Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clinton’s Use of Private Email at State Department Raises Flags [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)88. The statute has covered federal records since the 1950s. The definition was probably broad enough
then to include anything that was a federal record including emails, even though the technology did not exist then (that I know of). However, as technology developed, more specific examples were added to the definition. In the 1970s, machine readable material was added to the definition. Emails are machine readable.
The statutory definition or records in the Federal Records Act (per the latest version shown at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3301:
As used in this chapter, records includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data in them. Library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes, extra copies of documents preserved only for convenience of reference, and stocks of publications and of processed documents are not included.
As can be seen, the definition is based on the anything made or received by a federal agency in connection with the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form. The specific things mentioned, like books and maps, do not limit that broader concept.
If you click on the notes tab, you find that "machine readable materials" was added in the 1970s. Again, though, the specific form in which data is embodied is not important.
Here is a perhaps ironic tidbit about the very first federal Records Act.
The Records Act, also known as an Act to provide for the safe-keeping of the Acts, Records and Seal of the United States, and for other purposes, was the fourteenth law passed by the United States Congress.
The first section of the bill renamed the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of State. The next section charged the Secretary of State with receiving legislation from the president for safekeeping. Five subsequent provisions governed the creation, custody and use of the Seal of the United States.
The act also directed the Secretary of State to ensure that every bill enacted or vetoed was published in at least three newspapers, making it the nation's first freedom of information law, though its provisions would later be used to justify the withholding of information from the public.[2]
In 1875, the law was incorporated into 5 U.S.C. section 301, the Housekeeping Statute.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_Act
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
109 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Hillary Clinton’s Use of Private Email at State Department Raises Flags [View all]
choie
Mar 2015
OP
It was a big deal here when the Bush administration was caught using personal email addresses.
arcane1
Mar 2015
#2
Seems as if there are a lot of things that were a big deal when they were done by the Bush admin ...
markpkessinger
Mar 2015
#56
Everyone in the Bush administration had YAHOO accounts. They don't have ANY of that stuff.
MADem
Mar 2015
#3
Republicans and media hammered Benghazi without affecting either her desire to run or her anointing.
merrily
Mar 2015
#71
Wasn't it an article in which Schumer was saying Democratic primaries are undesirable? Only his pic?
merrily
Mar 2015
#98
Really?? I didn't see any slide show of pics of Dem Presidential hopefuls at that link.
merrily
Mar 2015
#100
And there's the problem. How much leeway will the press give her as more of this happens?
7962
Mar 2015
#68
If she remains the anointed, she will be the nominee regardless of what the press says because
merrily
Mar 2015
#87
The GOP will make a big deal, but it will just look like politics to the general public
7962
Mar 2015
#90
The media has a way of riling up the general public, esp. rw radio and it's internet counterparts.
merrily
Mar 2015
#94
i hope it irritates the right into an eye-bulging spittle-flying tic-riddled frenzy
Romeo.lima333
Mar 2015
#11
This is what the Walker John Doe was about. He set up a private router system in his office.
postulater
Mar 2015
#12
Yes, the Obama administration knew about it. They would have to, in order
TwilightGardener
Mar 2015
#14
BS - the gov't email for official biz requirement predates the Bush Admin. It's a law.
leveymg
Mar 2015
#76
The 1950 Act has been interpreted to include machine readable messages since the 1970s.
leveymg
Mar 2015
#86
The statute has covered federal records since the 1950s. The definition was probably broad enough
merrily
Mar 2015
#88
I want to wait to hear more before making a judgement but you can see the glee of some.
hrmjustin
Mar 2015
#26
Didn't give his stupidity a second thought. That was his problem with his constituents.
Old and In the Way
Mar 2015
#37
Actually, there was a lot of outrage from Democrats when similar news about Bushco hit. Palin, too.
merrily
Mar 2015
#53
Doubtful. Official emails = federal record. The Federal Records Act was signed in 1950.
merrily
Mar 2015
#54
I think it would be proper to ask if it's the Obama administration who prefers
TwilightGardener
Mar 2015
#49
Yes and no. The law was in place since 1950 (actually much, much earlier, but we are now working
merrily
Mar 2015
#108
For a Candidate in waiting this has the appearance of some serious baggage.
Ford_Prefect
Mar 2015
#78