I read the email in the OP.
I see that they are discussing "phraseology" in the first item:
1. As to the server, I think we decided to say something like "the server that was used during her tenure as Secretary of
This looks like, to me, a behind the scenes discussion of what language to use when speaking to investigators, so that everyone is on the same page
and isn't saying things that would be misconstrued or otherwise twisted or create a conflict between "well, so and so said THIS, but you said THAT."
That is my take on this line item. It also relates to the second item in terms of the general time period. This server was used prior to her being
Secretary of State.
The second item is a bit more problematic but it's the same general deal. In addition to discussing language, they are discussing the "start date" of
the emails for the investigation. March 18, 2009 is approximately 2 months after her swearing in on January 21, 2009. I would think the emails
requested in the investigation would stretch back to the date of her "first day."
It is not clear, however, that she had determined to specifically use the personal server for all the emails of SOS at that time, to my knowledge?
So there may have been a few "work related" emails on her server before March 18, 2009.
For example, Powell hadn't emailed her regarding his use of a private email until January 23, 2009. It would seem then that there was a period of
"flux" where things were not yet determined.
Link - Powell's tips
to Clinton for private email
2. I would prefer not to use the "March 18, 2009" date because we know there were other emails using her clintonemail.com address prior
to that date. Could we make this more vague, like "early in her tenure as SOS"? Or would this change provide a "gotcha" target -- if so, not worth
it, since this is the date of the earliest email in her PST [private folder in Microsoft Outlook] of her emails, as I understand it.
Okay - it would appear that this is the start-date they provided for investigators because it was the date of the first "official use" of the server
after everything had been set up -- that is what it looks like, though I admit to trying to read between lines here. Clearly, it is the date they
already provided as the start of the emails, however, it appears, so the question then becomes, what happened to the emails prior to March 18, 2009.
Were those turned in, or not? Were those among the ones sent to be deleted? I'm guessing one of the emails left out is the one I referenced above,
from Colin Powell, which only came out after HIS emails were hacked.
To make a case out of this might be possible, but it would not be a strong one, in my opinion, due to the complexity of the case and the amount of
emails, and the legal hair-splitting that can happen regarding interpretations of requests for information. This would be normal.
I'm guessing that no matter who is in the Presidency, these comments by Podesta will be used against her, and possibly all involved, as the remaining
Republicans attempt to take back the house and the Senate in the mid-terms because that is what this is, in my opinion, a political witch hunt that
was spun off from the Benghazi investigation because, frankly, they had nothing there that would stick - they wanted to keep Clinton as embroiled as
possible to diminish her as a Presidential candidate.
Link - U.S. News & World Report -
There is no scandal, only a partisan witch hunt LINK - Vox - Proof
Clinton Email Scandal Is Just More Benghazi Witchh Hunt
What I don't know is if any emails prior to March 18, 2009 were turned in or not. This could point to an attempt to skirt "the letter of the law" or
it could point to the "'wagon circling" that I would think naturally happens during an intense investigation. My understanding is you only give "the
prosecution" (or those seeking to find wrong-doing) what you absolutely have to, from a lawyer's point of view, to both comply and protect your
"client," in this case, Clinton.
WHY ONLY CLINTON? (Gee. I wonder...)
I would also like to point out that Clinton is the ONLY Secretary of State to be so investigated, though it turns out that neither Colin Powell or C.
Rice signed the legally binding document regarding having turned over all their records to the government. Neither of them have been investigated.
Why? Why the double standard? Think about that.
However, Cummings came down on Republicans accusing lawmakers of holding Clinton to a double standard during the investigation into her private
“If Republicans were truly concerned with transparency, strengthening FOIA, and preserving federal records, they would be attempting to recover
Secretary Powell’s emails from AOL, but they have taken no steps to do so despite the fact that this period—including the run-up to the Iraq
War—was critical to our nation’s history,” he said.
Here is a great summary of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, including the investigation :
Link - wikipedia
Link - Clinton email controversy - wikipedia
edit on 17-10-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)