How about getting a president that isn't so unpopular he needs protecting from anything and everything?
Because with some crazy people, the fact there even is a president is enough to want to kill him/her. Or the fact that the president is whoever is in that role on a given day when Crazy Person suddenly decides they've had enough of the fact that the US allows people to grow and cut down trees... or allows women to go to school... or allows anyone to own domestic animals... or allows men to walk around without beards or not protect everyone from the Space Aliens, whatever.
Those rules only specified they be stored on gov't systems... I've explained this already.
No, what you've done is continued to avoid the actual issue. Are you really suggesting that all of a secretary of state's sensitive and official communication is with her own staff? That she has no communication with people in the senate, the congress, with other federal agencies? That she has no communication with anyone in the White House (you know, where her boss works), and - as the country's top diplomat - no communication with other diplomats, heads of state, or foreign ministers? No communication with the people in other countries who then turned around and wrote huge checks to her family enterprise? Is that your assessment of how little she did in that role? Or are you really going to keep up the charade that all of her email was with, and only with, people who reported to her at State? If she sent a single email outside of those bounds, then your blanket assertion of her compliance is incorrect. So, do you really think not a single email was sent to her from outside of State? You're convinced that, for example, Blumenthal's emails are all fake? Be specific. He hasn't said the leaked mail was fake, but you seem to know something he doesn't.
There wasn't what?
Any mechanism in place to automatically mirror her correspondence with third parties. None.
No it's not. The debate is not about GENERAL party accuracy. My debate points don't depend on prior partisan accuracy.
So, you'd be all for what the current investigation proposed: handing her server over to completely neutral third party for forensic analysis, and review of her tens of thousands of hidden emails by the same archivists that already review the mixed-with-private emails of other government officials to decide what's relevant as public records? Sounds pretty satisfactory, doesn't it? Woops, too late, her lawyer says that she has deliberately destroyed all of those records with no chance for said archivists to review them, and that they will never let anyone else look at the server.
Until that happens, I'm not going to guess out of my ass.
Except in the ways you already have, which contradict things she's saying in public, you mean.
I originally asked for specific laws, not opinions about them.
The laws that matter? How about the Federal Records Act? It requires federal officials to proactively keep their public documents available for things like FOIA searches. She actively hid her records from such searches, and in fact multiple FOIA requests came and went both during and following her tenure that absolutely would have included correspondence to and from her - but came up dry because she had not provided the records, even after she left office. When a federal official deliberately keeps their records out of public scrutiny, it's a violation of the US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071), a criminal offense.
You're probably going to contend that her violation of that law was magically un-done by her eventual coughing up of her cherry-picked hardcopies when she was hounded, years later, by investigators. No go. This isn't the Presidential Records Act, which provides for a "cooling off" period before those records are subject to FOIA. Her correspondence with people like Blumenthal, or with the entities in Saudi Arabia that handed her millions of dollars, are subject to immediate FOIA scrutiny. She took deliberate actions that made that impossible.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
That's not true. You're just doing your best to play like you really think all of this is just a misunderstanding. It's not, and you know it. I know you've already spent ten seconds and Googled for things like this, but I'll play along if it makes you feel better. Here's just one random first-on-Google example:
I never claimed that. I don't know where you got that idea.
You've speculated that her records were kept correctly (despite what she and everyone else says), and that there's no evidence she's done anything wrong. The implication then, by you, is that she did things correctly - and the ONLY way that could be, is if there was some sort of mechanism in place to do what the 2009 NARA and other rules required. But there wasn't. SHE SAID THERE WASN'T. So you are tap-dancing around the whole "show me proof" thing in order to avoid just plain facing what the woman involved has herself been saying. Why, I can't imagine. Are you working for her or her party?
What's this question have to do with anything? I see no relation.
Yeah, sure. It was someone else hacking your account when you complained that the current people looking at the matter weren't objective and a-political enough for you. It's perfectly reasonable to ask you if you found the prior investigation - which was run by HER party - to be likewise. You're implying it's not, which means you're being hypocritical on the subject. Only the party you don't like can be political in such matters, or only the party you favor can be objective?
Politicians often spin for short-term gain and don't care about fact-checkers much
The politicians doing the spin, here, are the ones relying on the fact that the person they're backing has conveniently destroyed records. The politicians conducting the investigation are relying on the documents SHE cherry-picked, and those are the ones that show the date gaps, a matter which they (unlike her, with tens of thousand of mixed-in emails we'll never see) will be placing right in front of your nose to review. Asserting that they're probably lying as they talk about public records you can review, while proposing the exact opposite about a stridently partisan person who has just been caught avoiding the very rules she said her department employees must all follow, shows how objective you're (not) being.
Where is this rule written?
This has been the case for a long time. Jason Baron, former director of litigation with the National Archives, explains the problem here. He said in an interview that "Clinton’s use of a private server gave her exclusive control, thus preventing the department from having full access to emails she sent and received while a federal employee. Government employees have no right to privacy on government computers and even personal emails are subject to review and perhaps release at the department’s discretion. Setting up a private server to conduct public business inappropriately shifts control of what is accessible to the end user alone rather than allowing the institution to decide threshold questions.” That's been true of federal records for decades: the agency archivists decide what's private, not the person running her official email on a server she's keeping in her home.
When cornered you seem to get wordy
Who's cornered? Not me. I'm just explaining the facts to someone who seems really desperate for them to go away.
No. Pretending that market pressures don't drive companies updating their products and their pricing is ridiculous. You have to know that. So what are you trying say, by pretending that it's otherwise? My "argument" isn't wrong: companies continue to improve their products and adjust their pricing because markets require that. It's very reasonable to wonder about someone's experience and awareness of economics and business realities when they say otherwise.
That is not "market economics" but improvements in production...
Why the hell do you think that people who make things bother to improve production? Because if they don't someone else will, and they'll lose their market. You really do lead a sheltered life, don't you. I can tell you've never actually made anything, or been tuned into the bottom line of any business entity that does. You should. You'd learn a lot.
They also said their records are poor in general. "We don't have a record of X" thus does NOT rule out X having existed in the past.
State Department IT staff are on the record having told her multiple times that her method of communicating was preventing them from archiving her official email as required. Are you saying that despite the steps she took to make sure that no mail sent to and from her counterparts all around the world, to and from other agencies and branches of government (including the White House) , and to and from the well known mile-long list of donors to her family enterprise and political operation, that somehow there was a magic link between her private server and some archiving mechanism at State? A link that you think might exist, but which SHE acknowledges did not exist, and which some how - despite no email address involving state.gov being used in such communication - magically somehow got archived at State, and not one single example of such can be found by multiple investigative teams? And why would they find it - preventing it from getting into that system is exactly why she built a path around it. State's archives have copious correspondence from hundreds and hundreds of their other officials, staff, contractors, previous cabinet appointees and related users - just not a single scrap from her? Of course they don't: she didn't use that system.
And SHE HERSELF says that she thinks having corresponded with staffers inside State was a good enough way to retain those messages. She hand-picked reporters and pre-approved questions in the only Q&A she's allowed on the subject, and so conveniently was able to avoid being asked how she thought that method would apply when corresponding with people like Blumenthal (who hasn't denied that the leaked emails were his, by the way). Which is why she's never had to address the fact she wasn't personally taking any steps to CC or otherwise mirror all of the mail sent to and from her private server, as required by law. She hasn't mentioned CCing her State.gov mailbox that because at her direction, State's IT never even established an email account for her to which she would mirror her mail.
When finally capitulating to demands that her public records actually be made available, she didn't print out 55,000 pages of them because of a failure by the staff and systems at State, she printed them out because that was the only way she was willing to make them available. She could have forwarded them electronically, in their entirety, as required (so that, as the law requires, a government archivist can evaluate the messages and cull the official from the private). But no - she and her lawyers opted for a method that would absolutely maximize the additional delays in allowing other people to look through the records, would remove helpful header information, and would add untold thousands of hours of taxpayer-funded work to turn the documents back into searchable form. That was a deliberate choice that added work on her part in order to make the process more difficult and slow for investigators and the press, who had been requesting the documents for years.
I can only find Republicans claiming that, not objective (non-political) examiners.
Do you consider the investigation run congress when it was controlled by HER own party (which established after spending millions of dollars looking into related things, that there were NO such records at State) to have also been polticized against her? Now - under pressure - she's dumped hardcopies of the records that actually did exist all along (well, just some of them), and investigators who - unlike the last ones - aren't in her pocket for political gain say that the records have large date gaps. Unlike HER, they are conducting activity that will be entirely in the public record. When the investigators looking into this say something, you and they know that they will be fact checked to death by her po
And in many cases, also cheaper. The examples I cited above show that behavior as well. You need to get out more if you think that, say, a given tablet computer from this year isn't better and cheaper than it was a year or two ago. Or that an off-the-shelf quadcopter and gimbaled camera rig isn't many times as capable for a fraction of the cost it was just a couple years ago. Eeeeeevil market economics at work.
What? The evidence is that State said they had none of it, nor any record of having seen any such correspondence until she just recently dumped that self-selected pile of paper on them. SHE said that was when she provided them with "the appropriate" copies. Not when she was in office. Not when she left office. But years later when forced to. SHE said so, not me. Congressional investigators (under both parties) could find not a single indication she had ever provided those records, State's internal records show no such thing. FOIA and subpoena-based requests turned up no such thing.
So what is it you're looking for, to understand this? She herself says you're wrong. Does that cover it for you?
Making sure a full set is available here and now
She did NOT make a "full set" available, as required by law. She made available redacted hardcopies of only those that she decided she wanted other people to see. Investigators say that what she provided has gaps of weeks and months missing. What part of that are you refusing to hear?
Anyhow, let the smart lawyers work it out.
Her smart lawyer says there's no point allowing anyone with any forensic skills to look at her server to see if she's lying or not because she's deleted everything off of it. You don't have to trust MY judgement. Trust the "smart lawyer" you just cited. If you don't like THAT smart lawyer, trust the smart lawyers from the congressional investigations that took place multiple times now, and the smart lawyers from the Associated Press, all of whom disagree with you.
The price is usually only cheaper for products that have the same or less qualities / features.
That may be the point he was trying to make, but it's incorrect. Just look around. I can pick up a new camera from Nikon that's essentially the same price as the previous model while enjoying better features. The same is true of TV's from Samsung, or countless other devices. In real dollars, the same is true of cars, major appliances, all sorts of things.
Are you claiming the Blumenthal messages were never copied to the appropriate department persons?
Which "appropriate department persons?" Those messages were sent from him on his private account to her, on her private account. Period. She provided NONE of her email to State during her time there (required by the 2009 NARA), when she left (required by the Federal Records Act), or for year after she left - until a Romanian hacker spilled the beans. That's what got congress re-interested. Why? Because requests for the legislature for those records were coming up entirely empty. Multiple FOIA requests from external entities (like the NY Times, the Associated Press, etc - some of whom are now suing over the matter) came back completely empty.
She only printed out her personal selection of some of her emails (conveniently minus all header information, etc) when she could no longer maintain the lie-by-omission that the records didn't exist. "Oh, THESE emails? I didn't realize you meant THESE emails! Silly old me, I'm just a Grandma blah blah blah..."
Waiting years to provide culled copies, without anyone in a government archivist's role to weigh in on what's really relevant, is completely at odds withe spirit and letter of multiple rules and laws that were very much in play while she was there.
that does not mean she didn't later send a copy
No, that's EXACTLY what it means, because State, in responding to FOIA requests, said they had 100% of nothing of hers to meet those requests.
I don't know their reasoning, I cannot read their minds.
You're misunderstanding things here. It wasn't "they" that did this. It was SHE that did this. SHE decided, under pressure to finally produce some records before getting hauled into court to do so, to provide the emails she personally selected from her home server as header-redacted hardcopies. This wasn't the archive or IT people at State deciding that. That's what she dumped on them. However poor the archives at State may or may not be, her emails were not kept there, they were kept on her server at home. She's said as much. And she's said that she had her personal staff (people without clearances, paid for with funds much of which was supplied by foreign countries from whom she solicited huge sums of money while traveling abroad on taxpayer-paid trips) help her print them out so that State could finally have her records. You can't be still not getting this.
Ya, they are totally going to release a cheaper product that outperforms the competition in all areas and has added features. That is totally how Capitalism works.
Actually, that's exactly how a market economy works. Things get better and cheaper over time because of innovation and stiff competition. Or did you still spend $10,000 on a 40" flat screen TV this year, and hundreds of dollars for a 20MB disk drive? That must be frustrating for you.
Do you REALLY think that the only people with whom the US Secretary of State communicates in the course of her professional duties are people INSIDE her own department? Not a single person in another country, not a single person in a think tank, another federal agency, not a legislator, nobody? Only the people directly under her authority at State?
Really?
Remember that one of the events leading to this was an email leaked by Romanian hacker Guccifer, who cracked into the private mailbox of Clinton confidant Sydney Blumenthal. He is advising her on sensitive intelligence (re: Europe, the Muslim Brotherhood, and much more) in a series of "highly confidential" messages. Those messages, by definition, never saw the State Department's mail servers or archiving systems as required by federal regulations in place at the time. Why? Because he was providing the Secretary of State with that sensitive information via a private mailbox on an server kept in her house, the contents of which government archivists will never have their legally mandated opportunity to review for what is, and is not government-related communication.
She went out of her way to keep such communications out of the hands of the archives. You can't possibly be confused on this subject.
Regardless, she did NOT claim that the State department had all of her records. If she held that position, then why did she (after the existence of her private stash had been discovered) agree to provide to State (long after she'd left office) 50,000+ printed out pages of emails once pressed on the matter years after she left office and there was no denying it? Why didn't she just refer the people seeking the records to the CC's you're saying were adequante? You know why: because she knew it would be BS to imply that was the extent of her legal public records. But of course we get ONLY her opinion on what was or was not relevant. Everything else has been deleted, says her lawyer. But... in those 50,000+ pages are gaps of weeks and months. Are you really suggesting that she exchanged no email, in her role as Secretary of State, for months at a time?
Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA, for example. She deliberate violated both the letter and the spirit of that non-trivial bit of federalness. Basically, she decided it didn't matter to her, though it was very much in effect while she held that office.
Why must we keep electing people who are so fucking stupid?
Well, we're about to elect Hillary Clinton. She's not stupid. She thinks everyone else is stupid, and she's got enough supporters who don't care whether or why she's being feloniously coy about things like her email use (her lawyer just this evening explained that Clinton has destroyed all of her email that wasn't printed out to lamely respond to demands for her records from her tenure at State).
When she's president, don't ask why we elected a stupid person. As why we stupidly elected her. We'll have eight years to think it through. Yay.
What ARE you talking about? The problem you describe is the state being required to be more thorough in investigating matters like the case in question (the lady with the car, Twitter, etc). The solution to that isn't lowering the threshold by which we describe airlines pilots as too unstable to do that particularly stressful, demanding, and highly responsible (for other people's lives) work.
So what if you have one of these jobs and are going through a rough patch?
Everybody goes through "rough patches," but very few of them kill themselves over it, let alone decide to kill a hundred other people just to add some more drama to it. The whole point here is that you can't have someone in a position of responsibility like that, and have them be one of those much more fragile people who become suicidal/murderous over a "rough patch."
If it takes something bad happening in their life to make it clear they can't keep a level head and maintain their professionalism, then they are not in the right line of work.
Essentially, you are saying "it should be illegal to have secrets from the state".
