I think we should just get it over with and make every human being on the globe a US citizen. Why not? Second step is for the government to take over food, transportation, energy and housing and supply everyone with those basic needs. Let's just get it over with.
[Edited on 2/28/2015 by alloak41]
You and your type should get a grip on reality. Whether you or I like it, there are millions here. So find a fix. How about self deportation? What a stupid f'ing thought...who was it that advocated for that?
Instead of fighting & resisting at every turn & corner the GOP needs to realize that a workable solution is needed instead of just saying "no". That accomplishes zero. Immigration and whether you like it, illegal immigration is and has been an issue for years. It's going nowhere. Your party and those who think like you just can't ignore it, build fences, build walls, tie unrelated legislation to it, and hope that it just goes away. Practical thinking may be beyond reason here...especially with Boehner's adversaries in his own party. It's a big problem now and will only grow if it isn't addressed rationally & logically.
But that's pretty much the GOP mantra. The GOP uses the same old stale arguments and attitudes in other areas...say for instance... marijuana? Why is the GOP HOR & Senate against this? It's laughable to hear those stiffs in Congress threatening DC over marijuana. Just shows how out of touch they are. Wonder how many of the congressmens' kids smoke MJ? A hundred years from now marijuana will probably be legal in all 50 states after the GOP comes around. Yet the GOP goes kicking & screaming - always last to the party.
Say alloak, are you against legalization and use of marijuana? Do you agree with the GOP's stance on marijuana in DC?
As I said, I doubt anybody here would expect an endorsement of the GOP from you so no
surprise there. Truth be told, I'm down on them myself although for totally different reasons
I'm sure.However, for as big a basket case as you make the Republicans out to be, how do you explain
the elections? The State Legislatures? The governorships? THE MIDTERMS? How do
stiffs like McCain and Romney get 50-60 Million votes? How? If you are to be believed, none of
this would even seem possible.Undeniably, they have a knack for winning lots of elections all across the country in States blue and red,
but according to you and many others here the GOP is totally hapless.Sorry, but something's just not adding up.
I noticed you avoided the questions on the GOP & marijuana. Just so everyone can see them, I'll again post the questions, and maybe this time you'll tell us where you stand...or maybe you won't. Keep in mind that marijuana legalization is now becoming a larger national issue, and of course the GOP will oppose for as long as possible. That goes without saying. If the GOP wants to be in a woman's vagina, you can bet they want to be in your bong too. See original non addressed questions below:
Say alloak, are you against legalization and use of marijuana? Do you agree with the GOP's stance on marijuana in DC?
Now, you can google & find many articles on this, but to make things easy, I've pasted but one link.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/congressional-republicans-threaten-dc-mayor-marijuana-legalization
Oh, sorry about that. Tell you the truth in light of Debt nearing $20 Trillion, 90,000,000
Americans out of work, $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, 1 in 5 in poverty, 50 million on
food stamps, Islamic terrorism spreading across the globe, broken entitlements, stagnant
GDP growth, wage stagnation, tax code quagmire, ect, marijuana is not exactly at the top
of my list...
To answer you though, I am in favor of the de-criminalization of marijuana. I don't smoke
it anymore, but if someone wants to live their life impaired have at it. They shouldn't be
locked up for personal use.
Maybe it's really not that big a deal to congressmen other than to use as political fodder and talking points. Keep the argument going, do nothing, raise some big $ for the war chest, talk big - is that the end game?
Unfortunately I think "yes" is the answer to that question for most politicians in either party at any level of government. I believe that is why our system is broken. We elect political celebrities instead of statesmen. I think the reason the GOP won big in the midterms has much more to do with the recurring pattern of our election cycles than with any political mandate, especially over the last 50 years. GOP's turn for the next 8-10 years, then it will flip again, and nothing will change.
Exactly! a conservative who actually understands the cyclical nature of US elections in Congress!
Anyone who thinks the recent GOP victories at the midterm elections is some national mandate refuses to accept the reality of history. Very few sitting Presidents have had the luxury of a party majority in Congress during their whole term in office.
Bullcorn. Let's talk about history. The Democrats had a lock on Congress until the mid-90's!!
Some cycle.
