B
Buster Bluth
Guest
Yeah weren't the rules in Clinton's situation enacted in 2009?
2016 Presidential Horse Race
- Thread starter DomeX2 eNVy
- Start date
From what I've read. They were enacted after she left her position. I think Kerry will be the first to have to follow the new rules.
kmoose
Banned
- Messages
- 10,298
- Reaction score
- 1,181
The FOIA rules have been around for a long time. Emails sent from/to/through a personal email account, that have anything to do with Government business, must be transferred to a Government server within 20 days, in order to create a public record.
C
Cackalacky
Guest
I could be wrong but the 14th Amendment specifically states anchor babies are US citizens. That's actually in the constitution as far as I know. 54% of Americans oppose that. IIRC it was passed in 1868? It should not be a fringe issue. It's been standard operating procedure for 150+ years. Am I to understand you disagree with actual Constitution Mr. libertarian????
Last edited:
kmoose
Banned
- Messages
- 10,298
- Reaction score
- 1,181
No, it wouldn't. Just like it isn't important to Clinton supporters now. It's "professional" politics, and it is one of the reasons that our government is a hollow shell of what it used to be.
kmoose
Banned
- Messages
- 10,298
- Reaction score
- 1,181
I could be wrong but the 14th Amendment specifically states anchor babies are US citizens. That's actually in the constitution as far as I know. 54% of Americans oppose that. IIRC it was passed in 1868? It should not be a fringe issue. It's been standard operating procedure for 150+ years. Am I to understand you disagree with actual Constitution Mr. libertarian????
Why is it always such a surprise that people disagree with certain sections of the Constitution? It's been standard operating procedure for 150 years, correct. But the world has changed in that 150 years, and maybe it is time for the Constitution to get tweaked, too?
pkt77242
IPA Man
- Messages
- 10,805
- Reaction score
- 719
Hey if we are tweaking the Constitution can we tweak gun rights?
scUM Hater
Live to see scUM lose.
- Messages
- 2,438
- Reaction score
- 145
Oh no you didn't............all hell 8s about to break loose.
Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk
Lol. They'll be a riot of epic proportions if that was to even be brought up.
connor_in
Oh Yeeaah!!!
- Messages
- 11,433
- Reaction score
- 1,006
Oct. 2, 2009: The U.S. Code of federal regulations on handling electronic records is updated: “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.” The responsibility for making and preserving the records is assigned to “the head of each federal agency.”
Please note that this does not even discuss the handling of classified information.
C
Cackalacky
Guest
It's not surprising hence my wink. Just giving our vocal Libertarian another point to maybe think about.
But in reality the amendments are usually added not removed. If a person born in America is entitled to citizenship by the a constitution, I don't see that being able to be challenged enough to remove the statement from the amendment. It's all inclusive for a purpose.
Was what she did any different from what CP did? Shouldn't he fall under the same scrutiny?
connor_in
Oh Yeeaah!!!
- Messages
- 11,433
- Reaction score
- 1,006
Was CP the SOS any time after Oct. 2, 2009?
pkt77242
IPA Man
- Messages
- 10,805
- Reaction score
- 719
The thing is the first part isn't what most people are focused on with Clinton. The second part is much more important and might pertain to Colin Powell as well (might because I have no idea what the rule was back when he was the Secretary of State).
Ultimate Penn St. Hater
Go Irish!
- Messages
- 11,214
- Reaction score
- 377
Yeah, but the Founding Fathers envisioned the need for machine guns to protect our homes.
connor_in
Oh Yeeaah!!!
- Messages
- 11,433
- Reaction score
- 1,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is my new favorite GIF <a href="http://t.co/N942LNSSbI">pic.twitter.com/N942LNSSbI</a></p>— Hayes Brown (@HayesBrown) <a href="https://twitter.com/HayesBrown/status/633760360898658305">August 18, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Yes to the first. No to the second.
Colin Powell resigned as Sec State Jan 26, 2005. President Obama issued Executive Order 13526 dealing with Confidential Documents Security in Dec 2009. NARA, National Records and Archives Administration issued an Email PRESERVATION directive also in 2009. Both orders were 4 years AFTER Powell left office. Both applied to Clinton.
Powell DID use personal email but NEVER used a personal SERVER much less a server located in unsecured site, the bathroom closet of a mom and pop computer service. She did.
Powell was not required to furnish documents to a Congrssional Hearing. She did.
Powell did not testify under oath before a federal judge that that he had no classified documents on his personal server. She did. And two government inspector generals have found classified documents on her server.
Powell did claim he had personal documents that no auditor could see. She did.
Clinton's staff has brought up Powell as a straw man knowing that the issues are not remotely comparable. It,s an attempt to obfuscate and deflect.
It's like you coming home with a bad test grade or bad report card and telling your parents "All the other kids did the same as me." Your parents didn't bumpy that crap, did they. Your grades, your actions apply to you. Try telling a judge that other people roll through stop signs or speed 10 miles over the limit and the law should apply to them. The judge is still going to find you guilty and fine you as you were the one caught breaking the law.
Nico,
CNN is all over this story.
Bob Woodard, who brought down the Nixon Administration NOT for a burglary but for the Cover Up, is all over this story.
USAToday is all over this story.
None of these entities are part of the vague "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" that Hillary is once again claiming is responsible for HER ISSUES.
The original story of Hillary's personal server was broken by The York Times, again not one known to be a right wing rag.
CNN is all over this story.
Bob Woodard, who brought down the Nixon Administration NOT for a burglary but for the Cover Up, is all over this story.
USAToday is all over this story.
None of these entities are part of the vague "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" that Hillary is once again claiming is responsible for HER ISSUES.
The original story of Hillary's personal server was broken by The York Times, again not one known to be a right wing rag.
Last edited:
Clinton's shaky email defenses: Column
Jenna Adamson USAToday 5:11 p.m. EDT August 17, 2015
Campaign proves she doesn't lie by citing fact-checkers who point to clever deceptions.
After Hillary Clinton provided her much-discussed private server to the proper authorities last week, her campaign sent out an email blast to supporters and posted on its website a fascinating briefing to bring all the “facts” about the email "nonsense" together. Yet, the links the briefing provided to clear Clinton’s good name are a bit curious.
If you follow them, you'll find that when Clinton is given every benefit of the doubt, she is innocent of specific deliberate falsehoods. At the same time, the links indict her for a campaign of deliberately misleading statements, dating to a news conference in March. Consider some of the key questions, and the answers provided by the fact-checking websites cited by the Clinton campaign (emphasis added in boldface italics):
USA TODAY
Fact-checking Hillary: Column
Was using a private email account allowed?
"Yes,” the campaign said, citing a PolitiFact post. Here's what Politifact found:
“We interviewed several experts on government transparency and records preservation. While Clinton might be able to put together a case that she 'complied' with the rules, experts said her actions are nevertheless hard to defend.”
“It seems she didn’t break a rule simply by using a personal email to conduct business. Rather, by using personal emails exclusively, she skirted the rules governing federal records management."
“(Former Justice Department official Daniel) Metcalfe pointed to Clinton’s use of the word ‘allowed’ and ‘opted’ throughout her press conference, when referring to her decision to use private email. He said both words give the false impression that the law and its proper implementation presented her with a choice. She might have been ‘allowed’ to use only a private email account in that no one stopped her, Metcalfe said, but that’s not the same thing as lawfully complying with rules.”
What about the allegation that Clinton used multiple secret email addresses?
Clarifying the “honest misunderstanding” surrounding the issue, the Clinton campaign cited a FactCheck.org post. Said FactCheck:
“This doesn’t prove, of course, that Clinton did not have more than one @clintonemail.com address while secretary of State. All four experts told us the only way to know for sure how many @clintonemail.com accounts Clinton had while in office is to conduct a forensic examination of her mail server.
Did Clinton delete any emails while facing a subpoena?
"No,” the campaign claimed.Technically true, said a FactCheck.org post, if Clinton meant by “I’ve never had a subpoena” that the emails were deleted before she received the subpoena.
The FactCheck post continued:
“We asked the Clinton campaign what she meant when she said that she 'didn’t have to turn over anything' to the State Department. ... Clinton should have preserved the emails before she left office. The State Department policy on preserving emails dates to 1995 after the National Archives and Records Administration issued government-wide regulations on emails. … In 2009, NARA specifically addressed the issue of emails ‘created or received outside of official electronic systems maintained’ by the federal government, according to Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle and a former director of litigation at the National Archives.”
“Clinton has taken the position that she complied with department policy because ‘the vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.’ Baron, in his letter to the Judiciary Committee, disagreed. He said it is an ‘erroneous assumption’ that emails ‘sent to or received from a .gov address are being automatically preserved somewhere in a federal agency.’ He said, ‘Very few federal agencies have implemented an automated system for archiving email.’ ”
“In her (July 7 CNN) interview, Clinton also said that ‘previous secretaries of State have said they did the same thing.’ … Although (Colin) Powell did acknowledge that he used personal email for official business, there’s no evidence that he — or any other previous secretary of State — maintained emails on a personal server.”
“She later said, ‘I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.’ She did not have one device for sending emails. She had two — a BlackBerry and an iPad — according to the Clinton emails released so far by the State Department.”
A second link, this time from PolitiFact, explained that “the timeline generally supports Clinton’s contention. ... She deleted emails in fall 2014 after she was asked to turn over email related to Benghazi. The official subpoena didn’t come until March 2015,” but…
“Clinton’s choice of words is still somewhat misleading, especially to people who haven’t followed the controversy. ‘I’ve never had a subpoena’ implies that up to the day of the (Jul 7 CNN) interview, she has not received a subpoena related to her emails, which is incorrect. Additionally, in the months when she was sifting through these emails, there was a pending formal request — though not an official subpoena — for the emails. So she knew at the time that the State Department and the Benghazi Committee wanted to look at them.”
The fact that the Clinton campaign has been forced to cite websites that conclude the candidate did everything to mislead, confuse and otherwise obscure the truth, short of outright falsehoods, suggests there's more to this story than a lot of nonsense.
Jenna Adamson USAToday 5:11 p.m. EDT August 17, 2015
Campaign proves she doesn't lie by citing fact-checkers who point to clever deceptions.
After Hillary Clinton provided her much-discussed private server to the proper authorities last week, her campaign sent out an email blast to supporters and posted on its website a fascinating briefing to bring all the “facts” about the email "nonsense" together. Yet, the links the briefing provided to clear Clinton’s good name are a bit curious.
If you follow them, you'll find that when Clinton is given every benefit of the doubt, she is innocent of specific deliberate falsehoods. At the same time, the links indict her for a campaign of deliberately misleading statements, dating to a news conference in March. Consider some of the key questions, and the answers provided by the fact-checking websites cited by the Clinton campaign (emphasis added in boldface italics):
USA TODAY
Fact-checking Hillary: Column
Was using a private email account allowed?
"Yes,” the campaign said, citing a PolitiFact post. Here's what Politifact found:
“We interviewed several experts on government transparency and records preservation. While Clinton might be able to put together a case that she 'complied' with the rules, experts said her actions are nevertheless hard to defend.”
“It seems she didn’t break a rule simply by using a personal email to conduct business. Rather, by using personal emails exclusively, she skirted the rules governing federal records management."
“(Former Justice Department official Daniel) Metcalfe pointed to Clinton’s use of the word ‘allowed’ and ‘opted’ throughout her press conference, when referring to her decision to use private email. He said both words give the false impression that the law and its proper implementation presented her with a choice. She might have been ‘allowed’ to use only a private email account in that no one stopped her, Metcalfe said, but that’s not the same thing as lawfully complying with rules.”
What about the allegation that Clinton used multiple secret email addresses?
Clarifying the “honest misunderstanding” surrounding the issue, the Clinton campaign cited a FactCheck.org post. Said FactCheck:
“This doesn’t prove, of course, that Clinton did not have more than one @clintonemail.com address while secretary of State. All four experts told us the only way to know for sure how many @clintonemail.com accounts Clinton had while in office is to conduct a forensic examination of her mail server.
Did Clinton delete any emails while facing a subpoena?
"No,” the campaign claimed.Technically true, said a FactCheck.org post, if Clinton meant by “I’ve never had a subpoena” that the emails were deleted before she received the subpoena.
The FactCheck post continued:
“We asked the Clinton campaign what she meant when she said that she 'didn’t have to turn over anything' to the State Department. ... Clinton should have preserved the emails before she left office. The State Department policy on preserving emails dates to 1995 after the National Archives and Records Administration issued government-wide regulations on emails. … In 2009, NARA specifically addressed the issue of emails ‘created or received outside of official electronic systems maintained’ by the federal government, according to Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle and a former director of litigation at the National Archives.”
“Clinton has taken the position that she complied with department policy because ‘the vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.’ Baron, in his letter to the Judiciary Committee, disagreed. He said it is an ‘erroneous assumption’ that emails ‘sent to or received from a .gov address are being automatically preserved somewhere in a federal agency.’ He said, ‘Very few federal agencies have implemented an automated system for archiving email.’ ”
“In her (July 7 CNN) interview, Clinton also said that ‘previous secretaries of State have said they did the same thing.’ … Although (Colin) Powell did acknowledge that he used personal email for official business, there’s no evidence that he — or any other previous secretary of State — maintained emails on a personal server.”
“She later said, ‘I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.’ She did not have one device for sending emails. She had two — a BlackBerry and an iPad — according to the Clinton emails released so far by the State Department.”
A second link, this time from PolitiFact, explained that “the timeline generally supports Clinton’s contention. ... She deleted emails in fall 2014 after she was asked to turn over email related to Benghazi. The official subpoena didn’t come until March 2015,” but…
“Clinton’s choice of words is still somewhat misleading, especially to people who haven’t followed the controversy. ‘I’ve never had a subpoena’ implies that up to the day of the (Jul 7 CNN) interview, she has not received a subpoena related to her emails, which is incorrect. Additionally, in the months when she was sifting through these emails, there was a pending formal request — though not an official subpoena — for the emails. So she knew at the time that the State Department and the Benghazi Committee wanted to look at them.”
The fact that the Clinton campaign has been forced to cite websites that conclude the candidate did everything to mislead, confuse and otherwise obscure the truth, short of outright falsehoods, suggests there's more to this story than a lot of nonsense.
Last edited:
kmoose
Banned
- Messages
- 10,298
- Reaction score
- 1,181
A purpose that has become antiquated as time has gone by and circumstances have changed so drastically. No one could have envisioned, in 1868, that hundreds of thousands of people might flood across the border, creating an incredible financial strain on the government. If they had envisioned it, then I think that they would have worded it differently. But now I am guessing as to the intent of people from 150 years ago... How about if the amendment is just amended to say, "....all persons born in the United States, to legal residents, or naturalized in the United States........"
Wild Bill
Well-known member
- Messages
- 5,519
- Reaction score
- 3,266
The citizenship clause is open to interpretation. The SCOTUS gave a broad interpretation in the Wong Kim case but they did NOT contemplate the citizenship status of children born to illegal immigrants. Given the quote below from a Senator who drafted the amendment, it does not appear their intent was to be "all inclusive" (of course his statement is open to interpretation as well).
The broad interpretation is concerning given the reason illegal immigrants prefer US citizenship for their children - they want the benefits. Unfortunately, those benefits are at the expense of the taxpayer.
#1rish
Count On Me
- Messages
- 2,507
- Reaction score
- 667
From the same conference:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T2OJwsit0WY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Fast forward to 1:01.
"You were the official in charge of it, did you wipe your server?" Clinton: "Like with a cloth or something? I don't know how it works digitally at all."
WHAT.
C
Cackalacky
Guest
IDK what to say. EVERYTHING from the founding fathers is open to interpretation simply because our society is drastically different, but the ideals of this country are not. And historically, the SCOTUS overturned Dredd Scott and has ruled for this interpretation since. IDK of another case where they ruled against the fact that any person born in the US is considered a citizen. I guess you could call it broad but I call it consistent. Andrew Johnson and many others involved with the passing of the amendment agreed to it with the intent to establish children, both former slaves and others, as citizens as well as implement a policy to protect people living in the federally controlled southern states, since they were arguably not technically states during reconstruction.
I understand that taxpayer money paying for illegal immigrants is concerning. I share that, but the interpretation of that Amendment has been remarkably consistent since the overturning of Dredd Scott. I used all inclusive to mean that it protected all people born in the US, without prejudice and that the lawfulness of their residency was not an issue.
I don't think this amendment will be challenged or modified, although with this current SCOTUS anything is possible. It would be interesting to see if it could be done. What definitely needs to happen is a solution for limiting illegal immigration should be developed, no question.
GATTACA!
It's about to get gross
- Messages
- 15,113
- Reaction score
- 12,948
What terrible parents these immigrants must be. They want a job so they can support their family (feed, clothe, shelter).
The only benefit they want is an opportunity for a better life. The only crime they've committed is crossing a border so their family can survive and live a better life. If we are going to kick out everyone who has committed any sort of crime, let's start with the politicians and their white-collar crime. Then let's kick out the 50% or more of the US citizens who have ever smoked pot or used another illegal drug. Then let's kick out all the US citizens who drank alcohol before they were of legal age. Then kick out all the US citizens who have driven faster than the speed limit. There won't be many of us "pure" citizens left.
Now if we have an immigrant that has actually been convicted (after a fiar trial) of committing a violent crime then imprison them here or return them to their home country for imprisonment.
I have seen no evidence that Mexican immigrants to the US are anymore prone to committing violent crimes than are US citizens. I, for one, would trade most of our politicians (both Democrat and Republican) for a few honest, hard-working Mexican immigrants looking to improve their lot in life. I would also support imprisoning those (immigrant and citizen alike) who have committed violent crimes.
Wild Bill
Well-known member
- Messages
- 5,519
- Reaction score
- 3,266
And this is why we can't have a real debate about immigration.
kmoose
Banned
- Messages
- 10,298
- Reaction score
- 1,181
Andrew Johnson vigorously opposed the 14th amendment.