No, he's saying it should be illegal to keep things like mental instability and dangerous suicidal mindsets secret from the state when the state is what licenses you to be entrusted, day-in, day-out, with the lives of hundreds of people. If you've got mental problems, don't look for a job where that is by definition a disqualifier. It appears this German guy knew that, and was hiding his problems from his employer and the regulatory agencies that license his operation of giant passenger aircraft.
Future plans would, by definition, be unreleased product, so that does not count.
It may indeed count - lots of products have latent features included specifically to support future developments or accessories, or interoperability with perhaps some other product or service which is still in development.
A car manufacturer may very well 'consider' his design to be a secret, but once the car is available for sale they can't successfully claim it IS a secret
The "car's design" may not be a "secret" in the most casual sense of that term, but there may be software features, or other aspects of things like interface design that are not yet put to work because new options are coming down the road. Even if a not-yet-used feature or interface is patented, that doesn't mean that knowledge of it or how it might leverage other third-party deals for new behavior or features isn't considered very much to be sensitive information and exactly the sort of thing you'd want to discuss under and NDA. I may have a patent on something, but that doesn't mean that everything I have to say with prospective partners or employees or retailers is something that I consider insignificantly strategic or sensitive to want to protect.
The only way an NDA makes sense in this case is if they planned to have every person who entered one of 'their' datacenters, for all eternity, sign an NDA
Just because you can walk into a datacenter doesn't mean you'll understand, by looking around, every last competitive detail about how things are being done under the hood.
I have a pile of equipment running in a datacenter. There's a two-way NDA in place to protect both their operations and mine, not that either of us are doing anything terribly exciting. Sometimes the NDA is there just to keep the overall nature of the business arrangements or financial information from being disclosed. For example, I don't want MY customers to be able to pick around and find out what I pay for my co-lo space. Likewise, my datacenter doesn't want me to write a blog describing their internal security operations, or what I pay for the particular deal we struck three mergers/acquisitions ago.
Sure it does. Just because a product is available to buy doesn't meant that every aspect of its design, operation, or future plans for evolution and enhancement by the manufacturer are something they consider public domain.
Nothing. Both I and the people who wrote it completely understand the context in which it's used. YOU on the other hand, are inventing a completely new interpretation of the constitution wherein the document they wrote to limit the government's ability to infringe on your rights is suddenly (but just in this case!) suddenly the exact opposite. Which part of "shall not be infringed" are YOU have trouble with? Again, please link to any - even ONE - writing by a single author of the constitution that suggests, for a moment, that they intended the second amendment, let along the entire document, to be a limit on the people, in stead of a limit on the government. Go ahead, cite some heretofore undiscovered writings. Please!
What? You can't find any? I thought so.
we will have the founder's intent
The founders intent was to make sure that the government "shall not infringe" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Why? Because they also had to stand up an army ("militia") on occasion, and didn't want ANYONE (especially people like you) to be confused and begin to think that it was only the militia that would be allowed to keep and bear arms. Your inability to read 18th century writing in the context in which it was written doesn't change the entire purpose of the constitution into a regulatory document that limits your freedoms. It's exactly the opposite.
So, go ahead: cite a single piece of correspondence, a single page from the federalist papers, ANYTHING that begins to support your inability to parse the language. You won't even bother to try, because you know you're just making stuff up in hopes that someone else reading your posts will think the constitution is a freedom limiting, rather than a freedom protecting document. You're just pretending that you don't understand that the constitution leaves it up to the states to pass legislation that sets forth criminal penalties for things like murder. Why you want to look so dumb is a bit of a mystery.
So, fire away. Let's see something other than your backwards assertions. You claim to know the founders' intent, but you cannot trouble yourself to actually cite a single passage from any of them that backs up what you say. Go for it. Show that you're not a liar by doing something other than stamping your feet.
all of the lies about the benefits are guns are outweighed by the obvious facts of the hell of too many easy guns
So you're saying the FBI is lying now? Please show your evidence - not just you having another fit - that indicated where, precisely, they are incorrect in their reporting. No? You don't have any, do you?
Tens of thousands of people are killed using knives, pipes, and cars, etc. Have you just not got around to finding a way to re-interpret the constitution to claim the founders wanted people to be well trained in their use? You keep dodging that question. Why? Because you know you're deliberately trying to mislead on this topic.
OK! Ready for your links to historical writings. Go.
If you want, you can start by finding some opposition to the people who wrote the huge body of documents surrounding the forming and adoption of the amendments.
Here's a typical example, from Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution from 1789: "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Case in point. They're talking about the amendment preserving the individual right to keep and bear arms, privately, specifically because there will also be a government-armed/trained militia/army. You are
The phrase "contacted Facebook" sounds more like "talked to a random employee" than "participated in a business meeting under NDA".
Could be - who knows. I'm sure that's exactly the sort of thing that would come out in the civil trial, or, being absent from any evidence provided in the suit, possibly cause the judge to throw the whole thing out. I'm party to multiple NDA's, and it can be very dangerous ground if you're not careful.
Slashdot Mirror
How about getting a president that isn't so unpopular he needs protecting from anything and everything?
Because with some crazy people, the fact there even is a president is enough to want to kill him/her. Or the fact that the president is whoever is in that role on a given day when Crazy Person suddenly decides they've had enough of the fact that the US allows people to grow and cut down trees ... or allows women to go to school ... or allows anyone to own domestic animals ... or allows men to walk around without beards or not protect everyone from the Space Aliens, whatever.
Those rules only specified they be stored on gov't systems ... I've explained this already.
No, what you've done is continued to avoid the actual issue. Are you really suggesting that all of a secretary of state's sensitive and official communication is with her own staff? That she has no communication with people in the senate, the congress, with other federal agencies? That she has no communication with anyone in the White House (you know, where her boss works), and - as the country's top diplomat - no communication with other diplomats, heads of state, or foreign ministers? No communication with the people in other countries who then turned around and wrote huge checks to her family enterprise? Is that your assessment of how little she did in that role? Or are you really going to keep up the charade that all of her email was with, and only with, people who reported to her at State? If she sent a single email outside of those bounds, then your blanket assertion of her compliance is incorrect. So, do you really think not a single email was sent to her from outside of State? You're convinced that, for example, Blumenthal's emails are all fake? Be specific. He hasn't said the leaked mail was fake, but you seem to know something he doesn't.
There wasn't what?
Any mechanism in place to automatically mirror her correspondence with third parties. None.
No it's not. The debate is not about GENERAL party accuracy. My debate points don't depend on prior partisan accuracy.
So, you'd be all for what the current investigation proposed: handing her server over to completely neutral third party for forensic analysis, and review of her tens of thousands of hidden emails by the same archivists that already review the mixed-with-private emails of other government officials to decide what's relevant as public records? Sounds pretty satisfactory, doesn't it? Woops, too late, her lawyer says that she has deliberately destroyed all of those records with no chance for said archivists to review them, and that they will never let anyone else look at the server.
Until that happens, I'm not going to guess out of my ass.
Except in the ways you already have, which contradict things she's saying in public, you mean.
I originally asked for specific laws, not opinions about them.
The laws that matter? How about the Federal Records Act? It requires federal officials to proactively keep their public documents available for things like FOIA searches. She actively hid her records from such searches, and in fact multiple FOIA requests came and went both during and following her tenure that absolutely would have included correspondence to and from her - but came up dry because she had not provided the records, even after she left office. When a federal official deliberately keeps their records out of public scrutiny, it's a violation of the US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071), a criminal offense.
You're probably going to contend that her violation of that law was magically un-done by her eventual coughing up of her cherry-picked hardcopies when she was hounded, years later, by investigators. No go. This isn't the Presidential Records Act, which provides for a "cooling off" period before those records are subject to FOIA. Her correspondence with people like Blumenthal, or with the entities in Saudi Arabia that handed her millions of dollars, are subject to immediate FOIA scrutiny. She took deliberate actions that made that impossible. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
I don't believe you
That's not true. You're just doing your best to play like you really think all of this is just a misunderstanding. It's not, and you know it. I know you've already spent ten seconds and Googled for things like this, but I'll play along if it makes you feel better. Here's just one random first-on-Google example:
http://america.aljazeera.com/a...
I never claimed that. I don't know where you got that idea.
You've speculated that her records were kept correctly (despite what she and everyone else says), and that there's no evidence she's done anything wrong. The implication then, by you, is that she did things correctly - and the ONLY way that could be, is if there was some sort of mechanism in place to do what the 2009 NARA and other rules required. But there wasn't. SHE SAID THERE WASN'T. So you are tap-dancing around the whole "show me proof" thing in order to avoid just plain facing what the woman involved has herself been saying. Why, I can't imagine. Are you working for her or her party?
What's this question have to do with anything? I see no relation.
Yeah, sure. It was someone else hacking your account when you complained that the current people looking at the matter weren't objective and a-political enough for you. It's perfectly reasonable to ask you if you found the prior investigation - which was run by HER party - to be likewise. You're implying it's not, which means you're being hypocritical on the subject. Only the party you don't like can be political in such matters, or only the party you favor can be objective?
Politicians often spin for short-term gain and don't care about fact-checkers much
The politicians doing the spin, here, are the ones relying on the fact that the person they're backing has conveniently destroyed records. The politicians conducting the investigation are relying on the documents SHE cherry-picked, and those are the ones that show the date gaps, a matter which they (unlike her, with tens of thousand of mixed-in emails we'll never see) will be placing right in front of your nose to review. Asserting that they're probably lying as they talk about public records you can review, while proposing the exact opposite about a stridently partisan person who has just been caught avoiding the very rules she said her department employees must all follow, shows how objective you're (not) being.
Where is this rule written?
This has been the case for a long time. Jason Baron, former director of litigation with the National Archives, explains the problem here. He said in an interview that "Clinton’s use of a private server gave her exclusive control, thus preventing the department from having full access to emails she sent and received while a federal employee. Government employees have no right to privacy on government computers and even personal emails are subject to review and perhaps release at the department’s discretion. Setting up a private server to conduct public business inappropriately shifts control of what is accessible to the end user alone rather than allowing the institution to decide threshold questions.” That's been true of federal records for decades: the agency archivists decide what's private, not the person running her official email on a server she's keeping in her home.
When cornered you seem to get wordy
Who's cornered? Not me. I'm just explaining the facts to someone who seems really desperate for them to go away.
No. Pretending that market pressures don't drive companies updating their products and their pricing is ridiculous. You have to know that. So what are you trying say, by pretending that it's otherwise? My "argument" isn't wrong: companies continue to improve their products and adjust their pricing because markets require that. It's very reasonable to wonder about someone's experience and awareness of economics and business realities when they say otherwise.
That is not "market economics" but improvements in production ...
Why the hell do you think that people who make things bother to improve production? Because if they don't someone else will, and they'll lose their market. You really do lead a sheltered life, don't you. I can tell you've never actually made anything, or been tuned into the bottom line of any business entity that does. You should. You'd learn a lot.
They also said their records are poor in general. "We don't have a record of X" thus does NOT rule out X having existed in the past.
State Department IT staff are on the record having told her multiple times that her method of communicating was preventing them from archiving her official email as required. Are you saying that despite the steps she took to make sure that no mail sent to and from her counterparts all around the world, to and from other agencies and branches of government (including the White House) , and to and from the well known mile-long list of donors to her family enterprise and political operation, that somehow there was a magic link between her private server and some archiving mechanism at State? A link that you think might exist, but which SHE acknowledges did not exist, and which some how - despite no email address involving state.gov being used in such communication - magically somehow got archived at State, and not one single example of such can be found by multiple investigative teams? And why would they find it - preventing it from getting into that system is exactly why she built a path around it. State's archives have copious correspondence from hundreds and hundreds of their other officials, staff, contractors, previous cabinet appointees and related users - just not a single scrap from her? Of course they don't: she didn't use that system.
And SHE HERSELF says that she thinks having corresponded with staffers inside State was a good enough way to retain those messages. She hand-picked reporters and pre-approved questions in the only Q&A she's allowed on the subject, and so conveniently was able to avoid being asked how she thought that method would apply when corresponding with people like Blumenthal (who hasn't denied that the leaked emails were his, by the way). Which is why she's never had to address the fact she wasn't personally taking any steps to CC or otherwise mirror all of the mail sent to and from her private server, as required by law. She hasn't mentioned CCing her State.gov mailbox that because at her direction, State's IT never even established an email account for her to which she would mirror her mail.
When finally capitulating to demands that her public records actually be made available, she didn't print out 55,000 pages of them because of a failure by the staff and systems at State, she printed them out because that was the only way she was willing to make them available. She could have forwarded them electronically, in their entirety, as required (so that, as the law requires, a government archivist can evaluate the messages and cull the official from the private). But no - she and her lawyers opted for a method that would absolutely maximize the additional delays in allowing other people to look through the records, would remove helpful header information, and would add untold thousands of hours of taxpayer-funded work to turn the documents back into searchable form. That was a deliberate choice that added work on her part in order to make the process more difficult and slow for investigators and the press, who had been requesting the documents for years.
I can only find Republicans claiming that, not objective (non-political) examiners.
Do you consider the investigation run congress when it was controlled by HER own party (which established after spending millions of dollars looking into related things, that there were NO such records at State) to have also been polticized against her? Now - under pressure - she's dumped hardcopies of the records that actually did exist all along (well, just some of them), and investigators who - unlike the last ones - aren't in her pocket for political gain say that the records have large date gaps. Unlike HER, they are conducting activity that will be entirely in the public record. When the investigators looking into this say something, you and they know that they will be fact checked to death by her po
Yes, for the same price, not for cheaper.
And in many cases, also cheaper. The examples I cited above show that behavior as well. You need to get out more if you think that, say, a given tablet computer from this year isn't better and cheaper than it was a year or two ago. Or that an off-the-shelf quadcopter and gimbaled camera rig isn't many times as capable for a fraction of the cost it was just a couple years ago. Eeeeeevil market economics at work.
You don't have any evidence of that.
What? The evidence is that State said they had none of it, nor any record of having seen any such correspondence until she just recently dumped that self-selected pile of paper on them. SHE said that was when she provided them with "the appropriate" copies. Not when she was in office. Not when she left office. But years later when forced to. SHE said so, not me. Congressional investigators (under both parties) could find not a single indication she had ever provided those records, State's internal records show no such thing. FOIA and subpoena-based requests turned up no such thing.
So what is it you're looking for, to understand this? She herself says you're wrong. Does that cover it for you?
Making sure a full set is available here and now
She did NOT make a "full set" available, as required by law. She made available redacted hardcopies of only those that she decided she wanted other people to see. Investigators say that what she provided has gaps of weeks and months missing. What part of that are you refusing to hear?
Anyhow, let the smart lawyers work it out.
Her smart lawyer says there's no point allowing anyone with any forensic skills to look at her server to see if she's lying or not because she's deleted everything off of it. You don't have to trust MY judgement. Trust the "smart lawyer" you just cited. If you don't like THAT smart lawyer, trust the smart lawyers from the congressional investigations that took place multiple times now, and the smart lawyers from the Associated Press, all of whom disagree with you.
The price is usually only cheaper for products that have the same or less qualities / features.
That may be the point he was trying to make, but it's incorrect. Just look around. I can pick up a new camera from Nikon that's essentially the same price as the previous model while enjoying better features. The same is true of TV's from Samsung, or countless other devices. In real dollars, the same is true of cars, major appliances, all sorts of things.
Are you claiming the Blumenthal messages were never copied to the appropriate department persons?
