IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags e-mail scandals , Eric Hothem , hillary clinton , politics scandals

Closed Thread
Old 7th March 2015, 07:21 PM   #281
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post

Or did you have something else in mind?
lol

I think she was a 21 year old girl who was taken advantage of by her boss, but it looks like you don't see her that way, typical for libs who really do orchestrate war on women, at least the ones they want to "get a little strange from".

Last edited by logger; 7th March 2015 at 07:22 PM.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 09:36 PM   #282
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Laughing at Saturday night lives cold open which featured obsessive Hillary Clinton and her obsessive email control.

Good stuff.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2015, 11:20 PM   #283
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by logger View Post
lol

I think she was a 21 year old girl who was taken advantage of by her boss, but it looks like you don't see her that way, typical for libs who really do orchestrate war on women, at least the ones they want to "get a little strange from".
My, what a post. How very.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 06:03 AM   #284
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
My, what a post. How very.
lol
How very true.
I'm amazed how the left has thrown this girl under the bus.

How about having a sexual predator back in the Whitehouse?
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 07:23 AM   #285
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Not if you understand the point I was making and the point I was not making. I've never said that she couldn't use a private account. In fact, I said the email account is the red herring.

I said she had a responsibility under the law to provide the emails to the archives and make available to the public under the FOIA laws. A duty she never met during her time in office. And never met until about 2 years after she left.

Even if everything in the emails are totally legit and she turned over everything she should have, it's the tardiness of doing so that is the problem. Her library book was over due and people are fighting over her right to check out the book or not and ignoring the fact she returned the book way past due. Whilst this library never had a time limit on when the book was due during her tenure, I find 6 years from day it was first checked out to be unacceptable.

Had the national archives not requested her to return her book, when do you think she planned on returning it? How much time should any politician be allowed to comply with the law?
My highlighting. Apparently, you agree that Hillary did not violate any law. There was no time limit to comply with FOIA request, Hillary did comply with FOIA requests, it just was not quick enough for you, personally? Why, again, should this matter?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 07:38 AM   #286
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
My highlighting. Apparently, you agree that Hillary did not violate any law. There was no time limit to comply with FOIA request, Hillary did comply with FOIA requests, it just was not quick enough for you, personally? Why, again, should this matter?
That is absurd, of course there is a time limit to respond to foia. Further, they did respond to foia requests claiming that they had fully complied with foia, which was false, thanks to Hillary and cowboy/home brew server.

Further, hillary converted the documents when she left. that is theft.

If you have to ask why government transparacy and the rule of law matter, I don't know how to help you.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 8th March 2015 at 07:39 AM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 07:46 AM   #287
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
That is absurd, of course there is a time limit to respond to foia. Further, they did respond to foia requests claiming that they had fully complied with foia, which was false, thanks to Hillary and cowboy/home brew server.

Further, hillary converted the documents when she left. that is theft.

If you have to ask why government transparacy and the rule of law matter, I don't know how to help you.
According to Leftus' analogy, there was not. As you assert that there is, please specify what the time limit was.

Rule of law matters, but you are not applying it with your distorted versions of theft and your claim that evidence of misconduct is the possibility that it occurred.

Please do keep using the phrase "cowboy/homebrew" to describe the servers that were apparently more secure than the .gov servers, though. It is quite amusing.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 07:55 AM   #288
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
According to Leftus' analogy, there was not. As you assert that there is, please specify what the time limit was.

Rule of law matters, but you are not applying it with your distorted versions of theft and your claim that evidence of misconduct is the possibility that it occurred.

Please do keep using the phrase "cowboy/homebrew" to describe the servers that were apparently more secure than the .gov servers, though. It is quite amusing.
20 business days. I note you have ignored the fact that foia requests were actually answered falsely.

Your claim that Hillary's server was more secure than .gov is false, and I have posted at least three articles outlining the critical security flaws detected to date. Plus the documents were under the control of Hillary Clinton, who had the means and motive to manipulate the data.

That is why it is a cowboy/home brew set up.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:02 AM   #289
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Your claim that Hillary's server was more secure than .gov is false, and I have posted at least three articles outlining the critical security flaws detected to date. Plus the documents were under the control of Hillary Clinton, who had the means and motive to manipulate the data.

That is why it is a cowboy/home brew set up.
Was the .gov server hacked? Yes. Was Hillary's? Apparently no. Therefore, which was more secure? I wonder if one could be called a cowboy/homebrew legal expert?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:20 AM   #290
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Was the .gov server hacked? Yes. Was Hillary's? Apparently no. Therefore, which was more secure? I wonder if one could be called a cowboy/homebrew legal expert?
So we are done with the FOIA stuff. Cool, although it usually polite to at least acknowledge it.

Now, secure servers, I note that your position seems to have changed and now your argument is that Hillary's cowboy server was "apparently" not hacked. That does not mean it was more secure (for reasons that should be obvious)

Plus, I have no idea where you are getting that "apparently not" because no one outside of Hillary's team has seen the server yet, and she ain't saying nothing.

Plus, according to those articles I posted, Hill's cowboy server can be hacked, and she would never know it! Take a look at the articles I posted, they will turn your hair white.

Happy to help.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:28 AM   #291
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
So we are done with the FOIA stuff. Cool, although it usually polite to at least acknowledge it.
No, we are not done with the FOIA stuff. Oddly, your claim that Hillary "stole" her email records would acquit her office of your claim that FOIA requests were answered falsely, as information requested must be under agency control when the request is received. Further, when was the request made?

Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Now, secure servers, I note that your position seems to have changed and now your argument is that Hillary's cowboy server was "apparently" not hacked. That does not mean it was more secure (for reasons that should be obvious)

Plus, I have no idea where you are getting that "apparently not" because no one outside of Hillary's team has seen the server yet, and she ain't saying nothing.

Plus, according to those articles I posted, Hill's cowboy server can be hacked, and she would never know it! Take a look at the articles I posted, they will turn your hair white.

Happy to help.
Is this another claim that evidence of something being possible is evidence that is happened? Because we actually have evidence that the .gov servers were hacked, compared to your "expert" claims that Hillary's server could be hacked. I think evidence that security failed for one, with no evidence of security failure in the other, makes it plain which is more secure. That's just my opinion, though, not that of a "cowboy/homebrew" legal/computer expert.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:39 AM   #292
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,761
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
My highlighting. Apparently, you agree that Hillary did not violate any law. There was no time limit to comply with FOIA request, Hillary did comply with FOIA requests, it just was not quick enough for you, personally? Why, again, should this matter?
I believe when I said that holding onto the documents for 2 years after she left office without turning them over means she did not turn them over in keeping with the letter or spirit of the law. After all, it required the head of the agency to take acts and Clinton, while head of the agency, never complied. If we are going to tightly construe it to have no time frame, then we must also tightly construe it to who must act. And the actor, the head of the agency, never acted.

Second, Gawker media put forth a FOIA request (previously linked) in which the government responded that they had no emails from the Clinton email domain. Which means that her actions violated both the FOIA request as well as the record keeping act which stated that she was required to make those records available.

A government that responds correctly and fully to the governed matters. Complying with FOIA requests is an important method that citizens have to check on how their government is behaving.

Now if you would be so kind as to answer my questions. Had the national archives not requested her to return her book, when do you think she planned on returning it? How much time should any politician be allowed to comply with the law?
Leftus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:45 AM   #293
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
No, we are not done with the FOIA stuff. Oddly, your claim that Hillary "stole" her email records would acquit her office of your claim that FOIA requests were answered falsely, as information requested must be under agency control when the request is received. Further, when was the request made?

Is this another claim that evidence of something being possible is evidence that is happened? Because we actually have evidence that the .gov servers were hacked, compared to your "expert" claims that Hillary's server could be hacked. I think evidence that security failed for one, with no evidence of security failure in the other, makes it plain which is more secure. That's just my opinion, though, not that of a "cowboy/homebrew" legal/computer expert.
sigh: the fact that an employee converted the documents does not acquit the agency from producing them, where they knew she was using her own cowboy system. It sure as hell does not acquit Hillary!!

As far as your failure to understand the vulnerabilities of Hillary's garbage system, here is another article:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/clinton...er-vulnerable/

If you think that a system that was so insecure that Hillary could never know that she was getting hacked is "safe" I can't help you.

Hillary 2016!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:50 AM   #294
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
Did Hillary Clinton break the law?

There's a lot of chaff on the pages of this thread since that question was raised 6 pages ago, so here's a quick recap of the key posts related to this claim.

In post 64 back on page 2 Ziggurat asserted Hillary Clinton had violated the law, but conspicuously failed to specify which law.

I asked Zig to specify which law had been broken. Zig chose not to respond to the question, but eventually Leftus asserted that Hillary Clinton had violated the Presidential Records Act (sections 3101 to 3105), and Ziggurat tacitly agreed with that. (Leftus' assertion is false. I'll post more on that after I finish this recap.)

To make it easier for people to check whether Clinton violated those sections of the PRA, I posted the text of those 5 sections in post # 91.

In post # 125 sunmaster14 claimed that the law Clinton violated was the Federal Records Act, specifically 36 CFR 1236.22(b). But after questioning by johnny karate, sunmaster admitted (post # 150) he didn't actually know how Clinton had violated that law and did not intend to look it up.

In posts 161, 267 and 277, Leftus returns to the (incorrect) claim that Clinton violated the Presidential Records Act.

And I see there are several new posts on this page from wareyin and 16.5 which I don't have time to read carefully at the moment (and which I incorrectly described in the original posting of this recap).

I hope this recap is useful. I'm now going to catch up on replying, first to Leftus' claim that Clinton violated the PRA and then to sunmaster's claim that Clinton violated the FRA.

Last edited by Nova Land; 8th March 2015 at 09:22 AM. Reason: correct the spelling of "wareyin" and delete incorrect summary of new posts
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:51 AM   #295
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
sigh: the fact that an employee converted the documents does not acquit the agency from producing them, where they knew she was using her own cowboy system. It sure as hell does not acquit Hillary!!
Was the FOIA request made to Hillary personally? During her tenure? Or was it made to her department, after her tenure, and after you claim she removed the documents from her department? The department is only obligated to provide documents they are in possession of at the time of request. Either they had the documents, in which case Hillary did nothing wrong, or they did not have the documents, in which case they complied with the FOIA request to the full extent required by law.

Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
As far as your failure to understand the vulnerabilities of Hillary's garbage system, here is another article:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/clinton...er-vulnerable/

If you think that a system that was so insecure that Hillary could never know that she was getting hacked is "safe" I can't help you.

Hillary 2016!
More claims of possibility, as though they trump what actually happened.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:53 AM   #296
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
Here's the first post in which Leftus claimed Clinton violated the PRA:

Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
44 U.S. Code 3101 to 3105.

It's not the using of personal emails... It's the not turning them over until 2 years after she left office.

No. That was not against the rules at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. No time limit was specified during that time. There should have been, I agree -- but there wasn't.

If you disagree, please quote the text in the regulations which were in effect during Hillary's term in office which specify what the time limit is. It's not there.

(That's why in 2014 Barack Obama put into effect new regulations which do specify a time limit. It's a limit which current SoS John Kerry and other current and future government officials will need to respect. But it did not apply to Hillary Clinton because it went into effect after she left office. I'll devote a separate post to that.)
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:53 AM   #297
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Did Hillary Clinton break the law?

There's a lot of chaff on the pages of this thread since that question was raised 6 pages ago, so here's a quick recap of the key posts related to this claim.

In post 64 back on page 2 Ziggurat asserted Hillary Clinton had violated the law, but conspicuously failed to specify which law.

I asked Zig to specify which law had been broken. Zig chose not to respond to the question, but eventually Leftus asserted that Hillary Clinton had violated the Presidential Records Act (sections 3101 to 3105), and Ziggurat tacitly agreed with that. (Leftus' assertion is false. I'll post more on that after I finish this recap.)

To make it easier for people to check whether Clinton violated those sections of the PRA, I posted the text of those 5 sections in post # 91.

In post # 125 sunmaster14 claimed that the law Clinton violated was the Federal Records Act, specifically 36 CFR 1236.22(b). But after questioning by johnny karate, sunmaster admitted (post # 150) he didn't actually know how Clinton had violated that law and did not intend to look it up.

In posts 161, 267 and 277, Leftus returns to the (incorrect) claim that Clinton violated the Presidential Records Act.

And I see there are several new posts on this page from wayerin and 16.5, in which wayerin asks what the time limit for archiving the private account e-mails was and 16.5 incorrectly claims it was 20 days.

