TheRef65 wrote:
TheForge wrote:
I think they should all be trotted out. But if you can't see the difference between using a gmail account for convenience because the
DOS IT infrastructure was not in line with current technological advances and setting up a server when these prior issues were mitigated, I cannot help you.
As I stated, the intent was to avoid FOIA. She was instructed on new policy that was put in place to address prior SOS from doing this yet did it anyways. That alone is a clear line.
Texting while driving was once accepted. Lets say it is still legal and I continue to do it and get in a accident. I cannot be found guilty of driving while texting. Sure, there are other violations you could find. But lets day the day after my accident, society deems it a danger and passes a law about texting and driving that goes in effect immediately. The law is broadcast and communicated adequately. My employer even instructs me on the law for cases where I use my vehicle or a company vehicle for company business. Yet a week later, there I am texting and driving. A coworker gets in an accident and evidence shows he was texting and driving. Well now he can be found guilty of it. Saying it wasn't enforced the prior is not a valid excuse.
Why you Hillary supporters can't see this I do not know. So maybe I comment from one of the foremost experts on Gov't Information and Disclosure policy will help you.
Dan Metcalf, spent more than a quarter-century as founding director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy, effectively serving as the federal government’s chief information-disclosure “guru.”
To be sure, this cannot as a practical matter be absolute. When
Obama administration officials came into office in 2009, the Federal Records Act certainly allowed room for the occasional use of a personal email account for official business where necessary—such as when a secretary of state understandably must deal with a crisis around the world in the middle of the night while an official email device might not be readily at hand. That just makes sense. But even then, in such an
exceptional situation, the F
ederal Records Act’s documentation and preservation requirements still called upon that official (or a staff assistant) to forward any such email into the State Department’s official records system, where it would have been located otherwise.
This appears to be exactly what former Secretary of State Colin Powell did during his tenure, just as other high-level government officials may do (or are supposed to do) under such exceptional circumstances during their times in office.
Notwithstanding Secretary Clinton’s sweeping claims to the contrary, there actually is no indication in any of the public discussions of this “scandal” that anyone other than she managed to do what she did (or didn’t) do as a federal official. Read more:
http://www.politico.com/...116116#ixzz49gxLZAyz Follow us:
@politico on Twitter |
Politico on FacebookSo if all of this is new technology, how in the world did other SOS's engage in emergencies without e-mail. Please, I'm sure this has been going on with other methods of communication prior to this. The convenience argument is bullshit. If you think this is isolated to Clinton then I'm sorry, I can't help you.
What in my question indicate that I am a Hillary supporter? Did I say she should be excused from the rules? Did I say this was acceptable behavior? I would like to see equal vitriol. If it's wrong for one then it's wrong for all and they should be punished according to the rules and the severity of the crime.
I never said they didn't communicate without email. To explain the IT environment of the federal gov't in 2005, I can explain. I worked as a consultant at the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the Dept of Interior. The federal gov't had shut down internet access to all agencies that were not mission specific for a brief period with the Bureau of Indian Affairs being last because they were the reason for the shutdown. We as consultants had to use air cards to check our emails.
The IG report and this article I just provided give you all the guidance a reasonable person would need to know that the rules prior to Obama allowed rare exceptions and the rules were changed for the better and communicated to Clinton and staff. As others have pointed out, the rules were very black and white.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? My only logic could be you are a Clinton supporter. And how do I know this? You have been at odds with me in most topics. Admitting that she is the scum of the earth who doesn't think rules apply to her who may have violated law means 4 years of Trump. You don't want that, so you are grasping at straws to argue that this isn't any different.
"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden