Much of your argument is moot owing to the fact that there was no federal regulation forbidding the use of private email — or even a private server.
I’ve heard varying accounts on this. Part of the problem seems to be that the government is highly siloed. The State Department runs its own systems (and has their own regs), the GSA ostensibly sets IT policy for the government. So, you get different statements about what’s proper from different sources.
Clinton private email violated 'clear-cut' State Dept. rules
The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email…
What we then get into is a discussion about “law”, “regulation”, and “rules”, which I assume are roughly synonymous with “policies”:
- She was not, as far as I am aware, in violation of LAW.
- She appears to have been in violation of records-management regulations, although she could always make the excuse that she intended to comply fully after leaving office. (She hadn’t, however, by the time the Benghazi hearings were being held. After that much time, it is a legitimate question if she intended to comply at all.)
- She was in violation of State Dept policy established in 2005.
A brief quote: “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department issues before leaving government service. Because she did not do so, she did not comply with the [State] Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”
That’s enough right there, in my opinion. And to repeat again, I do not consider this issue to be an isolated one; your argumentation continues to ignore that fact.
We already know that our assessment this WRT her candidacy differs. Let’s not rehash.
Further, previous SoS’s had conducted state business via personal email (Colin Powell and Madeline Allbright).
The policies were revised in 2005.
And yes, I have high standards when it comes to adhering to policies which are easy to adhere to.
About Comey’s “promise.” I reiterate an earlier post: facts on the ground always modify promises.
This is your opinion. I disagree. If the promise is able to be kept, it should be kept, in my view.
That’s the third iteration of that point to which there has been no reply. I’m assuming you have no reply.
I’ve answered it three times: I DISAGREE.
The fact you disagree with my answer does not negate my response.