You are twisting what I said to suit your beliefs Alloak.
Since 1934 the sitting Presidents party lost seats in the House 18 out of 21 elections and 16 out of 21 times in the Senate. Obama does not even have the largest loses as that distinction goes to FDR who is considered one of the greatest Presidents since WWII by scholars.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php
And very few two term Presidents have had control of both Houses of Congress for their entire 8 years. Sitting Presidents had control of Congress only 8 out of 34 times in fact.
This is not my opinion my friend it is history. Elections are cyclical and they usually don't favour the party in control of the White House so keep on believing the recent midterms are some national mandate for the GOP if it makes you feel better. 😉
[Edited on 3/1/2015 by Bill_Graham]
Illinois is just ramping up it's medical marijuana program, but seeing the cash cow legalized marijuana is in Colorado they are talking about it as a way to help with the financial problems the state is in...........
Oh, sorry about that. Tell you the truth in light of 90,000,000
Americans out of work,
Here are the real numbers - the 90 million are those not in the workforce - kids under 16, retired, etc.
Unemployed is more like 10 million..........
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Check Summary table A
I think we should just get it over with and make every human being on the globe a US citizen. Why not? Second step is for the government to take over food, transportation, energy and housing and supply everyone with those basic needs. Let's just get it over with.
[Edited on 2/28/2015 by alloak41]
You and your type should get a grip on reality. Whether you or I like it, there are millions here. So find a fix. How about self deportation? What a stupid f'ing thought...who was it that advocated for that?
Instead of fighting & resisting at every turn & corner the GOP needs to realize that a workable solution is needed instead of just saying "no". That accomplishes zero. Immigration and whether you like it, illegal immigration is and has been an issue for years. It's going nowhere. Your party and those who think like you just can't ignore it, build fences, build walls, tie unrelated legislation to it, and hope that it just goes away. Practical thinking may be beyond reason here...especially with Boehner's adversaries in his own party. It's a big problem now and will only grow if it isn't addressed rationally & logically.
But that's pretty much the GOP mantra. The GOP uses the same old stale arguments and attitudes in other areas...say for instance... marijuana? Why is the GOP HOR & Senate against this? It's laughable to hear those stiffs in Congress threatening DC over marijuana. Just shows how out of touch they are. Wonder how many of the congressmens' kids smoke MJ? A hundred years from now marijuana will probably be legal in all 50 states after the GOP comes around. Yet the GOP goes kicking & screaming - always last to the party.
Say alloak, are you against legalization and use of marijuana? Do you agree with the GOP's stance on marijuana in DC?
As I said, I doubt anybody here would expect an endorsement of the GOP from you so no
surprise there. Truth be told, I'm down on them myself although for totally different reasons
I'm sure.However, for as big a basket case as you make the Republicans out to be, how do you explain
the elections? The State Legislatures? The governorships? THE MIDTERMS? How do
stiffs like McCain and Romney get 50-60 Million votes? How? If you are to be believed, none of
this would even seem possible.Undeniably, they have a knack for winning lots of elections all across the country in States blue and red,
but according to you and many others here the GOP is totally hapless.Sorry, but something's just not adding up.
I noticed you avoided the questions on the GOP & marijuana. Just so everyone can see them, I'll again post the questions, and maybe this time you'll tell us where you stand...or maybe you won't. Keep in mind that marijuana legalization is now becoming a larger national issue, and of course the GOP will oppose for as long as possible. That goes without saying. If the GOP wants to be in a woman's vagina, you can bet they want to be in your bong too. See original non addressed questions below:
Say alloak, are you against legalization and use of marijuana? Do you agree with the GOP's stance on marijuana in DC?
Now, you can google & find many articles on this, but to make things easy, I've pasted but one link.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/congressional-republicans-threaten-dc-mayor-marijuana-legalization
Oh, sorry about that. Tell you the truth in light of Debt nearing $20 Trillion, 90,000,000
Americans out of work, $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, 1 in 5 in poverty, 50 million on
food stamps, Islamic terrorism spreading across the globe, broken entitlements, stagnant
GDP growth, wage stagnation, tax code quagmire, ect, marijuana is not exactly at the top
of my list...To answer you though, I am in favor of the de-criminalization of marijuana. I don't smoke
it anymore, but if someone wants to live their life impaired have at it. They shouldn't be
locked up for personal use.
90 million out of work? what are you counting children and retired people to inflate the number of people in the labor force unemployed?
Considering the estimated population is about 318 million your number would be 28% of the work eligible citizens out of work. Considering not everyone of the 318 million citizens are work force eligible where exactly are you coming up with your numbers?
The Bureau of labor statistics claims 5.7% unemployment. Even if you consider this number to be artificially low, and double it as many believe is the real rate, your claim of 28% is ridiculous.
[Edited on 3/1/2015 by Bill_Graham]
Illinois is just ramping up it's medical marijuana program, but seeing the cash cow legalized marijuana is in Colorado they are talking about it as a way to help with the financial problems the state is in...........
Only makes sense. This will happen across the country when the "pro business" GOP goes kicking & screaming about this dreaded "drug".
Maybe it's really not that big a deal to congressmen other than to use as political fodder and talking points. Keep the argument going, do nothing, raise some big $ for the war chest, talk big - is that the end game?
Unfortunately I think "yes" is the answer to that question for most politicians in either party at any level of government. I believe that is why our system is broken. We elect political celebrities instead of statesmen. I think the reason the GOP won big in the midterms has much more to do with the recurring pattern of our election cycles than with any political mandate, especially over the last 50 years. GOP's turn for the next 8-10 years, then it will flip again, and nothing will change.
Exactly! a conservative who actually understands the cyclical nature of US elections in Congress!
Anyone who thinks the recent GOP victories at the midterm elections is some national mandate refuses to accept the reality of history. Very few sitting Presidents have had the luxury of a party majority in Congress during their whole term in office.
Bullcorn. Let's talk about history. The Democrats had a lock on Congress until the mid-90's!!
Some cycle.
You are twisting what I said to suit your beliefs Alloak.
Since 1934 the sitting Presidents party lost seats in the House 18 out of 21 elections and 16 out of 21 times in the Senate. Obama does not even have the largest loses as that distinction goes to FDR who is considered one of the greatest Presidents since WWII by scholars.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php
And very few two term Presidents have had control of both Houses of Congress for their entire 8 years. Sitting Presidents had control of Congress only 8 out of 34 times in fact.
This is not my opinion my friend it is history. Elections are cyclical and they usually don't favour the party in control of the White House
x 2
Maybe it's really not that big a deal to congressmen other than to use as political fodder and talking points. Keep the argument going, do nothing, raise some big $ for the war chest, talk big - is that the end game?
Unfortunately I think "yes" is the answer to that question for most politicians in either party at any level of government. I believe that is why our system is broken. We elect political celebrities instead of statesmen. I think the reason the GOP won big in the midterms has much more to do with the recurring pattern of our election cycles than with any political mandate, especially over the last 50 years. GOP's turn for the next 8-10 years, then it will flip again, and nothing will change.
Exactly! a conservative who actually understands the cyclical nature of US elections in Congress!
Anyone who thinks the recent GOP victories at the midterm elections is some national mandate refuses to accept the reality of history. Very few sitting Presidents have had the luxury of a party majority in Congress during their whole term in office.
Bullcorn. Let's talk about history. The Democrats had a lock on Congress until the mid-90's!!
Some cycle.
You are twisting what I said to suit your beliefs Alloak.
Since 1934 the sitting Presidents party lost seats in the House 18 out of 21 elections and 16 out of 21 times in the Senate. Obama does not even have the largest loses as that distinction goes to FDR who is considered one of the greatest Presidents since WWII by scholars.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php
And very few two term Presidents have had control of both Houses of Congress for their entire 8 years. Sitting Presidents had control of Congress only 8 out of 34 times in fact.
[Edited on 3/1/2015 by Bill_Graham]
You make a strong case. Nice job.
Maybe it's really not that big a deal to congressmen other than to use as political fodder and talking points. Keep the argument going, do nothing, raise some big $ for the war chest, talk big - is that the end game?
