Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

No, you did not give him evidence, either in normal print or all-caps. You gave him links.

If you gave him evidence, please quote it. All I see in that post is those links.

To the evidence. Did you even do more than mouse over...

Nevermind, lets agree to disagree.

Thanks for posting!

 

[The Big Dog]

Then you're even more delusional than I thought. She will definitely run and will definitely win the Dem nomination and likely win the Presidency.

'k.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

just scraping the tip of the iceberg:

sez you.

FOIA

4. Defendant U.S. Department of State is an agency of the United States Government and is headquartered at 2201 C Street NW, Washington, D.C.
Defendant has possession, custody, and control of records to which Plaintiff seeks access.

Plaintiff alleges that the U.S. Department of State (not Hillary Clinton) has records that they are refusing to release.

Please provide evidence that:-
1. Hillary Clinton 'caused' the State Dept to refuse said FOI request.
2. The courts have determined the alleged violation actually occurred.

FOIA and Orders

“The latest news that Hillary Clinton, while serving as Secretary of State, conducted all of her official business on a private account may impact nearly a dozen of our Freedom of Information Act lawsuits now active in federal courts as well as dozens of pending FOIA requests... I am convinced that these emails would never have been disclosed but for our FOIA lawsuits that broke open the Benghazi scandal...

We are concerned that the Obama administration may have withheld material information...

Lots of supposition, no facts.

House Republicans: Investigation of Benghazi

Your cite is the GOP's entire report on the Benghazi investigation? Please be more specific.

 

[Tony Stark]

'k.

Madam President. Get used to it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I think people are delusional if they think voters will even remember this non-scandal a year from now.

Indeed. By bringing this 'scandal' out into the open now, all they have done is inoculate Hillary against it being brought up again closer to the election.

So to all those haters who want to tear her down - keep it up, the more the better!

 

[The Big Dog]

Plaintiff alleges that the U.S. Department of State (not Hillary Clinton) has records that they are refusing to release.

Please provide evidence that:-
1. Hillary Clinton 'caused' the State Dept to refuse said FOI request.
2. The courts have determined the alleged violation actually occurred.

Your cite is the GOP's entire report on the Benghazi investigation? Please be more specific.

I am going to assume a basic familiarity with a Governmental entities duties in responding to FOIA requests and Subpoenas. excellent!

Now, the next step is to go back my earlier post from yesterday where I talked about the fact that the Justice Department disclosed to a Court that they had to go back and conduct a required search because they learned that Hilary Clinton's email were not properly archived and that was because they were in Hilary's exclusive control. is it a defense to a FOIA request that the documents were out of their control because an employee or former employee had the documents? Of course not. State did not have them because Hilary did not turn them over when she was the executive responsible for making sure they were turned over! Unbelievable!

The actual subpoenas are included in the third link.

 

[johnny karate]

Sure (emphasis added):

36 CFR 1236.22
...

(b) Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.

You appear to be saying that Hillary Clinton did not violate the Presidential Records Act of 1978, as Leftus claimed (and Ziggurat appeared to agree with Leftus about), and that it's a different law which her record-keeping practices violated.

All right, that's progress. Unfortunately your post is extremely lacking in details about this law which you think Hillary Clinton violated.

If you're familiar with 36 CFR 1236.22(b), could you tell us a little bit more about it? I ask because, from the link you provided, it appears to be related to "Parks, Forests and Public Property".

And piggy-backing on Nova Land's points, I'm also not seeing where "appropriate agency recordkeeping system" is defined, and where a personal email account is explicitly defined as not being "appropriate".

Please provide cites addressing that.

 

[The Big Dog]

Clinton's email security somehow WORSE than feared

"It is almost certain that at least some of the emails hosted at clintonemails.com were intercepted," independent security expert and developer Nic Cubrilovic told Gawker.

http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hillary-clintons-secret-staff-email-syst-1689393042

I understand that she is going to be running for President. I bet some hackers are delighted at the prospect.

here is a good slogan:

Hillary 2016! She might not be blackmailed by Russian Hackers!

 

[sunmaster14]

You appear to be saying that Hillary Clinton did not violate the Presidential Records Act of 1978, as Leftus claimed (and Ziggurat appeared to agree with Leftus about), and that it's a different law which her record-keeping practices violated.

All right, that's progress. Unfortunately your post is extremely lacking in details about this law which you think Hillary Clinton violated.

If you're familiar with 36 CFR 1236.22(b), could you tell us a little bit more about it? I ask because, from the link you provided, it appears to be related to "Parks, Forests and Public Property".

As an educational service to this Forum, I will refer you to the wiki page on US Administrative Law (emphasis added):

United States administrative law encompasses a number of statutes and cases that define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States Government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. federal government cannot always directly perform their constitutional responsibilities. Specialized powers are therefore delegated to an agency, board, or commission. These administrative governmental bodies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets.

Justice Breyer defines administrative law in four parts. Namely, the legal rules and principles that: (1) define the authority and structure of administrative agencies; (2) specify the procedural formalities employed by agencies; (3) determine the validity of agency decisions; and (4) define the role of reviewing courts and other governmental entities in relation to administrative agencies.[1]

U.S. federal agencies have the power to adjudicate, legislate, and enforce laws within their specific areas of delegated power. Agencies "legislate" through rulemaking—the power to promulgate (or issue) regulations. Administrative law is codified as the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Presidential Records Act is a statute, also known as enabling legislation, which has been duly passed by Congress consistent with the procedure described in this School House Rock video. A statute, either explicitly or implicitly, authorizes a federal agency to promulgate regulations to flesh out the statute as well as implement it. A regulation is very much a part of the law, although it is certainly possible to challenge it in court (similar to how it's possible that a statute may be challenged in court as unconstitutional). The regulations that Hillary may have breached were promulgated by the National Archive and Records Administration pursuant to enabling legislation contained in the National Records Act of 1950 (not the Presidential Records Act of 1978). Regardless, you are confusing regulations with statutes. According to the original Cornell Law site that I gave, the authorities for 36 CFR 1236 are provided by 44 U.S.C. 2904, 3101, 3102, and 3105.

 

[sunmaster14]

And piggy-backing on Nova Land's points, I'm also not seeing where "appropriate agency recordkeeping system" is defined, and where a personal email account is explicitly defined as not being "appropriate".

Please provide cites addressing that.

No doubt these terms are defined in other parts of 36 CFR. If not there, then they are certainly defined in various administrative rulings or procedures which have also been published somewhere. They may also have been fleshed out in the courts, which becomes part of the case law. All of this stuff becomes part of the law. I don't have time to look for what you ask right now (nor am I inclined to do it anyway), but I have enough faith in our government to believe that they have defined the term "appropriate" appropriately, and that "appropriate" does not include a 10 year old computer hidden in a locked bathroom in Hillary's basement with a sign on it that says "Out of Order, and by the way, Beware of the Leopard."

 

[The Big Dog]

No doubt these terms are defined in other parts of 36 CFR. If not there, then they are certainly defined in various administrative rulings or procedures which have also been published somewhere. They may also have been fleshed out in the courts, which becomes part of the case law. All of this stuff becomes part of the law. I don't have time to look for what you ask right now (nor am I inclined to do it anyway), but I have enough faith in our government to believe that they have defined the term "appropriate" appropriately, and that "appropriate" does not include a 10 year old computer hidden in a locked bathroom in Hillary's basement with a sign on it that says "Out of Order, and by the way, Beware of the Leopard."

If you want to take a look at how the regs operated in real life practice while Hilary was SoS, take a long hard gander at page 48 of this document!

https://web.archive.org/web/20140701090847/http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/196460.pdf

''Loss of official records..."

Hilary 2016! Do as i say not as i do!

/she's toast

 

[Augustine]

https://web.archive.org/web/20140701090847/http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/196460.pdf

''Loss of official records..."

Hilary 2016! Do as i say not as i do!

/she's toast

Ah, Ambassador Gration, we hardly knew ye.

Hillary is toast, and it's not "haterz" or "teabaggerz" that are doing her in - it's powerful Dems that don't want to see her as President (the Obamas and Bill most notably).

 

[Brainster]

well it appears that whether or not .gov services " suck," Hilary's homebrew system was a security and transparency nightmare:

as Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Nate Cardozo put it: "Clinton's decision to forgo the State Department's servers is inexplicable and inexcusable."

Oh, it's not inexplicable at all.

 

[johnny karate]

No doubt these terms are defined in other parts of 36 CFR. If not there, then they are certainly defined in various administrative rulings or procedures which have also been published somewhere. They may also have been fleshed out in the courts, which becomes part of the case law. All of this stuff becomes part of the law. I don't have time to look for what you ask right now (nor am I inclined to do it anyway), but I have enough faith in our government to believe that they have defined the term "appropriate" appropriately, and that "appropriate" does not include a 10 year old computer hidden in a locked bathroom in Hillary's basement with a sign on it that says "Out of Order, and by the way, Beware of the Leopard."

So... you don't know if Hillary Clinton broke the law.

You just believe she did.

Gotcha.

Maybe in the future, when someone asks a question to which you don't actually know the answer, limit your response to "I don't know".

Or better yet, do what most intelligent people do in those situations and just spare everyone your answer-free tedious blathering.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh, it's not inexplicable at all.

I dunno, it is difficult to understand the megalomania that would cause someone like Clinton to do something like this.

 

[sunmaster14]

I dunno, it is difficult to understand the megalomania that would cause someone like Clinton to do something like this.

From her perspective it's the lesser of two evils. Better to take the heat for not saving records than actually to have some incriminating records surface. In any case, she has confidence (probably justified) that the mainstream media will cover for her, as they did with respect to the Benghazi fiasco. Personally, I think she'll muddle through this quite easily. Sure it stinks, but, like a fart in an outhouse, the stench is barely detectable.

 

[The Big Dog]

From her perspective it's the lesser of two evils. Better to take the heat for not saving records than actually to have some incriminating records surface. In any case, she has confidence (probably justified) that the mainstream media will cover for her, as they did with respect to the Benghazi fiasco. Personally, I think she'll muddle through this quite easily. Sure it stinks, but, like a fart in an outhouse, the stench is barely detectable.

Really? I think she is done. She issued one silly tweet about the subject.

What is she gonna say about why she did this? Security? Her homebrew system was a complete joke.

I just watched a video from 2000 where she said she does not use e-mail, because "all of the people coming after her" and "can you imagine?"

So she set up a garbage system so she could control her emails.

Arrogance coupled with complete contempt for government transparency? In my White House?

She's toast.

 

[The Big Dog]

The funniest part about this is all those articles about this fiasco are accompanied with pictures of Hilary looking like a "bad ass" with her RayBans and blackberry.

Now when people see those they will realize that she is looking at some email sitting on an insecure server that is probably being read by Putin at the same exact moment.

By the way, the "texts from Hilary" meme is now funnier than ever!

 

[Newtons Bit]

If you're familiar with 36 CFR 1236.22(b), could you tell us a little bit more about it? I ask because, from the link you provided, it appears to be related to "Parks, Forests and Public Property".

This shouldn't be hard to understand. The law considers work related emails conducted by very high ranking employees of the government to be public property due to the historical significance of their work.

 

[The Big Dog]

2011

Clinton instructs all State department personnel to avoid the use of personal emails for Department business pursuant to State Department regulations.

Bwhahahaha!!


Hilary says personal emails are bad.