LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Experts: Hillary Broke The Law

query said:
In comments on articles about this the administration apologists are kicking into full-court-press Learner-gate mode. The favorite talking point appears to be, "Not ALL emails rise to the level of records required to be retained by law."

Sure, there is probably no requirement to keep an email asking a co-worker what to bring them back from chipotle. As if that is what we are talking about. Nearly all communications are going to touch on some portion of government activity and ALL of those must be retained and ALL are discoverable. If you are aware that someone is looking into your associations with certain individuals even the chipotle email destruction is obstruction.
Click to expand...

The GOP has obstructed the president since he was elected...when your concern about that becomes apparent, then your outrage at this might hold water.
 
I cannot imagine anyone who tried to have a conversation with you engaging you to do so, but sometimes you come across like some operative for Media Matters or organizing for America, given the daily talking points in a briefing and told to find ways to insert them into discussions on the web.

Complete non-sequiters.
 
query said:
I cannot imagine anyone who tried to have a conversation with you engaging you to do so, but sometimes you come across like some operative for Media Matters or organizing for America, given the daily talking points in a briefing and told to find ways to insert them into discussions on the web.

Complete non-sequiters.
Click to expand...

Holy shit.. You've reached vettes total lack of self awareness level.

What I said fit perfectly into the hypocrisy of people just like you.

You spelled non sequitur wrong, BTW.
 
query said:
In comments on articles about this the administration apologists are kicking into full-court-press Learner-gate mode. The favorite talking point appears to be, "Not ALL emails rise to the level of records required to be retained by law."

Sure, there is probably no requirement to keep an email asking a co-worker what to bring them back from chipotle. As if that is what we are talking about. Nearly all communications are going to touch on some portion of government activity and ALL of those must be retained and ALL are discoverable. If you are aware that someone is looking into your associations with certain individuals even the chipotle email destruction is obstruction.
Click to expand...

but BEFORE she was appointed SOS....she set up email account and ALL the emails went there

ALL
 
Meanwhile, Gen Betray US stands before a JUDGE

Why?

WE KNOW WHY

And its NOT nearly as bad as what CUNTCLINTON did

Her deliberate concealment of federal records raises questions under the federal criminal code. Plenty of lawyers, including some who have a lot of experience with federal-records laws, have opined that Hillary Clinton did not “technically” violate the law. Reasonable minds may disagree, but that conclusion is hard to accept. The Federal Records Act requires the preservation of any official “record,” which is defined functionally to require preservation whenever a record relates to the performance of a federal official’s duties. There is little question that Hillary Clinton was conducting official business on her private e-mail account, and her turning over 55,000 pages of documents only after she left office all but concedes that (but may not concede the full scope of her use of that account). There is also little doubt, given this functional definition, that e-mail has been covered by the Federal Records Act since its adoption by the federal government during the Clinton administration.

As Ian Tuttle correctly notes, the State Department’s own manual has plainly provided, since 1995, that e-mail records must be preserved under the Federal Records Act. So was the use of private e-mail allowed when Clinton was secretary? Well, sure, at least to some extent. I suspect every federal employee has, at some time, used a private e-mail account to conduct business. But that doesn’t excuse failure to comply with the Federal Records Act. Best practices have always been that an employee using a private account for government business has to either print the e-mail (which rarely happens) or copy or forward the e-mail to the employee’s official government e-mail account for preservation.

Those practices, which reflected the law as it existed before Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, were codified by National Archives Regulations in 2009, which required that any records created on private e-mail accounts must be saved to the federal-records system. And Congress confirmed that in 2013, by adopting a prohibition on the use of private e-mail, unless the employee forwards to or copies an official e-mail account within 60 days of the record’s creation. But Mrs. Clinton did something here that went well beyond occasional or incidental use of private e-mail accounts. She eschewed the use of an official account entirely, and deliberately established a private e-mail account, apparently maintained on a server in the Clintons’ New York home. As a result, her e-mails were at no time during her tenure in office subject to the Federal Records Act. (She provided some of the e-mails only after she left office, and only when the Department of State asked for them back.)

