Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Leftus said:
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.
Click to expand...


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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nova Land said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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....
 
Leftus said:
The rules for record-keeping were in existence during her term in office.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/clinton-email-review-wrongdoing/index.html

cnn said:
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."
Click to expand...


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


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:

cnn said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
16.5 said:
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....
Click to expand...


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 said:
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:
Click to expand...

it is absurd to suggest that foia and subpoenas do not extend to documents in the possession of department employees.
 
Leftus said:
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.
Click to expand...


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 said:
<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.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
In post 125, sunmaster claimed the law Clinton violated was the Federal Records Act:

sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

johnny karate said:
Can you quote the exact section of that law that was violated? Thanks.
Click to expand...


Sunmaster replied:

sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...


As johnny then pointed out:

johnny karate said:
... 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.
Click to expand...


At which point sunmaster admitted he didn't know:

sunmaster14 said:
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...
Click to expand...


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

sunmaster14 said:
I don't have time to look for what you ask right now (nor am I inclined to do it anyway)
Click to expand...
 
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 said:
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:
Click to expand...

I love how you cut off the quote in midsentence. It is consistent with your completely disingenuous misinterpretation of my words.
 
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I love how you cut off the quote in midsentence. It is consistent with your completely disingenuous misinterpretation of my words.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Appropriate record keeping systems:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...0e8&node=pt36.3.1236&rgn=div5#se36.3.1236_120

§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.
Click to expand...
 
16.5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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!
Click to expand...

And this adds to the discussion, how?

Charlie Wilkes said:
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?
Click to expand...

Oh, I see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom