Why can't she simply release it herself? After all, she owned the box it was on. Also, how can we be sure that everything the DoS has - is everything she sent? What if she sent an email to someone that's outside of the DoSs email system? How does that get entered into the record? More importantly, we (the citizens) own that email - how and why did she get to determine what does and does not get released? Just hope she didn't break any records keeping laws.
Why is HRC relying on the DoS to release her email traffic?
- Thread starter EERs 3:16
- Start date
Because it could be argued that it is property of the government, not hers. (you answered your own question). I think she just stated yesterday that she had no problem with them releasing everything. Of course they will have to comb through the classifications.
Would you release e-mails from a previous employer without consultation?
Would you release e-mails from a previous employer without consultation?
It is property of the gov't - there's no arguing about it. And again, how do we know that everything is being released and turned over? Do you know what was and was not deleted? Can she really be trusted?
It wouldn't be an issue, because, unlike HRC - I use my work email for all official communications.
It wouldn't be an issue, because, unlike HRC - I use my work email for all official communications.
Re: Country, you disappoint , I think you are smarter and know why**
Yes, absolutely. Now she is willing to release everything she has. The State Dept. can release anything it has. Any communication by her/from her, in her official capacity is property of the government.
I would hope every leader this country has is strategic (some say cagey, some say dirty) in their thinking. Never for the purpose of illegally hiding stuff, but for putting the best interest of this country first.
Yes, absolutely. Now she is willing to release everything she has. The State Dept. can release anything it has. Any communication by her/from her, in her official capacity is property of the government.
I would hope every leader this country has is strategic (some say cagey, some say dirty) in their thinking. Never for the purpose of illegally hiding stuff, but for putting the best interest of this country first.
We don't. Which, from an accountability perspective is why official email should be used(I've mentioned a number of security concerns with her actions as well), although it wasn't official policy when she was in office.
Nope, which obviously goes back to the accountability problem.
No. But this isn't a trait that's unique to her or her party. If there are any politicians on the federal level that can be trusted, they are in the minority by a wide margin.
By everything, do you mean "everything that has been sanitized of anything illegal, embarrassing, and/politically inconvenient"? I don't hate Hillary like most of the people on here, and think that she would be WAY better than the last two idiots, but if you think literally all of her emails will be turned over, unedited, that is probably not going to happen.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Federal Records Act of 1950 states:
§ 3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency's activities.
in short, last year the FRA was updated to include wording for e-mail but the Dept of State already had their own guidelines set in place: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf
so HC did what every single other Sec of State did and used a personal e-mail acct...no problem, but you have to turn over those e-mail for record keeping, which she didn't until it was requested. So if the FRA is ambiguous in its definition of records, then wouldn't you think the Sec of State would know her agencie's own policies that have been in place for the duration of her term regarding the keeping of e-mail as records? i'm not trying to hate on HC either, but this is yet another example of so-called leaders behaving badly...and nothing will come of it.
anyone work for the dept of state in the IT field to verify this btw?
from abc news
§ 3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency's activities.
in short, last year the FRA was updated to include wording for e-mail but the Dept of State already had their own guidelines set in place: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf
so HC did what every single other Sec of State did and used a personal e-mail acct...no problem, but you have to turn over those e-mail for record keeping, which she didn't until it was requested. So if the FRA is ambiguous in its definition of records, then wouldn't you think the Sec of State would know her agencie's own policies that have been in place for the duration of her term regarding the keeping of e-mail as records? i'm not trying to hate on HC either, but this is yet another example of so-called leaders behaving badly...and nothing will come of it.
anyone work for the dept of state in the IT field to verify this btw?
from abc news