As our friends at Judicial Watch will no doubt remind everyone, there were plenty of Freedom of Information Act requests that would have implicated her e-mails. But they were never searched, even though a reasonable search of all responsive federal records must be made in response to FOIA requests. And the records would have been relevant to congressional inquiries as well, including continuing investigations of the Benghazi attacks. Why does that matter? Well, a federal criminal law makes it a felony when any custodian of official government records “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same.” The crime is punishable by up to three years in prison. And interestingly, Congress felt strongly enough about the crime that it included the unusual provision that the perpetrator shall “forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” The requirement for specific intent in this criminal law — “willfully and unlawfully” — and the fact that Loretta Lynch would ultimately decide whether to bring prosecution, makes it doubtful that charges would be filed.


But the better question is how could Hillary Clinton, in light of this prohibition, decide that this was a good (or legal) idea? Setting up a shadow e-mail server to conduct all official business as secretary of state is an action plainly undertaken for the purpose of evading federal-records laws. And Clinton was successful at that, avoiding congressional and citizen demands for review of her record during her term in office. For all we know, she may still be withholding records that ought to be handed over to the State Department and subjected to pre-existing FOIA requests. Unlike the Presidential Records Act, which allows the president a cooling off period before subjecting his records to public review, the Federal Records Act does not allow officials in federal agencies the same grace period. Yet that presidential privilege, at a minimum, is what Hillary Clinton claimed for herself. Could it be said that she also violated a federal criminal prohibition on willfully “concealing” federal records? That certainly is a question that should be examined. —


Shannen Coffin is a contributing editor to National Review. He is a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP and was a senior lawyer in the George W. Bush Justice Department and White House

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414835/did-hillary-commit-felony-shannen-coffin
 
query said:
Because she knows how gov't email works and the youthful yes-men surrounding him and Obama himself were not astute enough to realize she was opting out of using any government servers because she planned to run for president, possibly as soon as 2012, and did not want her opposition to have access to her communications.
Click to expand...
Assuming that's the case, the fact that it was possible to do it and short-circuit the State Dept. email account creation is a much larger issue than the fact that any one individual did it.
Just like the mess around the Lerner emails, it points to a much greater, and systemic, problem in government IT departments.
 
about_average said:
Assuming that's the case, the fact that it was possible to do it and short-circuit the State Dept. email account creation is a much larger issue than the fact that any one individual did it.
Just like the mess around the Lerner emails, it points to a much greater, and systemic, problem in government IT departments.
Click to expand...

no...that isn't the problem

the problem is

dishonest unethical people

who KNOW they will get away with it
 
vetteman said:
She clearly set up this email system with the same kind of malice aforethought that has tainted much of the Clinton team.
Click to expand...

Simon Maloy writes:

The Clinton email story is powered in part by the facts surrounding it, but it also gets a substantial boost from existing and insoluble preconceptions about Hillary specifically and the Clinton machine in general – they’re secretive, Machiavellian, ruthless, and generally willing to do whatever it takes to secure power and advantage. This is, in horrible pundit vernacular, the “narrative” about Hillary, and the mere fact of its existence was cited by Times reporter Michael Schmidt as a justification for writing the story. “There’ve been questions about the Clintons over the years, about their transparency and secrecy, and this feeds into [the] narrative,” he said on Morning Joe.

There’s a maddening instinct among pundits and reporters to see these qualities as somehow uniquely Clintonesque. Part of being a high-level politician is finding ways to thwart transparency and assert control over what bits of information are made public. Jeb Bush is being lauded for his decision to release a trove of emails from his time in office, but like Clinton he used a personal email address, and when he left office he hand-picked which messages would be turned over to the government archives. The problem is universal and thwarts most efforts to fix it. It generally only comes back to bite politicians when they pledge to hold themselves to higher standards (Barack Obama, for example) or, like Clinton, they’re locked in constant battle with an existing media narrative.

Pundits also tend to view the Clinton narrative as the most significant thing about Hillary. This email flap is precisely the type of story that pundits relish because it has little to do with policy and is basically an invitation for them to vent some spleen and cluck their tongues because “there go the Clintons again.” National Journal’s Ron Fournier wrote a column questioning whether Hillary should be president because, with the Clinton Foundation and email stories, “we’ve had sleazy and stupid—and, now, with these emails, suspicious.” I didn’t think Mitt Romney would be a bad president because he refused to release his tax returns; I thought he would be a bad president because he wanted to cut spending on social programs to finance a tax cut for the rich. In that same way, Hillary’s email practices are interesting and problematic, but they don’t say a whole lot about what she’d do to reduce income inequality or prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

I’m all for forcing the Clintons out of their gray-area crouch, but approaching every Clinton story as a mega-scandal-in-waiting because it “feeds into the narrative” is ultimately counterproductive. And as the New Yorker’s John Cassidy notes, the “scandal” as it exists now lacks a juicy and specific example of actual wrongdoing. That’s not to say journalists should stop digging, but let’s maybe try and pace ourselves a bit here and not get carried away. There isn’t even an official Clinton campaign yet and there’s more than enough time to devote to scandals, both real and imagined.
Click to expand...
 
vetteman said:
This is a "protocol" imagined by and set up by the Obama administration to place controls on information they want to keep from the American people. Bibi Netanyahu is free to speak anywhere in America at any time, he doesn't have to ask permission from the President of the United States of anyone else in the White House to do so. The Congress is free to invite anyone to speak before its members. Bibi revealed no classified information, but the American people now know more about what is going on with these negotiations than they knew before his speech, information the President has denied them for no other reason than to protect his naive assumptions about Iran.
Click to expand...


Seems someone that knows better, says you're wrong

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/netanyahu-speech-invitation-a-breach-of-protocol-james-baker-says/



I doubt you'll read it... But here is a common view..

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8130977/netanyahu-speech-explained
 
vetteman said:
Baker, a good man, can't remember an instance because the last time it happened was in 1941 when Winston Churchill was invited to speak to Congress.
Click to expand...

Baker is a NOT a good man

He is an ANTI SEMITE

Remember the comment...FUCK THE JEWS, THEY DONT VOTE FOR US

He is Jimmy Carter with an R
 
vetteman said:
Baker, a good man, can't remember an instance because the last time it happened was in 1941 when Winston Churchill was invited to speak to Congress.
Click to expand...

He was the Secretary of State of the US. YOU are a fat, stupid ignoramus trying to defend equally stupid Republicans. Your opinion is totally without merit. This was a way for the right to stick it to the office of the president.. That you think it's a good idea, shows how little you think of the country you "claim" to have fought for.

Whether it's happened since Churchill or not, the former SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES, under a REPUBLICAN president... Says YOU, are wrong.
 
Vette and bizzydummy on the same page.. I'm sure the equally stupid miles will be along soon. And neverendingderp.
 
Video: Hillary In 2000 Saying She Stopped Using Email Over Fears It Could Be Used By Investigators…


Hmmmm…
 
Same people who thought a traffic jam was a

Huge

Scandal


See no problem with cunt Clinton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
"Sovereign Citizens" and the law
Replies
0
Views
26
Wilson23
W
ll74
Netflix Acquisition Breaks More MAGA Brains
Replies
1
Views
46
briancamdudetenger2018
B
Rightguide
Sinking Drug Boats Is Legal
2 3
Replies
69
Views
411
Saint_Ann
Saint_Ann
RoryN
Stock Markets about to go 24hrs, five days a week.
Replies
3
Views
55
briancamdudetenger2018
B
O
“Nobody is Above the Law.”
Replies
7
Views
58
YDB95
YDB95
Back
Top