Hillary did Not Turn Over Emails Required by Law

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/emails-show-hillary-clinton-exchanges-with-foreign-lobbyist-119660.html

Hours after news broke that Palau would accept up to 17 Uighur detainees from Guantanamo in June 2009, Farrow contacted Clinton’s private email address, pivoting from the agreement to the proposed U.S. budget for aid to Palau.

“Was going to write earlier re Palau willingness to take the 17 Guantanamo Uighurs - but see the story has now broken. I am now representing Palau, primarily re extension of free association w/ the U.S.,” Farrow wrote to Clinton.

“Also, just FYI now, I’ve been concerned that the Budget includes a far too low placeholder for free association extension aid, $45-9 m over 10 years, although the aid is to be based on a joint review of need that will really begin with a Palauan presentation Friday.”

Clinton apparently did not respond directly to Farrow’s concern about the aid proposal, but she forwarded his message to aides Jack Lew — now the Treasury secretary — and Jake Sullivan with the message “Fyi.”

The next month, Farrow forwarded Clinton a disappointed message from Palau’s representatives who wanted to see more of an investment from the U.S. government. They were “insulted by the nature and depth of the response to their proposal as well as the content and the overall approach. They are even privately questioning the relationship,” he wrote to the secretary of state.

Two days later Clinton forwarded this message to Sullivan, who is now a top Clinton campaign policy adviser, asking him to “Pls review, do some recon outreach and advise what, if anything, we should do. Thx. H.”

Sullivan told Clinton he had been working on the issue over the weekend, and that “they will be getting new numbers in the next round of negotiations.” A week later, Clinton wrote to Farrow to tell him she had forwarded the note to Sullivan.

Just two days after that, Farrow sent Clinton another email — this one containing a copy of a New York Times Op-Ed by Palau’s representative to the United Nations, who Farrow noted knew Clinton in law school. Once again, the secretary of state didn’t respond.

Farrow apparently didn’t email Clinton again until Oct. 30, 2009, shortly after the United Nations took a 187-to-3 vote urging the United States to end the Cuban embargo. Palau joined Israel as the only countries on the American side, Farrow noted, bringing the conversation back to the aid negotiations.

“Important officials in Palau wanted to abstain [on the UN vote] because of the drastic cut in U.S. assistance that [State Department official] Alcy Frelick has insisted on but Pres. Toribiong decided to stick with the US. The proposal to cut the small amount of assistance that Palau is receiving is ironic in light of the substantial increase in assistance pledged to the two other freely associated states just a few years ago. It is also misinformed and misguided,” Farrow wrote.

Less than two hours later Clinton forwarded Farrow’s note to Sullivan, Lew, and her top aide Cheryl Mills. “As I have said repeatedly, I do not want to see Palau shortchanged,” she told her aides. The communications between Farrow and Clinton appear to end there.

A September 2010 agreement between the United States and Palau provided for over $250 million to be sent to the Oceanian nation through 2024.

By golly a SOS being lobbied for more aid for a country....who would have thought......Gomer's learning about how government works as he goes.....and apparently so are others.

Nuting honey

I'll admit that the donations to the clinton slush fund are sleazier... but the quid pro quo pattern is abundantly clear.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/07/hillary_clinton_doesn_t_like_legitimate_questions_about_her_private_email.html

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton talked to CNN’s Brianna Keilar for her first national interview as a 2016 presidential candidate. The Democratic front-runner addressed some of the questions surrounding her use of a private servertohouse herState Department emails while she was secretary of state. The conversation wasn’t about the content of those emails as much as whether Clinton’s special ad hoc system forstoring her emails—and her previous explanations about what messages she shared and what messages she deleted—were at the root of voters’ distrust of her.

Clinton’s answers won’t put questions about her trust worthiness to rest. She said the issue of the emails “is being blown up with no basis in law orfact.” Whetherit is beingblown up depends on whetheryou think her original decision to set up herown private server is a serious breach or not. But leaving that question aside, there’s no doubt that there is a sound basis for the questions beingasked of Clinton.

Take a look at the fine print. According to the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration regulationsin effect when Clinton was in office,“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.”

That regulation does allow for storage on private servers. Clinton says she made a practice of emailing officials on their official email accounts, so her work emails were immediately captured bythe government’s servers. Maybe, but this was her own system and it didn’t meet the standard of “appropriate agency record-keeping system,” which is why when the State Department tried to complete document requests, they missed the emails held on Clinton’s private server. While other officials have used private email accounts in the past, no one used them exclusively as Clinton did.

The substantive reason this matters is that congressional investigators want to know if they reallyhave access to all of the former secretary of state’s emails. As a matter of trust, voters have to determine whether Clinton’s claim to CNN that there’s nothing to see here matches herbespoke practice, which was outside the boundaries of rules and custom.

Since Clinton acted as the judge of what should be turned over and what shouldn’t,it’s legitimate to ask whetherthe standard she used fordeleting orpassing on emails meets the spirit of the rules. The spirit of the rules was to keep allcorrespondence related to the job. That’s whythe presumption is that employee records are automaticallyretained and personal email accounts in which official business is conducted happens less frequently. Clinton’s arrangement was the opposite.

At her press conference addressing her online habits in March, Clinton said that in deciding which emails toturn over she wanted to “erron the side of providing anything that could be possibly viewed as work related.” She wasn't just being careful, she said, she was being extra careful. “Out of an abundance of caution and care, you know,we wanted to send that message unequivocally.” She reiterated that claim this week: “I turned over everything that I could imagine.” But we know that some of her emails were not turned over to the State Department. Those were work related it would seem. Either that,or her definition of “work related” has some expanse in it. However, there’s also evidence that Clinton’s definition of “work related” was too constricted. More than 1,200 emails were returned by the State Department forbeing too personal. This is just the kind of confusion that the government’s retention system requirements were set up to minimize.

Clinton also said in her CNN interview that she “didn’t have to turn over anything” and “[she] chose to turn over55,000 pages because [she] wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of [her].”Later, she repeated that she had “no obligation” to turn overher emails to the State Department.

That isn’t true. It leaves the impression that since handingover the emails was completelyvoluntary, the candidate can’t fall short of anystandard. But as SecretaryClinton said in herfirst press conference about this issue in March, she did have an obligation to turn overthe emails. “That was myobligation,” she said of turning overthe emails. “I fully fulfilled it.”It was not onlyState Department practice that employees were to keep their emails in the system, the State Department also made a special request of all former secretaries of state after Clinton left. She could not deny that request.

The public may not care about Clinton’s email server. Or if they do care, they may vote for her based on whether they trust her to care about their problems, not based on her emailing habits. Or, they may find the whole business confusing and move on, which is the best possible outcome of all for Clinton.

Keep trying to convince us about the Kings new clothes....but I am sorry you still have NOTHING.....seriously.....NOTHING, and you keep confirming the same with each cut and paste....do you read what you are pasting?

Hillary Clinton has complied with the law, and Gomer and his investigation is a joke.  Doesn't the Kings new pants and Jacket look great.....say it enough times and maybe you will find some fools who see what you think is there.....NOTHING.

2seaoat wrote:Keep trying to convince us about the Kings new clothes....but I am sorry you still have NOTHING.....seriously.....NOTHING, and you keep confirming the same with each cut and paste....do you read what you are pasting?

Hillary Clinton has complied with the law, and Gomer and his investigation is a joke.  Doesn't the Kings new pants and Jacket look great.....say it enough times and maybe you will find some fools who see what you think is there.....NOTHING.

Willful ignorance isn't a counter argument comrade. That article is from SLATE... you can't get much more leftist.

You don't have to convince me that there is literally NOTHING that will ever cause your support of her to waiver.

I believe you.

The article says Nothing.  Absolutely nothing and so much as admits the same.....innuendo and the King's new set of clothes does NOT make a violation of the law.....post after post of NOTHING.  Innuendo and a plate full of beans will get you the same thing.