Hillary Clinton's emails

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Am I the only one who was shocked to hear that Hillary didn't have a government email address while Secretary of State? And that she's not the only person to use personal email addresses while in office? How and why does this happen? To me it's obvious that personal email addresses shouldn't be used for things like this. :idunno:

You Better Believe Hillary Clinton’s Emails Matter - Ron Christie


Personal email account? OK, maybe. But why does Clinton get to pick and choose which emails she turns over? Same old Clinton song.

On January 20, 2001, I sat at my office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building just steps away from the White House to begin the first day of the George W. Bush administration. Before booting up my computer, I had to physically remove a band placed across my computer by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reminding me that all records, files, and documents were the property of the United States government.

Some four years later when I resigned as a special assistant to the President, I was reminded by a lawyer from the White House Counsel’s office that all documents, emails, and files must be turned over so they could be properly archived. Despite their obvious personal and historical value to me, I could not leave the White House with memos and other documents I had prepared for President Bush and members of his senior staff as keepsakes—everything had to be handed over.

Which brings us to the current case surrounding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the revelation that she did not use a government email account during her time in office. The New York Times story that generated a firestorm across cable news outlets yesterday is revealing on several levels in how Mrs. Clinton and her staff relied on their interpretation of the Federal Records Act as to which records and documents must be retained. For example, the Times piece notes that “Mrs. Clinton’s advisors reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department.” Sorry, Team Hillary, it doesn’t work that way.

Did the Secretary email Libyan consular officials the night our outpost in Benghazi was attacked? What orders did she give and to whom did she give them?

All of my emails during my time at the White House were saved and preserved by the National Archives and Records Administration. That means all professional emails written to staff as well as personal emails written to friends. Wouldn’t it be nice to have the luxury to have combed through all of my emails and decide which I would like to share with the government and which documents would be better left out of the official record? My documents are all in the historical record, and so should be those of the former Secretary of State.

Supporters of the former Secretary State and putative Democratic nominee for president in 2016 are clever in their parsing of words and claims that since Mrs. Clinton did not use a government email account, the information from her private account is above scrutiny. The Federal Records Act is quite explicit that all federal agency heads—which Mrs. Clinton once was—“shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.”

There are many policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions conducted by Secretary Clinton that the public has a right to see. Did the Secretary email Libyan consular officials the night our outpost in Benghazi was attacked? What orders did she give and to whom did she give them?

Did Secretary Clinton receive reports that raised the alarm bells about the threats posed by radical jihadists plotting terrorist activities in the name of Islam? If the status quo is allowed to remain‚—because Secretary Clinton and her team have decided which documents the government may have and the rest be damned—many important questions will never be answered.

Sadly, Secretary Clinton and her husband have a history of being secretive about their activities. One can never forget that former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught stuffing confidential documents down his pants while ostensibly reviewing them at the National Archives, or the boxes of files that had been subpoenaed during the Whitewater affair that mysteriously appeared on the third-floor residence of the White House years later.

I’m not suggesting that Clinton has intentionally broken the law, but I am asserting that federal employees know all documents and emails must be preserved—why should the former Secretary of State and her loyalists believe a different standard should apply to them?

While it is too early to say whether this incident of using a private email account to conduct official business as America’s top diplomat will derail Clinton’s political ambitions, one question hangs over this affair: Are the American people prepared to return to the days of legal hair-splitting, quibbling about what the term “is” is and other flim-flam language designed to obfuscate should the Clintons return once again to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? I hope that answer is a resounding No.
 

Daniel1611

New member
Yeah, this whole situation isn't good. Apparently Colin Powel did something like this when he was Secretary of State as well. Powell was in a different era when email wasn't really that popular so it kinda slid by. But now, this kinda thing is going to be a big deal. I'm not sure if this is going to sink Clinton's campaign or if people will let it slide. It's hard to tell with voters. They don't act very sensibly when it comes to political matters.

I'm not really shocked though. I'm shocked when the state acts ethically. Their corruption is not surprising.
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
Am I the only one who was shocked to hear that Hillary didn't have a government email address while Secretary of State? And that she's not the only person to use personal email addresses while in office? How and why does this happen? To me it's obvious that personal email addresses shouldn't be used for things like this. :idunno:

You Better Believe Hillary Clinton’s Emails Matter - Ron Christie

It is completely illegal, and she will get away with it all just as Sandy Berger walked in the National Archives and stuffed classified documents down his pants to cover for the Clintons and was never prosecuted. You know that anyone that carries a security clearance or signs a "Position of Public Trust" document is liable for 10 years in prison & $250,000 fine for breaking that trust, General David Patraeus was just found guilty for a much lesser offense than Hillary has committed and he was punished but, I dare say you won't see queen Hillary punished at all for this egregious offense that she knowingly committed. Our country is going down the tubes and the lefties are O.K. with it as long as their man/woman is doing it and that lack of accountability that voters let them tear up the laws & constitution will be this country's undoing, the end of liberty, and the beginning of a more tyrannical government. People need to wake up and realize that this kind of breach of what is right & wrong hurts us all in the long run.
 

Mocking You

New member
It is completely illegal, and she will get away with it all just as Sandy Berger walked in the National Archives and stuffed classified documents down his pants to cover for the Clintons and was never prosecuted.

Berger WAS prosecuted and pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of classified materials. He also lost his license to practice law.

Hillary's case is a bit different. What she did was illegal, by law she is supposed to conduct government business via a secure government owned email account but if she no longer has the emails she's not in possession of classified materials. What legal action can be taken against her? She's a private citizen. Can a House committee subpoena her? Not sure...
 

Eeset

.
LIFETIME MEMBER
I think this is all backwards. BN ... that is Before Nixon ... Communications were not subject to public scrutiny. Think about that. From 1776 to 1973 (almost 200 years) the top officials in the government could actually communicate privately with other people. It worked quite well. The dynamics of today's world do not work quite as well.
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
Berger WAS prosecuted and pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of classified materials. He also lost his license to practice law.

A hand slap at best, and I am not aware that he lost any license to practice law but, he did lose his security clearance for 3yrs...whoopie! He should have lost it for life and served jail time.

Hillary's case is a bit different. What she did was illegal, by law she is supposed to conduct government business via a secure government owned email account but if she no longer has the emails she's not in possession of classified materials. What legal action can be taken against her? She's a private citizen. Can a House committee subpoena her? Not sure...

Well in my research on the subject I have found that what Hillary has done is a felony because she did so knowingly & willingly. Will she be charged? probably not but, the law about archiving of official government documents and the law states: “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same.” is a felony.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414835/did-hillary-commit-felony-shannen-coffin
 

Mocking You

New member
Well in my research on the subject I have found that what Hillary has done is a felony because she did so knowingly & willingly. Will she be charged? probably not but, the law about archiving of official government documents and the law states: “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same.” is a felony.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414835/did-hillary-commit-felony-shannen-coffin

So, this would fall under the purview of the FBI, I guess.
 

rexlunae

New member
Am I the only one who was shocked to hear that Hillary didn't have a government email address while Secretary of State? And that she's not the only person to use personal email addresses while in office? How and why does this happen? To me it's obvious that personal email addresses shouldn't be used for things like this. :idunno:

I wasn't shocked by it, because this is kinda the Clintons' MO, but sometimes it's a little surprising when people conform so closely to your expectations. And it's not as if this is just some email address she had before. She created the domain name the day she was confirmed. This just shouldn't happen, ever.
 

rexlunae

New member
It is completely illegal, and she will get away with it all just as Sandy Berger walked in the National Archives and stuffed classified documents down his pants to cover for the Clintons and was never prosecuted. You know that anyone that carries a security clearance or signs a "Position of Public Trust" document is liable for 10 years in prison & $250,000 fine for breaking that trust, General David Patraeus was just found guilty for a much lesser offense than Hillary has committed and he was punished but, I dare say you won't see queen Hillary punished at all for this egregious offense that she knowingly committed.

I'm not sure Patraeus's crime was less severe. He did deliberately give classified materials to a journalist. There's no evidence so far that Clinton gave any material to unauthorized people. And the punishment doesn't seem like it was all that severe. It should allow him to start a lucrative career as a Washington insider. He didn't end up like Chelsea Manning.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
I wasn't shocked by it, because this is kinda the Clintons' MO, but sometimes it's a little surprising when people conform so closely to your expectations. And it's not as if this is just some email address she had before. She created the domain name the day she was confirmed. This just shouldn't happen, ever.
Well, I didn't mean I was shocked because a Clinton did it. I was surprised that a government address wasn't automatically given to all government officials. Unless she had a government one too and didn't use it.

I'm not sure Patraeus's crime was less severe. He did deliberately give classified materials to a journalist. There's no evidence so far that Clinton gave any material to unauthorized people. And the punishment doesn't seem like it was all that severe. It should allow him to start a lucrative career as a Washington insider. He didn't end up like Chelsea Manning.

I was surprised by his light punishment also. Seems to be a pretty serious offense. He wasn't even doing it for allegedly righteous purposes. It was his mistress. But I haven't seen the extent of the released information.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Well in my research on the subject I have found that what Hillary has done is a felony because she did so knowingly & willingly. Will she be charged? probably not but, the law about archiving of official government documents and the law states: “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same.” is a felony.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414835/did-hillary-commit-felony-shannen-coffin

:think:

Yeah I doubt anything will happen.
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I think that is a good thing. :)

Of course you do, you are a cockroach just like her. You scurry when the light of truth is headed your way.

John 3:20

20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
 

Morpheus

New member
A hand slap at best, and I am not aware that he lost any license to practice law but, he did lose his security clearance for 3yrs...whoopie! He should have lost it for life and served jail time.



Well in my research on the subject I have found that what Hillary has done is a felony because she did so knowingly & willingly. Will she be charged? probably not but, the law about archiving of official government documents and the law states: “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same.” is a felony.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414835/did-hillary-commit-felony-shannen-coffin

You call that research? An article in The National Review, or even one from The Daily Beast, as was linked in the OP, do not constitute research. Try referring to the actual pertinent language of the law.


Records Management by Federal Agencies
(44 U.S.C. Chapter 31)

§ 3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties
§ 3102. Establishment of program of management
§ 3103. Transfer of records to records centers
§ 3104. Certifications and determinations on transferred records
§ 3105. Safeguards
§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records
§ 3107. Authority of Comptroller General


§ 3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.


§ 3102. Establishment of program of management

The head of each Federal agency shall establish and maintain an active, continuing program for the economical and efficient management of the records of the agency. The program, among other things, shall provide for

(1) effective controls over the creation and over the maintenance and use of records in the conduct of current business;

(2) cooperation with the Archivist in applying standards, procedures, and techniques designed to improve the management of records, promote the maintenance and security of records deemed appropriate for preservation, and facilitate the segregation and disposal of records of temporary value; and

(3) compliance with sections 2101-2117, 2501-2507, 2901-2909, and 3101-3107, of this title and the regulations issued under them.


§ 3103. Transfer of records to records centers

When the head of a Federal agency determines that such action may affect substantial economies or increased operating efficiency, the head of such agency shall provide for the transfer of records to a records center maintained and operated by the Archivist, or, when approved by the Archivist, to a center maintained and operated by the head of the Federal agency.


§ 3104. Certifications and determinations on transferred records

An official of the Government who is authorized to certify to facts on the basis of records in such official’s custody, may certify to facts on the basis of records that have been transferred by such official or such official’s predecessors to the Archivist, and may authorize the Archivist to certify to facts and to make administrative determinations on the basis of records transferred to the Archivist, notwithstanding any other law.


§ 3105. Safeguards

The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records the head of such agency determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist. Safeguards shall include making it known to officials and employees of the agency--

(1) that records in the custody of the agency are not to be alienated or destroyed except in accordance with sections 3301-3314 of this title, and

(2) the penalties provided by law for the unlawful removal or destruction of records.


§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records

(a) FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION.—The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.

(b) ARCHIVIST NOTIFICATION.—In any case in which the head of the Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.


§ 3107. Authority of Comptroller General

Chapters 21, 25, 27, 29, and 31 of this title do not limit the authority of the Comptroller General of the United States with respect to prescribing accounting systems, forms, and procedures, or lessen the responsibility of collecting and disbursing officers for rendition of their accounts for settlement by the General Accounting Office.
http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/fed-agencies.html

There is nothing stating that every agency must only use the official email address or that all records must be preserved. The head of each agency must establish procedures to meet the provisions of the act. It specifies which records must be preserved, but it also gives provisions for the destruction of other materials. We need to stop depending on biased articles from either side to direct our thought processes. Opinion is not law unless that opinion is rendered by Supreme Court justices..
 
Top