How much for scaring a neighbor via drones? I thought they were going drone.

That can't be true since email didn't really exist in the 1950's. Obviously one was not required to keep every single correspondence to everybody in the paper era forever. Further, paper could be damaged from rain, fire, insects, etc.

Why the heck can't Outlook by default display a warning about such with wording similar to: "You are about to send a message to 100 or more people. Please confirm....".

I've had some embarrassing moments myself from such mistakes.

And a similar default warning for large messages or attachments.

Not one of them is an expert in AI systems.

I don't believe most AI experts outright dismiss doomsday AI; they merely think the possibility is a good ways off because they've personally seen how slow and difficult it is to get even incremental AI improvements.

We still have nothing even remotely close to a general-purpose AI (at least not beyond insect level). We are just beginning to make practical highly-specialized savants which are complete morons outside of their carefully-crafted specialty. (Then again, so is Congress :-)

Robots are now forbidden in Indiana stores

Indeed. He made the train-wreck more interesting. If you are going to be a jerk, be an interesting jerk.

Did they officially deny creating Stuxnet? I vaguely remember them saying something like "We don't comment on such as is our policy, and thus won't confirm nor deny".

Each agency/department has its own archiving systems, especially those that deal (as State does) with sensitive and frequently compartmentalized information.

Again, the relevant laws AS WRITTEN do NOT dictate which specific systems are to do the "storing". If you believe they do, then give the exact passage and demonstrate how your interpretation of the text is the One and Only Proper interpretation. Otherwise, it appears you are making up rules out of your tail end.

Why? Because two years worth of FOIA requests to State turned up no such emails.

We don't know how thorough their digging was and/or how much was lost or damaged over time. Maybe FOIA are lazy and dumping the problem onto other agencies. Gov't can be like that. If somebody wants to make a case that prior searches were thorough enough to cover everything possibly sent, they can, but I have NOT seen such a presentation. You are welcome to present such evidence. Otherwise, please don't speculate based on your impressions and personal notions about how the guts of gov't work or don't work.

Please stop wasting my time with so much idle speculation. She's not going to prison based on mere guesses and nebulous accusations of the other side.

But not a single one tucked away as a CC or BCC from Clinton's home-based private server that shows sending or receiving such mail.

Which specific item of mail are you talking about here? Please be clear about timelines, and who, what, when, and where.

Are you really suggesting that all of a secretary of state's sensitive and official communication is with her own staff? That she has no communication with people in the senate, the congress, ...

Sending to the Senate and Congress would ALSO likely qualify, since they are Federal systems. It doesn't have to be only to her department's own servers. Besides, she may have CC'd or forwarded such to her department staff. Anyhow, you have presented NO clear evidence that she failed to CC/copy sufficiently to comply. I just see meandering speculation from you.

You're convinced that, for example, Blumenthal's emails are all fake? Be specific.

I have not seen them confirmed by a reliable source. It appears to be mostly right-wing conspiracy sites echoing around that story, with no concrete citations. Further, H may have forwarded a copy of them to her staff/department. There is no proof she didn't. Even IF the hacker's copy had no CC with such, that doesn't mean she didn't BCC or forward a copy AFTER sending to Blumenthal. The hacker wouldn't see such on B's box. I assumed you worked in an office before and understand forwarding and BCC.

You suggested she committed a crime, and the usual assumption is "innocent until proven guilty". Can you solidly PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt she never forwarded or BCC'd the alleged Blumenthal message? (Let it alone it's legitimacy to begin with?) Some hacker's blog is hardly crime-level evidence by itself.

Any mechanism in place to automatically mirror her correspondence with third parties. None

I never claimed there was.

So, you'd be all for what the current investigation proposed: handing her server over to completely neutral third party for forensic analysis...

That's a side issue. Let's focus on your crime allegation.

which contradict things she's saying in public

No I didn't. You just have an incorrect model of reality in your head, probably obtained from cheesy blogs. You should focus on objective info available instead of the conspiracy blog plot claims.

It requires federal officials to proactively keep their public documents available for things like FOIA searches. She actively hid her records from such searches,...

Incorrect. It requires official gov't business be saved, not "public documents". So far there is no evidence she failed to comply. She's is NOT obligated to turn over copies of personal emails (so far. A judge may rule otherwise eventually, but that's future.)

because she had not provided the records, even after she left office

Her "server dump" is bonus info. She may have copied/CC'd the proper people/servers during the course of her time as SOS, but THE ORIGINAL SYSTEM IS SCREWED UP. That's not her fault.

