- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,034
- Reaction score
- 19,492
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You've just recited a bunch of rules then asserted without evidence that they apply to emails. And when the NYT reporter was challenged about the specific law Hillary was alleged to have broken, he finally referred to a section of the National Archives regulations that dealt with transferring her private emails to a government server.
Just for example, the amendments to the Federal Records Act explicitly ALLOW for use of private email accounts - thanks to Issa.
It's possible that some law was broken, but it's not been proven. For example, if she transferred classified documents via email, that might be a violation. So which email did that? Etc.
The original 1950 Act was in force during Clinton's SecState tenure.
I have heard that John Kerry was the first SoS to have an official gov e-mail.How is it that nobody at the federal level thought to ask why everything that went to Clinton was off the books?
Was a law broken?Clintons don't operate by law or morality.
I have heard that John Kerry was the first SoS to have an official gov e-mail.
If no SoS had an official gov e-mail, how would someone have thought to wonder why a SoS followed the SOP?
When Hillary Clinton ditched government email in favor of a secret, personal address, it wasn't just an affront to Obama's vaunted transparency agenda—security experts consulted by Gawker have laid out a litany of potential threats that may have exposed her email conversations to potential interception by hackers and foreign intelligence agencies.
"It is almost certain that at least some of the emails hosted at clintonemails.com were intercepted," independent security expert and developer Nic Cubrilovic told Gawker.
Look, JasperL, I don't really give a damn if you trust my credentials or not, but this is my line of work. The private email use by federal officials is solely for the purposes of adhering to the Hatch Act. It is most definitely illegal to store classified data or privileged communication on a private computer (ask General Petraeus). I mean, seriously dude, this crap is boilerplate plastered on every wallpaper on every federal computer in the whole country. Every federal employee and contractor is required to go through annual training that tells your precisely not to do this crap or you will go to jail.
Your ignorance of the law is not a compelling argument.
SEC. 10. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT FOR OFFICIAL BUSINESS CONDUCTED USING
NON-OFFICIAL ELECTRONIC MESSAGING ACCOUNT.
...
(a) In General.--An officer or employee of an executive agency
may not create or send a record using a non-official electronic
messaging account unless such officer or employee--
``(1) copies an official electronic messaging account of the
officer or employee in the original creation or transmission of the
record; or
``(2) forwards a complete copy of the record to an official
electronic messaging account of the officer or employee not later
than 20 days after the original creation or transmission of the
record.
But your assertions do not square with the law. Here's how the NEW law reads: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1233/text
What's key is the USING of private email by those covered employees is perfectly LEGAL even under the revised Federal Records Act. What changed is the procedures for timely archiving them. So in this example, Hillary could use clintonemail.com and all she had to do to be in perfect compliance is to bcc her state dept email address. Under the old rules, there were no deadlines and if she transferred the relevant records as part of that 55,000 page submission, she is still in perfect compliance with the old rules.
If you want to allege that she transferred classified documents via her personal email, then prove it or at least show someone making a credible allegation. There has been none of that. And it's a different charge than the one that alleges USING this account was illegal - it is plainly and obviously legal even under the revised rules.
If you're cool with what she has done as Secretary of State, that's your problem. She was responsible for secret negotiations with both friendly and unfriendly countries, and most of us want to know what the hell was going on. Are we now rewarding the highest foreign bidder, especially since millions go into her family's personal foundation, as we are learning?
If she didn't have a fed. e-mail account, then she must have been conducting federal business through some other e-mail account--unless, of course, you're suggesting that she worked seven days at week and was able to be in multiple countries at the same time or simply did all her work from a phone. Are there any other possibilities?
Then someone should connect the dots. Bottom line is private email accounts have been widely used by top officials across both parties since email was invented.
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.
We will see what brings her down.
I hope this does not preclude her from running, as she is the best candidate for the Republicans.
I thought the Lewinski affair would have brought them both down, but in a classic move, converted the issue into one of a a cheap blow job instead of the serious obstruction of justice case it was. Since then, I tend not to underestimate the stupidity of the American voter, a stance it seems was wise.