Unfortunately I think "yes" is the answer to that question for most politicians in either party at any level of government. I believe that is why our system is broken. We elect political celebrities instead of statesmen. I think the reason the GOP won big in the midterms has much more to do with the recurring pattern of our election cycles than with any political mandate, especially over the last 50 years. GOP's turn for the next 8-10 years, then it will flip again, and nothing will change.
Exactly! a conservative who actually understands the cyclical nature of US elections in Congress!
Anyone who thinks the recent GOP victories at the midterm elections is some national mandate refuses to accept the reality of history. Very few sitting Presidents have had the luxury of a party majority in Congress during their whole term in office.
Bullcorn. Let's talk about history. The Democrats had a lock on Congress until the mid-90's!!
Some cycle.
You are twisting what I said to suit your beliefs Alloak.
Since 1934 the sitting Presidents party lost seats in the House 18 out of 21 elections and 16 out of 21 times in the Senate. Obama does not even have the largest loses as that distinction goes to FDR who is considered one of the greatest Presidents since WWII by scholars.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php
And very few two term Presidents have had control of both Houses of Congress for their entire 8 years. Sitting Presidents had control of Congress only 8 out of 34 times in fact.
[Edited on 3/1/2015 by Bill_Graham]You make a strong case. Nice job.
The numbers were historically bad for the Democrats though. True it was certainly not an edorsement of any Republican program but it was most definitely a rejection of Obama and his policies. To argue against that is ridiculous.
Maybe it's really not that big a deal to congressmen other than to use as political fodder and talking points. Keep the argument going, do nothing, raise some big $ for the war chest, talk big - is that the end game?
Unfortunately I think "yes" is the answer to that question for most politicians in either party at any level of government. I believe that is why our system is broken. We elect political celebrities instead of statesmen. I think the reason the GOP won big in the midterms has much more to do with the recurring pattern of our election cycles than with any political mandate, especially over the last 50 years. GOP's turn for the next 8-10 years, then it will flip again, and nothing will change.
Exactly! a conservative who actually understands the cyclical nature of US elections in Congress!
Anyone who thinks the recent GOP victories at the midterm elections is some national mandate refuses to accept the reality of history. Very few sitting Presidents have had the luxury of a party majority in Congress during their whole term in office.
Bullcorn. Let's talk about history. The Democrats had a lock on Congress until the mid-90's!!
Some cycle.
You are twisting what I said to suit your beliefs Alloak.
Since 1934 the sitting Presidents party lost seats in the House 18 out of 21 elections and 16 out of 21 times in the Senate. Obama does not even have the largest loses as that distinction goes to FDR who is considered one of the greatest Presidents since WWII by scholars.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php
And very few two term Presidents have had control of both Houses of Congress for their entire 8 years. Sitting Presidents had control of Congress only 8 out of 34 times in fact.
[Edited on 3/1/2015 by Bill_Graham]You make a strong case. Nice job.
The numbers were historically bad for the Democrats though. True it was certainly not an edorsement of any Republican program but it was most definitely a rejection of Obama and his policies. To argue against that is ridiculous.
In our extremely biased opinion. That is hardly a provable fact.
Maybe it's really not that big a deal to congressmen other than to use as political fodder and talking points. Keep the argument going, do nothing, raise some big $ for the war chest, talk big - is that the end game?
Unfortunately I think "yes" is the answer to that question for most politicians in either party at any level of government. I believe that is why our system is broken. We elect political celebrities instead of statesmen. I think the reason the GOP won big in the midterms has much more to do with the recurring pattern of our election cycles than with any political mandate, especially over the last 50 years. GOP's turn for the next 8-10 years, then it will flip again, and nothing will change.
_______________________________________________________________________
Exactly! a conservative who actually understands the cyclical nature of US elections in Congress!
Anyone who thinks the recent GOP victories at the midterm elections is some national mandate refuses to accept the reality of history. Very few sitting Presidents have had the luxury of a party majority in Congress during their whole term in office.
Bullcorn. Let's talk about history. The Democrats had a lock on Congress until the mid-90's!!
Some cycle.
You are twisting what I said to suit your beliefs Alloak.
Since 1934 the sitting Presidents party lost seats in the House 18 out of 21 elections and 16 out of 21 times in the Senate. Obama does not even have the largest loses as that distinction goes to FDR who is considered one of the greatest Presidents since WWII by scholars.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php
And very few two term Presidents have had control of both Houses of Congress for their entire 8 years. Sitting Presidents had control of Congress only 8 out of 34 times in fact.
[Edited on 3/1/2015 by Bill_Graham]You make a strong case. Nice job.
___________________________________________________________________
Exactly.
It is a matter of leadership and devotion to country and The Constitution.
President Reagan never had a Republican Congress but worked closely with Tip O’Neil and the democrat leadership to get the people’s work done.
Our country desperately needs another Statesman as President.
The leadership vacuum in the White House now is accomplishing nothing but its political agenda and our country and the world is suffering much more than it should.
Can a Statesman be elected President now?
The lack of leadership seems to be in the Congress.............
The lack of leadership seems to be in the Congress.............
Boehner can't get enough Republicans to pass his bills & resorts to having to rely upon Democrats to pass legislation.
The lack of leadership seems to be in the Congress.............
Boehner can't get enough Republicans to pass his bills & resorts to having to rely upon Democrats to pass legislation.
____________________________________________________________________
"resorts to having to rely upon Democrats"?
obama, reid and pelosi always intentionally excluded the Republicans from any legislation.
It was their way or no way.
Now Speaker Boehner calls upon the democrats to join Congress and get the peoples work done and obama and the Senate democrats refuse.
THe American People want The Keystone Pipeline built, a comprehensive immigration bill done that includes securing our borders and a actual plan to defeat ISIS and obama and the democrats refuse.
Refusing to do The Peoples work is not leadership.
obama is so weak even the rest of the world know doesn't respect us anymore.
The lack of leadership seems to be in the Congress.............
Boehner can't get enough Republicans to pass his bills & resorts to having to rely upon Democrats to pass legislation.
____________________________________________________________________
"resorts to having to rely upon Democrats"?
obama, reid and pelosi always intentionally excluded the Republicans from any legislation.
It was their way or no way.Now Speaker Boehner calls upon the democrats to join Congress and get the peoples work done and obama and the Senate democrats refuse.
THe American People want The Keystone Pipeline built, a comprehensive immigration bill done that includes securing our borders and a actual plan to defeat ISIS and obama and the democrats refuse.
Refusing to do The Peoples work is not leadership.
obama is so weak even the rest of the world know doesn't respect us anymore.
The second funding bill for DHS was voted down by the Republicans. Hey, how is that big election win working out for you?
The numbers were historically bad for the Democrats though. True it was certainly not an edorsement of any Republican program but it was most definitely a rejection of Obama and his policies. To argue against that is ridiculous.
There's little doubt that Obamacare and the lack of economic recovery hurt the Democrats. .
Funny thing, we didn't hear much about historic cycles when the Bush's GOP lost seats in 2006 (they gained seats in 2002) Cowboy Bush lost seats because of the Iraq War, just to make money for Halliburton and his rich Oil buddies. And because he was a stupid drunk Nazi snorting coke off Karl Rove's ass, stuff like that.
Obama loses twice as many seats and it's just the historic cycle in effect. Funny how that works.
The lack of leadership seems to be in the Congress.............
Boehner can't get enough Republicans to pass his bills & resorts to having to rely upon Democrats to pass legislation.
____________________________________________________________________
"resorts to having to rely upon Democrats"?
obama, reid and pelosi always intentionally excluded the Republicans from any legislation.
It was their way or no way.Now Speaker Boehner calls upon the democrats to join Congress and get the peoples work done and obama and the Senate democrats refuse.
THe American People want The Keystone Pipeline built, a comprehensive immigration bill done that includes securing our borders and a actual plan to defeat ISIS and obama and the democrats refuse.
Refusing to do The Peoples work is not leadership.
obama is so weak even the rest of the world know doesn't respect us anymore.
The second funding bill for DHS was voted down by the Republicans. Hey, how is that big election win working out for you?
