• 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

JasperL said:
No, it's the supposedly respectable media's fault for putting out a bunch of crap stories that don't do the basics, such as identify which law she actually is supposedly breaking, and making claims that BLOGGERS debunked in a matter of days by referencing......the law. It's now clear, for example, that there is no legal problem with her using a private email address, and certainly no problem with a "private" server. Would it have been better if she's used hillary@gmail.com?
Click to expand...

None of that is factually true.

If even bloggers have debunked anything, post it. Let us see if anything has been debunked, what "evidence" THEY have. The"media" is not a court of law, they have no obligation to identify what law is or is not being broken, and in fact has no say in it, but only what individuals are saying. Reporters are not lawyers, they do not explain law.

The deflection to the media on that is interesting only in that it is irrelevant in the extreme and does nothing about the lies Hillary has told, or even begin to address the issue of Obama administration policy, on record and recorded, of being the "most open and accountable administration in the history of the United States."

She is dead on a legal sense, buried in a moral sense, and unfit for office in even following basic orders
 
Fearandloathing said:
None of that is factually true.

If even bloggers have debunked anything, post it. Let us see if anything has been debunked, what "evidence" THEY have. The"media" is not a court of law, they have no obligation to identify what law is or is not being broken, and in fact has no say in it, but only what individuals are saying. Reporters are not lawyers, they do not explain law.

The deflection to the media on that is interesting only in that it is irrelevant in the extreme and does nothing about the lies Hillary has told, or even begin to address the issue of Obama administration policy, on record and recorded, of being the "most open and accountable administration in the history of the United States."

She is dead on a legal sense, buried in a moral sense, and unfit for office in even following basic orders
Click to expand...

There is no way that "classified" and higher did not pass through her server during her tenture. We already have indications that such material did.
 
Fearandloathing said:
None of that is factually true.
Click to expand...

OK, cite the law that prohibits her from using a private email address. Let's start there.

Once we're done with that, cite the law that gives a time during which she had to transfer her private emails to the government system. If you can't do that, then explain what law she's alleged to have broken. Explain the difference between gmail and going through another commercial email service?

If even bloggers have debunked anything, post it. Let us see if anything has been debunked, what "evidence" THEY have. The"media" is not a court of law, they have no obligation to identify what law is or is not being broken, and in fact has no say in it, but only what individuals are saying. Reporters are not lawyers, they do not explain law.
Click to expand...

Give me a break - you've said you're a former journalist of some kind. If you allege in a story that Person A broke a law, it's OK if you have no idea which one, just that someone told YOU that Person A might have violated some unspecified law? And you have no obligation to fact check that? You just write up a baseless allegation, hit Publish, and you're done? What's an editor's role in this? Just to make sure the commas are all in the right place?

Your hatred of Hillary is getting in the way of your objectivity.

The deflection to the media on that is interesting only in that it is irrelevant in the extreme and does nothing about the lies Hillary has told, or even begin to address the issue of Obama administration policy, on record and recorded, of being the "most open and accountable administration in the history of the United States."
Click to expand...

That's a different story, and a fine one. The NYT and AP reporters should have gone with that - not vague allegations she might have broken laws they don't identify.
 
JasperL said:
OK, cite the law that prohibits her from using a private email address. Let's start there.

Once we're done with that, cite the law that gives a time during which she had to transfer her private emails to the government system. If you can't do that, then explain what law she's alleged to have broken. Explain the difference between gmail and going through another commercial email service?



Give me a break - you've said you're a former journalist of some kind. If you allege in a story that Person A broke a law, it's OK if you have no idea which one, just that someone told YOU that Person A might have violated some unspecified law? And you have no obligation to fact check that? You just write up a baseless allegation, hit Publish, and you're done? What's an editor's role in this? Just to make sure the commas are all in the right place?

Your hatred of Hillary is getting in the way of your objectivity.



That's a different story, and a fine one. The NYT and AP reporters should have gone with that - not vague allegations she might have broken laws they don't identify.
Click to expand...

Their thesis was that she violated the Federal Records Act of 1950.
 
Fearandloathing said:
the fact of its existence is prime facie evidence of an attempt to deceive....fraud.
Click to expand...

Yes, the intent is clear, and until now, she's been successful. She got away with this because of her position and her relationship with the heavy hitters in the administration and beyond. I believe the toothpaste is out of the tube now.
 
humbolt said:
Yes, the intent is clear, and until now, she's been successful. She got away with this because of her position and her relationship with the heavy hitters in the administration and beyond. I believe the toothpaste is out of the tube now.
Click to expand...

Just starting...

Wait till she's under oath again
 
Fearandloathing said:
Just starting...

Wait till she's under oath again
Click to expand...

That will be forthcoming, I'm sure. I imagine Elizabeth Warren and others are checking their wardrobes for possible upcoming events as well. The argument over the legality of this has an almost comic nature to it. It's clearly illegal - that's what had the political left so incensed with the Bush administration in 2007. If it was illegal then, and it was, it's illegal from 2009 to 2013.
 
humbolt said:
That will be forthcoming, I'm sure. I imagine Elizabeth Warren and others are checking their wardrobes for possible upcoming events as well. The argument over the legality of this has an almost comic nature to it. It's clearly illegal - that's what had the political left so incensed with the Bush administration in 2007. If it was illegal then, and it was, it's illegal from 2009 to 2013.
Click to expand...

It's a specious argument and a strange defense.

It wasn't illegal is the weakest possible defense, especially if and when the courts say otherwise...then they are left with blaming the courts.

Best defense is an oversight. "oops"

Instead they are arguing the minutea, to the point of absurdity. One blogger says that because SOME email suppliers allow ghost domain names, i is proof she did not have a server in her home.

Where it was located is irrelevant, the fact that it exists and for what purpose is what is at issue.

But we again find a circuar, self defeating argument. It is not illegal, but if it is, he servers were not in her home, there is no proof a law was broken, and therefore an investigation to find that evidence is a witch hunt.

We at least we don't have "its racist" anymore and we sure are after one ugly witch
 
Fearandloathing said:
It's a specious argument and a strange defense.

It wasn't illegal is the weakest possible defense, especially if and when the courts say otherwise...then they are left with blaming the courts.

Best defense is an oversight. "oops"

Instead they are arguing the minutea, to the point of absurdity. One blogger says that because SOME email suppliers allow ghost domain names, i is proof she did not have a server in her home.

Where it was located is irrelevant, the fact that it exists and for what purpose is what is at issue.

But we again find a circuar, self defeating argument. It is not illegal, but if it is, he servers were not in her home, there is no proof a law was broken, and therefore an investigation to find that evidence is a witch hunt.

We at least we don't have "its racist" anymore and we sure are after one ugly witch
Click to expand...

If a Romanian hacker could get in, what do you think the possibilities are that other more interested parties might have done the same with little effort? There's far more going on here than her defenders realize.
 
humbolt said:
If a Romanian hacker could get in, what do you think the possibilities are that other more interested parties might have done the same with little effort? There's far more going on here than her defenders realize.
Click to expand...

The opportunity was there...sure

And for that there should be an investigation. That's kind of outing people isn't it? Putting people in service in harm's way?

The defenders realize it all right, that's what makes them so **** scared. That's why the second post in most of these things has some troll doing a version of "old news' it's a witch hunt"

Look, I've chased down some scandals in my day, from people getting parking passes that shouldn't to following Watergate. Deny, deny, deny can work...until the dam of denial is overwhelmed.

In most cases where the charges are bogus, one of three things happen: the accused immediately comes forward with a defense to clear their name, they dig in, deny and sue, or they wait quietly for the process to clear them.

It has been my experience that going off on lame defenses and denials, "I did not have sex with that woman", usually means they are guilty as hell.

Hillary is playing hide and seek here. I think she is worried what else the Obama administration has cooked up for her
 
Fearandloathing said:
The opportunity was there...sure

And for that there should be an investigation. That's kind of outing people isn't it? Putting people in service in harm's way?

The defenders realize it all right, that's what makes them so **** scared. That's why the second post in most of these things has some troll doing a version of "old news' it's a witch hunt"

Look, I've chased down some scandals in my day, from people getting parking passes that shouldn't to following Watergate. Deny, deny, deny can work...until the dam of denial is overwhelmed.

In most cases where the charges are bogus, one of three things happen: the accused immediately comes forward with a defense to clear their name, they dig in, deny and sue, or they wait quietly for the process to clear them.

It has been my experience that going off on lame defenses and denials, "I did not have sex with that woman", usually means they are guilty as hell.

Hillary is playing hide and seek here. I think she is worried what else the Obama administration has cooked up for her
Click to expand...

There's no love lost between the Clinton's and Obama. I imagine Jimmy Carville has cracked open a few bottles of Makers Mark by now. This definitely has implications beyond the simple, "So, she had a personal email account," - as if that's the objection. She conducted State business over insecure communications. She sought to avoid disclosure to the American public at the expense of the American public.

