• 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

humbolt said:
That's a whole lot of words.
Click to expand...
Care to reply to any specifics or just repeat the same claim over and over again?

Understand that the 1950 Act applies.
Click to expand...
Nope.. Lets try this again. And if you may, attempt to read the post because its going to be a "whole lot of words".

Lets first go to the definition section of the original bill:
"As used in this chapter, ‘records’ includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data in them. Library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes, extra copies of documents preserved only for convenience of reference, and stocks of publications and of processed documents are not included."
Click to expand...
There is a reason bills have definition sections.. This is what the term "records" is strictly defined as. The original act would of applied to Hillary is they used the word "records" on the next section of the original bill I'm about to post.

Original Act:
"When the Archivist considers it to be in the public interest he may accept for deposit- 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,
Click to expand...
Nope not emails

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
Click to expand...
More papers

(2) documents, including motion-picture films,
Click to expand...
Nope still not emails

still pictures, and sound recordings,
Click to expand...
Nope not emails

from private sources that are appropriate for preservation by the Government as evidence of its organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and transactions."
Click to expand...
Hmmm so under section (2) they can collect all of the listed items, even if they came from a private sources. They listed certain items though. They left out a key several key itmes from the original defintion of "record". Those are the words "other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics". So no, this power was severly limited, and the orginal 1950 records act did not allow the procession of private emails. It was limited to strict limitations. Its also clear that that my point is true, is because they dont use the word "records", so therfore emails, which would fall under "other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics", is not covered under the original 1950 records act.

Hillary should've attended the annual ethics meeting on records that all executive employees are required to attend. She's a lawyer, she's been in government or associated with it for a long time, and she knows. I can't help it if you don't.
Click to expand...

Which one exactly?
 
Jack Hays said:
Actually, you haven't. You've paraded weasel-worded rationalizations that won't stop the question from metastasizing into something politically damaging. Why won't it stop? Because Hillary is on the wrong side of the fundamental point at issue.
Click to expand...

Holy ****.. Read the act she is being accused of violating. Read when the original act that passed in 1950's. Read the very first amendment to the act, which became law in 2014 (after she left the SOS Office).... Read the national archives press release on the act....
 
Last edited:
And again, you post the definition from the bill and blithely disregard it. It applies to email:

"As used in this chapter, ‘records’ includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data in them. Library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes, extra copies of documents preserved only for convenience of reference, and stocks of publications and of processed documents are not included."
Click to expand...
 
humbolt said:
I neglected to mention that not only does Hillary know, but it's obvious that she did this intentionally to avoid the FOIA and possibly a host of other laws that could pose problems for her. The Bush administration did the very same thing. Don't you think we deserve better? I do. She's not out of the woods on this thing. Not by a long shot. Even if nothing significant is found, it casts a pall on her prospective campaign. Do you trust her? I don't.
Click to expand...

Do I "trust her"? For the most part no. I am no fan of Hilary Clinton's, I am not "#readyforHilary", I think she is another typical war hawk. But I am not going to falsely accuse her of breaking a law just because I dont like her.
 
clownboy said:
And again, you post the definition from the bill and blithely disregard it. It applies to email:
Click to expand...

Alright now show me where it gives the power for the National Archives to collect private emails.
 
Jack Hays said:
She is obliged to provide all official communications. Her decision to put them on her private email server does not lessen her obligation.
Click to expand...

You still have not shown me. Go ahead, show me where in the Federal Relations Act of 1950... Thats the accusations being made. Now show me where in the 1950 act...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You still have not shown me. Go ahead, show me where in the Federal Relations Act of 1950... Thats the accusations being made. Now show me where in the 1950 act...
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to try to pretend to be one. And it's the Federal Records Act.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to try to pretend to be one. And it's the Federal Records Act.
Click to expand...

C'mon, your making a claim. Now at least attempt to back it up by quoting the provision in the original act, which you hold she is in violation of. The link to the law and the amended law have been posted several times now.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
C'mon, your making a claim. Now at least attempt to back it up by quoting the provision in the original act, which you hold she is in violation of. The link to the law and the amended law have been posted several times now.
Click to expand...

I'm confident there's enough smoke to infer a fire. Let's see how the story develops tomorrow.
 
Jack Hays said:
Hillary Clinton Ran Homebrew Computer System For Official EmailsHuffington Post‎ - 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton ran her own

". . . Clinton — who emailed so frequently using her BlackBerry as secretary of state that it became an Internet meme — is particularly sensitive about disclosures of personal files based on her experiences in confronting congressional investigations and civil lawsuits during her husband's election and presidency and her own roles as first lady, senator, presidential candidate and Cabinet official. . . . "
Click to expand...


Too bad that's not a direct quote and the article failed to provide the source that said that she emailed "frequently" ...or prove she became an "internet meme" ....or used her private email for state department business. But thanks for trying, Jack.
 
Moot said:
Too bad that's not a direct quote and the article failed to provide the source that said that she emailed "frequently" ...or prove she became an "internet meme" ....or used her private email for state department business. But thanks for trying, Jack.
Click to expand...

You asked for a link or a direct quote. I provided the link, and her email habit is well documented. Nice try.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nah. I find the allegation credible. That doesn't mean I'm obliged to provide the legal argument.
Click to expand...
:lamo
"Its credible, just when asked to prove its credibility I cant".
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo
"Its credible, just when asked to prove its credibility I cant".
Click to expand...

False equivalence. A layman by definition cannot provide a legal argument. Those who have made the claim seem credible to me. Your strenuous defense here is wasted motion. The legal matter will be decided in law offices and (perhaps) court rooms. The political matter will be decided in newsrooms.
 
Jack Hays said:
False equivalence. A layman by definition cannot provide a legal argument. Those who have made the claim seem credible to me. Your strenuous defense here is wasted motion. The legal matter will be decided in law offices and (perhaps) court rooms. The political matter will be decided in newsrooms.
Click to expand...

So the appeal to authority fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom