State Department won't release Hillary Clinton's emails until January 2016

[alp227]

Source: Politico

The State Department is proposing a deadline of January 2016 to complete its review and public release of 55,000 pages of emails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged on a private server and turned over to her former agency last December.

The proposal came Monday night in a document related to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit Vice News filed in January seeking all of Clinton’s emails.

“The Department’s plan … would result in its review being completed by the end of the year. To factor in the holidays, however, the Department would ask the Court to adopt a proposed completion date of January 15, 2016,” State’s acting director of Information Programs and Services John Hackett said in a declaration filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/state-department-wont-release-hillary-clintons-emails-until-january-2016-118078.html

[NYC_SKP]

1. Will they try to recover the 32,000 emails she deleted?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/

[6000eliot]

3. Is Bernie attacking her in this way, or is it just YOUR idea?

[NYC_SKP]

6. Do you want a president who hides communications, deletes emails, wipes hard drives?

These don't sound like very respectable or intelligent things to do.

It just isn't something I want in my elected leaders, this kind of carelessness and lack of transparency, followed by a pretense that there was nothing wrong with it.

[6000eliot]

7. Is Bernie attacking her in this way, or is it just YOUR idea?

[TM99]

14. A valid & factual criticism is not an attack.

But please carry on.

[Beauregard]

16. +1. nt

[frylock]

58. the fuck do you think?

[Chicago1980]

15. It was her server and her hard drives

Not the governments.

[Beauregard]

23. That was, after all, the point.

To keep her transactions off the public record.

[karynnj]

38. do you think that this will not be the first question asked

After the State Department completed the enormous task Hillary Clinton casually gave them? I suspect it will come immediately. No matter how often people defend HRC doing what she did, this is a mess she left the State Department.

[cosmicone]

10. The emails that she deleted were personal emails

we all delete personal emails from our work servers.

All "official" emails that she sent are in multiple state department mailboxes. Why are you so intent on getting her personal emails which have nothing to do with anything other than character assassination by innuendo?

When she started using the private server, it was legal and many government officials were using one. She has broken no laws and she has been proven right in hindsight because while state department emails have been hacked and appeared on wikileaks, her emails have not been.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Why delete them? Why not use a personal email address for personal email?

Why should we take her word for this?

Did the other people using private servers also delete thousands of emails?

[cosmicone]

19. People like you wouldn't even let her delete

emails from a Nigerian prince leaving her $87 million or asking her to take Viagra, refinance her mortgage or save 33% on her insurance hahahahahahaha.

We all delete personal emails that lack the gravity to keep them archived. Should she have kept the emails about Chelsea's wedding and baby shower?

Try to remove your evil glasses and see her as a human being and a democrat running for office. You have more in common with her than with any of the republican clowns.

Bernie Sanders showed class the other day in not taking the bait to attack Hillary. If you support him, couldn't you do the same?

[Beauregard]

24. "People like you"?

What exactly does that mean?

[cosmicone]

45. Hillary haters n/t

[Tea Potty]

48. um, no

You reply to a valid and actual argument with character assassination. Nice one for team Shillary

[Travis_0004]

36. I think personal emails should have been seperate

And state department emails ran through the state department server.

[Sgt Preston]

55. There are many borderline cases.

How about an email regarding an agreement to give special trade privileges to a country whose government might donate to the Clinton Foundation or pay for a speech on the lecture circuit? Personal or State Department business?

[Purveyor]

20. And 'wipe clean' the server the email resided on to boot. Uh nope...thing to hide here.

[Beauregard]

18. "Personal" meaning what?

Does it include "personal" business transactions with foreign businessmen and governments?

[cosmicone]

21. Yes -- her personal emails to Al Capone to put a hit on her enemies.

Is your innuendo tool modifiable or is it set at extreme high permanently?

[Beauregard]

22. No one here is accusing her of ties to organized crime or murder.

But those are not the only activities that are undesirable in a person in a position of public trust.

[boston bean]

44. I saw a post accusing her of laundring money...That's sort of an organized crime-ish accusation, no?

[Sgt Preston]

53. But it ain't Al Capone.

[Major Hogwash]

34. This is because the State Department's servers are slow.

Remember that one anonymous guy on the internet that made that claim in GD last month?

Well, now it appears that it takes 7 months for the State Department to release e-mails that Hillary already sent them 5 months ago . . . which is a total of 12 months of time.
E-mails that were sent to Hillary, or from Hillary, clear back in 2011 and 2012, which makes them between 2 and 3 year-old e-mails, which brings the grand total of time to anywhere between 36 to 48 months before the State Department can release any of that information to the public.

That's just how slow the State Department's servers are!



Now, if you're gullible enough to believe any of the aforementioned horseshit, you might also be interested to learn that I have cornered the market on a new product, it's a magic lipstick that causes pigs to fly!!!!!!!!
I'm opening franchises later this year and they should be in stores by June, or maybe August, or perhaps October, if not this year, then next year in 2016, or by 2017 for sure, because the latest date would be in 2018, but the whole project could be held back until 2019.
But, keep your eyes open for this latest fad to burst on the scene.
It'll be a hit with the kids, to be sure.

[joshcryer]

35. I think that's because they have to read them all.

Remember how Jeb Bush just dumped every single piece of mail sent to his administration and it had SSNs and a lot of other private information made public?

Obviously you want to review the damn thing.

It shouldn't really take as long as the State Department is giving itself, assuming they had enough people on it. If it's a couple of low grunts then yeah I see it taking that long. I can't find anything about how much resources they have at their disposal.

It's actually kind of interesting that it's being made public at all since that sort of thing is left to Presidential Library releases. As far as Obama is concerned his state department from 2009-2013 will be made public before the first brick is laid or the first piece of ground is dug on his library. Kind of shows how polarizing Clinton is. And yet another insult to Obama, really.

[MBS]

37. " " " n/t

[Sgt Preston]

54. They gotta scan them so they can search them electronically.

It slows them down and pisses them off. And it's no accident.

[George II]

2. They should wait until January 2017!

[davidpdx]

30. I'm sure some how the release will be delayed just enough longer that they won't come out

until after the election. Of course if there is anything that we should know it won't matter much will it?

[840high]

4. WTH?

[NYC_SKP]

5. drip drip drip

If only she'd have used her brain and not used a private server, or not deleted emails and wiped the hard drive.

I don't think she's particular smart about certain things, these were really bad ideas.

[Beauregard]

9. Yes.

But without a private server she could not have conducted the business transactions she wanted to conduct, and without deleting and wiping the hard drive, those transactions would have become public knowledge.

[840high]

12. yep

[A Simple Game]

56. But a smart person would have done both, it's not hard to have two email accounts

on separate servers.

Even if she did nothing wrong she wasn't smart enough to not give that impression. But then why would she think the GOP would use her having a private email account instead of a government one against her? It's not like they have a history of trying to find things she has done wrong.

Sometimes you get exactly what you ask for.

[Beauregard]

62. That's a good point.

+1.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

13. It certainly looks bad.

[Chicago1980]

17. No, it doesn't look bad at all,

And Warren isn't running.

[Beauregard]

26. Your comment has promise, but it needs further work.

You might consider expanding it to include some discussion of why, as you say, "it doesn't look bad at all." The reader might want to know why it doesn't look bad, and to whom. You might also try to explain the logical connection between your assertion that "Warren isn't running" and your initial claim that "it doesn't look bad." Is the comment about Warren supposed to be a reason why it doesn't look bad? Or is it the other way around? Or, on the other hand, are you making two separate points? Next time, try to give a fuller explanation for your view, with factual support.

C-

[cosmicone]

46. It is in response to "It looks bad"

and you didn't demand a dissertation on that quip.

[Sancho]

42. You do realize that Google and McAffee backed up her server on separate occasions...

as reported in several papers months ago. One backup just before she left office. She also apparently used some encryption software available from McAffee for a while, which explains the last backup. Since I saw this reported in the Tampa Times, I assume you could find it if you want. It seems clear that there is no way to compel the private emails. Even in my field, we produce reports from encrypted data - and immediately delete original information and communication to avoid FOI and "Sunshine" requests (a Florida thing). That's just SOP for social science research; much less someone who is a politician like Hillary (or Jeb, Rove, Scott, etc.). Our local lawyers clearly tell us what is government business that must be stored, but sometimes things slip through. There's little or no penalty for "mistakes" other than public report that something is missing. Hillary was using her brain and had excellent legal advice. She is years out of the job, and she protected herself from crazy innuendo (so far).

The Clinton's reported that all communications to any government business was captured on the government side. There is no issue here. The State Dept. staff was also monitoring and vetting communication. Frankly, if there was any "personal" email with some notorious deal, why have NONE been revealed by the other party? It takes two to tango. Not one single whistle blower? Why not? We know the answer. Either the other party is on board with the Clintons or the CIA did them in.

No one cares about yoga classes and cake recipes! She is a smart and experienced politician familiar with personal attacks, so she and Bill dealt with it!! Even if you got that mysterious server, there won't be anything there except personal junk. Frankly, it might help her with regular voters to see some of the personal stuff, but the GOP is licking their lips for anything they can use as attack ads.

Are there secret deals within the State Dept.? Probably YES! There will likely always be secret deals with US Gov. officials that people don't approve of...Iran/Contra, Paris peace talks behind Carter's back, etc. Will any government expose themselves? NO! Were they "legal" or politically correct? Who knows, but we do know that this particular server is a dead end source so it's time to give up asking for something that won't be available.

She had a legal right to have her staff and lawyers go through and delete items off of a personal server managed by Bill Clinton's staff for their personal use - effectively managed as it turns out since apparently none of the personal emails have emerged.

Clinton bashing is getting old. The State Dept. still has a right to control and redact anything they think is sensitive - even though Clinton already stated that no sensitive material was ever put on open email. Just in case, State will review all of the ones released. Hillary has openly offered to release all the government emails.

Bash, bash, bash. I know you are smart enough to know better, so what is your motivation for continuing to act this way? The only drip, drip, drip here is the tiresome bashing by Hillary haters. Honestly, I truly wonder if some of the attacks are paid trolls or personality disorders. There is nothing new. Even if an "embarrassing" email with a "slip" of sensitive information is found somewhere - it's old news now and will amount to nothing!

Most importantly, the general public doesn't really care. Everyone has had the experience of sending an embarrassing text or email. Unless Hillary was sexting, the average Jane and Joe don't care about a 5 year old email from to some official in Libia or whatever. It takes too much time to figure out the details, and it's water under the bridge for people who want a job.

The only reason to keep up the bash-attacks is an attempt to help the GOP at this point.

[cosmicone]

47. What is sickening is that the Bernie/warren supporters

have nothing except whatever is imaginarily dredged up by the right wing machine.

Bernie showed class the other day in refusing to attack Hillary. His supporters are devoid of such class apparently.

[Sancho]

50. I agree; the candidate attacks are distracting...

Bernie's interviews on CNN and the Diane Rhem show this week were good. He clearly said that he wanted to debate the issues, not attack Hillary or other candidates. I don't have anything against Bernie, but I don't think he can win large purple states like Florida. Bernie supporters haven't picked up on his values apparently.

I would like to see a Democrat win, and Hillary is the best bet.

Frankly, Hillary has also avoided attacking other candidates personally. She talked to Warren, and appears to have adopted some of Warren's ideas. I think Hillary and Bernie generally agree on many issues. On NPR last week the reported stated that Hillary had met with Obama and they agreed not to criticize each other on some hot topics like TPP. I assume the reporters were accurate in the story.

We have all noticed a handful of posters bashing Hillary. Many are right out of the GOP handbook. I've responded a few times, but it gets tiring to rehash the same arguments.

[KMOD]

8. Somebody please call 911

[jeff47]

25. Team Clinton: We keep rekindling the Republican attacks.

Why, exactly, does everyone insist she's so good at political campaigns? This story should have died months ago, yet Team Clinton's handling of it has ensured it just keeps going and going and going.

Hell, she stopped the Iran letter story to restart the private server story. It was the perfect time to let the story die, and she decided to bring it back up again.

[Beauregard]

27. Even political prodigies like the Clintons make mistakes.

Plenty of them, as we know.

[jeff47]

28. Except they're making the same mistake over and over and over and over and over and over again. (nt)

[Beauregard]

29. Which one is that?

Straight question.

[jeff47]

31. You replied to it. They keep "scandals" going

by doing an excellent job reviving them as they are starting to lose traction.

[JMolina]

32. The State Department is "team Clinton"?

The State Department proposed a deadline. Explain how this is a matter of "team Clinton" doing this or that?

[jeff47]

33. Team Clinton decided what to give the State Department, and when to do it.

Team Clinton also decided to give it to the State Department and not just turn everything over directly to the committee months ago.

Team Clinton also decided that setting up their own email server would be a fantastic idea. Knowing that there's at least a good chance she'd run for President again, and knowing that the Republicans will find it an incredibly easy target to attack in that future campaign.

Team Clinton also decided that when she stepped down from SoS to not turn over a copy of all the emails four years ago. Instead, they let them be "discovered" now, maximizing their impact.

Team Clinton also decided to interrupt the blow up over the Iran letter to remind everyone about the emails. Thus minimizing the damage to the Republicans of the Iran letter, and reminding everyone about the email "scandal".

But good try at pretending history started today.

[JMolina]

41. Oh noes the Republicans are making you dislike the Clintons

I hope they make you like them soon.

[jeff47]

60. No, Clinton is making me dislike Clinton.

Again, her handling of this non-scandal is utterly and completely inept. She's already doing an awful job handling these attacks, and the Republicans aren't really going after her yet.

[cosmicone]

49. You do realize

that the state department emails contain sensitive information with national security implications don't you?

A whole team must go over every word of every email to redact secret information and that is a task that will take a substantial amount of time.

And all that work to satisfy the rethug fishing expedition.

[jeff47]

59. No they don't. Because that would be a federal crime.

Clinton's emails on her server do not contain classified information. Because that would be a federal crime, and you can be sure as hell the Republicans would be screaming about prosecution.

SECRET State Department emails are sent via SIPRNet. They are not sent over the Internet, and would not be in Clinton's server. Putting those emails on an unclassified system, such as her server, is a federal crime. Sending those emails over the Internet is another federal crime.

If there actually were classified information in those emails, then there actually would be a real scandal. Instead, we have a pseduo-scandal that Clinton and her people are continuing to feed with inept responses.

[Android3.14]

39. What NYC_SKP said

"Do you want a president who hides communications, deletes emails, wipes hard drives?"

All the HRC defenders on the site should answer this question before attacking a poster.

[Sancho]

43. Yes...I think that most Presidential communication should be secret until years out of office.

I also think that requiring every communication (and likewise every video, audio, and paper trail) be public on the spot is an invasion of privacy and detrimental to being a good President. A President will have staff, counsel, and other elected officials reviewing and discussing (even in secret) almost everything they do. That's fine with me. Generally if they are off the rails, it will eventually be revealed (Watergate, Iran-contra, etc.), even though we all know sometimes they don't get caught.

Personal stuff should be private - the same right should apply to all US citizens. Unless accused of a crime, a person should be trusted to do their job and keep private stuff to themselves. If they aren't sure, they can ask staff or lawyers what is personal - and those opinions are all they need to keep things private day-to-day. Our lives depend on personal choices and freedom from persecution without merit.

A government track record should be maintained, and only available if there is specific evidence of a crime or many years after leaving office when there is no chance of an impact on current deals and relations. The burden of proof that something personal should be revealed is on the accuser. Otherwise, if I say it's private then it's private.

Government officials have a right to privacy outside of the fishbowl. They are watched enough as it is.

I'm not an HRC supporter per se, because I would say the same about any candidate or elected official. I will vote for the Democratic candidate.

[Sgt Preston]

52. "In the ceremonies of the horsemen/Even the pawns must hold a grudge."

--B. Dylan

[karynnj]

40. this article undermines the claim that Clinton helped by

Giving paper copies. The State Department spent 5 weeks weeks scanning them in. As they were electronic to begin with, they could have been passed electronically. In fact, that should have been done on some regular basis when she was secretary.

The timing is awful as it stands and it is Clinton ' s fault. Note politico speaks of 13 months, but they ignore that the State Department started to negotiate to get them about a year ago. It took a half year for Clinton ' s team to go print them and send them on paper to the State Department. Not to mention, no effort was spontaneously made after she left office.

This is a mess of Clinton ' s making.

[Sgt Preston]

51. It's like paying your debt in pennies, just to piss off your creditor.

[MBS]

57. + 1000

I agree with every single word.

[quadrature]

61. when Hillary quit the State D. , was it under friendly terms?

when she quit State,

was her security clearance
suspended or revoked?

did she receive an exit interview.

did she sign the usual 'departing legal papers' ?

[Beauregard]

63. Obama had completed his gracious gesture toward the loser.

To pacify the Hillary supporters, she got one term as Secretary of State. As I understand it, Hillary was never allowed into Obama's inner circle. President Obama made his foreign policy decisions with his national security advisor and other close staff. After his first term, there was no longer any reason to keep Hillary around. As for your other interesting questions, I have no idea.