• 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!

Jeb's Email Problem

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.

The law requires that he submit all public records when he leaves office. Not some time later.
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.

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:
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.

There is no such thing as a "working definition". That is a made up term designed to confuse the issue. There is a legal definition and it is explicitly and clearly defined in the sentence I quoted. Here is it again, for reference purposes:

(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.

Note the bolded portion. "OR OTHER MATERIAL regardless of physical form". How you got from "regardless of material form" to "recorded in electronical circuits (as opposed to ink on paper) doesn't count" is a leap Evel Kneival would be proud of.

Also, I have read the chapter and I've seen that they do not merely "infer" that some records are electronic. They explicitly state that "public records" include information stored in computers:

119.07 Inspection and copying of records; photographing public records; fees; exemptions
.
.
(2)(a) As an additional means of inspecting or copying public records, a custodian of public records may provide access to public records by remote electronic means, provided exempt or confidential information is not disclosed.

(b) The custodian of public records shall provide safeguards to protect the contents of public records from unauthorized remote electronic access or alteration and to prevent the disclosure or modification of those portions of public records which are exempt or confidential from subsection (1) or s. 24, Art. I of the State Constitution.

(c) Unless otherwise required by law, the custodian of public records may charge a fee for remote electronic access, granted under a contractual arrangement with a user, which fee may include the direct and indirect costs of providing such access. Fees for remote electronic access provided to the general public shall be in accordance with the provisions of this section.

the law CLEARLY covers documents (including letters) that are stored electronically.
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.

This is just a rewording of your previous argument that emails aren't covered even though the legal definition of "public records" clearly apply to emails.

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.

And again.

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).

Because he did not follow the law, but that's OK because it's different when he does it.
 
If Hillary is Hillary, she will have stuff erased. Then IT folks will find evidence of extraordinary efforts to obliterate data, far beyond that of simple deletion. Then the the controversy will start all over again.

Either that, or like Lerner and her folks, she will have "crashes" that she will say required her to take the server to a landfill...but she can't remember where. (She has a problem with her memory, if you remember the "I don't recall" Hillary testimony in the 1990s.

So did Reagan.
 
Yes, it's perfectly OK for a Bush to ignore the law.

It's only wrong when a Clinton or an Obama does it
Nope...its not. Not at all. Did Bush violate a state law? If so...he should be considered as unelectable as Hillary.
 
Nope...its not. Not at all. Did Bush violate a state law? If so...he should be considered as unelectable as Hillary.

He should be unelectable anyway, but given the fact that the GOP is so short on talent these days, they can only pick their presidents from one family I suppose we may be stuck. I don't know if Jeb violated any law or not. But he should have. I mean, all government employees should be issued .gov addresses, and prosecuted if they conduct any official business on personal accounts. Are you ok with Bush being the one to decide which of his quarter million emails are worthy of scrutiny and archiving.
 
There is no such thing as a "working definition". That is a made up term designed to confuse the issue. There is a legal definition and it is explicitly and clearly defined in the sentence I quoted. Here is it again, for reference purposes:

(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.

Note the bolded portion. "OR OTHER MATERIAL regardless of physical form". How you got from "regardless of material form" to "recorded in electronical circuits (as opposed to ink on paper) doesn't count" is a leap Evel Kneival would be proud of.

First, there is such thing as a "working definition"; which is the examination of how a term is used in a statute to give evidence of its meaning. Statutory law usually provides a definitions section (which Florida did) that tries to remove ambiguity. However, in this case, they failed to define e-mail, and nowhere in the text do they even use the term. (Perhaps because it was written long before email existed).

Second, in that law the definition of public record is ambiguous. Read the bolded part again and note the comma AFTER "other material". A public record is that list of material "things"...documents, films, etc and 'other material' things. Those "things" "regardless of their physical form...means of transmission" might be a public record. For example, faxing a contract can be a public record. Emailing a contract as an attachment is a public record. But is the comments in the email eligible to be a public record?

Third, there are only three ways to resolve the lack of plain meaning a) Examine how the term public records is interpreted elsewhere in the chapter (working definition) b) examine any contemporaneous documentation (e.g. office manuals, court opinions) that demonstrate that the "original understanding" at the time was that it included email.

Also, I have read the chapter and I've seen that they do not merely "infer" that some records are electronic. They explicitly state that "public records" include information stored in computers:

119.07 Inspection and copying of records; photographing public records; fees; exemptions...

Sorry, that dog won't hunt either. It does not say a "public record" is any information stored on a computer, it says a public record may be accessible by remote electronic means. The question is if an email, in and of itself, is a public record APART from any document, letter, etc. stored in electronic form?

the law CLEARLY covers documents (including letters) that are stored electronically.
That is undisputed.

Because he did not follow the law, but that's OK because it's different when he does it.

If you recall I pointed out the false equivalency of a bank robber to a pickpocket - it says nothing about it being "ok" but when the defenders of the bank robber start pleading that it's 'the same' as a pickpocket who got off, well, you know that we have entered the realm of the twilight zone.

I have no problem pointing out that numerous government workers and agencies intentionally conceal public records, and that many officials (perhaps the majority) do not turn over private emails that may or may not constitute public records in their State. And no, its not okay. It is a "blue wall of silence" in all of civil service. And if I had my way, a good part of the officials of the EPA, IRS, and several other federal agencies would be tossed in the can for a few years.

BUT what Hillary did was unprecedented and egregious steps, with a clear intent to be sole custodian of ALL her public records.

And if this gives the GOP nomination to someone else, anyone else, I'd be pleased as punch.
 
Last edited:
...Politifact points out a couple of other key differences between these competing claims about the e-mail practices of Jeb and Hillary:

But while American Bridge tried to draw a parallel between Bush’s self-selection and Clinton’s current dilemma, we found nothing to suggest Bush’s editing had violated Florida’s Sunshine Law. State statute allows officials or an authorized custodian to determine which emails go into the public record based on whether they pertain to state business. The state archives only receive and preserve them.

Another big difference is that while Clinton was not open about her private email use, Bush was transparent about the fact that he was using a private account, according to First Amendment Foundation president Barbara Petersen.

“There’s nothing in the public records law about personal accounts,” Petersen said about rules in Florida. “Some agencies have policies discouraging the use of personal accounts, but that was after Bush left office.” …

Overall, the emails provide Bush with a talking point leading up to 2016, said Bill Allison, senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation. He’s done what Florida law requires and exerted pressure on his presumptive Republican rivals.

The difference here is that Florida never required officials to use government servers for official business, and didn’t require the archiving of communications by an outside agency as the Federal Records Act did during Hillary’s tenure at State. Perhaps most importantly, Hillary used that system in violation of the law in order to avoid FOIA demands and Congressional oversight, while Bush’s records locations were well known and subject to such scrutiny. Bush’s actions aren’t exactly sparkling with luminous transparency, but Hillary’s were flat-out corrupt … and we haven’t even gotten to the Clinton Foundation yet.

Does Jeb have an e-mail scandal too? « Hot Air
 
He should be unelectable anyway, but given the fact that the GOP is so short on talent these days, they can only pick their presidents from one family I suppose we may be stuck. I don't know if Jeb violated any law or not. But he should have. I mean, all government employees should be issued .gov addresses, and prosecuted if they conduct any official business on personal accounts. Are you ok with Bush being the one to decide which of his quarter million emails are worthy of scrutiny and archiving.

Are you OK with Hillary doing it? Do you approach her decision making with the same vehemence?

Dont know about the state law in Florida and we cant really indict people based on what we think the law 'should' be. The fed DOES have a strict policy regarding official email. Imagine even a contracting officer sending private emails to competing vendors.Whether or not something inappropriate was done there will always be the specter that it was. I have a .mil account and have to send my official correspondence utilizing my .mil account, from my desktop, web based mail, or my blackberry. We all know that and we all know why.
 
Are you OK with Hillary doing it? Do you approach her decision making with the same vehemence?

Dont know about the state law in Florida and we cant really indict people based on what we think the law 'should' be. The fed DOES have a strict policy regarding official email. Imagine even a contracting officer sending private emails to competing vendors.Whether or not something inappropriate was done there will always be the specter that it was. I have a .mil account and have to send my official correspondence utilizing my .mil account, from my desktop, web based mail, or my blackberry. We all know that and we all know why.

I'm absolutely opposed to Hillary doing it, I want an independent party to look at every damn email she has, and not her deciding which ones are relevant. And I'll add, if she doesn't want people looking at her private emails, then she should keep them on her private server, and use a .gov address for all official business.

As to Jeb, I never said he should be indicted. He likely broke no law. However, what he did should be illegal, and I want it to become standard procedure that all government employees receive a .gov address, and are prosecuted if they ever use a personal email to conduct official business. Neither Jeb nor Hillary should be retroactively prosecuted. But there needs to be reform as this isn't just a scrutiny problem, it's a national security problem.
 
I'm absolutely opposed to Hillary doing it, I want an independent party to look at every damn email she has, and not her deciding which ones are relevant. And I'll add, if she doesn't want people looking at her private emails, then she should keep them on her private server, and use a .gov address for all official business.

As to Jeb, I never said he should be indicted. He likely broke no law. However, what he did should be illegal, and I want it to become standard procedure that all government employees receive a .gov address, and are prosecuted if they ever use a personal email to conduct official business. Neither Jeb nor Hillary should be retroactively prosecuted. But there needs to be reform as this isn't just a scrutiny problem, it's a national security problem.
The only reform needed is enforcement of existing law. So...its the frogwalk for the likely democrat candidate for president.
 
First, there is such thing as a "working definition"; which is the examination of how a term is used in a statute to give evidence of its meaning. Statutory law usually provides a definitions section (which Florida did) that tries to remove ambiguity. However, in this case, they failed to define e-mail, and nowhere in the text do they even use the term. (Perhaps because it was written long before email existed).

The definition clearly includes email

Second, in that law the definition of public record is ambiguous. Read the bolded part again and note the comma AFTER "other material". A public record is that list of material "things"

No, it does not say that public records are material "things". You are lying
Third, there are only three ways to resolve the lack of plain meaning a) Examine how the term public records is interpreted elsewhere in the chapter (working definition) b) examine any contemporaneous documentation (e.g. office manuals, court opinions) that demonstrate that the "original understanding" at the time was that it included email.

And in other sections they refer to electronic data as public records.
 
Neither is enough to stop the email scandals from petering out.

If Hillary and Jeb are their parties' candidates it will peter out. Because nobody will want to talk about their own skeletons,
 
The only reform needed is enforcement of existing law. So...its the frogwalk for the likely democrat candidate for president.

Enforcement isn't reform. I certainly hope Hillary's out. But that doesn't speak to the law you mention. Are you saying Florida already has laws forbidding the governor from doing official business on personal emails?
 
Enforcement isn't reform. I certainly hope Hillary's out. But that doesn't speak to the law you mention. Are you saying Florida already has laws forbidding the governor from doing official business on personal emails?
As I understand it (from the WSJ commentary) the state of Florida allows discretion to the politician. Bush (and it turns out, Rubio) both appear to have complied with the law by releasing documents both during their runs in office and upon leaving.
 
As I understand it (from the WSJ commentary) the state of Florida allows discretion to the politician. Bush (and it turns out, Rubio) both appear to have complied with the law by releasing documents both during their runs in office and upon leaving.

Well then that's the law I'm talking about that needs reform. There should be no discretion. Are you comfortable with Hillary's discretion, do you think she's turned over all relevant e-mails? If the rules are changed, and all government employees are issued and required to use .gov addresses for all official business, and prosecuted if caught conducting it on personal e-mail systems, then we won't be talking about this anymore. Do you have a problem with that?
 
Well then that's the law I'm talking about that needs reform. There should be no discretion. Are you comfortable with Hillary's discretion, do you think she's turned over all relevant e-mails? If the rules are changed, and all government employees are issued and required to use .gov addresses for all official business, and prosecuted if caught conducting it on personal e-mail systems, then we won't be talking about this anymore. Do you have a problem with that?

Its already a federal law. If the states want to pass such a law I'd be all for it. I think all government official business should be just that...official business.
 
Its already a federal law. If the states want to pass such a law I'd be all for it. I think all government official business should be just that...official business.

Ok. Seems like we're in agreement.
 
So he says he's disclosing everything that's related to government business, but the truth is that no one else has any way to confirm it:



Source


Please please please keep bashing Jeb. We need him for president like we need that 'stand by her man' doormat, Hillary.
 
While any Government Official using unchecked private email for Gov business is a concern, conducting Federal business as such is far more of a concern especially with the obfuscation that is apparent with Hillary's continuous actions.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom