Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
The Internet Politics

Government Finds New Emails Clinton Did Not Hand Over 348

PolygamousRanchKid writes with this Reuters report that The U.S. Defense Department has found an email chain that Hillary Clinton failed to turn over to the State Department despite her saying she had provided all work emails from her time as Secretary of State.The correspondence with General David Petraeus, who was commander of U.S. Central Command at the time, started shortly before she entered office and continued during her first days as the top U.S. diplomat in January and February of 2009. News of the previously undisclosed email thread only adds to a steady stream of revelations about the emails in the past six months, which have forced Clinton to revise her account of the setup which she first gave in March. Nearly a third of all Democrats and 58 percent of all voters think Clinton is lying about her handling of her emails, according to a Fox News poll released this week.

Clinton apologized this month for her email setup, saying it was unwise. But as recently as Sunday, she told CBS when asked about her emails that she provided 'all of them.' The emails with Petraeus also appear to contradict the claim by Clinton's campaign that she used a private BlackBerry email account for her first two months at the department before setting up her clintonemail.com account in March 2009. This was the reason her campaign gave for not handing over any emails from those two months to the State Department. The Petraeus exchange shows she started using the clintonemail.com account by January 2009, according to the State Department.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Government Finds New Emails Clinton Did Not Hand Over

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27, 2015 @05:11AM (#50606519)

    "What difference, at this point, does it make?" I mean, sure, she lied, she exposed sensitive government information to foreign spies, and she may have covered up some "private" dealings. But, hey, doesn't she deserve to be president? She is a woman, after all, and she only really cares about us, the people! She can't save us if we don't cut her a little slack?

  • by OffTheLip ( 636691 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @05:11AM (#50606521)
    While the subject line specifically pertains to the email challenge for Clinton's campaign the pattern is the same. Say nothing until forced to, assume a disengaged electorate will forget, or not care to begin with, then crank out the next "talking point" all on her terms.
  • by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @05:23AM (#50606539)
    The laws only apply to the little people, not the Clintons. If Whitewater, the Tyson payoff through bogus "futures investing", the Vince Foster murder, the Ron Brown murder and all the rest didn't even touch her, then a little thing like breaking a bunch of national security laws and lying about it isn't going to affect here either.
    • by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @06:02AM (#50606623) Homepage Journal

      ^^^ This is the sad truth.

      Not only won't she be held accountable, people are still willing to vote for a proven fraud and liar. Good Lord -- Nixon got the boot from office for less than this woman has done, and yet there are millions of American Idiots willing to vote for her!

      'twould be a sad, sad day were she to win the election.

      Almost as sad as it would be to see Trump prevail.

      Sanders is really looking like the best bet the US has for an honest President, but I think he's a pretty long shot, unfortunately. He's not flashy enough and "out there" enough to win enough votes. :(

      • 'twould be a sad, sad day were she to win the election.

        Almost as sad as it would be to see Trump prevail.

        It is a sad day for America, when we are not voting for the best candidate, but for the "least worst".

        I have a houseplant that is starting to look good, compared to the rest of the folks in the field . . .

      • by Greyfox ( 87712 )
        From what I know of Nixon, he was actually more likable that Hillary is. He had a certain charisma that she lacks. Every time she speaks, it's like someone's dragging their nails across a chalkboard. Meanwhile every time Trump opens his glorious Trump-hole, he goes up a few points in the polls. I don't think he even pays attention to what comes out of it.

        So let the election come down to Sanders/Warren vs Trump/Fiorina. If nothing else, it would be quite entertaining. It doesn't really matter who's Preside

        • The problem is, neither Sanders/Warren nor Trump/Fiorina are beholden to the big corporate donors who control both the mainstream Democrats and the mainstream Republicans. It's a direct threat to the C-level fuckers who run things.

          The US Chamber of Commerce want Bush. Wall Street wants Clinton. Both bodies really find either candidate acceptable.

          • Of course, which is why we shouldn't elect either one of them...

            I don't like Sanders, I think his ideas are not realistic...

            However I'd take him in a new york min over Clinton...

      • by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @12:40PM (#50608071)
        If you have the choice between the devil which lies to you, and the perceived greater devil which lies to you and might make your situation more miserable (by removing benefits, by de-funding planned parenthood, by holding the government hostage and stopping its funding etc...etc...) then maybe people do not vote FOR democrats as much as they vote AGAINST republican. Just sayin'.
      • There's only one way to stop that. Sanders is the pressure relief valve. The safety valve if you will. If he wins, nothing really changes. You'll get some relief on tuition or student debt or a tax hike or something. (Don't get me wrong, all good stuff.)

        But the powers that be will all still be in place, untouched by Sanders. I'm not impugning his motives. Like you, I believe Sanders is as honest as the day is long. Just like many of the individuals in Washington today. But with his 51-49 win, somewhat to th

    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      You know what's funny? She was part of the Whitewater investigation.

    • by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @07:38AM (#50606815) Homepage Journal

      Bill Clinton was impeached over a minor sex scandal using a superficial and extremely dubious "perjury" hook. I Have no idea what the "Tyson payoff" was, but the other scandals you mention are fabricated. Whitewater was extensively investigated by a special prosecutor hostile to the Clintons (the one that eventually changed the subject to Monica Lewinsky because he couldn't find anything in Whitewater - the weird bit is that this should have been obvious from the beginning, the Clintons were victims, not beneficiaries, of Whitewater.) Foster was a close personal friend of the Clintons and there's no evidence or reason to believe he did anything other than commit suicide. Ron Brown is just another name thrown in by the lunatics who were trying to invent the Vince Foster accusations.

      I'm surprised you didn't throw in a Benghazi for extra credit.

      Two notable observations one can make:

      1. Evidence thus far is that the Clintons are held to a higher standard than most other politicians. That's true in emailgate too. Clinton followed previous secretaries of state in not using government email. And right now this article is worded to make what was probably an oversight look like a grand conspiracy because Clinton. If every lunatic accusation made by some fringe wacko ends up with sizable numbers members of Congress demanding investigations, that's not an example of "the laws (not applying to) the Clintons". That's an example of someone being persecuted.

      2. The fact that clearly fabricated conspiracies are invented every five minutes by Clinton's opponents, and brought up over and over again long after they've been extensively debunked (or look ridiculous from the start. Vince Foster, really?) is why at this stage, if a real conspiracy came to light involving the Clintons, the chances are it would be laughed out of the public arena.

      emailgate appears, thus far, to be a nontroversy, a made-up conspiracy whose advocates cannot show anything beyond minor issues of judgement (and then only dubious issues) as bad for Clinton (or Clinton's staff.)

      Give it up. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton for President. Alas, oddly enough, most of those reasons apply to progressives, Republicans probably wouldn't have an issue with 99% of them...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mOzone ( 1447147 )

        made up like in FBI saying she took and coped and sent state confidently emails to and from non-gov server ..then tried to get aids and others to send her top secret things off a closed network to her email

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        Hillary already tried the whole "it's a vast, right-wing conspiracy" against us thing. It didn't work for her then, and it's not working for you now.
    • by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @08:20AM (#50606897)

      Dear me, what is actually wrong with Americans and their politics? Maybe you guys need a Jeremy Corbyn to change the tone - somebody who has the temerity to shuffle along in slippers and speak plainly, but politely about things that actually matter to people. I thought it was amazing to watch him during the first PMQ - no jeering, no cheap point scoring. You can respect a guy like that.

      How much does it actually matter that she sent some emails from her home server? And before you get into hysterical overdrive, remember that the people of America actually elected a self-confessed ex-drunk like GWB into that office, and got perilously close to letting Sarah Palin into power. And there are people right now who seriously consider voting for a windbag like mr Trump. So, how much of this email hype is actually about the seriousness of having been a bit lax with her emails, and how much is about trying to paint her in a bad light no matter what the objective reality is?

      It is no wonder that all your politicians seem to be somewhat out of contact with the real world, because nobody in possession of their full, mental capabilities would voluntarily subject themselves to the sort of treatment they get from the press and the lobbies - with the willing, not to say eager participation of You the People. As a side note, next time anybody from the US suggests that 'Democracy' should be introduced in country X, remember that the way you do those things does not look all that attractive to foreigners.

      • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @10:24AM (#50607441) Homepage Journal
        We've had an anti-government undertone basically since the nation was founded. The revolutionary war was clearly a traumatic event for a few people, and they don't like the idea of anyone having any power over them. We all kind of had to pull together for the second World War and the cold war that followed kind of kept those guy in line for a long time. They started getting louder again when Russia fell apart back in the 90's. It's like some of us are stuck in the angsty sixteen-year-old mentality that "Everyone's oppressing me!" They've long since learned that directly talking about shutting the government down doesn't get them anywhere, so they're currently trying to chip away at it. The nation gets more polarized and the government shutdowns and brinkmanship become far more common.

        There are some potentially sensible candidates on the left and right, but no one's paying much attention to them right now. It doesn't really matter who becomes president as long as Congress remains broken. Voters are largely indifferent because the two party system is effectively rigged to keep those two parties in power. I could see Trump getting elected on name appeal alone. It's still pretty early, though. I suspect Trump and Hillary will end up getting ejected from the race. Whatever happens, it's going to be a wild ride.

      • by jader3rd ( 2222716 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @01:28PM (#50608317)

        remember that the people of America actually elected a self-confessed ex-drunk like GWB into that office

        What's wrong with voting for a self-confessed ex-drunk? I don't see it being bad at all for a imperfect person running for office to say "I used to have a problem, but I no longer have the problem, or am at least managing the problem". I can see a problem with an alcoholic who lies to himself and doesn't believe he's an alcoholic; I can see a problem with an alcoholic who hides it from the public and lies about it when confronted. But someone who's reformed? I don't see the problem.

      • And before you get into hysterical overdrive, remember that the people of America actually elected a self-confessed ex-drunk like GWB into that office, and got perilously close to letting Sarah Palin into power

        and even worse than that, elected obama...2 times no less

    • The laws only apply to the little people, not the Clintons. If Whitewater, the Tyson payoff through bogus "futures investing",

      Sadly quite true. I don't know much about Whitewater but it sounds like she got special treatement.

      the Vince Foster murder, the Ron Brown murder and all the rest didn't even touch her

      And then we go off the deep end...

      Could the Clintons have covered up a murder? Possibly. But that doesn't mean everyone around them who died under slightly unusual circumstances was actually the victim of some elaborate Urquhartian murder and coverup conspiracy.

    • Only CT people still think that it was murder. There is no evidence of murder in both cases.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    seriously. so the fuck what. this is the best the GOP's got on her?
    it's like lewinsky all over again. spinning up a fucking tornado gushing crocodile tears like Tammy Fae over an email server and a blow job.

    if you want me to vote for you how about this: tell me your plan to stop the manufacturing hemorrhage. I don't care about emails and blow jobs which may or may not have allowed the country to run more smoothly, noise about them are just bluster and smoke.

    anything to distract from the fact that your best

  • Not the server (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by fred911 ( 83970 )

    that I have a problem with. It's (once again) the ease in which the Clinton's tell bold faced lies (I did not have sexual relations with that woman).

      So this time they find a thread that she's forgot? I call BULLSHIT!

      The whole family is dirty and was the cause of the 2008 failure, what's it going to take to get rid of this bitch?

    • Re:Not the server (Score:4, Informative)

      by fnj ( 64210 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @07:07AM (#50606745)

      the ease in which the Clinton's tell bold faced lies

      You may not be a native english speaker, so please take this as helpful information. The expression is "bald-faced lie" or "bare-faced lie", not "bold-faced lie"; a gem brought to you by the world's most mystifying language. Most likely the origin of "bald-faced lie"/"bare-faced lie" refer to (figuratively) wearing no mask.

      You can rest easy, though. So many illiterate people have taken up "bold-faced" in lieu of "bald-faced"/"bare-faced" that it is rapidly becoming perfectly accepted. Thus in tiny pieces a language is corrupted. Apologies to Mark Twain's observations.

      • Re:Not the server (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @08:54AM (#50607049)

        You can rest easy, though. So many illiterate people have taken up "bold-faced" in lieu of "bald-faced"/"bare-faced" that it is rapidly becoming perfectly accepted.

        This is a very specific linguistic phenomenon, known to usage experts these days as an eggcorn [wikipedia.org] (itself a reference to people using the term eggcorn rather than acorn). There's an entry for bold-faced lie [lascribe.net] in the Eggcorn Database.

        Eggcorns are interesting from a linguistic perspective, because they often involve three mechanisms which reinforce the change: (1) the new word or phrase sounds very similar to the old one, (2) the new word or phrase incorporates new elements that have a certain logical relationship to some meanings of the old word/phrase, and (3) the new components often substitute for archaic words or usage that often only have stuck around in obscure English idioms. (In this case, "bald" and "bold" sound similar, these types of lies often involve a sort of "boldness," and nobody uses the term "bald-faced" anymore outside of that idiom.)

        Thus in tiny pieces a language is corrupted.

        Meh. "Corruption" in language is a matter of perspective. Language naturally evolves. These types of "corruptions" have often been around for decades or even centuries. If they happen to date back more than a century or two, they're usually accepted as "legitimate English," even if their origin is as screwed up as your example (and often more so). If Shakespeare said it, by definition it's okay.

        I'm not saying we shouldn't try to hold to "standards," particularly in formal writing. But at some point these things become a lost cause. (See, for example, the word "decimate," which comes from a Latin practice of reduction by 1/10th, i.e., reducing to 90% of the original strength or size. NOBODY uses the word to mean this anymore -- instead implying a much greater reduction in size, if not complete destruction -- and if you try to imply the original meaning outside of describing Roman army practices, no one would understand your meaning. Outside of specific historical usage, "decimate" simply means something else now.)

        And sometimes the people who complain about linguistic "decay" and "corruption" are the worst offenders -- in their zeal to "fix" English and stamp out usages that sound wrong to them, they often end up creating their own stupid errors.

        It's one of the reasons English spelling is so screwed up. See here [theweek.com] for a few quick examples of common English words where pretentious idiots tried to make English conform to a mistaken "rule" and added silent letters to words for no apparent reason.

        TL;DR -- You're right, and careful writers should take heed. But easy on the "corruption" rant, lest you become a greater danger to English than those you criticize.

    • Re:Not the server (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @07:29AM (#50606801)

      Lots of folks here on Slashdot are serious IT professionals. We deal with things like security policies and instances every day. A private email server in a basement somewhere, managed by a what the fuck yahoo, and totally not being able to be audited . . . that's grounds for firing in most companies is this world. If you ask your security folks, "What is the biggest security threat to your company?" They will answer, "The loose nuts behind the keyboard!"

      Hilary Clinton is like Leona Helmsley, if anyone here is old enough to know who she was. She and her husband cheated left and right on their taxes, and then gave as an explanation, "Taxes are for little people!". Security policies are for little people. Yeah, but not for folks with sensitive knowledge of our foreign policy.

      That is more or less what Hilliary said: "Yes, the government of the USA has security policies for employees, but they do not apply to me, because I am Hillary Clinton, and I am important!"

      Sorry Hillary, if you are sending and receiving email on my server, you will abide by the rules, like everyone else, whoever you are. If you want to do government business on an unsecured email server . . . why don't you send your mail direct to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un . . . ?

      • by Rob Y. ( 110975 )

        Except that the 'security policies for employees' you're talking about were not in place at the time - and private email use by people in her position was common. The only reason we're looking at her email now is the politically motivated Benghazi panel (number 3 is it? or 4?) has issued blanket subpoenas. And even there, the FBI isn't investigating whether her use of a private server - or even the deletion (if such a thing happened) of sensitive emails was problematic. The ONLY thing they're investigati

        • This is the part I don't get - anyone else at any other company (of size - not a mom&pop shop) would be written up or possibly fired for monkey business with company computer +/- email. How is is that the US government didn't have any policies in place about email when hillary took office a few years ago?

          Not that I give a sh*t, because I don't. I know that this is a stupid attempt to weaken GOP foe; but still, WTF?
        • CFR 1222 covering archival of Government communications was in effect from 2002, and State Department 12 FAM 541 to 12 FAM 545 [state.gov] covers sensitive but unclassified information (which includes things like meetings, schedules, promotions, personnel discussions) was in effect from 2005. She broke both of those, and they were in place for years before she was appointed SoS.
          • CFR 1222 covering archival of Government communications was in effect from 2002, and State Department 12 FAM 541 to 12 FAM 545 covers sensitive but unclassified information (which includes things like meetings, schedules, promotions, personnel discussions) was in effect from 2005. She broke both of those, and they were in place for years before she was appointed SoS.

            And if you had bothered to read these regulations you would see that she adhered to the letter of the law in both cases. An email was lawfully archived as long as she printed out the email or it was stored on a government server (any email she sent to government address would be stored on government servers, unless deleted by the recipient). The handling of senstive but unclassified information was in accordance with the law.

            • Umm, no. This entire thread is about NEW e-mails that were uncovered that she did NOT turn over - but were clearly sent to a Government address, related to her work, and should have been archived. Ms. Clinton was the sole arbiter over what was relevant - and now we have proof that she did not do that appropriately. Were there other e-mails that were betwen herself and her aides that were completely contained on her server - and deleted illegally? We only have "her word" - and she's proven (multiple time
    • Re:Not the server (Score:4, Interesting)

      by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @08:33AM (#50606949)
      The fact is that when news like this hits, everybody goes to their default positions and defends it like they know what's going on. You imagine you know what was in that email and that lying about emails or a blow job is so much worse than lying about WMDs or outing spies to distract a news cycle. You pick your position and you stick with it forever because you can't help it. The reality is you're never going to know what was in an email that you're not supposed to see. It could be her grandmothers muffin recipe, you just don't know.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27, 2015 @06:05AM (#50606627)

    and found no wrongdoing. Why are we still talking about this?

    • Stupid mouse clicked the wrong mod option. Sorry.
    • Don't you mean "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

  • by dheltzel ( 558802 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @06:39AM (#50606697)
    What's good for the gander would appear to be good for the goose!

    But then, I suppose is depends on what your definition of "is" is, doesn't it ?
  • Read the comments in this thread.

    Let's see, someone is saying Clinton bad, we need Bush. Then we're treated to the entire BJ lie once again - as if the person who brought it up has any idea what actually transpired. Next up, we get the "Well, at least she's better than Trump" as if American really needs someone to head this country who is qualified because they are seen as being marginally better than a cock-sure moron.

    But then we have people parroting Fox News lines and have to wonder how many pennie
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Then we're treated to the entire BJ lie once again - as if the person who brought it up has any idea what actually transpired.

      Systematic sexual harassment at the workplace. If every 16 year old female who has sex with a 19 year old male was 'raped' then the law should be enforced evenly. When a Chief Executive engages in sexual relations with a subordinate, the power dynamic is clearly in play.

      Why do the rules change when the horndog happens to be a Liberal hero?

  • ...correspondents who themselves presumably were trained in maintaining the integrity of secret communications -- ie, some kind of self-awareness of who the recipient of the email is and whether the address is considered to be secure?

    If I'm Petraeus, wouldn't I have had second thoughts when replying to an email address of "hillary@hillaryisawesome-votehillary2016.com"?

    Or did he just blindly go ahead -- "Dear Mrs. Clinton (I *think* this is your address), here is a list of all the special forces guys in the

  • honestly, it's just not a big deal. of course it's wrong, but it's minor level crap. it's trumped up because people hate her. which is irrational hate because hillary is quite boring milquetoast, there's nothing to be upset about her or excited about her

    furthermore, we do not need another clinton or bush in the white house. we do not want dynasty politics in the usa

    personally, i'm rooting for sanders v trump. sanders can't beat a empty suit like rubio, too many americans are too stupid for their own good wh

  • Long live Bernie Sanders.
  • by seniorcoder ( 586717 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @11:11AM (#50607629)
    Nor did I have sex with these emails.

    Wouldn't it be nice (a naive thought) if we had a politician who:
    1. We could trust
    2. Put the country's best interest above his/her own
    3. Wasn't in the pockets of the rich

    Instead we have trump and clinton.
    Maybe they should get married.
    They both are the exact opposites of points 1 thru 3 above.

    I wonder why people are feeling they are not represented?

    • by amiga3D ( 567632 )

      I dislike Bernie Sanders' politics but he seems like a decent, respectable individual. I guess he doesn't stand a chance. If he wont lie or cheat how can he ever get elected President?

  • by Ronin Developer ( 67677 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @11:14AM (#50607645)

    Great....Now, I can get partisan rhetoric and little interesting facts from a bunch of self-proclaimed nerds and blow hards.

    Discuss laws and politics that affect us in a real manner such as regulating how we do business. But, attacking for political (and, far too often, inaccurate or debunked) reasons should be limited to DISCUS of FOX News and not here.

    Let's not turn /. into DICE DISCUS debacle and reverse course.

  • by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Sunday September 27, 2015 @12:03PM (#50607887)

    ".... according to a Fox News poll .."

    Well, that says it all, nothing to see, move on.

  • Nobody in the whole universe knows what a socialism is, not even socialists themselves. No matter how you define it there will always be somebody who says you're wrong. They won't even accept the definition given by recognized socialist organizations.

    Anyway, Hillary has described herself as a "progressive" in the old sense (meaning early 20th Century). Anybody care to define THAT?
  • Clinton broke the law regarding how those emails should be handled and she very likely knew she was breaking the law. She did it anyway because it made it easier to keep the emails out of the public record and all it takes is some random aide to type a dumb line in an email and you have a big campaign scandal. This is a strong enough motivation that it sounds like many other people on both sides in similar positions had done very similar things.

    I'm also dubious this would be a firing/jailing offence for "li

  • by kenh ( 9056 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @01:22PM (#50608291) Homepage Journal

    Hillary has claimed that when she assumed the Secretary of State position she didn't spend a lot of time thinking about what email she would use, with the clear implication being she was too busy to think about such things... Meaning she wants us to believe she was 'so busy' that she arranged for a private email server, hiredxsomeonevto managevit, and paid a monthly stipend/salary for services rendered because it was easier than using a state department email account .

    Reminds me of the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, wherein it was claimed the reason the IRS workers were asking so many probing, illegal questions of certain tax-exempt organizations was because the office was simply over-whelmed with applications. As seen in the email server scandal, the claim is that their natural reaction when overwhelmed with work is to take on additional, in some cases illegal, additional work...

    And there is an alarming segment of the population that will parrot those illogical claims as a defense of possible illegal, at best improper actions.

  • by superwiz ( 655733 ) on Sunday September 27, 2015 @02:28PM (#50608653) Journal
    She is a Democrat, so no one will call out the hypocrisy of those defending her. If she were a Republican, everyone would be trying to pin this on her whole party.
  • This catches any organisation that doesn't have centralised control over all emails.

    First, when it's subpoenaed, you can't stop looking for them. "I can't find it" isn't an answer. "It's been destroyed" is the answer.

    So you need to re-create the full body of emails on an email server, here's where you look, listed in order of importance and difficulty:

    1) The email server.
    2) Backups of the email server.
    3) The email servers that talk to that server that you control.
    4) The backups of those servers.
    5) The individual PCs of the persons involved in the conversations.
    6) The backups of those PCs.
    7) Old, retired PCs in storage.
    8) Any backups of those PCs.

    If you, as an organisation are told by a court to find the emails, you hunt through _all_ the systems you control to find them. This is why organisations have centralised control over documents and emails with defined document destruction schedules. Otherwise, you get caught like Microsoft did in the Netscape trial where an email that was supposed to have been destroyed was found on someone's PC.

    This does not mean that there was an intent to hide anything, only that it takes longer to build up the entire list.

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye

Working...