ADVERTISEMENT

OF Form 109

JimmyBob

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
16,849
20,975
113
Let me guess, canckles didn't sign it when she left State.
flush.r191677.gif
 
Just a little nudge while we wait for the State Dept. to tell us what everyone already knows.
smokin.r191677.gif
 
My guess is the form found it's way to the shredder after days of hand wringing at State because if she signed it she committed an obvious felony.
 
I love how the State Department also included "her two predecessors" didn't sign the form either. Show me where her two predecessors had their own servers in their houses and are facing the same accusations of law breaking that she is. Regardless, not signing the form doesn't give her a "get out of jail free" card to avoid complying with the law.
 
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally



















[/URL](a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


[/URL](b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
 
Sys,

Honest question. Where do you work? Assuming its for a corporation (like most people), what is your company's policy about using personal email for work correspondance? I'm curious if your employer would feel as non-chalant about Mrs. Clinton's behavior as most libs seem to be. I know I'd be fired on the spot if my company thought I was storing company data on my personal server.

Justin
 
Originally posted by aix_xpert:

Sys,

Honest question. Where do you work? Assuming its for a corporation (like most people), what is your company's policy about using personal email for work correspondance? I'm curious if your employer would feel as non-chalant about Mrs. Clinton's behavior as most libs seem to be. I know I'd be fired on the spot if my company thought I was storing company data on my personal server.

Justin
He's an attorney (self employed). Should tell you all you need to know.
 
Originally posted by long-duc-dong:


Originally posted by aix_xpert:

Sys,

Honest question. Where do you work? Assuming its for a corporation (like most people), what is your company's policy about using personal email for work correspondance? I'm curious if your employer would feel as non-chalant about Mrs. Clinton's behavior as most libs seem to be. I know I'd be fired on the spot if my company thought I was storing company data on my personal server.

Justin
He's an attorney (self employed). Should tell you all you need to know.
Unless he's never worked for another company, which would explain his lack of knowledge of corporate America, then he's worked for a company that has this EXACT policy. If he's ever been a corporate lawyer, he would know that those firms absolutely don't want him using his private email address. And while I called out Sys, I'd ask this question to any of our resident libs. Does your company allow you to use personal email for conduncting its business? And for the record, I'd call out Republicans who do the same thing.

Justin
 
Thanks for the question. I am what wing nuts call a "Job creator." I set my own policies regarding emails, work hours, employees, and everything else. I have no doubt that big corporations closely scrutinize and regulate all emails. My employees are all self starters that won't stop suing big business long enough to dither about email protocols.

I could care less what big bidniss' thinks about emailing protocols. Half of what they do is corporate employees creating needless tasks to foster job security. No, I don't work for a big corporation ( as an employee), but their anal-retentive email policies come in handy. They'll actually keep that stuff for years!!
 
One thing many large corps have had to figure out and deal with is the BYOD phenom. There really is very little difference in a discover scenario between email accounts and devices - company issued or your personal iphone.

Be prepared for your personal communication to be head in on discovery if anything ever does come up.

A former employee of mine has built a very nice business offering automated discovery tools for just these scenarios (Exterro if anyone is in the market).
 
My company has BYOD for mobile, for those not high enough up to have company provided. If someone wants to use their own device, they have to get it approved by IT, and IT maintains ability to wipe the device remotely. That said, we are required to use company email for company business. Whether someone uses their own device or companyrovided, the mail passes through a company server...Hillary used her own server and own email address...has nothing to do with BYOD.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by poke2001:
My company has BYOD for mobile, for those not high enough up to have company provided. If someone wants to use their own device, they have to get it approved by IT, and IT maintains ability to wipe the device remotely. That said, we are required to use company email for company business. Whether someone uses their own device or companyrovided, the mail passes through a company server...Hillary used her own server and own email address...has nothing to do with BYOD.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
BYOD is relevant in so far as discovery will absolutely breach the wall of privacy employees believe they have... Just as a subpoena for emails that traversed HRCs private account/server would have to be produced if subpoenaed.

If you are taking anything I am saying as a defense of Clinton, think again. She got caught - like others before - and she is accountable for her breach of policy and to the extent she violated federal law should be held accountable. As a political issue it has little if any legs, as it is an all to common practice.

As it regards companies with a remote wipe policy - wiping an employee owned device is a pretty crude approach that many companies are abandoning in favor of more sophisticated MDM solutions. A couple of issues with wholesale device wiping:
accidents can and do occur and wiping a personal device mistakenly is a nightmare (have seen this happen on a couple of occasions - one an employee mistakenly wiped during his retirement lunch)employees who have personal data and know that a device wipe will occur if a device is reported lost are much more likely NOT to report the event and put the company at greater riskmalicious/pranking by reporting a device as lost when it isn'tlast but not least a false sense of security that a remote wipe will actually protect a company when a tech savvy thief has your phone (as easy as airplane mode)
 
So sys, as a job creator, do you allow your employees (if you have any) to represent your firm via their own email accounts with no monitoring, data retention, or other policies applied? This is a yes or no question.

Justin
 
Originally posted by syskatine:


well,it's a horribly inaccurate q and a, but.... with your proviso of yes or no, no.
lol distract distract before they find out I am full of shit.
 
Originally posted by syskatine:


well,it's a horribly inaccurate q and a, but.... with your proviso of yes or no, no.
So you don't allow your own employees to perform company work and communication via their personal accounts, but find that same action performed by our Secretary of State to be completely acceptable? or is this another "the ends justify the means" perspective that I seem to find too many libs supporting. Or do you just not believe that our government requires oversight?

Justin
 
That's not right, either. I played along with your question, but like I said, the q and a is inaccurate. Are you sure you want me to answer your compound question only with a yes or no?

No, we don't have a policy regarding which email account you use. No employee in their right mind would WANT work emails creeping into their personal emails though. It's never come up. My partner, however, has ALL of his emails go through his firm account. The associate lawyers are professionals, young, diligent and more cognizant of those electronic issues than me. MY paralegal does use her gmail account sometimes -- it's for tech reasons I don't completely understand, but she has to for some dictation software we have.

Keeping emails is under the umbrella of our general file retention policy. Everyone can delete unimportant emails, and the lawyers just use their subjective judgment regarding which ones need kept. Some do need kept, though, until the file is destroyed.

The last thing I want to do is "monitor" or bird dog emails.... it would be an expensive, time-consuming and pointless exercise. There's just no analog to the email policies of a small law firm (hardly none) and the freakin' U.S. secretary of state's office.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT