• 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

mac said:
Irrelevant. That she was conduction Federal business on a private email account is enough.
Click to expand...

And how do they know she was conducting Federal business if they haven't seen the emails?

(And if they have seen the emails, why aren't they disclosing them?)
 
Jack Hays said:
Condoleezza Rice 'rarely used email' as secretary of stateBusiness Insider‎ - 22 hours ago

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice did not use a private email account to conduct ...
Click to expand...


Or perhaps, like Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton didn't use email for official business at all. Maybe she had assistants to email the official business or maybe she used her cell phone...or maybe she talked directly to people... or maybe she did all three. The point is...if they don't have any private emails to prove she was conducting "official business" then it's all just conjecture and hearsay until proven otherwise.
 
Moot said:
Or perhaps, like Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton didn't use email for official business at all. Maybe she had assistants to email the official business or maybe she used her cell phone...or maybe she talked directly to people... or maybe she did all three. The point is...if they don't have any private emails to prove she was conducting "official business" then it's all just conjecture and hearsay until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

Hillary thought of all that already.

Its what motivated her to have a private server installed at her home.

You guys should stop bringing up old Bush talking points and place blame where it belongs.

On Hillary and Obama. As Secretary of state for Barack Obama its probably a good idea to keep all your communications in a private server somewhere.
 
mac said:
Irrelevant. That she was conduction Federal business on a private email account is enough.
Click to expand...

Although I don't think its a good idea that any government business be conduct on the less secure private e-mail systems, I believe that using private e-mail systems generally isn't the big problem as not providing business related correspondence for archiving is. I just don't understand why a government e-mail isn't assigned whenever someone assumes such a role.
 
Fenton said:
Hillary thought of all that already.
Click to expand...
But you're not Hillary Clinton so how would you know what she thought?

Its what motivated her to have a private server installed at her home.

You guys should stop bringing up old Bush talking points and place blame where it belongs.

On Hillary and Obama. As Secretary of state for Barack Obama its probably a good idea to keep all your communications in a private server somewhere.
Click to expand...

Condi Rice is an old Bush talking point? She also happens to be Hillary Clinton's predecessor as head of the State Department and that makes her a valid and relevant comparison especially as to the use of emails in conducting state business....


Just like Condi Rice.....

"....Clinton rarely used email for official business, a former State department official told Bloomberg Politics. Instead, she communicated over the phone or in person....

“We have no indication that Secretary Clinton used her personal e-mail account for anything but unclassified purposes,” State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf said Tuesday. “While Secretary Clinton did not have a classified e-mail system, she did have multiple other ways of communicating in a classified manner (assistants printing documents for her, secure phone calls, secure video conferences).”....

One former State Department official who worked for Clinton told Bloomberg Politics he did not find the practice unusual, given how little Clinton actually used e-mail. Most of the time, the former official said, his interactions with Clinton and across the department were either face to face or over phone....."

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-03/how-hillary-clinton-used-email-at-state​


Compared to video conferencing and instant messaging...emails just seem so archaic and old fashion.
 
Moot said:
Or perhaps, like Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton didn't use email for official business at all. Maybe she had assistants to email the official business or maybe she used her cell phone...or maybe she talked directly to people... or maybe she did all three. The point is...if they don't have any private emails to prove she was conducting "official business" then it's all just conjecture and hearsay until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

Hillary has already said she is a constant emailer.
 
Moot said:
Can you provide a link or a direct quote?
Click to expand...

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. . . . "
 
mac said:
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.
Click to expand...
Please show me in the law then where it states that? You were the one that claimed it does, now show me in the Act where it gives the US Federal Government the power to obtain private emails from federal officials.

Also you never answered my question: "Can you point to this amendment Bill Clinton signed into law?"
 
humbolt said:
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.
Click to expand...
And they arent specifically mentioned either...

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."

Here is the recently amended act:
"§ 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.

Its really quite simple. In the original version of the act, if the word "records" was mentioned, then what she did would of been illegal. The reason the word "records" is important is because its defined as in this act as, "‘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". There is a reason they only listed several of the items defined as "records" in the orignial amendment, and did not use the word "records" in the original amendment under the powers given section.

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.
Click to expand...

Yea, its clear that emails were not covered under the original 1950's act. Clear enough to send out these press release: "Strengthening the Federal Records Act by expanding the definition of Federal records to clearly include electronic records. This is the first change to the definition of a Federal record since the enactment of the act in 1950. Clarifying the responsibilities of Federal government officials when using non-government email systems." http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2014/2014-06.html

Seems to be clear enough for the associated press:
"There's no ban on government employees setting up and using private email accounts. But using those accounts for government business is allowed only if the official retains a copy of each record on her official account or forwards a copy within 20 days. But the law requiring those steps was signed by President Barack Obama in November 2014, nearly two years after Clinton left the State Department." http://www.usnews.com/news/politics...o-know-about-clintons-state-department-emails
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Please show me in the law then where it states that? You were the one that claimed it does, now show me in the Act where it gives the US Federal Government the power to obtain private emails from federal officials.

Also you never answered my question: "Can you point to this amendment Bill Clinton signed into law?"
Click to expand...

National Review

Plenty of lawyers, including some who have a lot of experience with federal-records laws, have opined that Hillary Clinton did not “technically” violate the law. Reasonable minds may disagree, but that conclusion is hard to accept. The Federal Records Act requires the preservation of any official “record,” which is defined functionally to require preservation whenever a record relates to the performance of a federal official’s duties. There is little question that Hillary Clinton was conducting official business on her private e-mail account, and her turning over 55,000 pages of documents only after she left office all but concedes that (but may not concede the full scope of her use of that account). There is also little doubt, given this functional definition, that e-mail has been covered by the Federal Records Act since its adoption by the federal government during the Clinton administration. As Ian Tuttle correctly notes, the State Department’s own manual has plainly provided, since 1995, that e-mail records must be preserved under the Federal Records Act. . . .
 
clownboy said:
You're twisting and turning on an incorrect reading of the bill. Everyone else since 1950 has no problem understanding what the bill requires. The definitions definitely include email.
Click to expand...

The please quote where the power is given to acquire private emails under the original act.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
And they arent specifically mentioned either...

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."

Here is the recently amended act:
"§ 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.

Its really quite simple. In the original version of the act, if the word "records" was mentioned, then what she did would of been illegal. The reason the word "records" is important is because its defined as in this act as, "‘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". There is a reason they only listed several of the items defined as "records" in the orignial amendment, and did not use the word "records" in the original amendment under the powers given section.



Yea, its clear that emails were not covered under the original 1950's act. Clear enough to send out these press release: "Strengthening the Federal Records Act by expanding the definition of Federal records to clearly include electronic records. This is the first change to the definition of a Federal record since the enactment of the act in 1950. Clarifying the responsibilities of Federal government officials when using non-government email systems." Bulletin 2014-06

Seems to be clear enough for the associated press:
"There's no ban on government employees setting up and using private email accounts. But using those accounts for government business is allowed only if the official retains a copy of each record on her official account or forwards a copy within 20 days. But the law requiring those steps was signed by President Barack Obama in November 2014, nearly two years after Clinton left the State Department." 5 things to know about Clinton's State Department emails - US News
Click to expand...

That's a whole lot of words. Understand that the 1950 Act applies. 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.
 
Jack Hays said:
National Review

Plenty of lawyers, including some who have a lot of experience with federal-records laws, have opined that Hillary Clinton did not “technically” violate the law. Reasonable minds may disagree, but that conclusion is hard to accept. The Federal Records Act requires the preservation of any official “record,” which is defined functionally to require preservation whenever a record relates to the performance of a federal official’s duties. There is little question that Hillary Clinton was conducting official business on her private e-mail account, and her turning over 55,000 pages of documents only after she left office all but concedes that (but may not concede the full scope of her use of that account). There is also little doubt, given this functional definition, that e-mail has been covered by the Federal Records Act since its adoption by the federal government during the Clinton administration. As Ian Tuttle correctly notes, the State Department’s own manual has plainly provided, since 1995, that e-mail records must be preserved under the Federal Records Act. . . .
Click to expand...

Ive already answered all of the accusations made in the article several times now.
 
Fenton said:
They have ignored the law outright on more than one occasion.

It would take quite a imagination to say they haven't.
Click to expand...

I've never weighed in on whether or not they have. Well.. in fact I just said she was wrong on this for sure. While you pretend to be selectively outraged about this and not when there's a "R" next to their name doing the same crap.
 
Fenton said:
Yes there's firing US attorney's and then there's creating a false narrative to cover your ass Politically for the deaths of four Americans.

And how many US Attorney's did Clinton fire ?
Click to expand...

OH Nooooeeeeessss

it's..

it's...

BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!1!1!11!!!

Faux outrage day after day built on a bedrock of hypocrisy and outright fabrications. You guys have nothing but desperation anymore.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
And they arent specifically mentioned either...

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."

Here is the recently amended act:
"§ 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.

Its really quite simple. In the original version of the act, if the word "records" was mentioned, then what she did would of been illegal. The reason the word "records" is important is because its defined as in this act as, "‘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". There is a reason they only listed several of the items defined as "records" in the orignial amendment, and did not use the word "records" in the original amendment under the powers given section.



Yea, its clear that emails were not covered under the original 1950's act. Clear enough to send out these press release: "Strengthening the Federal Records Act by expanding the definition of Federal records to clearly include electronic records. This is the first change to the definition of a Federal record since the enactment of the act in 1950. Clarifying the responsibilities of Federal government officials when using non-government email systems." Bulletin 2014-06

Seems to be clear enough for the associated press:
"There's no ban on government employees setting up and using private email accounts. But using those accounts for government business is allowed only if the official retains a copy of each record on her official account or forwards a copy within 20 days. But the law requiring those steps was signed by President Barack Obama in November 2014, nearly two years after Clinton left the State Department." 5 things to know about Clinton's State Department emails - US News
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Ive already answered all of the accusations made in the article several times now.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom