• 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

Again, please show me where it states that private email are to be preserved and the state has the power to acquire those emails....



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


So you claim that this document is around, and you have seen it but you cannot even tell me how to obtain this document?

If an official chooses to conduct official business via private email then that email becomes an official record.
 
which is why she released 55,000 pages of emails upon request.

No...Actually not. Those are sanitized emails already in possession of the state department....not all the emails on her personal account.
 
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.
How do you know this? Because she said she did? What is there to stop her from not sending emails that to state that make her look bad?
 
Do you have any proof she isn't preserving her emails?

Do you have any proof that he is preserving her emails? That's the problem. If she were using an official government address, everything would be preserved and backed up as Lois Lerner eventually found out. In Hillary's case, having the email server at her home allows her to delete at will anything that would be embarrassing or possibly get her in legal trouble.
 
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.

Yeah, and my understanding is that FSO Maxwell was fired because he witnessed the separation of documents related to Benghazi into potentially damaging ones and those that were not. Those that were not considered damaging were forwarded to the ARB. Nice, huh? What a set up. She will have to answer questions - most likely until she withdraws from public life, at the very least. That's my hope, anyway. Ethics have become a short sell commodity.
 
Yeah, and my understanding is that FSO Maxwell was fired because he witnessed the separation of documents related to Benghazi into potentially damaging ones and those that were not. Those that were not considered damaging were forwarded to the ARB. Nice, huh? What a set up. She will have to answer questions - most likely until she withdraws from public life, at the very least. That's my hope, anyway. Ethics have become a short sell commodity.

Just remember: deleted is not deleted.
 
I already showed you.
No you havent. You just made a claim. I asked you to provide the sources..

I underlined and bolded the relevant parts even.
No you underlined and bolded 2 words.

Nothing in here.. Pretty much just states, the clinton administration is committed to keeping openness and that all federal agencies need to keep the openness, and then something about speeding up FOI requests..

Again nothing here that backs up your claim. Something about repealing the defense departments 1981 guidelins, doing a review of the FOI process, and addressing teh "backlog" of FOI requets..
Nope still didnt break this act either.

She still didnt violate this... Its the same act you linked above.

This act actually shows she didnt break the law, because the revised portion wasnt passed until she was out of office in 2014, and she left office in 2013. Lets say this bill was enacted before she left office, then yes she would of broke the law. But since this revised bill passed after she left office she didnt break the law.
 
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.

But why would I care about penalties when I can't find any part of the law she violated, and no one will point me to the relevant section and then say how that section proves she's not in compliance.
 
Are you kidding? Was it not you that used a "Banter" web site, with a far leftests opinion on the subject to reply to me earlier? Oh I see, your own standards don't apply to you though do they?

Did I "blindly" follow them? No. I actually read the bills she was accused of breaking, and if you read them, it shows she did not break the law.
 
Oh brother! :roll: First, it is noted that you choose to use a highly biased site, and a snarky little troll on that site to refute what is absolutely a scandal, and a problem for Clinton's trustworthiness for 2016.

Clinton is the same person that gave us:

"Benghazi was about a video"

"At this point what does it matter?!"

"I consider myself an early 20th Century progressive"

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just, I don't understand it." --on why she is staying in the race

"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists." --after being asked by George Stephanopoulos about economists' claims that her gas tax holiday proposal would not bring down gas prices

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." --on visiting Bosnia in 1996, contradicting other accounts that said there was no threat of gunfire. Clinton later said she "misspoke"

"Aww don't feel noways tired. I've come too faarrr from where I started frum." --adopting a Southern drawl while speaking at a church...



Come on man, this is just another in the long line of red flags that tell us that Hillary is just not an honest person, or trustworthy enough to be the President of the United States....I mean look what happens when we elect a liar....We get Obama, or even Bush if you prefer....It isn't good for the nation....But maybe that is your goal, it isn't mine.


In other words, "I dont like Hillary so she broke the law"
 
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.

Perhaps some defenders are, but the reason the some of us are discussing 'legalities' is the articles and now you guys are making allegations of law breaking and keep getting stumped on what section of any law that she did violate.
 
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.

You're a couple of days behind the news - no one has any clue where the server is, but it's about a 99.999% probability it ain't in her basement. That AP story that alleged that was laughably sloppy - it assumed that because the bills went to her house the server was at her house.
 
Perhaps some defenders are, but the reason the some of us are discussing 'legalities' is the articles and now you guys are making allegations of law breaking and keep getting stumped on what section of any law that she did violate.

I'm not hung up. The law requires chain of custody, no federal data on private systems, no classified data on an private network, in depth system logging, federal archive of all official communications, and I could go on, data transparency (no hiding data), no destruction of federal data. She broke all of those by putting state department emails on a private server.
 
Perhaps some defenders are, but the reason the some of us are discussing 'legalities' is the articles and now you guys are making allegations of law breaking and keep getting stumped on what section of any law that she did violate.

The relevant part of the Federal Records Act has been posted several times.
 
How lucky for wench Hillary. However she still broke the law.
:lamo
"she broke the law even though the law that regulates private email use by federal employees was enacted after she left federal office"
 
But why would I care about penalties when I can't find any part of the law she violated, and no one will point me to the relevant section and then say how that section proves she's not in compliance.

That's not the issue - never was. Why do you think Bush et. al. were never cited for any violations? It's not because they didn't violate the law. They did.
 
You're a couple of days behind the news - no one has any clue where the server is, but it's about a 99.999% probability it ain't in her basement. That AP story that alleged that was laughably sloppy - it assumed that because the bills went to her house the server was at her house.

Whether it was in her house or at a huge private data farm, " what difference does it make " ?
 
Hillary Clinton Still Doesn't Get It - Ron Fournier, National Journal

". . . . If she wants us to see her email, Clinton should turn over every word written on her dark account(s) for independent vetting. Let somebody the public trusts decide which emails are truly private and which ones belong to the public.

Like everything else about the response to this controversy, Clinton's tweet is reminiscent of the 1990s, when her husband's White House overcame its wrongdoing by denying the truth, blaming Republicans, and demonizing and bullying the media. It's a shameless script, unbecoming of a historic figure who could be our next president – and jarringly inappropriate for these times.


In the 15 years since Bill Clinton left office, the internet has made almost everybody a researcher and a journalist—equipped to judge wrongdoing for themselves and insist upon accountability. We can now spot the lies ourselves, stand up to bullies, and remind our leaders that two wrongs don't make a right. The actions of Hillary Clinton and her team raise the question: Is she trapped on the wrong side of the bridge to the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century?
This is part of a pattern of bad behavior. My former employer, The Associated Press said Wednesday that it was considering legal action over years of stonewalling its requests for government documents covering Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. The AP has sought her full schedules and calendars and for details on the State Department's decision to grant a special position to a longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, among other documents, the New York Times, reported. The oldest AP request was made in March 2010. . . . "
 
Back
Top Bottom