I hope this recap is useful. I'm now going to catch up on replying, first to Leftus' claim that Clinton violated the PRA and then to sunmaster's claim that Clinton violated the FRA.
Your recap regarding my post is wrong.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:55 AM   #298
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Was the FOIA request made to Hillary personally? During her tenure? Or was it made to her department, after her tenure, and after you claim she removed the documents from her department? The department is only obligated to provide documents they are in possession of at the time of request. Either they had the documents, in which case Hillary did nothing wrong, or they did not have the documents, in which case they complied with the FOIA request to the full extent required by law.

More claims of possibility, as though they trump what actually happened.
Ok.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:55 AM   #299
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
I believe when I said that holding onto the documents for 2 years after she left office without turning them over means she did not turn them over in keeping with the letter or spirit of the law. After all, it required the head of the agency to take acts and Clinton, while head of the agency, never complied. If we are going to tightly construe it to have no time frame, then we must also tightly construe it to who must act. And the actor, the head of the agency, never acted.

Second, Gawker media put forth a FOIA request (previously linked) in which the government responded that they had no emails from the Clinton email domain. Which means that her actions violated both the FOIA request as well as the record keeping act which stated that she was required to make those records available.

A government that responds correctly and fully to the governed matters. Complying with FOIA requests is an important method that citizens have to check on how their government is behaving.

Now if you would be so kind as to answer my questions. Had the national archives not requested her to return her book, when do you think she planned on returning it? How much time should any politician be allowed to comply with the law?
I will happily answer your questions, but I doubt my answers will be useful. First, had the National Archives not requested her to return the book, I do not know when, or honestly if, she planned on returning it. However, it was returned, so that really does not matter to me. Second, a politician should allowed whatever time the law limits to time of compliance. If the law did not limit time of compliance, I am not going to get upset about the time to comply taken.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:56 AM   #300
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Did Hillary Clinton break the law?

There's a lot of chaff on the pages of this thread since that question was raised 6 pages ago, so here's a quick recap of the key posts related to this claim.

In post 64 back on page 2 Ziggurat asserted Hillary Clinton had violated the law, but conspicuously failed to specify which law.

I asked Zig to specify which law had been broken. Zig chose not to respond to the question, but eventually Leftus asserted that Hillary Clinton had violated the Presidential Records Act (sections 3101 to 3105), and Ziggurat tacitly agreed with that. (Leftus' assertion is false. I'll post more on that after I finish this recap.)

To make it easier for people to check whether Clinton violated those sections of the PRA, I posted the text of those 5 sections in post # 91.

In post # 125 sunmaster14 claimed that the law Clinton violated was the Federal Records Act, specifically 36 CFR 1236.22(b). But after questioning by johnny karate, sunmaster admitted (post # 150) he didn't actually know how Clinton had violated that law and did not intend to look it up.

In posts 161, 267 and 277, Leftus returns to the (incorrect) claim that Clinton violated the Presidential Records Act.

And I see there are several new posts on this page from wayerin and 16.5, in which wayerin asks what the time limit for archiving the private account e-mails was and 16.5 incorrectly claims it was 20 days.

I hope this recap is useful. I'm now going to catch up on replying, first to Leftus' claim that Clinton violated the PRA and then to sunmaster's claim that Clinton violated the FRA.
Minor (to everyone else) nitpick, but it's wareyin, not wayerin, please.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 08:58 AM   #301
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
You stopped reading the law early. It's not just keeping records but making them available. It's the latter part she did not do. I'm not willing to give any government official two years after they leave office to make good something they should have been doing daily.

Whether you are willing to or not is irrelevant. The regulations in effect at the time Hillary Clinton was in office set no such time limit.

If you believe there was a requirement to archive the records on a daily basis, please quote the text of the regulation which says so. There was not then, and is not now, any such regulation.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 09:00 AM   #302
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Minor (to everyone else) nitpick, but it's wareyin, not wayerin, please.

My sincere apologies! It's still within the editing time limit, so I'll go back and correct the post.

(I'm posting during the daytime, when I really should be outside working, so I'm typing hastily and prone to careless errors.)
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 09:04 AM   #303
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Whether you are willing to or not is irrelevant. The regulations in effect at the time Hillary Clinton was in office set no such time limit.