The assertion that 55,000 emails is significant is meaningless.

There is a long, dark hole where there should be a record. That void will now be filled, and what's disclosed along the way doesn't bode well for the former secretary. She knows this, knew this, and has known that at some point it would be exposed. No matter how much is exposed, the question will always linger about all that wasn't.

I wonder if any of the 55,000 include those dated 9/11/12 through 9/14/12?

I doubt her political ambitions will survive this. I also wonder who else will be implicated. Should be interesting to watch.
 
Jack Hays said:
Their thesis was that she violated the Federal Records Act of 1950.
Click to expand...

Right, but which section? She maintained an archive of her emails, as required by that Act. Different regulations said she needed to, at some indeterminate point, transfer those emails onto government systems, and she's done at least some of that. The NYT just made an allegation, but left readers with no idea what law she was alleged to have broken. It appears she might not have timely archived them WITH THE STATE DEPT but it wasn't until after she left that the law put a time period on that requirement.

I don't think there is any doubt she set up a personal email account and did business through it for the same reason just about everyone who gets this kind of scrutiny has done it - Palin, Jeb, many in the Bush WH, Colin Powell, Lerner, etc...... I doubt if there's a high level elected or appointed or career person in D.C. that does ALL their business through their official work account. Maybe they have a personal email, maybe it's a campaign account, whatever. And we sure as hell know they ALL avoid email or written records of any kind for the stuff that they want hidden but that should be documented as required by law. They don't want them subject to some FOIA request, or at least they don't want them easily accessed during such a request in what are sometimes fishing expeditions. But that's a different topic than whether or not she broke a law.
 
humbolt said:
Look, you're running around all over the place in an attempt to explain why Hillary is free and clear.
Click to expand...
:lamo If "running all over the place" means reading the LAW, then sure I am "all over the place".

She isn't. The fact that the 2014 Act clarifies exactly what constitutes an item worthy of record doesn't eliminate the original Act and the clearly stated requirement to maintain records.
Click to expand...
:doh
She wasnt secretary of state in 2014... The original act did not apply to emails. Why do you think they amended the original act in late 2014?


This is well known, and the 2014 Act is precisely to eliminate the gray areas the Bush administration exploited - none of which excused them. Simply put, outside of the admission that GOP servers were used, nothing was uncovered which would allow prosecution for anything, which I agree is alarming. Unfortunately for Hillary, somethings have been uncovered and it's a near certainty that more will be forthcoming - regardless if the emails have been deleted from her server - and I'm sure they were a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Hilary Clinton was not Secretary of State in 2014, therefore the original act did not cover private emails.


In her case, the high level one. Don't know it's official title, and don't really care. If you're interested, you can look it up. Shouldn't be hard to find.
Click to expand...
Well what should I search? Government emails?
 
humbolt said:
Nor would I. However, I would note that just because an offender isn't apprehended doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed. Why it took so long for this problem to come to light is puzzling. Many people knew. It appears that sensitive and classified information passed through her server. That's serious - just ask Petraeus. We'll see what happens and how far it goes. I think the release of this now indicates Hillary wants to test it before she announces a campaign to see if the repercussions would prevent her running.
Click to expand...

You still havent explained on how the she broke the original law, havent pointed to where she did, havent pointed to the clause in the orignial act which gives the National Archives the power to acquire private emails.
 
humbolt said:
That will be forthcoming, I'm sure. I imagine Elizabeth Warren and others are checking their wardrobes for possible upcoming events as well. The argument over the legality of this has an almost comic nature to it. It's clearly illegal - that's what had the political left so incensed with the Bush administration in 2007. If it was illegal then, and it was, it's illegal from 2009 to 2013.
Click to expand...

What's funny is you say it was "clearly illegal" but don't say what was illegal.

I'm not going to rehash the Bush admin email stuff, but what was allegedly illegal was that the RNC expertly and permanently deleted those emails. If the NYT or anyone else wants to allege Hillary did a systematic and regular exercise of deleting emails, that's a different allegation and nothing has been alleged along those lines.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo If "running all over the place" means reading the LAW, then sure I am "all over the place".
Click to expand...

BS. The 1950 Act is clear that records are to be preserved. People within State were fired for the very same thing under Clinton.


:doh
She wasnt secretary of state in 2014... The original act did not apply to emails. Why do you think they amended the original act in late 2014?



Hilary Clinton was not Secretary of State in 2014, therefore the original act did not cover private emails.
Click to expand...

See above.


Well what should I search? Government emails?
Click to expand...

Then get a job with State. After 6 months training, you will have covered that territory, and you'll be reminded every year after that. As I already said, I don't know precisely what the grand poobahs do to meet that requirement, but the requirement stands. I never met Schultz so I never had a chance to ask.
 
JasperL said:
What's funny is you say it was "clearly illegal" but don't say what was illegal.

I'm not going to rehash the Bush admin email stuff, but what was allegedly illegal was that the RNC expertly and permanently deleted those emails. If the NYT or anyone else wants to allege Hillary did a systematic and regular exercise of deleting emails, that's a different allegation and nothing has been alleged along those lines.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can imagine you don't want to rehash the Bush stuff. Read the Federal Records Act of 1950 and tell me about the penalty for violating it.
 
JasperL said:
Right, but which section? She maintained an archive of her emails, as required by that Act. Different regulations said she needed to, at some indeterminate point, transfer those emails onto government systems, and she's done at least some of that. The NYT just made an allegation, but left readers with no idea what law she was alleged to have broken. It appears she might not have timely archived them WITH THE STATE DEPT but it wasn't until after she left that the law put a time period on that requirement.

I don't think there is any doubt she set up a personal email account and did business through it for the same reason just about everyone who gets this kind of scrutiny has done it - Palin, Jeb, many in the Bush WH, Colin Powell, Lerner, etc...... I doubt if there's a high level elected or appointed or career person in D.C. that does ALL their business through their official work account. Maybe they have a personal email, maybe it's a campaign account, whatever. And we sure as hell know they ALL avoid email or written records of any kind for the stuff that they want hidden but that should be documented as required by law. They don't want them subject to some FOIA request, or at least they don't want them easily accessed during such a request in what are sometimes fishing expeditions. But that's a different topic than whether or not she broke a law.
Click to expand...

Condi Rice used her official account exclusively.

Federal Records Act of 1950, as amended, codified at 44 U.S.C. chapters 29, 31 and 33.
[h=2]Overview Edit[/h] Under the Act, each federal agency is required to make and preserve records that (1) document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and (2) provide the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.[SUP][1][/SUP] The Act defines a federal record without respect to format. Records include 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 government under federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency 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.
 
humbolt said:
Yes, I can imagine you don't want to rehash the Bush stuff. Read the Federal Records Act of 1950 and tell me about the penalty for violating it.
Click to expand...

Right after you cite the section Hillary violated! She has archived her emails, and transferred the relevant records to the State Department. There is no deadline in that statute, or any requirement that they all be transferred.

And there's a reason you didn't mention Colin Powell.
 
JasperL said:
Right after you cite the section Hillary violated!
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Some of you are waxing eloquently about legalities within the 2014 law and at the same time claiming she did nothing to violate the law in force at the time. Go read the 1950 Act and tell me about the penalties. Have you read any of the hacked emails? Doesn't sound like it.
 
humbolt said:
Absolutely not. Some of you are waxing eloquently about legalities within the 2014 law and at the same time claiming she did nothing to violate the law in force at the time. Go read the 1950 Act and tell me about the penalties. Have you read any of the hacked emails? Doesn't sound like it.
Click to expand...

Her defenders' focus on the legalities is just an attempt to draw the question as narrowly as possible. The real danger for Hillary is that this episode raises questions of judgment and transparency that can be raised at will by her opponents, Dems as well as Repubs.
 
Objective Voice said:
Well, if she had no official government email address and, instead, used a personal email account this should make finding all those "secret emails" about Benghazi easy to find, don't you think? :wink:
Click to expand...

Not when the email server was at the Clinton residence where she or one of her goons could simply delete any email she would consider harmful to her.
 
humbolt said:
BS. The 1950 Act is clear that records are to be preserved. People within State were fired for the very same thing under Clinton.
Click to expand...
Again, please show me where it states that private email are to be preserved and the state has the power to acquire those emails....


See above.
Click to expand...
Im still waiting on you to show me where in the act it states that private emails are to be preserved and the state has the power to acquire them

Then get a job with State. After 6 months training, you will have covered that territory, and you'll be reminded every year after that. As I already said, I don't know precisely what the grand poobahs do to meet that requirement, but the requirement stands. I never met Schultz so I never had a chance to ask.
Click to expand...
So you claim that this document is around, and you have seen it but you cannot even tell me how to obtain this document?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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...
Click to expand...

How lucky for wench Hillary. However she still broke the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom