• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton had no official State Dept. email address

I'm sorry, but it takes a special kind of moron to not know that you should not be corresponding by email on behalf of the United States of America from a ****ing personal email account.

So Colin Powell was a "special kind of moron"?
 
This whole issue is just further evidence that Hillary has the integrity of a slug. She allowed Bill to wipe his slut and bimbo stained shoes all over her face like she was a 'stand by her mat' doormat. Obviously she either didn't care OR she allowed him to do it, because she knew she had to keep her yap shut and ride Bills coattails to achieve her political ambitions. Either way, she is seriously psychologically weak or just totally screwed up......and liberals want that in the WH.

Honestly? this kind of language makes me think you are a sexist asshole lout.

But I'm sure that's just me.
 
Clinton had no official State Dept. email address - CNN.com



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/u...il-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0



Wow. She created a private domain to house her email on the first day of her confirmation hearings in 2009, and never had an official federal email account.
B_JF1oBUwAA8osq.png


How is it that nobody at the federal level thought to ask why everything that went to Clinton was off the books?

Hmmm...

Has anyone checked up on the email Obama uses? Could be she was just following the example of her boss, don't you think?


In any case, I don't think this is something that NOBODY knew about. Somebody allowed this to happen for so long...and somebody told them to allow it. But all of this isn't surprising, given all the shenanigans this Obama Presidency has produced.

Bottom line, this is another blow to the Presidential run she won't announce. I don't think she'll EVER make that announcement.
 
Why one earth would you want the head of a federal department to have a publicly-known email address?

clinton@state.gov would be a worthless email address.
 
Honestly? this kind of language makes me think you are a sexist asshole lout.

But I'm sure that's just me.

How else do you excuse her behavior? Once OK, a mistake, twice, she really loves him, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, etc etc etc........
 
Last edited:
This chapter spells it all out.
no it doesnt, especially when you only responded to half of my post.
1.)That defines what a record is. Ok. Thats great. That simply just a definition. Now what can be done with that definition? The answer to that question, which actually gives the act power is the powers it gives.
2.)The powers it gives is what you left out:
Under the original act:
"§ 2111. Material accepted for deposit
When the Archivist considers it to be in the public interest he may accept for deposit—
(1) the papers and other historical materials of a President or former President of the United States, or other official or former official of the Government, and other papers relating to and contemporary with a President or former President of the United States, subject to restrictions agreeable to the Archivist as to their use; and
(2) documents, including motion-picture films, still pictures, and sound recordings, from private sources that are appropriate for preservation by the Government as evidence of its organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and transactions."

--This is what key right here is "(2)". No where does it state the archivist has the power to acuqisit if its "regardless of physical form or characteristics". Why does it not state that? Because no where in either of those sections does it use the world "records". Nowhere does it give the archivist any power to acquisit all public documents, be them done on a private source or a public source. It just give the archivist the power to acquist papers, docs, motion picture fils, photos, sound recordings from private source. Thats it.

Now we go to the revised amendment:
"§ 2111. Material accepted for deposit
(a) IN GENERAL.—When the Archivist considers it to be in the public interest the Archivist may accept for deposit—
(1) the papers and other historical materials of a President or former President of the United States, or other official or former official of the Government, and other papers relating to and contemporary with a President or former President of the United States, subject to restrictions agreeable to the Archivist as to their use; and
(2) recorded information (as such term is defined in section 3301(a)(2) of this title) from private sources that are appropriate for preservation by the Government as evidence of its organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and transactions.
--The key here is in "(2)" of the amended section above. What does it say? Essentially the Archivist has the power to obtain all traditional forms of records, regardless of physical form or characteristics, including information created, manipulated, communicated, or stored in digital or electronic form.". Why does it say that? Because (2) uses the word "recorded information". And what does the definition section of the bill tell us: "(2) RECORDED INFORMATION DEFINED.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘recorded information’ includes all traditional forms of records, regardless of physical form or characteristics, including information created, manipulated, communicated, or stored in digital or electronic form." .
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt218/pdf/CRPT-113srpt218.pdf


Further, if any of what she communicated on a private account was classified information, she's violated some other significant laws.
No indication she did: State: No Indication that Clinton Used E-mail for Classified Purposes - Bloomberg Politics




But I'm still interested in this Clinton amendment you said gave credence to your claims, especially when it came to emails. Can you point to this amendment Bill Clinton signed into law?
 
Maybe you should re-read that, and then read the 1950 Act. Nothing I stated is untrue. Because there were no penalties doesn't excuse her.
Maybe you should.
First, read the definition section of the orginial bill not with the recent amendments. Look to what it defines records as. Then go to the power it gives the archivist. Does it use the word records?
Second, red the definition section of the amendments. Read what it defines as "records" and "records recorded". Then go the section where it gives power to the archviist. Does it use the words "records recorded"?

Need more help? See post #56
 
I think Bill probably gave her the idea, knowing who she was working for.

The same kind of advice he gave her that led to Susan Rice lying about a internet video on all those Sunday morning shows instead of her.

Don't put yourself in a position where you're going to have to lie for this administration.

Publicly that is.

She knew what she was involved in, still had Presidential aspirations, but had to make sure that nothing could be tied back to her directly.

So she had to weigh the consequences of being caught using a personal Email account ( which looks really bad ) to the consequences of a Congressional committee pulling up damming Emails that she could not defend against.

If the Benghazi investigation was losing steam this gave it legs from hell.

Im sorry. Its still legal even if you dont like the person.
 
How else do you excuse her behavior? Once OK, a mistake, twice, she really loves him, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, etc etc etc........

I have no need to "excuse" her behavior. Why do you?

How about getting back on topic? in my opinion, this is a meaningless flareup, since everyone who emailed her while she was SOS - or who got an email from her - knew she was using a non-gov email address. So bringing it up now makes no sense. Oh - unless you're playing "gotcha politics"

What is your comment?
 
Hilary Clinton stepped down from Secretary of State in 2013. The Federal Records Act amendment that requires personal emails to be preserved on department servers did not become law until late November 2014...

Bet you're happy as **** about that.
 
I have no need to "excuse" her behavior. Why do you?

How about getting back on topic? in my opinion, this is a meaningless flareup, since everyone who emailed her while she was SOS - or who got an email from her - knew she was using a non-gov email address. So bringing it up now makes no sense. Oh - unless you're playing "gotcha politics"

What is your comment?

Holy sh1t, the issue is not that people she emailed knew she was using the private system, the issue is documenting official US business communications. So based on your justification, there is NO NEED for government employees to use the government system to archive their communications???

PS, so what if your husband cheated on you over and over and over again etc etc. Would you, or any feminist or woman of self-respect allow that?
 
Maybe you should.
First, read the definition section of the orginial bill not with the recent amendments. Look to what it defines records as. Then go to the power it gives the archivist. Does it use the word records?
Second, red the definition section of the amendments. Read what it defines as "records" and "records recorded". Then go the section where it gives power to the archviist. Does it use the words "records recorded"?

Need more help? See post #56

Nah. Don't need any help. The law is somewhat unclear according to scholars. You aren't one of them. I'll take their word for it that Hillary has played games with what she knew was required. Hell, even Gibbs said it was a departure from standard practice. If YOU need help, just let me know and I'll provide links to all.
 
Nah. Don't need any help. The law is somewhat unclear according to scholars. You aren't one of them. I'll take their word for it that Hillary has played games with what she knew was required. Hell, even Gibbs said it was a departure from standard practice. If YOU need help, just let me know and I'll provide links to all.

Its actually perfectly clear.
 
Its actually perfectly clear.

I bet. I worked for the State Department back in the 1980"s. We were required to record all of our communication even back then. You're out of your depth here, but don't let that dissuade you. Carry on and post away.
 
I bet. I worked for the State Department back in the 1980"s. We were required to record all of our communication even back then. You're out of your depth here, but don't let that dissuade you. Carry on and post away.

So tell me what is unclear about it? First you claimed she broke it, then it was unclear? The powers given in the 1950 bill does not use the word "records", and it strictly limits what can be collected. The amendment passed in 2014 broadens the powers to the words "records defined" which gives a much broader amount of power.

But none the less I guess it was just "unclear" in my pasts posts. Maybe this will make it a bit more clear: "Finally, like the amendments to the PRA, the amendments to the FRA also include language that would provide that an employee of an executive agency may not create or send a record from a nonofficial electronic messaging account without ensuring such record was submitted to an official electronic messaging account.". http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt218/pdf/CRPT-113srpt218.pdf I mean, I thought it was pretty clear before... Is it still "false" or "unclear"? Or has it been made clear yet?
 
no it doesnt, especially when you only responded to half of my post.
1.)That defines what a record is. Ok. Thats great. That simply just a definition. Now what can be done with that definition? The answer to that question, which actually gives the act power is the powers it gives.
2.)The powers it gives is what you left out:
Under the original act:
"§ 2111. Material accepted for deposit
When the Archivist considers it to be in the public interest he may accept for deposit—
(1) the papers and other historical materials of a President or former President of the United States, or other official or former official of the Government, and other papers relating to and contemporary with a President or former President of the United States, subject to restrictions agreeable to the Archivist as to their use; and
(2) documents, including motion-picture films, still pictures, and sound recordings, from private sources that are appropriate for preservation by the Government as evidence of its organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and transactions."

--This is what key right here is "(2)". No where does it state the archivist has the power to acuqisit if its "regardless of physical form or characteristics". Why does it not state that? Because no where in either of those sections does it use the world "records". Nowhere does it give the archivist any power to acquisit all public documents, be them done on a private source or a public source. It just give the archivist the power to acquist papers, docs, motion picture fils, photos, sound recordings from private source. Thats it.

Now we go to the revised amendment:
"§ 2111. Material accepted for deposit
(a) IN GENERAL.—When the Archivist considers it to be in the public interest the Archivist may accept for deposit—
(1) the papers and other historical materials of a President or former President of the United States, or other official or former official of the Government, and other papers relating to and contemporary with a President or former President of the United States, subject to restrictions agreeable to the Archivist as to their use; and
(2) recorded information (as such term is defined in section 3301(a)(2) of this title) from private sources that are appropriate for preservation by the Government as evidence of its organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and transactions.
--The key here is in "(2)" of the amended section above. What does it say? Essentially the Archivist has the power to obtain all traditional forms of records, regardless of physical form or characteristics, including information created, manipulated, communicated, or stored in digital or electronic form.". Why does it say that? Because (2) uses the word "recorded information". And what does the definition section of the bill tell us: "(2) RECORDED INFORMATION DEFINED.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘recorded information’ includes all traditional forms of records, regardless of physical form or characteristics, including information created, manipulated, communicated, or stored in digital or electronic form." .
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt218/pdf/CRPT-113srpt218.pdf



No indication she did: State: No Indication that Clinton Used E-mail for Classified Purposes - Bloomberg Politics




But I'm still interested in this Clinton amendment you said gave credence to your claims, especially when it came to emails. Can you point to this amendment Bill Clinton signed into law?

You're completely wrong. At her level, nearly everything she says regarding the state department is a record. The "in any form" covers every form of communication possible so long as it leaves a physical trace. It's that simple, specially when she goes on to say that she was observing the "letter and spirit" of the law.
 
Holy sh1t, the issue is not that people she emailed knew she was using the private system, the issue is documenting official US business communications. So based on your justification, there is NO NEED for government employees to use the government system to archive their communications???

PS, so what if your husband cheated on you over and over and over again etc etc. Would you, or any feminist or woman of self-respect allow that?

I agree. Hillary should have been strong enough to leave a cheater like Marianne Gingrich did.
 
So tell me what is unclear about it? First you claimed she broke it, then it was unclear? The powers given in the 1950 bill does not use the word "records", and it strictly limits what can be collected. The amendment passed in 2014 broadens the powers to the words "records defined" which gives a much broader amount of power.

No, I didn't say it's sketchy - legal scholars say it's sketchy. Nothing in the 1950 Act excludes emails or any other record. They just aren't specifically included.

But none the less I guess it was just "unclear" in my pasts posts. Maybe this will make it a bit more clear: "Finally, like the amendments to the PRA, the amendments to the FRA also include language that would provide that an employee of an executive agency may not create or send a record from a nonofficial electronic messaging account without ensuring such record was submitted to an official electronic messaging account.". http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt218/pdf/CRPT-113srpt218.pdf I mean, I thought it was pretty clear before... Is it still "false" or "unclear"? Or has it been made clear yet?

You aren't capable of making clear something that already was. Describing a method and penalties doesn't change the fact that records were to be preserved. Perhaps you should read a bit more.
 
Holy sh1t, the issue is not that people she emailed knew she was using the private system, the issue is documenting official US business communications. So based on your justification, there is NO NEED for government employees to use the government system to archive their communications???

PS, so what if your husband cheated on you over and over and over again etc etc. Would you, or any feminist or woman of self-respect allow that?

Bubba's serial philandering was always part of the deal, I think; Lewinsky was different because of the public humiliation. But the private stuff doesn't have anything to do with the e-mail system.
 
Clinton had no official State Dept. email address - CNN.com



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/u...il-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0



Wow. She created a private domain to house her email on the first day of her confirmation hearings in 2009, and never had an official federal email account.
B_JF1oBUwAA8osq.png


How is it that nobody at the federal level thought to ask why everything that went to Clinton was off the books?

I don't support the recording keeping laws to begin with. That said, what she did was not illegal; she has turned over the records, and given China and Russian hacking the federal government, it probably wasn't the worst idea ever.
 
Its actually perfectly clear.

I think I will take this guy's opinion over your's. He actually knows what he's talking about:

Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/u...il-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0
 
Uhm, no. You're talking about the Presidential and Federal Records Acountability Act of 2014 which allowed a a means to disicipline those that broke the Federal Records Act. Under Bill Clinton, emails became federal records meant to be archived in accordance with the Federal records act of 1950.

Federal Records Act (1950)
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities. (44 U.S. Code § 3101)

The Department of State also considers pertinent e-mail as federal property
Another important modern improvement is the ease of communication now afforded to the Department world-wide through the use of E-mail. . . . All employees must be aware that some of the variety of the messages being exchanged on E-mail are important to the Department and must be preserved; such messages are considered Federal records under the law. (5 FAM [Foreign Affairs Manual] 443.1)
 
Is it my imagination, or does it seem like since Obama took office that democrats have acted like the rules no longer apply to them? They seem to defy the law at will and don't give a damn who knows.
This is a practice that was going on under the Bush Administration as well. This is a systemic problem and it is unacceptable it has been going on this long.

Lol...

Name the Bush appointee that purposefully used a private Email account so he or she could stay under the radar.

This is just more corrupt , low life Democrat obstruction.

You're right Fenton....And all the demo's have is deflection, and childish "Bush did it too" crap to counter....I'd be happy to see her in cuffs.

Holy crap. Either you all are blinded by partisanship or you are so cynical you think everyone else is blinded by partisanship. First, I'm not a Democrat. Second, I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter. I think she would make a horrible President.

But this problem of using personal emails HAS been going on way too long. Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State, ever, to predominantly use the government email address. Secretary Hagel, the freaking Secretary of Defense, also used non-government emails.

And, yes, it happened back during the Bush era as well with other high level officials such as Karl Rove. The Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee at the time said the exchange indicated that in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts "specifically to avoid creating a record of communications" that are nonetheless subject to the committee's jurisdiction.

I am not using the "Bush did it too crap" as a counter. I am using it to hit home the point that it is inexcusable that this stuff has been going on WAY too long. Probably even before Bush. Hiding emails from oversight is just one of the problems to this. If the government isn't in control of the servers these emails are sitting on, then the government isn't in control of the SECURITY of the servers either. Even if they are not sending classified emails on these accounts it would still be a prime target for foreign intelligence agencies.

This is serious ****, regardless of the politics of the people doing it. This is a systemic problem that has to be fixed NOW.
 
Back
Top Bottom