Recalling a time certain--when no one on the planet had ever heard of email--then when they were coming into use, then clearly regulations had to be developed about how to use them. At the Federal Level, this appears to relegated to the National Archives and Records Administration. So someone has noted that according to NARA, it is the responsible federal agency that is responsible for ensuring the capture of private records. The Department of State would have had the responsibility for ensuring the email captures.
Here's how Hillary Clinton may have violated government rules on emails
So the Clinton email controversy is about an agency, confronting a lack of rules. It is not about an individual, violating rules and procedures not in place. The critics, for example, create precedents that likely are not relevant to the issue.
Remarkably, the Right Wing Press has even commented that the Secretary of State was using the same email housing as a former President of the United States. What that Press Corps is noting , number one, is that the email preservations appear to have happened. There is no protocol or procedure directing how the possibly beneficial interactions and capabilities are to be captured for the record, or to be made a part of the record, in the first place. Is it wrong for a former President to communicate with a sitting Cabinet Secretary, and of the same party? Clearly there was a partisan interest. That does not create itself, and Conflict of Interest. Apparently the former President's child was involved in publically supportive activities. The efficiency of whatever became the outcome is nowhere noted, or shown illegal.
The Conservatives are enraged, however. Possibly they remember Reagan's kids, or one or another Vice President's kids(?). Those would be said, different kinds of protocols, most likely. Senator Laxalt, even. . .in the matter of children . . .(well).
Currently, the Department of State is engaged publically in the directed capture of records, and keeping what was then not classified, off the public record regarding any current policy requirements or procedures in process. Some email is now classified, and likely according to lawful procedure. At the time, the classification was likely not required. More likely, an emphasis on partisan politics was intended--different from the previously, hideous partisan brand. For example, would the world be better off if the similar approach had been taken with respect the Manuscripts of Moses--of the subjugating, Atrocity brand?
Not only is there no wrong-doing, there is rational procedure on-going. Any protocol disputes are likely more a federal oversight matter. The Legislature, The Administration, and even the Courts--can be involved with the policy requrements. Any new guidelines can become protocol and procedure, as yet not entirely clear.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Lands of Many Nations understand revision of protocols--and other funny markings on backgrounds created from unsavory and irrational uses of forests.)
Here's how Hillary Clinton may have violated government rules on emails
So the Clinton email controversy is about an agency, confronting a lack of rules. It is not about an individual, violating rules and procedures not in place. The critics, for example, create precedents that likely are not relevant to the issue.
Remarkably, the Right Wing Press has even commented that the Secretary of State was using the same email housing as a former President of the United States. What that Press Corps is noting , number one, is that the email preservations appear to have happened. There is no protocol or procedure directing how the possibly beneficial interactions and capabilities are to be captured for the record, or to be made a part of the record, in the first place. Is it wrong for a former President to communicate with a sitting Cabinet Secretary, and of the same party? Clearly there was a partisan interest. That does not create itself, and Conflict of Interest. Apparently the former President's child was involved in publically supportive activities. The efficiency of whatever became the outcome is nowhere noted, or shown illegal.
The Conservatives are enraged, however. Possibly they remember Reagan's kids, or one or another Vice President's kids(?). Those would be said, different kinds of protocols, most likely. Senator Laxalt, even. . .in the matter of children . . .(well).
Currently, the Department of State is engaged publically in the directed capture of records, and keeping what was then not classified, off the public record regarding any current policy requirements or procedures in process. Some email is now classified, and likely according to lawful procedure. At the time, the classification was likely not required. More likely, an emphasis on partisan politics was intended--different from the previously, hideous partisan brand. For example, would the world be better off if the similar approach had been taken with respect the Manuscripts of Moses--of the subjugating, Atrocity brand?
Not only is there no wrong-doing, there is rational procedure on-going. Any protocol disputes are likely more a federal oversight matter. The Legislature, The Administration, and even the Courts--can be involved with the policy requrements. Any new guidelines can become protocol and procedure, as yet not entirely clear.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Lands of Many Nations understand revision of protocols--and other funny markings on backgrounds created from unsavory and irrational uses of forests.)
