back to article FBI may pillory Hillary with email spillery grillery

The FBI is investigating presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private email account while presiding over the State Department. The Washington Post has reported that the FBI is digging into Clinton's operation of a personal email server as part of her work as the US Secretary of State between 2009 and 2012 …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Only to be expected

    the ABH (anyone But Hillary) faction will try to use everything they can to stop her from

    1) being nominated at the Democrats Candidate

    2) from actually winning the election

    If by some chance she wins, I'd expect the long knives to be out for hubby in an attempt to show that she knew about his indifenity etc etc etc.

    My US friends think that she in danger of becoming the same sort of hate figure that Maggie T became over here. The difference is that the haters in the US have far, far bigger pockets than those over here.

    US Democracy... aka who has the biggest pile of $$$$$ wins

    1. Richard Taylor 2

      Re: Only to be expected

      But can anyone doubt that using a private service (actually it's security might have been better than .gov :-( was a silly idea, from a point of view of audit (this seems as though it might have been the primary reason for doing so) or accountability. Bad though .gov security might be, I can't believe they take too many short cuts with such an important post.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Only to be expected

        She should have used an official archived email sever like the previous lot - then illegally deleted all of them like the previous lot

    2. Dan Paul

      Re: Only to be expected (For good reasons)

      Hillarity Clinton has repeatedly shown that she can't tell the truth since the days in Arkansas with Whitewater and scoffs at any law that might apply to her.

      Most recently at the State Department she was deeply involved in a "pay to play" scheme where anyone who wanted some favorable decision from the state department had to hire Bill Clinton as a paid speaker. Let's not even get into the fact that she was derelict and negligent in her duties at the State Department, deleted emails from a server she legally wasn't supposed to use because they would prove "the haters" as you call them are completely correct about what happened at the Libyan Consulate.

      Oh, and by the way she lies saying she's "just like us" when the Clintons are worth over a hundred million dollars.

      Do you really want another baldface, thieving liar in the office of the President?

      1. Stumpy

        Re: Only to be expected (For good reasons)

        "Do you really want another baldface, thieving liar in the office of the President?"

        Because Trump is a shining beacon of Holy Goodness by comparison, right? RIGHT?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Only to be expected (For good reasons)

          At least Donald Trump is saying what he really means instead of just offering lies like Hillarity or Obama. Obama couldn't tell the truth if he tried and Hillarity never spoke a word of truth in her whole political career.

          You liberal entitlement queens are so afraid of people like Trump that you fall all over yourselves to blame him and his type for all the worlds problems when nothing could be further from the truth. Your agenda is to demonize all that America stands for. By comparison with Obama and Hillarity, Trump is a literal saint.

          The liberal left gave away all the money to the wrong people for 50 years, they squandered it and we have nothing to show for it besides a more divided, ignorant populace.

          The fact is that it would be far better to have someone who actually understands business and negotiation as a president than the wimpy, lying, money printing, debt incurring, Black Panther & Weather Underground sympathizer we have now or the lying, conniving, scam artist you want to elect next.

          The thing you fear most is that Trump can fund the campaign HIMSELF and won't owe anything to the Koch brothers or Republican PAC's or any other controlling interest. HE ISN"T A POLITICIAN SO YOU CAN'T CONTROL HIM!

          George Soros or Bloomberg or any one of a number of Democratic PAC's actually tell the Demoncrats how to run the country and who can be elected. Soros is an avowed socialist, and is a longtime friend of Allen Ginsberg and Aryeh Neier the founder of the Students for a Democratic Society which people my age will recognize as the predecessors of the Weather Underground, a radical group of people dedicated to the overthrow of the US Government. Strangely enough, Bill Ayers, a political associate of Barry Obama's in Chicago was also a member and convicted bomber.

          If that info could have ever made it through the socialist editors of the liberal media, there might not have been Obama's presidency. Let's hope there is time to stop the coronation of Hillarity.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @AC - Trump says what he means

            But he never takes any positions. He says he'd build a wall on our southern border and make Mexico pay for it. How? He just talks about how he's a great negotiator like he wrote about in the Art of the Deal. Same story with China trade, Iran's nukes and anything else. The only position he seems to have taken is that he'd defund Planned Parenthood and would support shutting down the government to accomplish that (but is on record saying the government shutdown a couple years ago was "stupid")

            It is easy to speak your mind if you never are forced to say if you are for or against anything, but instead just claim you'll do X better than Obama or any of his republican rivals.

        2. Alan W. Rateliff, II

          Re: Only to be expected (For good reasons)

          While I carry no water for Trump, I am curious to know of what evils, by your account, he is guilty.

        3. Fungus Bob

          Re: Only to be expected (For good reasons)

          "Because Trump is a shining beacon of Holy Goodness by comparison, right?"

          His combover might make a good Prez.

      2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Re: Do you really want another baldface, thieving liar in the office of the President?

        Do you honestly think you can avoid that outcome before the next millennium ?

      3. Turtle

        @Dan Paul Re: Only to be expected (For good reasons)

        If she wasn't corrupt and dishonest, she'd be a complete non-entity.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Only to be expected (For good reasons)

        Well, at least with Donald Trump, it wasn't just his face that was bald.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Only to be expected

      officials have vocalised their concerns regarding Clinton's email practices, much to the delight of her political opponents.

      By "her political opponents", you should clarify that you mean "Obama and other Democrats, specifically, Obama".

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Only to be expected

      Re: "US Democracy... aka who has the biggest pile of $$$$$ wins"

      For Pete's sake, you have a House of Lords. I think I just got hypocrisy poisoning.

    5. Alan W. Rateliff, II

      Re: Only to be expected

      Holy shit, that was fast. I expected your ilk to be out no sooner than five comments in, but first post? Bravo!

    6. readman

      Re: Only to be expected

      it's too bad this revelation gets a political spin and this commentator ignores the legal facts. If anyone other than a current candidate had broken the law it would be investigated by the FBI since it involves slips in the protection of national security information. Please ignore the political mis-mash and just look at the crime on its own merit. At least Edward Snowden's release of national security information has so far escaped the political smear and folks are weighing in based on the risk of harm to the US verses people's right to know what is going on in the government. The only case I am hearing on Clinton's case is that it is all political and no one seems to care that mis-handling of information is in its self dangerous.

  2. Ian 62

    My boss would never allow it

    I can imagine what would happen if I turned up in a new job and refused to use the company network or provided services. "Don't worry boss, I know what I'm doing, I'll run my own IT stuff"

    A fairly short reply, which might not even have been polite enough to say something like, using the approved and provided IT services are a condition of employment.

    Why would Her, or Her team ever think this was a) allowed, b) a good idea?

    1. 404

      Re: My boss would never allow it

      Politicians have always been above the law, you silly peasant! Go back to your hut and let your betters worry about big things you can't wrap your head around.


      1. julian_n

        Re: My boss would never allow it

        Quite. Stupid Feds. Don't they know she's a Clinton and laws don't apply to Bushes and Clintons.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: My boss would never allow it

      Because the official email is subject to FOI requests - like many employees in highly regulated industries you never say anything in an email that you don't want to read out in court

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trump 2016!

    If nothing else, the televised debates are going to be incredibly entertaining!

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    UK Local Council

    For years, the local councillors would have their offical emails automatically forwarded to the gmail, hotmail, yahoo mail accounts.

    It was always fun when their 'private' mailbox would fill up and send a bounce message back, which got autoforwarded to the private mailbox which would bounce back.

    I had endless fun dealing with such 'mail storms'

    AC cos I still work at the Council

  5. Little Mouse

    Rand Paul (R-KY)?

    Hey kids - Try "Googling" Randy & KY to find out more...

    Image Search, of course.

    1. Jim 43

      Re: Rand Paul (R-KY)?

      I'm not falling for this again

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Rand Paul (R-KY)?

        It's less painful than most political debates.

    2. Alan W. Rateliff, II

      Re: Rand Paul (R-KY)?

      Oh, you! Not getting that one over on me, I have Brit in my blood and I see through your shenanigans.

  6. W Donelson

    Rules when she was in office....

    "There was not an explicit, categorical prohibition against federal employees using personal emails when Clinton was in office, said Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, where he administered implementation of the Freedom of Information Act."

    Still, not very good judgement on her part.

    1. IglooDude

      Re: Rules when she was in office....

      Excellent judgement, rather, from the perspective of avoiding scrutiny of her email, official or otherwise.

      But the claim that one can read any of her emails anyway because "anything official she sent to other Federal employees is on their .gov mail server" (unless it was sent to Lois Lerner, natch) suddenly breaks down as it turns out that other people also had accounts on the private Clinton mail server, and at least one of them is claiming rather vehemently to have been a State Dept employee at the time.

    2. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Rules when she was in office....

      On the other hand there was a law, the Federal Information Security Management Act - FISMA - of 2002, with plenty of rules and regulations in place by around 2005 or 2006.

      In general, the law and instructions that followed from it required computer systems used to process and store government data to be particularly configured to ensure data security, be backed up regularly, and have a disaster recovery plan in effect that provided for continuity of operations if the primary system became inoperative. All that has to be documented in excruciating detail, and conformity verified before the system is approved by the agency's approving official (usually the CIO) and attached to a network. Conformity is required to be reverified periodically, including testing of the business continuity plan.

      If the servers behind met the standard, Ms. Clinton and her supporters could have brought it out immediately and effectively ended the discussion by requesting the State Department to release the systems' certification and accreditation documents. Instead, she diverted attention by delivering printed email copies to the department and requesting they be released, and erased them from the server or servers. It is quite safe, therefore, to conclude that the servers used were operated in violation of the law and contrary to established Department of State instructions.

      Ms. Clinton, however, was not just a State Department employee presumably violating the law and agency instructions; she was the department director, responsible to see that the department and its employees, including herself and others who had accounts, operated within the law and in accord with the departments established instructions.

      It appears she did not do so. That is far more than poor judgment; it is, arguably, a disqualifier for election to the office of President, the duties of which include, among other things, to "take Care that the Laaws be faithfully executed".

  7. Anonymous Coward

    Clinton email

    Why is anyone surprised if Hilary Clinton lies? She is a politician after all and complaining that she lies is like complainng water is wet.

    Anyway i'll bet she rekoned that the NSA via GCHQ had copies of all her emails anyway.

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

Other stories you might like