- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 15,113
- Reaction score
- 11,391
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What you said is not true
The statute defines public records as
(11) "Public records" means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2007->Ch0119->Section 011 : Online Sunshine
As I said, in the list of public records email is NOT specifically mentioned. Everything mentioned is tangible "material". And if you read closely IF a document, letter, papers, or other material (not immaterial emails) etc. are transmitted (e.g. a fax of a paper) they might be a record. However, if an email does not contain 'a document, letter, or other material' then arguably it is not a record.
And if you read the whole chapter you will see the working definition of a "public record" is of that of tangible materials, and it does not speak to emails, most likely because no one had really thought about the need to be clear. (In the chapter, it speaks of permanent and archival records to be kept in fireproof vaults, record books bound, rebinding processes, physically copying records from the "original book", retention schedules, etc.). The do infer that some kinds records are on electronic record-keeping systems managed by IT (e.g. documents), but that is as close as it gets.
Except that it is not clear that under 2007 that an email, which is an immaterial (not "other material") thing is a public record - not unless it actually contains a document, letter, etc. connected to official business. In other words, an email that says "Keep me posted on the progress of project Y" is not likely a public record in 2007 (or before). Whereas, the attachment of a document (e.g. a contract), would be. Of course if it had a document attached, it would almost certainly be filed in hard copy at the time of its creation and printing.The law requires that he submit all public records when he leaves office. Not some time later.
Of course there was concealment. He did not deliver the records when he was supposed to so they were not available for FOIA requests.
First, under Florida law you must prove there was willful and intentional violation of the Chapter. When the law is silent on emails as a public record, it is near impossible to prove there was anything subject to illegal concealment.
Second, publicly touting that to the Florida public that you (Bush) have your own server in State offices, and public email addresses, while also using the State system for official business, is not going to sell a plot "concealment" narrative to a jury.
Three, to my knowledge there is no FOIA requests or legal investigations that were impeded because "public records" were concealed by Bush. And there has been no complaints or need to 'negotiate' with the State archivist...he did so on his own initiative.
Of course, if unintended he is still subject to a civil fine of 500 dollars. (LOL).
Now look at Hillary:
First, federal definitions of public records and email are very clear. So is the requirement to specifically provide those emails to her department, in an electronic form, contemporaneous with their creation. And all of this is backed up by executive orders from the President, and State Department manuals. Instead, she waited two years, AND only produced some records when pressured by a Congressional investigation and the State Department...all of which triggered knowledge of her 'secret' server.
Second, there is no question that she sought to conceal public records. Routing ALL your email to a private server AT HOME, unknown to those outside of the State Department inner circle, is an attempt at concealment. It has NO OTHER PURPOSE than to allow Hillary to delete what she wishes, and to prevent inspection of her system by those seeking public records. (Unlike Bush's system).
Last, it is nearly certain that she transmitted classified information over her email network.
So in her case, it would be a maximum of 3 years at sing-sing, and prohibition from future federal office. If it were found to have classified information, then it would be worse.
Last edited: