell (D-New York), pleaded guilty to conspiracy and conflict of interest. He was fined $5,000 and served four months in prison. (1974)

    4. Frank Brasco (D-New York) Sentenced to three months in jail and fined $10,000 for conspiracy to accept bribes from a reputed Mafia figure who sought truck leasing contracts from the Post Office and loans to buy trucks.[63]

    5. Richard T. Hanna (D-CA), convicted in an influence-buying scandal. (1974)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021