Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony Stark said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cf0722-4815-41ca-b602-9bfe8ecdb256_story.html
Click to expand...

Tony, it would be nice if you excerpted a part of the article you're linking to, or at least described it. That way, we can decide whether it's worth the risk of clicking on it.

As for the point, which I suppose is that even government servers are not free from hacking risks, I doubt that very many security experts would consider Hillary's setup to be more secure than using the government servers, or even, as secure, despite the problems the government has had with security breaches. At least the government found out about the breaches (and now we know about them). Perhaps Hillary's security was breached and even she doesn't know about it.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Tony, it would be nice if you excerpted a part of the article you're linking to, or at least described it. That way, we can decide whether it's worth the risk of clicking on it.

As for the point, which I suppose is that even government servers are not free from hacking risks, I doubt that very many security experts would consider Hillary's setup to be more secure than using the government servers, or even, as secure, despite the problems the government has had with security breaches. At least the government found out about the breaches (and now we know about them). Perhaps Hillary's security was breached and even she doesn't know about it.
Click to expand...

we know that people she corresponded with had their security breached.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Tony, it would be nice if you excerpted a part of the article you're linking to, or at least described it. That way, we can decide whether it's worth the risk of clicking on it.

As for the point, which I suppose is that even government servers are not free from hacking risks, I doubt that very many security experts would consider Hillary's setup to be more secure than using the government servers, or even, as secure, despite the problems the government has had with security breaches. At least the government found out about the breaches (and now we know about them). Perhaps Hillary's security was breached and even she doesn't know about it.
Click to expand...

It is laughable to complain about hacking concerns regard Hillary's email when State department email has actually been hacked in reality. State.gov is a huge target, while nobody even heard of clintonemails, which she didn't even use to transmit classified information.

I guarantee none of you people would give two craps if it was one of those Republican jokers running for President that used personal email for business. You're just desperate as you can see the writing on the wall that Hillary Clinton is likely to be elected President and are willing to latch on to anything that might prevent that.
 
Tony Stark said:
I guarantee none of you people would give two craps if it was one of those Republican jokers running for President that used personal email for business.
Click to expand...

Well, you have made it abundantly clear that you don't give two craps that Hillary held every one of her official emails on her personal server for over six years thereby causing State to violate FOIA, Court Orders, and Subpoenas.

And I suspect you will continue to make that point again and again.
 
16.5 said:
Well, you have made it abundantly clear that you don't give two craps that Hillary held every one of her official emails on her personal server for over six years thereby causing State to violate FOIA, Court Orders, and Subpoenas.
And I suspect you will continue to make that point again and again.
Click to expand...

Says you.
 
Tony Stark said:
It is laughable to complain about hacking concerns regard Hillary's email when State department email has actually been hacked in reality. State.gov is a huge target, while nobody even heard of clintonemails, which she didn't even use to transmit classified information.
I guarantee none of you people would give two craps if it was one of those Republican jokers running for President that used personal email for business. You're just desperate as you can see the writing on the wall that Hillary Clinton is likely to be elected President and are willing to latch on to anything that might prevent that.
Click to expand...

How do you know this? Assertions of her, her spokesman, or Democratic politicians? Who would be able to verify this independently without using information provided solely by Hillary, Inc.?
I would be interested in your definitions of two ideas:
Government Transparency
Skeptic
 
Augustine said:
How do you know this? Assertions of her, her spokesman, or Democratic politicians? Who would be able to verify this independently without using information provided solely by Hillary, Inc.?
I would be interested in your definitions of two ideas:
Government Transparency
Skeptic
Click to expand...


According to the State Department.
 
16.5 said:
solid retort. :rolleyes:

Actually says the plaintiffs in the cases, and the Justice Department when they informed a Court that they had to supplement prior disclosures in one case.
Click to expand...


Well if the plaintiffs says so it must be true!
 
16.5 said:
Now you seem to be moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...

Ooh, you really got me there. Instead just you saying it, it is you and some plaintiffs. Must be true now.

You also ignored the part about the Justice Department.

Hmmmm....
Click to expand...

Even if what you describe about the Justice Department is accurate, they didn't actually say that Hillary caused "State to violate FOIA, Court Orders, and Subpoenas."
 
Tony Stark said:
Ooh, you really got me there. Instead just you saying it, it is you and some plaintiffs. Must be true now.

Even if what you describe about the Justice Department is accurate, they didn't actually say that Hillary caused "State to violate FOIA, Court Orders, and Subpoenas."
Click to expand...

Yes, I already I pointed out that you have moved the goalposts. From "says you" to well whatever the point of your argument from incredulity is.

Will the plaintiffs file motions for sanctions? of course.

Will the government be forced to supplement previous disclosures? of course.

Will the government be further sanctioned?

Of course. Thanks Hillary.
 
16.5 said:
Yes, I already I pointed out that you have moved the goalposts. From "says you" to well whatever the point of your argument from incredulity is.

Will the plaintiffs file motions for sanctions? of course.

Will the government be forced to supplement previous disclosures? of course.

Will the government be further sanctioned?

Of course. Thanks Hillary.
Click to expand...

Says you.
 
Leftus said:
44 U.S. Code § 3101 to 3105.

It's not the using of personal emails. That is the red herring in this mess. It's the not turning them over until 2 years after she left office.

3101:
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Keeping all of the emails where she and only she had access to them does not furnish the information necessary to protect the government or the persons directly affected. See the negative responses to FOIA requests that have to be amended because she finally turned over the information.
Click to expand...

Links up-thread to experts disagree with your assessment of lawbreaking.

Leftus said:
Up until about 2 months ago, as far as the government knew, those documents did not exist. That is not, by spirit or letter, making or preserving records designed to furnish information. It's exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...

That can't possibly be true that "the government" didn't know what email address HRC was sending email from, can it ?

Did no one ever look at the "reply-to" in the header ? Or send her an email ???
 
Tolls said:
Was she unique?
Did her predecessors do it?
(I have no idea at all).

She seems to be following the rules, from my limited reading on this...
Click to expand...


Good questions, and ones I'm also interested in learning the answers to.

My understanding so far is that she was not unique in this, and that her actions were not significantly different from those of numerous other government officials including her predecessors as Secretary of State. But this is not something I am very knowledgeable on, so I'm interested in reading factual contributions to this discussion by folks who do know what they're talking about.

One important correction to your post, though. You wrote that she seemed to be following the rules. I would amend that to say that she seemed to be following the rules as they existed at the time she was in office.

Tolls said:
...not that those rules are necessarily correct.
Click to expand...


I strongly feel those rules were not correct.

When Karl Rove and others were found to be using private e-mail accounts and deleting important e-mails strong action should have been taken.
Not surprisingly, the Bush administration chose not to do so.

The Obama administration had several options when they took power for addressing this problem. One would have been to aggressively investigate the past abuses of the records system and to bring charges if it could be found that the abuses were for the purpose of concealing improper activities. Such an investigation, even if no charges could be brought, would have sent a strong message to officials in the Obama administration not to engage in actions either which were designed to conceal improper activites or which could give the appearance of being designed to conceal such activities.

For better or worse, Obama decided not to aggressively investigate the many abuses which appear to have occurred during the Bush years. Instead the approach taken regarding records-keeping was to amend the law in 2014 to close the loopholes which permitted the abuses. It is no longer legal to engage in the kind of record-keeping which was done during the Bush administration and continued to be done during the first 5 years of the Obama administration.

But if it was legal when Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel, Karl Rove and others were doing it, then I see little point in singling out and scape-goating Hillary Clinton. There are important problems facing the US and the world; we really don't have time or money to waste playing partisan political games like this, even if those who lack constructive programs might prefer to do so.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom