carpetman, hamptons, flooring

12 Comments by philathome

Zeldin Wants More Details Before Supporting President's Call For Military Action

Looks like you guys need help." Feb 27, 15 8:05 PM

Here I am.
Go for it." Feb 27, 15 8:08 PM

To dnice-
Yes, we saw who was being a jerk for over a year.
Are you going to keep doing it?" Feb 28, 15 5:55 AM

Well, a different user name didn't work, so I'll just have to make the best of two posts per day until I can get my account restored.
I expect the usual suspects to commence their whining about my return anytime.
Deal with it.

In the meantime, I see that the republicans are busy promoting an agenda that is sure to be embraced by many on the far right-

"Scott Walker Wants Colleges to Stop Reporting Sexual Assaults"

Only a bunch of idiots would support this. " Feb 28, 15 7:06 AM

Zeldin Returns To East End During First Extended Trip Home

For once, I agree with Peter King. Crazy seems to be a big part of the republican meme, and it only highlights how the radical wing of the republican party has become.

Republican Rep. Peter King Annihilates ‘Delusional Wing’ of GOP (Video) March 1, 2015 By Allen Clifton

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/republican-rep-peter-king-annihilates-delusional-wing-of-gop-video/

The Republican party is an absolute joke. I know that might sound biased and partisan coming from me, but it’s true. We’re not even two full months into the GOP having control of both houses of Congress and their “leadership” has been an absolute embarrassment. They’ve essentially done two things since seizing control of Congress: Pass bills that have zero chance at being signed by President Obama. – and - Fight amongst each other. First, there was the abortion bill they tried to shove through Congress that caused a full-on revolt by female members of the Republican party. Now we’re looking at what equates to nothing more than a battle between Republicans in the House and Senate to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The only reason this has even been an issue is because House Republicans continue to try to piggyback an unrelated measure to roll back President Obama’s executive order on immigration to a bill that would fund the DHS. There’s absolutely zero chance that this measure clears the Senate, and Republicans in the Senate know this – which is why they came together with Senate Democrats to pass a clean funding bill that would put an end to all of this DHS funding nonsense. But, as expected, House Republicans failed to approve that measure. Instead what we ended up with is a week-long measure that’s only delaying the inevitable. This is almost exactly what we saw with the government shutdown a few years ago. Either House Republicans are going to ultimately cave on this issue and approve the clean funding bill the Senate has passed (and the president would sign), or they’re going to continue reject it and eventually the DHS is going to run out of funding and close. But make no mistake about it, if the DHS closes due to a lack of funding, the fault lies completely on the shoulders of House Republicans. And it seems Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has had just about enough of these House Republicans who continue to play petty partisan games with our government. “This madness has to end soon. We can’t keep doing this,” King said during an interview with MSNBC. “We should not put American lives at risk to win an immigration battle with the president,” he continued. “I’ve had it with this self-righteous, delusional wing of the party.” And that’s the bottom line to all of this. It doesn’t really matter what King or any other Republican thinks of what the president has done on immigration, there’s no way they’re going to win this battle – and King knows that. I might disagree with him on a lot of his politics, but at least he’s sensible enough in some aspects to realize that it’s foolish to try to pick a fight that you have zero chance at winning. But King wasn’t finished. “Many of these people are elected from parts of the country that live in an echo chamber,” King said. “All they hear is everything is anti-Obama.” Exactly! It’s like the joke many liberals use, if President Obama came out in support of oxygen, many conservatives would suffocate. While that’s clearly an exaggeration, the point is still valid. Most conservatives I’ve met will literally oppose anything President Obama supports. They really don’t even know what it is that they’re opposing, all they know is that it’s something the president wants passed. The Affordable Care Act is a prime example. There are literally tens of thousands, if not millions, of conservatives who are benefitting from the law – who still want to see it repealed. It makes absolutely no sense. So it’s nice to hear Rep. King basically acknowledge how his party has made a conscious effort since 2008 to do everything it possibly can to make people irrationally loathe and hate this president. And what we’re seeing now – blind opposition to anything and everything he supports – is the result of those blatant and calculated campaigns of lies and misinformation levied against President Obama by the GOP.

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/republican-rep-peter-king-annihilates-delusional-wing-of-gop-video/ " Mar 1, 15 9:02 AM

Rand Paul will never be president. Not only because of his views on civil rights, but because he is prohibited by kentucky law from running while he holds office.

But mostly because of his views on civil rights-

"I'll always remember this awesome interview by Rachel Maddow soon after Rand had just celebrated some success in Kentucky. After that interview, Rand refused to go on national interviews at all until the general election was held. He was only the third guest in 62 years that cancelled a Meet the Press appearance that same weekend.

Rachel Maddow Corners Rand Paul On His Extremist Views Of Civil Rights

Maddow: Do you think a private business has the right to put up a 'Blacks Not Serverd Sign?'

Paul: Well the interesting thing is if you look back to the 1950's, 1960's, that the problems we faced, there were incredible problems. The problems had to do with voting...blah, blah, blah.

Madow: I don't want to badger you, but I do want an answer on this sir, do you think a private business has the right not to serve black people?

Paul: I'm against all discrimination of any kind, I wouldn't join a club .(my golf club is cool, though) but I think what's important about this debate is not to get into any gotcha on this but asking the question. What about freedom of speech. Should we limit speech. Should we limit racists from speaking?

Maddow: I'm asking straight you forward questions. Do you realize that businesses wouldn't let black people use the bathroom?

Paul: I abhor racism. Am I a bad person because I hate racism?

Maddow: I'm asking you a yes or no question, Baby Paul. What about lunch counters? It's not a hypothetical.

Paul: I'll give you a hypothetical. What about the owner of the restaurant? Should the government tell him that AK-47's aren't permitted in his place of business? That's when we're in a slippery slope, Rachel.

Maddow: This isn't a debate about the second amendment. People were beaten to death trying to stand up against racism at Woolworth's.

Paul: I think you're conflating the issue..."

The fruit didn't fall far from the tree; Ron Paul is known to have taken donations from white supremacy organizations as well and has associated with them in the past. " Mar 1, 15 12:58 PM

Let's concentrate on what his stated position is. Here's more about his position on civil rights from the Washington Post-

Rand Paul’s rewriting of his own remarks on the Civil Rights Act
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 04/11/201

It's a mischaracterization of my position. I've never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever, and I continue to be for the Civil Rights Act as well as the Voting Rights Act. There was a long, one interview that had a long, extended conversation about the ramifications beyond race, and I have been concerned about the ramifications of certain portions of the Civil Rights Act beyond race, as they are now being applied to smoking, menus, listing calories and things on menus, and guns. And so I do question some of the ramifications and the extensions but I never questioned the Civil Rights Act and never came out in opposition to the Civil Rights Act or ever introduced anything to alter the Civil Rights Act."

— Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), during a speech at Howard University, April 10, 2013

There’s an old rule in politics: If it’s too complicated to explain, you are probably in trouble.

Paul, a potential GOP candidate for the 2016 presidential election, gave an interesting speech on Wednesday to historically black Howard University, but his remarks were overshadowed by his attempt to explain the controversy over his 2010 comments on the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“I have never wavered in my support for civil rights and the Civil Rights Act,” he said in his speech. “The dispute, if there is one, has always been about how much of the remedy should come under federal or state or private purview.”

But then Paul expanded on his remarks in the question-and-answer period, saying in response to a tough question that he had been concerned really only about the “ramifications and extensions” of the Civil Rights Act. We sought an explanation from Paul’s staff but did not get a response. So let’s go to the video tape!

The Facts

The Civil Rights Act was pushed by President Lyndon Johnson but likely would not have become law without the shrewd legislative gamesmanship of then-Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois. Dirksen figured out a way to bring along wavering Republicans, in order to break a lengthy filibuster led by Southern Democrats, by carefully tweaking a House bill to reduce federal intervention in local matters — but not enough to force a rewriting of the whole bill in the House.

As an interesting history by the Dirksen Center notes: “The substitute gave higher priority to voluntary compliance than the House bill. It encouraged more private, rather than official, legal initiatives.” Indeed, thanks to Dirksen’s leadership, a larger percentage of Republican senators than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act — 82 percent (27 in favor and 6 opposed) versus 69 percent (46 in favor and 21 opposed).

The problem for Paul started when the Louisville Courier-Journal placed on its Web site an April 17, 2010, interview between Paul and the paper’s editorial board. Presumably that is the extended interview that Paul referenced. We have embedded the relevant section below and have highlighted the key sections.

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.


PAUL: You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworth’s?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part — and this is the hard part about believing in freedom — is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example — you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things.It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people.

As the Courier-Journal noted in a long article of Paul’s history of controversial statements, the “criticism mirrored the views of his father [Rep. Ron Paul], who stood up on the House floor when it celebrated the 40th anniversary of the act in 2004 and denounced it as ‘a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.’”

Indeed, Rand Paul, in a 2002 letter to the Bowling Green Daily News, made a similar point about the U.S. Fair Housing Act, saying it "ignores the distinction between private and public property." He added: “Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.”

In other words, Paul’s problem with the Civil Rights Act appears to be with the delicate balance that Dirksen had struck in order to bring along the votes of other Republicans — not “ramifications and extensions.”

Indeed, we could find no reference to “ramifications and extensions” in the interview — or in other high-profile interviews that Paul had at the time to explain the Courier Journal remarks.

To be fair to Paul, we have included lengthy excerpts from the interviews.

Here’s what Paul told National Public Radio on May 19, 2010:

ROBERT SIEGEL: You've said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.

SIEGEL: But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: Well, actually, I think it's confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the civil rights. And to tell you the truth, I haven't really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we're going to vote for the Civil Rights Act.

SIEGEL: But it's been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the '64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn't be bothered by people with a basis in law to sue them for redress?

Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.

Then here’s what Paul said on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show on May 20, in which he suggested he would have wanted to modify one section of the Civil Rights Act, one dealing with “private institutions.” However, his logic is a bit confusing because he appears to be referring to Title 2 — “public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce” — (such as hotels and restaurants) — but there is also Title 7, which prohibits discrimination in businesses of a certain size.

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

PAUL: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don't in any form or fashion. ...

There are ten different titles to the Civil Rights Act and nine of ten deal with public institutions and one that deals with private institutions and had I been around I would have tried to modify that. …When you support nine of ten things in a good piece of legislation do you vote for it or against it and sometimes those are difficult situations. …I do defend and believe that the government should not be involved with institutional racism or discrimination or segregation in schools, busing, all those things. But had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the civil rights and I think that's a valid point, and still a valid discussion, because the thing is, if we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about: do you want to abridge the First Amendment as well? …I really think that discrimination and racism is a horrible thing. And I don't want any form of it in our government, in our public sphere.

Finally, on CNN on May 22, Paul said there was “a need for federal intervention” and declared he would have voted for the law. He also appeared to reverse himself on whether private enterprise could discriminate. But there was still no mention of “ramifications and “extensions.”

WOLF BLITZER: I want it give you a chance to explain because there's a lot of confusion right now about precisely where you stand. I'll ask you a simple question. If you had been a member of the Senate or the House back in 1964, would you have voted yea or nay for the civil rights act?

PAUL: Yes. I would have voted yes.

BLITZER: You support that — because the argument was made that you support the Civil Rights Act in terms of federal — in terms of government responsibilities, there should be no racism or segregation, but if there's a private club, or a restaurant where they don't want to serve African-Americans — as abhorrent as that is, you think — you suggested, correct me if I'm wrong — they would have a right to do that?

PAUL: Well, what I did suggest is that it was a stain on the history of the South and our country that we desegregated in 1840 in Boston. William Lloyd Garrison was up there with Frederick Douglas being thrown off trains and going through what happened in the 1960s in 1840 in Boston. So it is a stain on our history and something that I am sad for and something that if I had been alive at the time would hope that I would have been there marching with Martin Luther King.

One of our biggest county coordinators was there with Martin Luther King, attended the rallies in D.C. and considers himself to be a civil rights activist. And he takes it as a personal insult that people will say that our movement doesn't believe in civil rights.

BLITZER: But I just want to be precise on this.

PAUL: I think it is politically motivated —

BLITZER: Doctor Paul, I want to be precise. Did Woolworth, the department store, have a right at their lunch counters to segregate blacks and whites?

PAUL: I think that there was an overriding problem in the south so big that it did require federal intervention in the '60s and it stemmed from things that I said. It had been going on really 120 years too long. And the Southern states weren't correcting it. And I think there was a need for federal intervention.

BLITZER: All right so you've clarified, you would have voted yes in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

PAUL: Yes.

Paul’s logic is sometimes hard to follow in these interviews, but as far as we can tell he never makes a case that “ramifications and extensions” in the Civil Rights Act affected laws concerning smoking, guns and calorie listing in menus.

Even that claim is a bit confusing.

Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger said he was puzzled by Paul’s reference to menus and guns in the Howard University speech, since he did not believe there was a direct application.

“What he could mean, however, is that by adopting a principle that Congress can legislate to prohibit racial discrimination in matters affecting commerce, future Congresses might use that principle to enact future legislation regulating calorie listings in restaurants affecting commerce,” he said. “To equate such matters with the regime of Southern racial apartheid that had a huge impact on national commerce (and on the country's moral position) is to equal matters fully different and to suggest that he did not understand the magnitude of what was at stake in the civil rights movement.”

The Pinocchio Test

Paul is rewriting history here. We don’t see anywhere in these interviews “an extended conversation about the ramifications beyond race,” at least in the way that Paul describes it at Howard University.

Indeed, Paul claims he “never wavered” on the Civil Right Act but in the MSNBC interview he mused openly about possibly wanting to change one provision if he had been a senator. Ironically, the issue that troubled Paul was what Senate Republicans at the time had modified in order to deal with the very concerns that Paul raises almost five decades later.

We were tempted to give this Four Pinocchios but some of his language at Howard appears to be a product of fuzzy thinking. Still, Paul does earn Three Pinocchios for trying to recast and essentially erase what he said in 2010. It would be better to own up to his mistake — if he now thinks it was one — rather than sugarcoat it.

Three Pinocchios
acker " Mar 2, 15 5:54 AM

So you believe that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation?" Mar 2, 15 7:29 PM

The Gross Hypocrisy of Benjamin Netanyahu

Don’t pretend Bibi didn’t mean to offend Obama. He is a bully and a liar.
By William Saletan

Benjamin Netanyahu says his speech against President Obama’s Iran policy, delivered on the floor of Congress, shouldn’t be taken as an affront. “My speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama,” Netanyahu told AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby group, on Monday. In his remarks to Congress on Tuesday morning, the prime minister brushed aside those who “perceive my being here as political.”

But back home, Netanyahu shows no such tolerance. He claims to represent not just all Israelis, but all Jews. When critics question his policies, he purges them from office, challenges their patriotism, and accuses them of serving foreign masters. If anyone were to do in Israel what Netanyahu has just done here—walk into the nation’s parliament at the unilateral invitation of an opposition party and deliver a speech against the government’s foreign policy—Netanyahu would have cried treason.

Let’s get a few excuses out of the way. First, the indisputable purpose of this speech was to enlist Congress as a weapon against Obama. Two weeks ago, according to Haaretz, Israel’s ambassador to the United States—the Netanyahu protégé who negotiated the speaking engagement—told officials in Jerusalem that Netanyahu was going to Congress because Israel “has almost no ability to influence the negotiations through other channels.” Last Friday, campaigning in Israel, Netanyahu said he was coming here to lobby “the only body that may prevent” the Iran deal. The gist of both statements is obvious: Netanyahu doesn’t like Obama’s policy, so he’s trying to use Congress to block it.

Let’s be clear: Netanyahu came to defy Obama.

Netanyahu says he’s doing this only because Iranian nukes are an existential threat to Israel. But this isn’t the first time Netanyahu has publicly challenged Obama. The last time he did it—lecturing Obama in the Oval Office, in front of television cameras, for seven minutes in May 2011—the subject wasn’t Iran. It was peace talks with the Palestinians.

In Israel, Netanyahu is exploiting his fight with the administration. He accuses his rivals in the center and on the left of “groveling to the international community” while he stands up to foreign pressure. A Likud campaign ad casts Netanyahu in the tradition of past Israeli leaders who, according to the ad, defied “the American secretary of state” and “the American State Department.”

So let’s be clear: Netanyahu has come here to defy Obama. He has done so because confrontation is in his nature. And he’s politicizing it. You can dismiss all his protestations that the speech shouldn’t be taken as an assault on the authority of our head of state. Because that’s exactly how Netanyahu treats criticism of his own policies back home.

Two years ago, Netanyahu formed a coalition government with several smaller parties. He got to be prime minister. In exchange, leaders of the other parties got jobs in the cabinet. Israel has a parliamentary system, so the other leaders are members of Israel’s congress. Two of them criticized some of Netanyahu’s policies. So, in December, Netanyahu fired them. “I will not tolerate opposition anymore within the government,” he declared.

Netanyahu didn’t just dissolve the government and force new elections; he demanded greater authority. He announced plans to pass a new law that would strip dissenting parties of their power to check the prime minister by withdrawing from the government. Under the new law, said Netanyahu, “the head of the largest party will automatically be installed by the government, and will be ensured a four-year term,” unless a supermajority of parliament votes to remove him.

In January, after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, France organized a massive march against terrorism. The French government asked Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas not to attend. France didn’t want Israeli-Palestinian issues or Netanyahu’s election campaign to cloud the message of the march. Netanyahu attended anyway. In a direct challenge to the national solidarity and pluralism France wanted to convey, Netanyahu urged “all French Jews” to move to Israel. He worked his way up to the front row of the march and plugged his own biography in a speech. “I am personally familiar with the wounds of terror,” he recalled. “As a soldier, I was wounded in an operation to free hostages who had been kidnapped on a Sabena airplane.”

Having sown division in France, Netanyahu used his trip to quash dissent in Israel. He portrayed his participation at the march—which he had decided to attend only after discovering that two other Israeli politicians would be there—as glory for Israel, since Netanyahu represented the nation. “There is great significance in what the world saw, the prime minister of Israel marching with all the world leaders in a united effort against terrorism,” said Netanyahu. In fact, he asserted, “I came to Paris not only as prime minister of Israel, but as a representative of the Jewish people.”

When Netanyahu’s point man negotiates a congressional speech behind Obama’s back, it’s just a disagreement among friends. But when a former Obama campaign operative meddles in Israeli politics, Netanyahu treats it as an invasion. A month ago, Netanyahu’s political party, Likud, found out that an Israeli peace organization had hired a strategist who had previously worked for Obama’s 2012 campaign. The strategist also worked for like-minded groups in other countries. Likud demanded that Israeli election officials prohibit the group from participating in the election. Likud accused the group of using “foreign funding” and said its overseas connections “raise a red flag ... regarding the true allegiance” of Netanyahu’s rivals.

When Israelis question the wisdom of Netanyahu’s hard line on Iran, or his plan to speak in Congress, he dismisses them and purports to speak for the whole nation. Two weeks ago, he told Israelis that he would come to Congress “representing all the citizens of Israel.” On Sunday, he went further: “I am the emissary of all Israelis, even those who disagree with me, of the entire Jewish people.” A statement from Likud accused dissenters of betraying national security: “On such a crucial existential … issue for the citizens of Israel, opposition leaders should rise above political and personal considerations and stand alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”

So please, Mr. Prime Minister, don’t pretend we shouldn’t take offense at what you just did. If anybody did the same to you, you’d never stand for it.

coming up: Israels slide into fascism; Netaqnyahu's comments about the US "drying up and blowing away" when Israel no longer has a use for it." Mar 3, 15 4:44 PM

There was no substance. Netanyahu wooed the republican congress into an unprecedented betrayal of the President of the United States.
All thoise "talking points" that your so worried about are coming from most of the news organizations of the world: its only the right wing media and those stupid enough to beleive them that are supporting the future fascist leader of Israel who wants another war in the Middle East." Mar 4, 15 4:38 PM

Southampton Students Debate A Sons Of Italy Member About Columbus Day

Ignore Merlin, he's just a troll

Online trolls really ARE horrible people: Researchers find they are narcissistic, machiavellian, psychopathic and sadistic

Researchers say trolls enjoy their behaviour.

There are several on here;they enjoy stalking and attacking. There's one who admits to having followed me for a year.

Just ignore them. Don't engage them at all." Mar 4, 15 7:13 PM

Zeldin Returns To East End During First Extended Trip Home

Sorry, your wish won't come true. But you can hate anyway. It's what you do-it-yourself along with being wrong about so many things.


Calm Down Hillary Haters, Colin Powell Used His Personal Email Too, So Your ‘Emailgate’ Is Just A Sham

“He [Powell] was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” the statement says. “He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends.

He did not take any hard copies of emails with him when he left office and has no record of the emails. They were all unclassified and mostly of a housekeeping nature. He came into office encouraging the use of emails as a way of getting the staff to embrace the new 21st information world.

The account he used has been closed for a number of years. In light of new policies published in 2013 and 2014 and a December 2014 letter from the State Department advising us of these polices, we will be working with the department to see if any additional action is required on our part.”

“Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained. When the Department asked former Secretaries last year for help ensuring their emails were in fact retained, we immediately said yes.”
" Mar 5, 15 6:14 AM