Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

House Republican Proposes Bill To Prohibit Use Of Private Email Servers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • House Republican Proposes Bill To Prohibit Use Of Private Email Servers

    New Headline: House Republican Proposes Bill To Prohibit Use Of Private Email Servers

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b050c6c4a2fd88

    But wait….. I thought that Trey Goudy and his special committee were saying it was illegal already. NOW some house Republican wants to make a law that it would be illegal to use a private server. Isn’t that ADMITTING that it was legal when Hillary was using one?

    What’s all the fuss about if it WAS NOT ILLEGAL?
    Homo homini lupus

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    New Headline: House Republican Proposes Bill To Prohibit Use Of Private Email Servers

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b050c6c4a2fd88

    But wait….. I thought that Trey Goudy and his special committee were saying it was illegal already. NOW some house Republican wants to make a law that it would be illegal to use a private server. Isn’t that ADMITTING that it was legal when Hillary was using one?

    What’s all the fuss about if it WAS NOT ILLEGAL?
    It was illegal by government regulations not by law per se. That is, Congress gave government agencies authority by law to control electronic devices and things like computer networks decades ago. But, there is no specific law prohibiting private e-mail server use. Instead, each government agency wrote rules and regulations with the effect of law covering that situation. The State Department had such rules and regulations in place and Hillary ignored those doing what she damn well pleased instead.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      It was illegal by government regulations not by law per se. That is, Congress gave government agencies authority by law to control electronic devices and things like computer networks decades ago. But, there is no specific law prohibiting private e-mail server use. Instead, each government agency wrote rules and regulations with the effect of law covering that situation. The State Department had such rules and regulations in place and Hillary ignored those doing what she damn well pleased instead.
      From an August 24 report

      http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/...ate-email.html

      On CNN’s New Day, State Department spokesman John Kirby said, “We have said in the past, Chris that there was no policy prohibiting the use of a private email account here at the State Department, and that is still a fact. Now, obviously, we have policies in place now that highly discourage that, and you are supposed to use your government account so that there is a constant, permanent record of it, but at the time she was not violating policy….I can tell you that there was no prohibition for her use of this, and we’ve since changed the policy to discourage that greatly, and in fact, the policy is that you have to use your government account for business.”

      Kirby added that he didn’t believe that the policy changed while she was Secretary of State, which means that Hillary Clinton was doing nothing wrong when she used private email.

      In a recent interview, also on CNN, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) admitted that the number of emails that Republicans claim were classified information in Hillary Clinton’s email account was not accurate due to retroactive classification.
      Homo homini lupus

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jannie View Post

        What’s all the fuss about if it WAS NOT ILLEGAL?
        Because it was careless, elitist and not security conscious.
        Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jannie View Post
          From an August 24 report
          Do you really think that one of her people would tell the truth?

          Hillary Clinton blew off the standard information technology security training required of all State Department workers when she headed the department as Secretary of State, the Washington Free Beacon reports.

          The lack of training was revealed after the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a Freedom of Information Act request to see the documentation; the State Department replied it couldn't find any record of Clinton, chief of staff Cheryl Mills, or deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin getting any IT security training, the Free Beacon reports.

          http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hil.../12/id/650311/

          We have already covered this before but I guess you need to look at it again:

          She didn't do the REQUIRED annual IT/Cyber threat training that everyone else has to.

          12 FAM 540 Sensitive but Unclassified Information, first published in 2005 clearly states how AIS is required to be used.

          44 US Code 3101 clearly spells out record management requirements

          Regulations of the National Archives and Records Administration clearly states what has to be kept.

          Comment


          • #6
            So this whole thing has come down to a media witch hunt. I should have expected as much. Clinton definitely looks better as a candidate with Republicans admitting they are attacking her on Benghazi for political reasons and she hasn't broken any laws regarding the private servers.
            First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
              Clinton definitely looks better as a candidate with Republicans admitting they are attacking her on Benghazi for political reasons
              They were investigating the deaths of 4 Americans and numerous other deaths that were attributed to the Innocence of Muslims video that the administration was using to cover up the facts. They discovered that Clinton wasn't supplying the requested email traffic......

              Should they have just said......okay, no problem?

              Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
              and she hasn't broken any laws regarding the private servers.
              She clearly broke the law according to USC 3101

              Comment


              • #8
                Hilary violated security, period.

                This is just window dressing to make it look like it wasn't really a crime for which she should be imprisoned...as you or I would be if we had done it.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah MM, what she did was already Illegal .... not that a Princess like her has to give a damn about the Law.
                  "Why is the Rum gone?"

                  -Captain Jack

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                    Yeah MM, what she did was already Illegal .... not that a Princess like her has to give a damn about the Law.
                    So again, if it was illegal--at what point did it become illegal?--remember Colin Power used private email as Secretary of State, and his communications are irretrievable for historical purposes. What LAW after his time in the office made it illegal?

                    And if it was illegal during Hillary's time in office why now is a Republican proposing a law to make it illegal?

                    Is he just trying to feather his nest with unneeded legislation, or is he proposing a useful law? And is he hoisting the party on its own petard?
                    Homo homini lupus

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not so much illegal as a blatant violation of rules and advice. Lying about it is the worst part IMO... after the massive security breach.
                      SPORTS FREAK/ PANZERBLITZ COMMANDER/ CC2 COMMANDER

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                        So again, if it was illegal--at what point did it become illegal?--remember Colin Power used private email as Secretary of State,
                        So again, it became illegal in the Department of State in November 2005 when 12 FAM 540 Sensitive but Unclassified Information was published.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                          ...So this whole thing has come down to a media witch hunt...
                          Yes.

                          ...I should have expected as much...
                          Yes.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Anything dealing with her is a WITCH hunt IMO .
                            SPORTS FREAK/ PANZERBLITZ COMMANDER/ CC2 COMMANDER

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I wouldn't have introduced the legislation simply because of how morons would read it to mean that she did nothing illegal.

                              Let's explain this:

                              Law is passed.

                              Rules are made by relevant executive agencies to enforce the law

                              Rules are broken.

                              A Violation of the Law Occurred because the policies/rules made to enforce the law were broken.

                              A new law is introduced to Strengthen the legal ramifications against someone who violates the previous law in a specific way.

                              Morons shriek that because a new law was introduced to strengthen the legal ramifications......the violator didn't break the law in the first place.



                              To draw a comparison, the EPA makes policies and guidelines based on existing law. Someone breaks the rule. Can the EPA hold them legally accountable for breaking the law? Is a new law proposed because of an especially egregious breach of the existing guidelines tantamount to saying that the violator didn't commit a crime the first time? Or is it simply laying it thicker if another person violates again?
                              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X