Keller, you are correct...voted down by Republicans. That is why I posted that Boehner can't get enough Republicans to pass his bills & resorts to having to rely upon Democrats to pass legislation. Let me reiterate and point out that numbers can't be disputed - that is fact. Boehner had to have the Democrat vote to get him beyond the threshold on Homeland Security Funding because the extremists in his caucus insisted upon coupling this with a totally non related issue - immigration, and they failed. Of course the one week funding will have to be addressed in a matter of days because one week funding doesn't last very long :P. So then Boehner will be back to square one again & will probably need Democrat votes to pass legislation because he can't depend upon his own party. I guess this is what the Mule considers real leadership?
As far as the rest of Muletroll's post - laced with his opinion when using terminology such as his final two lines as follows:
Refusing to do The Peoples work is not leadership.
obama is so weak even the rest of the world know doesn't respect us anymore.
The lack of leadership seems to be in the Congress.............
Boehner can't get enough Republicans to pass his bills & resorts to having to rely upon Democrats to pass legislation.
____________________________________________________________________
"resorts to having to rely upon Democrats"?
obama, reid and pelosi always intentionally excluded the Republicans from any legislation.
It was their way or no way.Now Speaker Boehner calls upon the democrats to join Congress and get the peoples work done and obama and the Senate democrats refuse.
THe American People want The Keystone Pipeline built, a comprehensive immigration bill done that includes securing our borders and a actual plan to defeat ISIS and obama and the democrats refuse.
Refusing to do The Peoples work is not leadership.
obama is so weak even the rest of the world know doesn't respect us anymore.
The second funding bill for DHS was voted down by the Republicans. Hey, how is that big election win working out for you?
Keller, you are correct...voted down by Republicans. That is why I posted that Boehner can't get enough Republicans to pass his bills & resorts to having to rely upon Democrats to pass legislation. Let me reiterate and point out that numbers can't be disputed - that is fact. Boehner had to have the Democrat vote to get him beyond the threshold on Homeland Security Funding because the extremists in his caucus insisted upon coupling this with a totally non related issue - immigration, and they failed. Of course the one week funding will have to be addressed in a matter of days because one week funding doesn't last very long :P. So then Boehner will be back to square one again & will probably need Democrat votes to pass legislation because he can't depend upon his own party. I guess this is what the Mule considers real leadership?
As far as the rest of Muletroll's post - laced with his opinion when using terminology such as his final two lines as follows:
Refusing to do The Peoples work is not leadership.
obama is so weak even the rest of the world know doesn't respect us anymore.
_____________________________________________________________________
So you didn't like my post claiming (falsely) that its all my opinion.
Then of course you post your opinion.
The DHS issue will be decided by the courts. One Federal Judge has already found enough merit to stay obama's exec. order.
We are all waiting on the edge of our seats for your legal opinion on the matter.
The lack of leadership seems to be in the Congress.............
Boehner can't get enough Republicans to pass his bills & resorts to having to rely upon Democrats to pass legislation.
????? huh?
The Washington Post
March 2, 2015
Democrats block bill to fund DHS
The democrats continue to block passage of a funding bill for The Department of Homeland Security that defunds obama’s illegal exec. order on immigration.
_______________________________________________________________________
The courts, as they already have placed a stay on obama’s exec. order on immigration, will rule against obama’s appeal therefore killing the order.
The End.
And now, back on this thread’s theme
N.Y Times exposes the continuing Clinton culture of corruption:
Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTMARCH 2, 2015
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.
“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Nick Merrill, defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the “letter and spirit of the rules.”
Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.
Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. But her exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual, Mr. Baron said. The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency’s computer server is not working.
“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.
Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records.
But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so.
How many emails were in Mrs. Clinton’s account is not clear, and neither is the process her advisers used to determine which ones related to her work at the State Department before turning them over.
“It’s a shame it didn’t take place automatically when she was secretary of state as it should have,” said Thomas S. Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, a group based at George Washington University that advocates government transparency. “Someone in the State Department deserves credit for taking the initiative to ask for the records back. Most of the time it takes the threat of litigation and embarrassment.”
Mr. Blanton said high-level officials should operate as President Obama does, emailing from a secure government account, with every record preserved for historical purposes.
“Personal emails are not secure,” he said. “Senior officials should not be using them.”
Penalties for not complying with federal record-keeping requirements are rare, because the National Archives has few enforcement abilities.
Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department.
The revelation about the private email account echoes longstanding criticisms directed at both the former secretary and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for a lack of transparency and inclination toward secrecy.
And others who, like Mrs. Clinton, are eyeing a candidacy for the White House are stressing a very different approach. Jeb Bush, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, released a trove of emails in December from his eight years as governor of Florida.
It is not clear whether Mrs. Clinton’s private email account included encryption or other security measures, given the sensitivity of her diplomatic activity.
Mrs. Clinton’s successor, Secretary of State John Kerry, has used a government email account since taking over the role, and his correspondence is being preserved contemporaneously as part of State Department records, according to his aides.
Before the current regulations went into effect, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who served from 2001 to 2005, used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders.
Last October, the State Department, as part of the effort to improve its record keeping, asked all previous secretaries of state dating back to Madeleine K. Albright to provide it with any records, like emails, from their time in office for preservation.
“These steps include regularly archiving all of Secretary Kerry’s emails to ensure that we are capturing all federal records,” said a department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki.
The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.
Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks.
Mrs. Clinton and the committee declined to comment on the contents of the emails or whether they will be made public.
The State Department, Ms. Psaki said, “has been proactively and consistently engaged in responding to the committee’s many requests in a timely manner, providing more than 40,000 pages of documents, scheduling more than 20 transcribed interviews and participating in several briefings and each of the committee’s hearings.”
The lack of leadership seems to be in the Congress.............
Boehner can't get enough Republicans to pass his bills & resorts to having to rely upon Democrats to pass legislation.
????? huh?
I'm assuming you don't keep up with current events?
Well, now that Hillary has committed a federal offense with email-gate, not only are her chances for the Presidency ruined, she should be sentenced to prison for her treasonous behavior. I pray this is the angle conservatives take. Which one is more meaningless...email-gate or bridge-gate? These scandals are getting lame nowadays. Washington needs to hire some Hollywood producers, and get back to the Wag The Dog type performances.
Well, now that Hillary has committed a federal offense with email-gate, not only are her chances for the Presidency ruined, she should be sentenced to prison for her treasonous behavior. I pray this is the angle conservatives take. Which one is more meaningless...email-gate or bridge-gate? These scandals are getting lame nowadays. Washington needs to hire some Hollywood producers, and get back to the Wag The Dog type performances.
______________________________________________________________________
"meaningless"?
Integrity matters.
Well, now that Hillary has committed a federal offense with email-gate, not only are her chances for the Presidency ruined, she should be sentenced to prison for her treasonous behavior. I pray this is the angle conservatives take. Which one is more meaningless...email-gate or bridge-gate? These scandals are getting lame nowadays. Washington needs to hire some Hollywood producers, and get back to the Wag The Dog type performances.
______________________________________________________________________
"meaningless"?
Integrity matters.
How would you know?
Well, now that Hillary has committed a federal offense with email-gate, not only are her chances for the Presidency ruined, she should be sentenced to prison for her treasonous behavior. I pray this is the angle conservatives take. Which one is more meaningless...email-gate or bridge-gate? These scandals are getting lame nowadays. Washington needs to hire some Hollywood producers, and get back to the Wag The Dog type performances.
Goes back to the same old pattern. Laws don't apply to the Clintons and rules are for other people to follow. That's the MO.
They are their own worst enemy sometimes. Just follow the rules!
Not for me. Bridge-gate still takes the top spot for ridiculous scandals. This one is close. Both sides are scraping.
Bill Clinton was impeached. Nixon wasn't.
Reagan was able to pull off Iran Contra. What laws applied to that Nun killing SOB?
Not for me. Bridge-gate still takes the top spot for ridiculous scandals. This one is close. Both sides are scraping.
The real scandal is somehow people think she has done a good job as Sec of State which if measured by results and not Skymiles and Hilton rewards points accumulated is very weak.
The liberals deny the Benghazi attack cover up and scandal.
I’m sure your comment is comforting to the families of the four murdered Americans who accepted posts in a dangerous country, requested increased security and were denied by hillary resulting in their deaths.
Then hillary stood next to their caskets and lied, blaming the whole thing on some obscure internet video.