I will agree the retention laws were F'd up at the time, but that's not directly her fault, and even if she failed to manage IT "well", it's not a criminal act.

From a technical standpoint, to track email properly and make sure none are missing, something similar to an ACID-compliant database with unique sequential message keys would probably needed. But, the law at the time didn't require such (and seemingly still doesn't), and thus it's difficult to prove certain messages were never sent. One can prove the existence of a message under such a rickety system, but maybe not the ABSENCE of. Thus, it just may be impossible to prove that Mrs. H "never sent a compliant copy of message X" because the technology used was not just powerful enough to document and prove the "hole".

Your own link:

"We tried," the employee said. "We told people in her office that it wasn't a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed." [emph. added]

You claimed she was DIRECTLY informed (as worded). This is why I ask for links: details matter.

if there was some sort of mechanism in place to do what the 2009 NARA and other rules required...

Those rules only specified they be stored on gov't systems, and said almost nothing about the technology and technique to do it. If she copied or CC'd gov't employees, she would be abiding by the law. I've explained this already.

SHE SAID THERE WASN'T.

There wasn't what?

It's perfectly reasonable to ask you if you found the prior investigation - which was run by HER party - to be likewise.

No it's not. The debate is not about GENERAL party accuracy. My debate points don't depend on prior partisan accuracy.

and those are the ones that show the date gaps, a matter which they (unlike her, with tens of thousand of mixed-in emails we'll never see) will be placing right in front of your nose to review.

Fine, I'll wait until they actually do so rather than rely on your or vague GOP claims. If details come out that smack her, fine. Until that happens, I'm not going to guess out of my ass.

As far as Jason Baron's comments, they are not explicitly connected to any specific text of the law. It's hard to tell if they are an opinion or not. I originally asked for specific laws, not opinions about them.

State Department IT staff are on the record having told her multiple times that her method of communicating was preventing them from archiving her official email as required.

Link to them. I don't believe you.

that somehow there was a magic link between her private server and some archiving mechanism at State?

I never claimed that. I don't know where you got that idea.

Do you consider the investigation run congress when it was controlled by HER own party (which established after spending millions of dollars looking into related things, that there were NO such records at State) to have also been polticized against her?

What's this question have to do with anything? I see no relation. And I already explained how no found records at the present is not the same as no records ever.

When the investigators looking into this say something, you and they know that they will be fact checked to death by her political operatives.

Politicians often spin for short-term gain and don't care about fact-checkers much.

In cases of private communications being mixed in with official ones, government archivists are supposed to look at ALL records

Where is this rule written?

When cornered you seem to get wordy. Please focus more instead of idle speculation about motivations. Motivation speculation is rarely useful info.

Further, the Blumenthal story appears to be hearsay only. The hacker only claims they are legit. Nobody of respect has verified the hacker's full claim, to my knowledge.

State said they had none of it, nor any record of having seen any such correspondence

They also said their records are poor in general. "We don't have a record of X" thus does NOT rule out X having existed in the past.

Investigators say that what she provided has gaps of weeks and months missing.

I can only find Republicans claiming that, not objective (non-political) examiners. Do you have a better link?

Her smart lawyer says there's no point allowing anyone with any forensic skills to look at her server to see if she's lying or not because she's deleted everything off of it.

What's that have to do with points being discussed? I didn't dispute that they (eventually) deleted it from her server.

She provided NONE of her email to State during her time there (required by the 2009 NARA)

You don't have any evidence of that.

in responding to FOIA requests, said they had 100% of nothing of hers to meet those requests.

Link? Like I said, the State Department servers happen to be in poor shape. That may be the reason the FOIA people didn't use it, NOT necessarily because H didn't follow proper notification steps. Or maybe FOIA is too lazy to sift for CC's etc.

her emails were not kept there, they were kept on her server at home.

It can be both.

She's said as much

No she didn't. Making sure a full set is available here and now is NOT the same as admitting past copies were not sent.

Making sure is simply making sure. If I make sure I've locked the car door that does NOT mean it was not locked.

Anyhow, let the smart lawyers work it out. You are not a lawyer with sufficient experience on this such that I cannot trust your judgement.

Are you claiming the Blumenthal messages were never copied to the appropriate department persons? Do you have evidence of this? Note that even IF she did not CC'd them directly, that does not mean she didn't later send a copy.

If she held that position, then why did she (after the existence of her private stash had been discovered) agree to provide to State (long after she'd left office) 50,000+ printed out pages of emails

I don't know their reasoning, I cannot read their minds. I've heard the department archives are in poor shape, for whatever reason.