Hillary Clinton's Personal Server: Legal Or Illegal?

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State sparked a controversy that led to an FBI investigation. While the FBI found no evidence of criminal intent, the investigation revealed that Clinton's server contained information that should have been deemed classified.

Clinton's use of a private server was in violation of State Department guidelines, as outlined in a report by the State Department's Office of the Inspector General. The report also found that Clinton did not preserve federal records, as required by law.

The controversy surrounding Clinton's email server was a significant issue during the 2016 presidential election, in which Clinton was the Democratic nominee.

Clinton's use of a private email server was a breach of government rules

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State was a breach of government rules. An 83-page report by the State Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that Clinton broke multiple government rules by using a private server rather than more secure official communication systems. The report, which was released in May 2016, concluded that Clinton's use of a private server was not approved by the department officials in charge of information security and that she did not comply with the department's policies implemented according to the Federal Records Act.

The OIG report also found that Clinton's use of mobile devices to conduct official business on her personal email account and private server ran counter to department security guidelines. Clinton never sought approval from senior information officers, who would have refused the request due to security risks. The report also stated that Clinton's private email server was a target for hackers and that there were suspected hacking attempts in 2011, which were not reported to department information security officials as required by department rules.

Clinton's defence was that her use of a private email server was permitted at the time by State Department IT procedures and that the information in question was not classified at the time but was later upgraded by agencies. However, the OIG report contradicted Clinton's repeated assertion that her server was allowed and that no permission was needed. The report stated that Clinton should have discussed the arrangement with the department's security and technology officials and that officials "did not and would not approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business" due to security risks.

Clinton's use of a private email server was also criticised by political opponents, who used it to suggest she was trying to hide government records from scrutiny under public-access laws. The matter was a major point of discussion and contention during the 2016 presidential election, in which Clinton was the Democratic nominee. While Clinton was not charged with any crimes related to her use of a private email server, the controversy may have contributed to her loss in the election.

Clinton's use of a private email server was a breach of record-keeping laws

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State was a breach of record-keeping laws. An internal government watchdog, the State Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), found that Clinton broke the law by using a personal server for work emails.

The OIG report stated that Clinton should have preserved federal records by printing and filing them in the Office of the Secretary. It also noted that Clinton did not comply with department policies implemented according to the Federal Records Act, as she did not surrender all emails dealing with department business before leaving her position.

The report further mentioned that Clinton did not seek approval for her email arrangement and that staff members who raised concerns about the security of her email system were told not to speak of it again. The inspector general's office found no evidence that Clinton's private email system had been reviewed and approved by legal staff, as some staff members had claimed.

Clinton's use of a private email server was also criticised for its security risks. The server came under hacking attacks in January 2011, and there were several suspected but ultimately unsuccessful attempts to gain access.

Clinton's actions regarding her private email server contradicted her earlier statements and defences. She had previously asserted that her server was allowed and that no permission was needed. However, the OIG report stated that Clinton would not have been permitted to use the server in her home if she had sought approval from department officials in charge of information security.

Clinton's use of a private email server was, therefore, a breach of record-keeping laws, as it violated federal policies and presented security risks.

Clinton's use of a private email server was a security risk

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State was a security risk. The server was located in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, New York, and was not approved by the State Department. The server was the target of multiple hacking attempts, including brute force attacks and phishing attempts. While these attempts were ultimately unsuccessful, they demonstrate the security risks associated with Clinton's use of a private email server.

The State Department's inspector general report found that Clinton's use of a private email server broke government rules and posed security risks. The report stated that Clinton should have discussed the arrangement with the department's security and technology officials, and that officials did not and would not approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business due to security risks.

Clinton's use of mobile devices to conduct official business on her personal email account and private server also ran counter to department security guidelines. She used BlackBerry devices to access her email, and these devices were not approved for use in the secure areas of the State Department. Clinton's decision to use a private email server limited the State Department's ability to ensure the security of her communications.

In addition, Clinton's private email server was not properly secured. For the first two months of its use, transmissions to and from the server were not encrypted, potentially leaving information vulnerable to interception. Clinton's technical support advisor also expressed concerns about the security of the server and took steps to block specific Internet addresses that were attacking the site. However, he did not implement additional security measures such as two-factor authentication or transport layer security.

The use of a private email server also made it more difficult for the State Department to ensure the preservation of records. Clinton's aides were unsure of the process for retaining emails and struggled to fill in gaps in the email queries. This led to concerns about compliance with the Federal Records Act and Freedom of Information Act requests.

Overall, Clinton's use of a private email server posed a security risk due to the lack of approval and security measures, the vulnerability to hacking attempts, and the difficulty in ensuring the preservation of records.

Clinton's use of a private email server was susceptible to hacking attempts

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State was susceptible to hacking attempts. On 9 January 2011, a technical advisor retained by former President Bill Clinton shut down the server because he believed there was "someone [...] trying to hack us and while they did not get in, [he] didn't want to let them have the chance to". The server was attacked again the next day.

Clinton's email server was also targeted by a hacker in Serbia in August and December 2012, and by hackers in Germany, China, and South Korea in 2014. Threat monitoring software blocked at least five such attempts.

In January 2013, the Clinton server saw what the FBI determined to be its only known "successful compromise". Over the course of the day, three known Tor IP addresses accessed the site and the intruder browsed through the staffer's email folders and attachments.

Clinton's use of a private email server was also in direct conflict with U.S. government policy.

Clinton's use of a private email server may have broken federal laws

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State was found to have broken government rules and federal record-keeping laws. An internal government watchdog report by the State Department inspector general concluded that Clinton's use of a private server in her home was not approved by department officials and that she did not comply with department policies. The report also stated that Clinton should have discussed the arrangement with security and technology officials as it breached department rules and presented security risks.

Clinton's actions were deemed extremely careless by the FBI, which investigated whether she had mishandled sensitive government information. While the FBI recommended against prosecution, finding no criminal intent, it did determine that Clinton's server contained emails that were classified at the time they were sent or received.

Clinton's use of a private email server may have violated 18 U.S. Code § 1924, which pertains to the unauthorised removal and retention of classified documents or materials. Additionally, her actions may have constituted 'gross negligence' under the Espionage Act, which pertains to the failure to keep national defence information safe.

Clinton's defence centred on her claim that she was unaware of the classification of the emails at the time and that her use of a private server was permitted by State Department IT procedures. She also contended that the emails were not marked as classified. However, defence attorney Edward MacMahon Jr. disputed this defence, arguing that "the fact that something's not marked or that the person may not know that it was classified would not be relevant at all in a prosecution under the Espionage Act."

Frequently asked questions