Experts: Hillary Broke The Law

[sr71plt]

I don't know how many, if any people are truly "qualified" to be president. Traditionally it has been governors, I think Obama's the first senator in decades to win. But I think Senators SHOULD be better.

It really takes being both a U.S. senator and a governor (and a business CEO), I think. The job is tough because you both have to juggle a bureaucracy (what governors do) and get your program legislated (what senators do)--and it always helps to have been under pressure to do it with some form of profit (what business CEOs have to face). I expected Hillary to run for governor of New York rather than take the secretary of state job to pin all of the qualifications down even in the voters' eyes. (I'm fairly sure that she got the needed experience already from inside the White House, but I don't think that voters generally understood who was doing what during Bill's eight years there.)

What really irritated me in the primary campaign was Obama making all sorts of wildass promises and statements of what he'd do as president, with Hillary not going the lying/naive route on what she'd do just to get votes. She knew better than Obama did what was possible and what it would require--because she'd already been there. I admire her, in particular, for not saying she'd go anywhere and talk to anyone, as Obama said, gaining votes from the naive--because she knew you couldn't really conduct the nation's business that way. The naive Obama was playing on the naive electorate.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[sr71plt]

Apples and horse turds, the existing law wasn't in existence for centuries. She broke the law.

Which law? I think your problem here is that, in terms of law, you aren't going to find ones that will stick.

Although I can agree that she shouldn't get to decide what she can delete from her private e-mail account and what she can't while she's a government official, I think we're going to find out that, in reality, she could--and did--and that there's no law yet to do anything to her legally for that.

So, at the start of convincingly saying she broke the law, you really need to specify what law(s). To do that, you'd need to do the research. I doubt you'll do that either.

 

[lovecraft68]

If they were her private e-mails there is an entire gray area in the law concerning limits on intellectual property and as of right now I think it would stand that if its in her e-mail regardless of work or not she can do what she wants.

 

[Busybody]

Which law? I think your problem here is that, in terms of law, you aren't going to find ones that will stick.

Although I can agree that she shouldn't get to decide what she can delete from her private e-mail account and what she can't while she's a government official, I think we're going to find out that, in reality, she could--and did--and that there's no law yet to do anything to her legally for that.

So, at the start of convincingly saying she broke the law, you really need to specify what law(s). To do that, you'd need to do the research. I doubt you'll do that either.

she signed a statement (or was required to do so, no one has actually said if she did) upon leaving State that she gave em ALL TEH EMAILS etc...on penalty of FELONY

did she sign? if yes, her saying she deleted 30K is a crime

if she didn't, its a crime

 

[RjThoughts]

If they were her private e-mails there is an entire gray area in the law concerning limits on intellectual property and as of right now I think it would stand that if its in her e-mail regardless of work or not she can do what she wants.

But come on, this is not the Clinton who we'd love to read the personal e-mails from...

 

[lovecraft68]

But come on, this is not the Clinton who we'd love to read the personal e-mails from...

You never know, Monica might have went down on her too....

 

[Sean Renaud]

It really takes being both a U.S. senator and a governor (and a business CEO), I think. The job is tough because you both have to juggle a bureaucracy (what governors do) and get your program legislated (what senators do)--and it always helps to have been under pressure to do it with some form of profit (what business CEOs have to face). I expected Hillary to run for governor of New York rather than take the secretary of state job to pin all of the qualifications down even in the voters' eyes. (I'm fairly sure that she got the needed experience already from inside the White House, but I don't think that voters generally understood who was doing what during Bill's eight years there.)

What really irritated me in the primary campaign was Obama making all sorts of wildass promises and statements of what he'd do as president, with Hillary not going the lying/naive route on what she'd do just to get votes. She knew better than Obama did what was possible and what it would require--because she'd already been there. I admire her, in particular, for not saying she'd go anywhere and talk to anyone, as Obama said, gaining votes from the naive--because she knew you couldn't really conduct the nation's business that way. The naive Obama was playing on the naive electorate.

I imagine CEOs make terrible presidents. People who don't have to negotiate and are running something for a profit instead of the people are the absolute last people that should run a country.

Sorry son, you're wrong. She doesn't get to decide.

Funny, seems like she did and we all know nothing will happen. And if we ran an audit we both know every single government official did the same. Her goof was that she used her private email for government work. So far not a single person has claimed that there would be any conflict if she'd had two devices and just erased the non-government one. And the only reason we're even talking about that much is a desperation to find something to use on her from Bengazi and no matter how many times you fail you'll just try.

 

[Busybody]

Two yrs and they dont know/say? YOU CAN ASSUME SHE IS GUILTY OF A FELONY

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki couldn’t tell reporters on Thursday if Hillary Clinton signed an official records form presented to all employees as they leave the department — a crucial question in determining whether the former Secretary of State committed a felony by failing to turn over government e-mail records. Former Department of Justice lawyer and National Review contributing editor Shannen Coffin noted this week that Clinton should have signed form OF-109 as part of her standard exit from the department. That form declares that she turned over all relevant records at the time of her departure — and stipulates that any failure to do so could result in felony fines and jail times. Clinton did not turn over her government communications to the State Department until asked for them late last year. “A former DOJ attorney has asked if, under department policy, Secretary Clinton — like all officials here in this building, when they depart or separate from this office, has to sign something called a form OF-109,” a reporter asked Psaki on Thursday. “It’s a separation statement declaring that when you leave office, you turn over not just classified materials, but any documents for official purposes.


Did she sign –” “I think this has been asked,” Psaki interrupted. “It was more than two years ago. I don’t have an update on that specific question at this point.”

 

[Busybody]

there is nothing left to say

if she signed, she is a FELON in waiting

if she didn't, she is as well

Did she sign –” “I think this has been asked,” Psaki interrupted. “It was more than two years ago. I don’t have an update on that specific question at this point.”

 

[Adre]

I haven't followed this mess, but has the original poster (and resident legal and constitutional expert) proved his thread title yet?

 

[cowslinger64]

I haven't followed this mess, but has the original poster (and resident legal and constitutional expert) proved his thread title yet?

Of course.. He completed his thorough investigation and posted his Vettefacts.. You may have missed them.. I seem to have missed them in his Pelosi broke the law thread.

 

[possum123]

Which law? I think your problem here is that, in terms of law, you aren't going to find ones that will stick.

Although I can agree that she shouldn't get to decide what she can delete from her private e-mail account and what she can't while she's a government official, I think we're going to find out that, in reality, she could--and did--and that there's no law yet to do anything to her legally for that.

So, at the start of convincingly saying she broke the law, you really need to specify what law(s). To do that, you'd need to do the research. I doubt you'll do that either.

It wouldn't matter is she broke a law or didn't break a law. There are people in the U.S. that are free to do as they want. She is one of them. She has already broken so many laws that she is immune to them. I would say she does not know there is such a thing as laws. If she does she thinks they are for the peons, not the ruling class.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Adre]

Of course.. He completed his thorough investigation and posted his Vettefacts.. You may have missed them.. I seem to have missed them in his Pelosi broke the law thread.

As I suspected. Nothing on earth moves faster than Vetteman deserting a failed accusation.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

The National Archives and Records Administration has standing regulations mandating that agencies allowing their employees to conduct official business on personal email accounts had to ensure that any records sent on private email systems were preserved “in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”

In a 2011 State Department cable Hillary Clinton warned State Department employees not to use private email accounts to conduct government business, citing security concerns.

See Foreign Affairs Manual, 12 FAM 544.3 Electronic Transmission Via the Internet
(CTS-117; 11-04-2005)

Details here:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf

News report here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...m-clinton-state-department-office-barred-use/

Thanks for proving me right.

 

[sr71plt]

The National Archives and Records Administration

The State Department is in the group of Intelligence Community agencies exempt from this (and a good many other government regulations).

That said (and I just wrote a long post on this that the Web site ate), if I was going after her on this, I'd go to what she signed to have top-level security clearances as secretary of state. What I signed for clearances specified I would be prosecuted legally for placing classified material outside of approved government channels (a former CIA director was recently nailed for doing this). That prosecution would be based on what the individual agreed to when she/he got the clearances. Rights are legally given up in this process.

She's already admitted to putting government business in the private e-mail account, so the ship on that has sailed farther than the discussion input by some one this forum have. The question is what is in the 30,000 plus e-mails she's turned over to the government. And none of us here know what's in there yet, so any yammering about it is just partisan flack thrown up in the air. We won't know what is in the 30,000 messages that have been deleted (unless the government wants to get into the means it has to pull those back up--nothing in cyberspace truly dies), and the ship on that has probably sailed as well--in legal terms.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[sr71plt]

Show me the law that exempts the state department from regulations requiring government backup of their records. Show me the exemption the State Department has from it's own regulation, which I posted, and Hillary Clinton warned State Department personnel to obey.

Frankly I don't care what you think. You've shown you're going to choose to be blind to anything that doesn't serve your bitter bile. I don't feel the need to prove a damn thing to you. I'll state what I know and let it float as it will--and we'll see how it all pans out, won't we? (although I'll bet you'll choose to forget it).

The fact is that the Intelligence Community agencies are exempt from that and other laws. You choosing not to believe it doesn't change the reality one iota.

 

[unregistered]

 

[sr71plt]

The State Department isn't exempt, your bullshit notwithstanding. You asked me to produce the law, I did so, and I produced the State Department's own regulations, and an article referring to Hillary's own cable warning her own personnel not to use private email for government business. You aren't going to produce it, because you can't. So, as far as how it will all pan out...it turns out that you're far from golden on this issue.

Yep, I believe there's a State Department regulation--and I've already posted that's what they should go after her on, which puts me a whole lot more objective on this than you'll ever be--which is why I'm just tuning you out now. I don't come on the forums to entertain the type of crap you spew. (I don't see where you connected the the law with the regulation, though. But I'll let that pass, because you've lost all credibility with me anyway.)