That Story About Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Account Isn’t as Awful as It Seems

[merrily]

151. The language you highlighted in your post says federal LAW, not federal regulations.

This is the language you highlighted in your OP.

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.

He says nothing about regulations.

The Federal Records Act is a statute, or law. Earlier today, I linked you to the definition of "records" in that statute, but you claimed it was irrelevant. You were mistaken. That statutory definition does say that things created and received by federal officials (that relate to public business) are federal "records," which is exactly what Baron claims the law says (again, not the regulation, but the statute..

Other parts of the Federal Records statute specify what officials must do with things that fall under the definition of federal records.

A statue passed by Congress is federal law. It is "higher" federal law than a federal regulation that a federal agency adopts to make a statute more specific. A regulation CANNOT lawfully require anything that the statute does not require. So claiming that the regulation created a new requirement that did not exist under the 1950 statute shows a lack of understanding of the relation between statutes and regulations.

The regulation may clarify the statute, but, again, no regulation can lawfully require more than the statute does. If it does, a court will strike down the regulation as invalid. So, either this newer regulation is simply making the requirements of the 1950 act more specific, or it is an invalid regulation. Either way, 1950 is the relevant date, not the date some particular regulation was adopted.

So, your pointing out that he doesn't say which federal regulation was violated misses the mark.

(This in itself, is not to say that Hillary violated the Federal Records statute, only that the statute has covered all federal records since 1950, regardless of the form in which they are embodied and, yes, the 1950 statute did apply to the Secretary of State and still does.)


But, as far as we know, Hillary did retain the records. She did not, however, either segregate the records or archive them (or see that that happened). However, as long as she did not destroy the records, all else can be remedied. So, in the end, nothing much is going to come of this anyway.

Of course, the agency most responsible for federal records is the National Archives and Records Administration. And you and various others are contradicting the man who used to be in charge of lawsuits by and against that agency. He is now with a 160 year old law firm of over 600 attorneys, which numbers both suggest some degree of success on the part of that law firm. That kind of success doesn't come from hiring people who don't know what they are talking about.

Here is the write up the law firm where Baronn now practices shows for him. Among many other things, it shows 25 years experience with the agency in charge of federal records and a particular expertise with electronic communications. I recommend reading at least the first few paragraphs.

http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/news/headlines/2013/jason-baron-us-archives-joins-drinker-biddle

I don't think professional media writers and commentators, even if they have law degrees, can think a quick look at a statute or a regulation can possibly trump the knowledge this man has on this subject. If I have to choose between what this guy says about this particular law and what some guy at mediamatters says after contemplating the matter briefly, I'm going with Baron. And I recommend the same to others.