@parados,
Quote:In January, in one of the most riveting cases of the current session, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) whistleblower Robert MacLean, holding that agency rules and regulations do not equate to laws.
We'll start with this. What was actually said is: "
interpreting the word ‘law’ to include rules and regulations could defeat the purpose of the whistleblower statute. That interpretation would allow an agency to insulate itself… simply by promulgating a regulation that ‘specifically prohibited’ all whistleblowing.”
So your use of paraphrasing did not encompass the meaning of the decision.
The example you provided had to do with TSA attempting to override McLean's legal rights under the Whistle Blower Act by superseding them with their own regulations. They attempted to undermine a law with a regulation. And since there is no comparison between Clinton's failure to turn her emails over after her tenure as Secretary of State and sending and receiving classified information over her unsecured personal email server, and Robert McLean's right to blow the whistle on the TSA, what exactly was your point?
_____________________________________________
So now let's get back to reality.
It is important to note that in legal translation the word ‘regulation’ is used to denote a set of rules that have legal connotations. Regulations are official in use whereas rules are not official in use. This is one of the key differences between rules and regulations. Also when speaking of the context in which regulations can be seen one can notice another striking difference. Regulations usually pertain to a workplace such as an office or a firm.
Another way of differentiating regulations from rules is that regulations are a set of standards that must be followed at any cost. These standards will not change. On the other hand, rules should be followed for the betterment of a workplace or a concern. Rules are at times transgressed. Regulations cannot be transgressed for that matter.
A regulation becomes a legal rule. For example,
a regulation issued by a local government or administrative agency becomes a legal rule. It becomes a restriction that has legal force.
Quote:Regulations are also enforceable like laws but remain subordinate to them.
Yes, as in the case in point which you brought up. TSA attempted to override the law with their invalid regulation that was counter to that law. Describe how Clinton's failure to turn over ALL her emails is similar to McLean's case.
___________________________________________
Email Records Equivalent to Other Records:
In 1995, NARA amended the Code of Federal Regulations to confirm that “messages created or received on electronic mail systems may meet the definition of record.”
The regulations also referenced the use of electronic communications systems external to the Government, indicating that “agencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that Federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate recordkeeping system.”
A recordkeeping system is a manual or electronic system that captures, organizes, and categorizes records to facilitate their preservation, retrieval, use, and disposition.
The FAM adopted similar requirements in 1995, by providing in pertinent part that:
all employees must be aware that some of the variety of the messages being exchanged on email are important to the Department and must be preserved; such messages are considered Federal records under the law.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/313803323/State-Dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-Clinton-s-email-practices
__________________________________________
Now before you try to claim that Clinton turned over her emails:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton withheld from the State Department several emails related to Libya, the State Department confirmed Thursday night — calling into question her insistence that she has handed over her complete public record.
The 2016 Democratic front-runner did not hand over 15 exchanges with longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal on the security situation in the Middle Eastern nation. The existence of the new correspondence only came to light days ago after Republicans subpoenaed the former Clinton White House adviser’s records and he turned them over.
The chairman of the House committee, Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, said that many of the emails that Mrs. Clinton had not handed over showed that “she was soliciting and regularly corresponding with Sidney Blumenthal, who was passing unvetted intelligence information about Libya from a source with a financial interest in the country.”
“It just so happens these emails directly contradict her public statement that the messages from Blumenthal were unsolicited,” he said. Mr. Blumenthal identified the source of his information as Tyler Drumheller, a former high-ranking C.I.A. official, according to a person with knowledge of his testimony to the Benghazi panel. Mr. Drumheller was part of a group that sought to do business in Libya.
___________________________________________
And you never did respond to this . . . again:
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
__________________________________________________
Do you agree that "intent" is not a prerequisite when assessing gross negligence?
