While that may be true, one is presumed, under the law, to be innocent until proven guilty, Personal emails are not subject to archiving, nor are emails deemed to be of a sensitive nature. As has been done by her predecessors, it is up to the Secretary of State to determine which emails are to be sent for archiving and which are to be exempted. So unless there is evidence to the contrary, she is in the clear.

It should be noted that this is no different than in the pre-internet age, when correspondence was on paper. The various officials determined what to send for archival or not. There is no archival police.

Wasn't her's a possible violation of state law? Is Alaska's law the same as the Feds?

Well, Condolezza Rice did it and nobody seems upset about that. According to the WSJ, Kerry is the first Sec of State to use a government email account.

Actually, this is probably what this is all about. As with Palin, nothing illegal has transpired here. It's just political rhetoric.

She didn't get caught. What "triggered" this story was when she submitted the emails from her personal email account to the government, as required by law. The same as most other federal officials.

She didn't lie or cheat, at least not based on the emails. Until the current secretary of state, they all used their personal emails and phones for work. They all, including Hillary, then turned over the non-classified emails as required by law. There is no law that says she or any other government official must use a government supplied phone or email address. There is a law that prohibits them from using a government phone or email for non-government purposes. As such, most use their own phone and turn over the records, as required by law.

Actually, if that were true, then the Federal Records Act wouldn't need a section dealing with archiving personal emails and the like. What about using personal stationary and your own stamps, is that forbidden, too?

No, the Federal Records Act simply states that the communications need to be archived and submitted, which she actually did. This is nothing more than trying to make a scandal where none exists. Even Condoleezza Rice used her own cell phone while SOS. SOS Kerry is the first to use a government issued phone and email account.

According to the news this morning, Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use a government issued email account for correspondence. If it is fishy and there is to be an investigation, then is seems like Hillary and all of her predecessors are going to be in trouble.

The fact is that the law does not require her or anybody else to use a government email account. It does require emails that are not sensitive or classified to be turned over, which she did. Of course, that was after the fact, and one could argue that was a problem, but she still complied with the law. Unless you want government officials to carry two cell phones, computers, tablets, etc., this is the compromise. After all, they can't use the government supplied equipment for personal use, particularly political activity.

I wonder if she used her own stamps and stationary instead of government ones if people would be as upset?

Hell, even Reagan is a liberal by today's standards!

Why, even if it were a government address, this would not happen. Only those records that are not sensitive or classified get turned over, which is exactly what she did, although after the fact. So, why would you hold her to a higher standard than what the law requires?

And yet, Kerry is the first Secretary of State to actually use a government email. Clinton was evidently following standard practices at the State Department.

I don't disagree, but human testing usually only follows after successful animal testing. So, even a paralytic, isn't do "no harm" if we don't know whether we can actually do this or not. Once we know it can be done, well then, a paralytic would seem to be the one to benefit most. But, until then, we would just be experimenting on handicapped human beings for the sake of gaining research knowledge. Most medical ethicists would say that is unethical.

And that would be because paralyzed people are less human or less valuable? How about practicing and perfecting it on rats first, then higher animals?

Actually, computers and the internet, etc. do follow the laws of nature, quite well. Technically speaking, everything we do follows the law of nature, otherwise it would be miraculous. That said, it still doesn't address the morality of the issue.

Because it's not really about building sustainable plants, but avoiding US taxes. If you're going to build a new plant, it's not significantly more expensive than a regular one. It's not about saving the planet, it's about seeking tax shelters.