Which "appropriate department persons?" Those messages were sent from him on his private account to her, on her private account. Period. She provided NONE of her email to State during her time there (required by the 2009 NARA), when she left (required by the Federal Records Act), or for year after she left - until a Romanian hacker spilled the beans. That's what got congress re-interested. Why? Because requests for the legislature for those records were coming up entirely empty. Multiple FOIA requests from external entities (like the NY Times, the Associated Press, etc - some of whom are now suing over the matter) came back completely empty.
She only printed out her personal selection of some of her emails (conveniently minus all header information, etc) when she could no longer maintain the lie-by-omission that the records didn't exist. "Oh, THESE emails? I didn't realize you meant THESE emails! Silly old me, I'm just a Grandma blah blah blah..."
Waiting years to provide culled copies, without anyone in a government archivist's role to weigh in on what's really relevant, is completely at odds withe spirit and letter of multiple rules and laws that were very much in play while she was there.
that does not mean she didn't later send a copy
No, that's EXACTLY what it means, because State, in responding to FOIA requests, said they had 100% of nothing of hers to meet those requests.
I don't know their reasoning, I cannot read their minds.
You're misunderstanding things here. It wasn't "they" that did this. It was SHE that did this. SHE decided, under pressure to finally produce some records before getting hauled into court to do so, to provide the emails she personally selected from her home server as header-redacted hardcopies. This wasn't the archive or IT people at State deciding that. That's what she dumped on them. However poor the archives at State may or may not be, her emails were not kept there, they were kept on her server at home. She's said as much. And she's said that she had her personal staff (people without clearances, paid for with funds much of which was supplied by foreign countries from whom she solicited huge sums of money while traveling abroad on taxpayer-paid trips) help her print them out so that State could finally have her records. You can't be still not getting this.
Ya, they are totally going to release a cheaper product that outperforms the competition in all areas and has added features. That is totally how Capitalism works.
Actually, that's exactly how a market economy works. Things get better and cheaper over time because of innovation and stiff competition. Or did you still spend $10,000 on a 40" flat screen TV this year, and hundreds of dollars for a 20MB disk drive? That must be frustrating for you.
Do you REALLY think that the only people with whom the US Secretary of State communicates in the course of her professional duties are people INSIDE her own department? Not a single person in another country, not a single person in a think tank, another federal agency, not a legislator, nobody? Only the people directly under her authority at State?
... in those 50,000+ pages are gaps of weeks and months. Are you really suggesting that she exchanged no email, in her role as Secretary of State, for months at a time?
Really?
Remember that one of the events leading to this was an email leaked by Romanian hacker Guccifer, who cracked into the private mailbox of Clinton confidant Sydney Blumenthal. He is advising her on sensitive intelligence (re: Europe, the Muslim Brotherhood, and much more) in a series of "highly confidential" messages. Those messages, by definition, never saw the State Department's mail servers or archiving systems as required by federal regulations in place at the time. Why? Because he was providing the Secretary of State with that sensitive information via a private mailbox on an server kept in her house, the contents of which government archivists will never have their legally mandated opportunity to review for what is, and is not government-related communication.
She went out of her way to keep such communications out of the hands of the archives. You can't possibly be confused on this subject.
Regardless, she did NOT claim that the State department had all of her records. If she held that position, then why did she (after the existence of her private stash had been discovered) agree to provide to State (long after she'd left office) 50,000+ printed out pages of emails once pressed on the matter years after she left office and there was no denying it? Why didn't she just refer the people seeking the records to the CC's you're saying were adequante? You know why: because she knew it would be BS to imply that was the extent of her legal public records. But of course we get ONLY her opinion on what was or was not relevant. Everything else has been deleted, says her lawyer. But
Really?
Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA, for example. She deliberate violated both the letter and the spirit of that non-trivial bit of federalness. Basically, she decided it didn't matter to her, though it was very much in effect while she held that office.
Why must we keep electing people who are so fucking stupid?
Well, we're about to elect Hillary Clinton. She's not stupid. She thinks everyone else is stupid, and she's got enough supporters who don't care whether or why she's being feloniously coy about things like her email use (her lawyer just this evening explained that Clinton has destroyed all of her email that wasn't printed out to lamely respond to demands for her records from her tenure at State).
When she's president, don't ask why we elected a stupid person. As why we stupidly elected her. We'll have eight years to think it through. Yay.
What ARE you talking about? The problem you describe is the state being required to be more thorough in investigating matters like the case in question (the lady with the car, Twitter, etc). The solution to that isn't lowering the threshold by which we describe airlines pilots as too unstable to do that particularly stressful, demanding, and highly responsible (for other people's lives) work.
approximately 1/3rd of people are suffering from mental illness (typically depression) at any point in time
1/3 of people aren't airline pilots.
And more to the point, 1/3 of people don't take out their depression on a hundred or so other families by slaughtering a plane load of people.
So what if you have one of these jobs and are going through a rough patch?
Everybody goes through "rough patches," but very few of them kill themselves over it, let alone decide to kill a hundred other people just to add some more drama to it. The whole point here is that you can't have someone in a position of responsibility like that, and have them be one of those much more fragile people who become suicidal/murderous over a "rough patch."
If it takes something bad happening in their life to make it clear they can't keep a level head and maintain their professionalism, then they are not in the right line of work.
should you pre-emptively interfere in many people's lives, because there is a chance that their symptoms correlate with destructive behavior
"Many people" are not commercial airline pilots.
Essentially, you are saying "it should be illegal to have secrets from the state".
No, he's saying it should be illegal to keep things like mental instability and dangerous suicidal mindsets secret from the state when the state is what licenses you to be entrusted, day-in, day-out, with the lives of hundreds of people. If you've got mental problems, don't look for a job where that is by definition a disqualifier. It appears this German guy knew that, and was hiding his problems from his employer and the regulatory agencies that license his operation of giant passenger aircraft.
Yeah, thought so.
Future plans would, by definition, be unreleased product, so that does not count.
It may indeed count - lots of products have latent features included specifically to support future developments or accessories, or interoperability with perhaps some other product or service which is still in development.
A car manufacturer may very well 'consider' his design to be a secret, but once the car is available for sale they can't successfully claim it IS a secret
The "car's design" may not be a "secret" in the most casual sense of that term, but there may be software features, or other aspects of things like interface design that are not yet put to work because new options are coming down the road. Even if a not-yet-used feature or interface is patented, that doesn't mean that knowledge of it or how it might leverage other third-party deals for new behavior or features isn't considered very much to be sensitive information and exactly the sort of thing you'd want to discuss under and NDA. I may have a patent on something, but that doesn't mean that everything I have to say with prospective partners or employees or retailers is something that I consider insignificantly strategic or sensitive to want to protect.
The only way an NDA makes sense in this case is if they planned to have every person who entered one of 'their' datacenters, for all eternity, sign an NDA
Just because you can walk into a datacenter doesn't mean you'll understand, by looking around, every last competitive detail about how things are being done under the hood.
I have a pile of equipment running in a datacenter. There's a two-way NDA in place to protect both their operations and mine, not that either of us are doing anything terribly exciting. Sometimes the NDA is there just to keep the overall nature of the business arrangements or financial information from being disclosed. For example, I don't want MY customers to be able to pick around and find out what I pay for my co-lo space. Likewise, my datacenter doesn't want me to write a blog describing their internal security operations, or what I pay for the particular deal we struck three mergers/acquisitions ago.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-...
An NDA for a released product makes no sense.
Sure it does. Just because a product is available to buy doesn't meant that every aspect of its design, operation, or future plans for evolution and enhancement by the manufacturer are something they consider public domain.
what exactly is confusing to you about that term
Nothing. Both I and the people who wrote it completely understand the context in which it's used. YOU on the other hand, are inventing a completely new interpretation of the constitution wherein the document they wrote to limit the government's ability to infringe on your rights is suddenly (but just in this case!) suddenly the exact opposite. Which part of "shall not be infringed" are YOU have trouble with? Again, please link to any - even ONE - writing by a single author of the constitution that suggests, for a moment, that they intended the second amendment, let along the entire document, to be a limit on the people, in stead of a limit on the government. Go ahead, cite some heretofore undiscovered writings. Please!
What? You can't find any? I thought so.
we will have the founder's intent
The founders intent was to make sure that the government "shall not infringe" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Why? Because they also had to stand up an army ("militia") on occasion, and didn't want ANYONE (especially people like you) to be confused and begin to think that it was only the militia that would be allowed to keep and bear arms. Your inability to read 18th century writing in the context in which it was written doesn't change the entire purpose of the constitution into a regulatory document that limits your freedoms. It's exactly the opposite.
So, go ahead: cite a single piece of correspondence, a single page from the federalist papers, ANYTHING that begins to support your inability to parse the language. You won't even bother to try, because you know you're just making stuff up in hopes that someone else reading your posts will think the constitution is a freedom limiting, rather than a freedom protecting document. You're just pretending that you don't understand that the constitution leaves it up to the states to pass legislation that sets forth criminal penalties for things like murder. Why you want to look so dumb is a bit of a mystery.
So, fire away. Let's see something other than your backwards assertions. You claim to know the founders' intent, but you cannot trouble yourself to actually cite a single passage from any of them that backs up what you say. Go for it. Show that you're not a liar by doing something other than stamping your feet.
all of the lies about the benefits are guns are outweighed by the obvious facts of the hell of too many easy guns
So you're saying the FBI is lying now? Please show your evidence - not just you having another fit - that indicated where, precisely, they are incorrect in their reporting. No? You don't have any, do you?
Tens of thousands of people are killed using knives, pipes, and cars, etc. Have you just not got around to finding a way to re-interpret the constitution to claim the founders wanted people to be well trained in their use? You keep dodging that question. Why? Because you know you're deliberately trying to mislead on this topic.
OK! Ready for your links to historical writings. Go.
If you want, you can start by finding some opposition to the people who wrote the huge body of documents surrounding the forming and adoption of the amendments.
Here's a typical example, from Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution from 1789: "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Case in point. They're talking about the amendment preserving the individual right to keep and bear arms, privately, specifically because there will also be a government-armed/trained militia/army. You are
The phrase "contacted Facebook" sounds more like "talked to a random employee" than "participated in a business meeting under NDA".
Could be - who knows. I'm sure that's exactly the sort of thing that would come out in the civil trial, or, being absent from any evidence provided in the suit, possibly cause the judge to throw the whole thing out. I'm party to multiple NDA's, and it can be very dangerous ground if you're not careful.