It would be a strategic blunder for the Republicans to rest their laurels here. First, I think she may be a sacrificial lamb tied to a stake by the masters of manipulation in the White House basement. With the right manipulation she becomes the blame for ALL that went before, and a "new face" in Elizabeth Warren emerges up the middle....
Second, it may not be the 'smoking gun'. It may be that Hillary has to be taken down bit by bit, like a monolith eroding. As the voter is confirmed stupid, we now must come to the reality that minds are made up on a little more than 144 characters. What sticks is not long term either. So in the end, the details don't mean much, memes do. She remains the leading lady in the Democratic party, and that is the meme to be overcome. The "there's nothing there" has been working...that has to be reversed
I agree with all of the above. I think the "second" scenario is the more likely, and not inconsequentially the best for the opposition regarding 2016. I think a significant unraveling has begun, but it will take time. There's little doubt in my mind that the political left, in spite of their internecine war, is counting on the incremental disclosures to be minimized and buried. This is not likely to happen, except to the voluminous brain dead in the country, and even they won't miss the headlines in spite of themselves. And there will be headlines coming from all of this eventually. It will be a slow process, but a resolute one. Of course, that assume the republicans are smart about this, and that ever remains in doubt.
I hate to brag, but here goes anyway..LOL
I said the day after the mid-terms it was a new ball game, as the Republicans now had the numbers to define the issues and control the debate. It was predicated on the Republicans not fighting one another and having the stones to see it through, unlike the last time the Clintons and Republicans squared off head to head.
The dominoes can only fall, when you have the scenario, as I predicted, that there was far too much unknown about the Libya mission and Benghazi; that a wise congress would immediately start digging at that scab and let Obama cook himself in his own oil.
They somehow have stumbled on the appropriate strategy. Now, the crucial part will be tying this string of cans to the tail of the White House. They must not allow the genius of the White House image makers to escape the fact, she was working for him. If he knew, he is culpable, if not, he is negligent. That King/Queen squeeze* is the chess move they need.
* My term when you leave your opponent a choice of check or losing his queen, usually to a knight
But your assertions do not square with the law. Here's how the NEW law reads: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1233/text
What's key is the USING of private email by those covered employees is perfectly LEGAL even under the revised Federal Records Act. What changed is the procedures for timely archiving them. So in this example, Hillary could use clintonemail.com and all she had to do to be in perfect compliance is to bcc her state dept email address. Under the old rules, there were no deadlines and if she transferred the relevant records as part of that 55,000 page submission, she is still in perfect compliance with the old rules.
If you want to allege that she transferred classified documents via her personal email, then prove it or at least show someone making a credible allegation. There has been none of that. And it's a different charge than the one that alleges USING this account was illegal - it is plainly and obviously legal even under the revised rules.
Then someone should connect the dots. Bottom line is private email accounts have been widely used by top officials across both parties since email was invented.
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.
I've believed much the same, but I've always been proven wrong when the republicans step all over themselves in the process. I think you hit the nail on the head with the "stumbled on the appropriate strategy" thing. Gowdy deserves a vote of gratitude for managing to be in the right place at the right time in spite of the spineless blobs that surround him much of the time. The string is there. All they have to do is follow it - in spite of serious roadblocks and distractions they should follow it. A little tug on the thing will help from time to time. If the republicans realize that outside of truly masterful manipulation and misdirection, they're play a little league team, they'll succeed.
And...a mistake that the left makes here, keep the rabid dogs away. The whole process must be moderate and mature. If you can take a look a look at the Watergate hearings, where Senator Sam Evin kept it all on an even keel while Nixon's goons rained **** on him.
Interesting that you mention Nixon. The parallels between Nixon and Obama are striking. The left would react as vampires exposed to a cross at the mere mention of it, but the things in common between the two are unmistakable. The political right would do well, as you say, to maintain calm and steadfast in their investigation, revealing only enough to keep the fires burning until the conclusion is reached in every instance. Someone needs to demonstrate the even handedness and maturity (as you say) to lend this process the dignity a court proceeding requires. In this case, that someone would be the loyal opposition to Obama, who will be grandstanding at every opportunity. The disparity between the two will be striking and convincing, and that will be paramount.
I agree, and have not said so, much in the past, as you really get hammered in typical Obama defense strategy, beginning with pointing out Nixon was a Republican.
The arrogance and swagger is there. I can see Obama saying "I can bomb anybody I want, I'm the president." I can also see that he is as much the egotist as Nixon, and believe he is above the law, simply because he is president. If it should come down to it, and similar hearings have to be held, watch as Obama repeats every step of resistance through the courts, the same "executive privilege" with "national security" now thrown in for good measure.
Americans will have to get a handle on that, the corruption and arrogance if they ever hope to deal seriously with the growing list of ills too long ignored. I do not oppose Obama so much for lying, for abandoning American principles for domestic politics, nor so much the shabby treatment of his allies, but I do damn him outright for having squandered one of the greatest opportunities the country has had to make change. He had a full majority and being an asshole, thought his players would never change.
Had it been a real leader, he would have walked into the Oval Office, called the leaders, plural, of the Republican party and have them over to the White House for a serious chat. The Kind FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan held with them, to find where there was common ground and build on that. I once saw a piece seven years ago that said Obama had the votes in both houses to make changes in immigration, provided he accepted that the flow now had to be stopped. Instead he shot back with an insulting reference to "alligators and moats"
The man has no concept of other's needs, that they have egos too, and that when called out, they react. They have, and now he faces a wall of democracy which he is meeting like a spoiled school boy denied his toys and is now stomping his feet making threats he cannot carry out.
In the end, there are many similarities, too many, between the Nixon White House and it's "German Shepherds"
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.
That was very good, and I especially appreciate it as a "foreigner" intimately aware of our politics here. Obama is a petulant, spoiled child of a community organizer (I know that's overused, but remains true) that only knows an "in your face" reaction to anything that requires a well considered appreciation of an opposing viewpoint. We see that all the time here on DP. The question ultimately becomes that in which one must consider whether stomping out all opposition to the president's view is moving the nation forward, or destroying all that makes the nation a vibrant seat of democracy and free-thinking. I maintain the latter is the true reflection of the left's approach here, and it's self-destructive even though they fail to appreciate the damage they're wreaking - on themselves as well as that which they claim to despise.
There will be a reaction from the WH simply because they are inextricably tied to Clinton's State Department. Obama will not be able to help himself in that regard, although it's clear that he'd prefer someone other than Clinton to bear the left's standard. How he splits the middle of the goat will be interesting, and the republicans ought to be aware that such a thing is precisely what he'll want to do. He'll need Valerie Jarrett and David Axlerod as handlers to keep him in check - to keep him from his normal reaction. I don't think those people, and I don't mean to be all-inclusive there, will be able to do that. I think he'll not be able to keep himself from "breaking bad" when the real pressure comes to bear. It'll tell on him to entire nation.
Already done many times by many posters. No longer honoring bad faith requests.
That was very good, and I especially appreciate it as a "foreigner" intimately aware of our politics here. Obama is a petulant, spoiled child of a community organizer (I know that's overused, but remains true) that only knows an "in your face" reaction to anything that requires a well considered appreciation of an opposing viewpoint. We see that all the time here on DP. The question ultimately becomes that in which one must consider whether stomping out all opposition to the president's view is moving the nation forward, or destroying all that makes the nation a vibrant seat of democracy and free-thinking. I maintain the latter is the true reflection of the left's approach here, and it's self-destructive even though they fail to appreciate the damage they're wreaking - on themselves as well as that which they claim to despise.
There will be a reaction from the WH simply because they are inextricably tied to Clinton's State Department. Obama will not be able to help himself in that regard, although it's clear that he'd prefer someone other than Clinton to bear the left's standard. How he splits the middle of the goat will be interesting, and the republicans ought to be aware that such a thing is precisely what he'll want to do. He'll need Valerie Jarrett and David Axlerod as handlers to keep him in check - to keep him from his normal reaction. I don't think those people, and I don't mean to be all-inclusive there, will be able to do that. I think he'll not be able to keep himself from "breaking bad" when the real pressure comes to bear. It'll tell on him to entire nation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?