If you believe there was a requirement to archive the records on a daily basis, please quote the text of the regulation which says so. There was not then, and is not now, any such regulation.
I think it is pretty clear that the law required that the documents be made available in order to comply with the thousands of foia requests made during her tenure, the congressional subpoenas issued during her tenure and certainly no later than the time she became a private citizen.

It is March 2015 and she still has not turned over everything.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 09:07 AM   #304
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
My sincere apologies! It's still within the editing time limit, so I'll go back and correct the post.

(I'm posting during the daytime, when I really should be outside working, so I'm typing hastily and prone to careless errors.)
That is odd, you fixed the misspelling, but failed to fix the fact that he asked me what the time limit was for responding to foia requests?

Huh, that is odd....
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 09:10 AM   #305
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
The rules for record-keeping were in existence during her term in office.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politi...ing/index.html

Originally Posted by cnn
The National Archives and Records Administration, the government agency that regulates the Federal Records Act, issued guidance in 2009 -- the same year Clinton took over at State -- that allowed agency employees to use personal accounts as long as they ensured "that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

Waiting for a request that came 2 years after she left office doesn't fit that criteria.

Actually, it does. That's according to the very cnn item you linked to. I'm not sure how you missed seeing that, since it is stated clearly in the 2 paragraphs which immediately follow the paragraph you quoted:

Originally Posted by cnn
Before that, the archives agency said they did not "specifically address this issue."

It wasn't until 2014 - when President Barack Obama signed an update to the Federal Records Law - that a timeline was set up to mandate how quickly emails had to be turned over by people who used personal devices.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 09:19 AM   #306
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
That is odd, you fixed the misspelling, but failed to fix the fact that he asked me what the time limit was for responding to foia requests?

Huh, that is odd....

Apologies. I'm short on time, should have either made these posts late last night or waited until late tonight. Glanced at the page as I was preparing to post the recap, saw that you and Wareyin had exchanged some posts, careless misread FOIA time limit as being a reference to the archiving time limit because that's the posts I was looking at and preparing to reply to are about.

I could see at a glance what wayerin was talking about as needing correcting because he said it clearly in his post. Your original post did not, and I didn't have time to spend reading the posts on this page trying to figure it out. Now that you've said it clearly I understand. I don't have time to read the exchange on this page between you and wareyin in detail right now, so I'll edit that part of the recap down to simply there is an exchange, then get back to trying to reply to some of the older posts.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 09:20 AM   #307
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Actually, it does. That's according to the very cnn item you linked to. I'm not sure how you missed seeing that, since it is stated clearly in the 2 paragraphs which immediately follow the paragraph you quoted:
it is absurd to suggest that foia and subpoenas do not extend to documents in the possession of department employees.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 09:31 AM   #308
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Even if everything in the emails are totally legit and she turned over everything she should have, it's the tardiness of doing so that is the problem. Her library book was over due and people are fighting over her right to check out the book or not and ignoring the fact she returned the book way past due. Whilst this library never had a time limit on when the book was due during her tenure, I find 6 years from day it was first checked out to be unacceptable.

You may find it unacceptable. But the question is, did the regulations at the time Hillary Clinton was SoS find it unacceptable. And the answer is, the regulations didn't.

Thankfully, Barack Obama updated the regulations in 2014 to fix that problem. But that's after Hillary Clinton left office. At the time she was in office she was in compliance.

If you disagree, please quote the relevant text from the regulations in effect when Hillary was in office. Because the CNN article you yourself used as a source earlier specifically said there was no such time limit in effect when she was SoS.

If Hillary Clinton had been in violation of archiving regulations, it should be possible to find someone from the National Archives and Records Administration who said so during the time she was in office or who is saying so now. If there is such a person, I haven't seen them quoted. But I am familiar with at least one archive person who has said just the opposite...

(continued in my next post)
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 09:34 AM   #309
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post

<snip>

In post # 125 sunmaster14 claimed that the law Clinton violated was the Federal Records Act, specifically 36 CFR 1236.22(b). But after questioning by johnny karate, sunmaster admitted (post # 150) he didn't actually know how Clinton had violated that law and did not intend to look it up.
No, this is wrong, and I'm using all my self-control to be civil about it because if there is one thing that sets me off, it is having my words egregiously misconstrued. I did not admit that I didn't know how Hillary broke the law. I know exactly how she broke the law. She broke the law by not making sure her emails were preserved in an appropriate agency recordkeeping system. I thought Johnny's request to have the term "appropriate" defined to be ridiculous in this context, and I actually mockingly referred to his quibbling over unambiguous terminology in several subsequent posts. There may indeed be borderline circumstances where one could reasonably argue about what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. And perhaps the courts have adjudicated such circumstances already. But it is irrelevant to this case. The claim that storing emails on her own private server (and not anywhere else) is appropriate, for the purpose of complying with 36 CFR 1236.22(b), is frivolous on its face. I think any lawyer who tried to argue that in court would be sanctioned by the judge.

As for the CNN article, I found it to be absurdly biased in favor of Clinton. I don't think her campaign managers could have done a better job if they had written it themselves. As Leftus has pointed out, the issue is not the existence of the private email account.

Last edited by sunmaster14; 8th March 2015 at 09:36 AM. Reason: typo
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 09:42 AM   #310
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
Here's a link to a 9 1/2 minute interview with Jason Baron, the former director of litigation for the National Archives and Records Administration.

I'm sorry that I don't know how to embed the sound recording in this post (so you'll need to visit the link to hear it), and I'm even more sorry I don't have a transcript handy and don't have time to transcribe this myself. But two key passages, if you're in a rush, occur about the 7 minute mark, where Baron says there is now a regulation (which Obama put in place in 2014) that e-mails sent from private accounts must be forwarded to the archives within a set period of time (about a month), and at the 7 1/2 minute mark when he says "but that provision was not in place during the first Obama administration" (when Hillary Clinton was SOS).

He also says, regarding Clinton's practices, that the regulations "encouraged" doing certain things she didn't do and "discouraged" doing certain things she did. But he doesn't say she was required to do the things she didn't do, nor that she was required not to do the things she did -- because the regulations when she was in office did not say that.

According to Baron, Hillary did not violate the law. I encourage people to listen to the recording for themselves.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 09:55 AM   #311
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
In post 125, sunmaster claimed the law Clinton violated was the Federal Records Act:

Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
It appears that Hillary Clinton's record-keeping practices ran afoul of regulations which were first promulgated in 1995 and then clarified and tightened in 2009 (i.e. 36 CFR 1236.22(b), to be precise). Regulations are part of the law, so running afoul of a regulation is tantamount to breaking the law.

Sunmaster neglected to state clearly which regulation she violated, so johnny karate asked for that information to be provided:

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Can you quote the exact section of that law that was violated? Thanks.

Sunmaster replied:

Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
36 CFR 1236.22
...

(b) Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.

As johnny then pointed out:

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
... I'm also not seeing where "appropriate agency recordkeeping system" is defined, and where a personal email account is explicitly defined as not being "appropriate".

Please provide cites addressing that.

At which point sunmaster admitted he didn't know:

Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
No doubt these terms are defined in other parts of 36 CFR. If not there, then they are certainly defined in various administrative rulings or procedures which have also been published somewhere. They may also have been fleshed out in the courts...

and also admitted that he had no intention to look it up:

Originally Posted by sunmaster14
I don't have time to look for what you ask right now (nor am I inclined to do it anyway)
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 10:02 AM   #312
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,999
I need to be outside working while it's light. I then have other commitments this evening. So it will be a while before I can read newer posts (including the wareyin / 16.5 exchange, which I misread when I hastily skimmed it this morning while trying to make this series of posts) or reply to any responses to my posts. But I do plan to return to the forum in about 12 hours, will catch up on reading posts then, and will try to reply to anything relevant as soon as time permits.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 10:13 AM   #313
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
In post 125, sunmaster claimed the law Clinton violated was the Federal Records Act:




Sunmaster neglected to state clearly which regulation she violated, so johnny karate asked for that information to be provided:




Sunmaster replied:




As johnny then pointed out:




At which point sunmaster admitted he didn't know:




and also admitted that he had no intention to look it up:
I love how you cut off the quote in midsentence. It is consistent with your completely disingenuous misinterpretation of my words.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 10:21 AM   #314
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,652
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
No, this is wrong, and I'm using all my self-control to be civil about it because if there is one thing that sets me off, it is having my words egregiously misconstrued. I did not admit that I didn't know how Hillary broke the law. I know exactly how she broke the law. She broke the law by not making sure her emails were preserved in an appropriate agency recordkeeping system. I thought Johnny's request to have the term "appropriate" defined to be ridiculous in this context, and I actually mockingly referred to his quibbling over unambiguous terminology in several subsequent posts.
There is a very simple remedy to this.

Once your tears of rage have dried, find the section of the law that defines "appropriate agency recordkeeping system" and where a personal email account is explicitly defined as not being "appropriate".

Granted, your conduct on this forum has demonstrated unassailable integrity and honesty. But just this once, how about we don't accept something as a fact just because you assert it to be so?

Quote:
The claim that storing emails on her own private server (and not anywhere else) is appropriate, for the purpose of complying with 36 CFR 1236.22(b), is frivolous on its face.
Oh, bad news. No one actually made that claim.

See, you claimed Clinton broke a certain law, and I asked you to specify how she did so by providing definitions of terms within the law.

So it's your burden to substantiate your claim.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 10:24 AM   #315
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,652
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
I love how you cut off the quote in midsentence. It is consistent with your completely disingenuous misinterpretation of my words.
Yes, and as part of that master plan, Nova Land provided a link to your original post where anyone can quite easily see the full context of the quote.

What a devious scoundrel!
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 10:59 AM   #316
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
gaps in Hillary's emails.

You didn't really think she was going to voluntarily turn over all the emails did you?

FBI ought to seize that sever NOW.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 11:37 AM   #317
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Appropriate record keeping systems:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...e36.3.1236_120

Quote:
1236.20 What are appropriate recordkeeping systems for electronic records?
(a) General. Agencies must use electronic or paper recordkeeping systems or a combination of those systems, depending on their business needs, for managing their records. Transitory e-mail may be managed as specified in 1236.22(c).

(b) Electronic recordkeeping. Recordkeeping functionality may be built into the electronic information system or records can be transferred to an electronic recordkeeping repository, such as a DoD-5015.2 STD-certified product. The following functionalities are necessary for electronic recordkeeping:

(1) Declare records. Assign unique identifiers to records.

(2) Capture records. Import records from other sources, manually enter records into the system, or link records to other systems.

(3) Organize records. Associate with an approved records schedule and disposition instruction.

(4) Maintain records security. Prevent the unauthorized access, modification, or deletion of declared records, and ensure that appropriate audit trails are in place to track use of the records.

(5) Manage access and retrieval. Establish the appropriate rights for users to access the records and facilitate the search and retrieval of records.

(6) Preserve records. Ensure that all records in the system are retrievable and usable for as long as needed to conduct agency business and to meet NARA-approved dispositions. Agencies must develop procedures to enable the migration of records and their associated metadata to new storage media or formats in order to avoid loss due to media decay or technology obsolescence.

(7) Execute disposition. Identify and effect the transfer of permanent records to NARA based on approved records schedules. Identify and delete temporary records that are eligible for disposal. Apply records hold or freeze on disposition when required.

(c) Backup systems. System and file backup processes and media do not provide the appropriate recordkeeping functionalities and must not be used as the agency electronic recordkeeping system.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 01:34 PM   #318
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Laughing at Saturday night lives cold open which featured obsessive Hillary Clinton and her obsessive email control.

Good stuff.
Damn liberal media
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 02:21 PM   #319
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
gaps in Hillary's emails.

You didn't really think she was going to voluntarily turn over all the emails did you?

FBI ought to seize that sever NOW.
Indeed. America's future hangs in the balance! And the bloodhounds are sure to find something they can use.

Next on Fox News: Did Hillary unwittingly hand ISIS the information they need to BURN US ALL ALIVE??? Hold your children tight, and stay tuned!
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2015, 02:33 PM   #320
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Indeed. America's future hangs in the balance! And the bloodhounds are sure to find something they can use.

Next on Fox News: Did Hillary unwittingly hand ISIS the information they need to BURN US ALL ALIVE??? Hold your children tight, and stay tuned!
And this adds to the discussion, how?

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Sure. Why should she put up with juvenile tripe?

I don't doubt I could drive worthwhile people off this forum, without running afoul of the rules, if I made it my business to do so. I wouldn't attack them personally. I would ridicule their opinions without offering anything of substance. I would lace my comments with innuendo suggesting an agenda of bigotry or woo thinking. I would goad them into a sharp rebuke and then report it to the mods. It's simple, and it works, right?
Oh, I see.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.