Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not now. But 4 years ago, there wasn't nearly as much serious email hacking going on, and there was no official government email servers set up. No official government accounts, either, for anyone in government.
This is patently false.
Quote:
Senators and Representatives, Agency and Department Chiefs, Administration, no one. Nobody had an official server and account that restricted email use to only governmental matters.
Well, you clearly didn't go to law school, that much is clear.
44 USC 31 is the authority under witch 36 CFR is enacted.
If you can show me which subsection of 44 USC 31 has been violated, I'd like to see that.
36 CFR 1234 pertains specifically to record-keeping facilities, both at NARA and at each executive department. I'm not sure why you brought that one up, since nobody has claimed that State's record-keeping facilities are somehow lacking.
36 CFR 1228 Defines the authority of records disposition authorities. How exactly does Clinton violate this?
36 CFR 1222 Defines what constitute federal records and mandates that they be preserved. Again, not exactly sure how Clinton is in violation of this. She was required to keep her emails, she did. She was asked to turn them over for archiving purposes, she did.
36 CFR 1220 Defines federal records and NARA's role in preserving said records, including the setting of standards for defining, setting standards, and preserving record-keeping. Not sure why you even included this one.
Any other law you'd like to throw up there? Feel free.
I'm sorry, I'm not doing your homework for you. She and her staff violated by not complying with various U.S.C and regulations governing electronic communications. I've provided a rather small list of CFR that if you were to understand them, you'd see how they violated them. What it seems like is you've read the title and that's it.
BTW:
Quote:
§ 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.
Quote:
§ 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.
I'm sorry, I'm not doing your homework for you. She and her staff violated by not complying with various U.S.C and regulations governing electronic communications. I've provided a rather small list of CFR that if you were to understand them, you'd see how you violated them.
lol
On the contrary, I'm not doing your homework for you. I have each subsection on my computer in another tab as I type this. If you want, we can over them point by point. I'll be more than happy to demonstrate how legalspeak illiterate you are. But the fact is, you found some fancy stuff you think "proves" your case, knowing full well most of the right wingers here definitely won't do the homework but not accounting for me actually calling you out on it. And this response of yours is nothing but pure bravado. I did the homework, it's you that needs to do some.
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.
No records were removed or destroyed. So this does not apply in any way.
If you don't speak law, don't try to fake it, you're making yourself look stupid here.
No records were removed or destroyed. So this does not apply in any way.
Are you telling me Clinton did not delete a single email? If you do not understand the government electric communication policy/law, its best you stop because you are embarrassing yourself. I operated under these regulations from 1998-2006 as an intelligence analyst that routinely communicated with state department people that fell under the same law I did.
Not now. But 4 years ago, there wasn't nearly as much serious email hacking going on, and there was no official government email servers set up. No official government accounts, either, for anyone in government.
Senators and Representatives, Agency and Department Chiefs, Administration, no one. Nobody had an official server and account that restricted email use to only governmental matters.
Uhm... I had an internship in a federal agency 5 years ago. Even I, a lowly intern, had a government e-mail address that was restricted to government business use. My sister and brother-in-law worked for the federal government starting in 1991 and had government e-mail addresses their entire careers spanning 16 (her) and 22 (him) years. So whatever trouble Hillary may or may not be in for using only a personal e-mail address, I can state that the above categorical claim is false.
Don't worry guys, NSA should have copies of her emails.
Its illegal to spy on a US citizen with out a warrant or prior consent, since it was a personal account she gets the protection of unlawful search and seizure in respect t the NSA. So, even if they did, any information they have is not valid, at least legally.
Its illegal to spy on a US citizen with out a warrant or prior consent, since it was a personal account she gets the protection of unlawful search and seizure in respect t the NSA. So, even if they did, any information they have is not valid, at least legally.
Did you miss the government spying scandal of the last couple of years?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
