Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[logger]

Or did you have something else in mind?

lol

I think she was a 21 year old girl who was taken advantage of by her boss, but it looks like you don't see her that way, typical for libs who really do orchestrate war on women, at least the ones they want to "get a little strange from".

 

[The Big Dog]

Laughing at Saturday night lives cold open which featured obsessive Hillary Clinton and her obsessive email control.

Good stuff.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

lol

I think she was a 21 year old girl who was taken advantage of by her boss, but it looks like you don't see her that way, typical for libs who really do orchestrate war on women, at least the ones they want to "get a little strange from".

My, what a post. How very.

 

[logger]

My, what a post. How very.

lol
How very true.
I'm amazed how the left has thrown this girl under the bus.

How about having a sexual predator back in the Whitehouse?

 

[wareyin]

Not if you understand the point I was making and the point I was not making. I've never said that she couldn't use a private account. In fact, I said the email account is the red herring.

I said she had a responsibility under the law to provide the emails to the archives and make available to the public under the FOIA laws. A duty she never met during her time in office. And never met until about 2 years after she left.

Even if everything in the emails are totally legit and she turned over everything she should have, it's the tardiness of doing so that is the problem. Her library book was over due and people are fighting over her right to check out the book or not and ignoring the fact she returned the book way past due. Whilst this library never had a time limit on when the book was due during her tenure, I find 6 years from day it was first checked out to be unacceptable.
Had the national archives not requested her to return her book, when do you think she planned on returning it? How much time should any politician be allowed to comply with the law?

My highlighting. Apparently, you agree that Hillary did not violate any law. There was no time limit to comply with FOIA request, Hillary did comply with FOIA requests, it just was not quick enough for you, personally? Why, again, should this matter?

 

[The Big Dog]

My highlighting. Apparently, you agree that Hillary did not violate any law. There was no time limit to comply with FOIA request, Hillary did comply with FOIA requests, it just was not quick enough for you, personally? Why, again, should this matter?

That is absurd, of course there is a time limit to respond to foia. Further, they did respond to foia requests claiming that they had fully complied with foia, which was false, thanks to Hillary and cowboy/home brew server.

Further, hillary converted the documents when she left. that is theft.

If you have to ask why government transparacy and the rule of law matter, I don't know how to help you.

 

[wareyin]

That is absurd, of course there is a time limit to respond to foia. Further, they did respond to foia requests claiming that they had fully complied with foia, which was false, thanks to Hillary and cowboy/home brew server.

Further, hillary converted the documents when she left. that is theft.

If you have to ask why government transparacy and the rule of law matter, I don't know how to help you.

According to Leftus' analogy, there was not. As you assert that there is, please specify what the time limit was.

Rule of law matters, but you are not applying it with your distorted versions of theft and your claim that evidence of misconduct is the possibility that it occurred.

Please do keep using the phrase "cowboy/homebrew" to describe the servers that were apparently more secure than the .gov servers, though. It is quite amusing.

 

[The Big Dog]

According to Leftus' analogy, there was not. As you assert that there is, please specify what the time limit was.

Rule of law matters, but you are not applying it with your distorted versions of theft and your claim that evidence of misconduct is the possibility that it occurred.

Please do keep using the phrase "cowboy/homebrew" to describe the servers that were apparently more secure than the .gov servers, though. It is quite amusing.

20 business days. I note you have ignored the fact that foia requests were actually answered falsely.

Your claim that Hillary's server was more secure than .gov is false, and I have posted at least three articles outlining the critical security flaws detected to date. Plus the documents were under the control of Hillary Clinton, who had the means and motive to manipulate the data.

That is why it is a cowboy/home brew set up.

 

[wareyin]

Your claim that Hillary's server was more secure than .gov is false, and I have posted at least three articles outlining the critical security flaws detected to date. Plus the documents were under the control of Hillary Clinton, who had the means and motive to manipulate the data.

That is why it is a cowboy/home brew set up.

Was the .gov server hacked? Yes. Was Hillary's? Apparently no. Therefore, which was more secure? I wonder if one could be called a cowboy/homebrew legal expert?

 

[The Big Dog]

Was the .gov server hacked? Yes. Was Hillary's? Apparently no. Therefore, which was more secure? I wonder if one could be called a cowboy/homebrew legal expert?

So we are done with the FOIA stuff. Cool, although it usually polite to at least acknowledge it.

Now, secure servers, I note that your position seems to have changed and now your argument is that Hillary's cowboy server was "apparently" not hacked. That does not mean it was more secure (for reasons that should be obvious)

Plus, I have no idea where you are getting that "apparently not" because no one outside of Hillary's team has seen the server yet, and she ain't saying nothing.

Plus, according to those articles I posted, Hill's cowboy server can be hacked, and she would never know it! Take a look at the articles I posted, they will turn your hair white.

Happy to help.

 

[wareyin]

So we are done with the FOIA stuff. Cool, although it usually polite to at least acknowledge it.

No, we are not done with the FOIA stuff. Oddly, your claim that Hillary "stole" her email records would acquit her office of your claim that FOIA requests were answered falsely, as information requested must be under agency control when the request is received. Further, when was the request made?

Now, secure servers, I note that your position seems to have changed and now your argument is that Hillary's cowboy server was "apparently" not hacked. That does not mean it was more secure (for reasons that should be obvious)

Plus, I have no idea where you are getting that "apparently not" because no one outside of Hillary's team has seen the server yet, and she ain't saying nothing.

Plus, according to those articles I posted, Hill's cowboy server can be hacked, and she would never know it! Take a look at the articles I posted, they will turn your hair white.

Happy to help.

Is this another claim that evidence of something being possible is evidence that is happened? Because we actually have evidence that the .gov servers were hacked, compared to your "expert" claims that Hillary's server could be hacked. I think evidence that security failed for one, with no evidence of security failure in the other, makes it plain which is more secure. That's just my opinion, though, not that of a "cowboy/homebrew" legal/computer expert.

 

[Leftus]

My highlighting. Apparently, you agree that Hillary did not violate any law. There was no time limit to comply with FOIA request, Hillary did comply with FOIA requests, it just was not quick enough for you, personally? Why, again, should this matter?

I believe when I said that holding onto the documents for 2 years after she left office without turning them over means she did not turn them over in keeping with the letter or spirit of the law. After all, it required the head of the agency to take acts and Clinton, while head of the agency, never complied. If we are going to tightly construe it to have no time frame, then we must also tightly construe it to who must act. And the actor, the head of the agency, never acted.

Second, Gawker media put forth a FOIA request (previously linked) in which the government responded that they had no emails from the Clinton email domain. Which means that her actions violated both the FOIA request as well as the record keeping act which stated that she was required to make those records available.

A government that responds correctly and fully to the governed matters. Complying with FOIA requests is an important method that citizens have to check on how their government is behaving.

Now if you would be so kind as to answer my questions. Had the national archives not requested her to return her book, when do you think she planned on returning it? How much time should any politician be allowed to comply with the law?

 

[The Big Dog]

No, we are not done with the FOIA stuff. Oddly, your claim that Hillary "stole" her email records would acquit her office of your claim that FOIA requests were answered falsely, as information requested must be under agency control when the request is received. Further, when was the request made?

Is this another claim that evidence of something being possible is evidence that is happened? Because we actually have evidence that the .gov servers were hacked, compared to your "expert" claims that Hillary's server could be hacked. I think evidence that security failed for one, with no evidence of security failure in the other, makes it plain which is more secure. That's just my opinion, though, not that of a "cowboy/homebrew" legal/computer expert.

sigh: the fact that an employee converted the documents does not acquit the agency from producing them, where they knew she was using her own cowboy system. It sure as hell does not acquit Hillary!!

As far as your failure to understand the vulnerabilities of Hillary's garbage system, here is another article:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

If you think that a system that was so insecure that Hillary could never know that she was getting hacked is "safe" I can't help you.

Hillary 2016!

 

[Nova Land]

Did Hillary Clinton break the law?

There's a lot of chaff on the pages of this thread since that question was raised 6 pages ago, so here's a quick recap of the key posts related to this claim.

In post 64 back on page 2 Ziggurat asserted Hillary Clinton had violated the law, but conspicuously failed to specify which law.

I asked Zig to specify which law had been broken. Zig chose not to respond to the question, but eventually Leftus asserted that Hillary Clinton had violated the Presidential Records Act (sections 3101 to 3105), and Ziggurat tacitly agreed with that. (Leftus' assertion is false. I'll post more on that after I finish this recap.)

To make it easier for people to check whether Clinton violated those sections of the PRA, I posted the text of those 5 sections in post # 91.

In post # 125 sunmaster14 claimed that the law Clinton violated was the Federal Records Act, specifically 36 CFR 1236.22(b). But after questioning by johnny karate, sunmaster admitted (post # 150) he didn't actually know how Clinton had violated that law and did not intend to look it up.

In posts 161, 267 and 277, Leftus returns to the (incorrect) claim that Clinton violated the Presidential Records Act.

And I see there are several new posts on this page from wareyin and 16.5 which I don't have time to read carefully at the moment (and which I incorrectly described in the original posting of this recap).

I hope this recap is useful. I'm now going to catch up on replying, first to Leftus' claim that Clinton violated the PRA and then to sunmaster's claim that Clinton violated the FRA.

 

[wareyin]

sigh: the fact that an employee converted the documents does not acquit the agency from producing them, where they knew she was using her own cowboy system. It sure as hell does not acquit Hillary!!

Was the FOIA request made to Hillary personally? During her tenure? Or was it made to her department, after her tenure, and after you claim she removed the documents from her department? The department is only obligated to provide documents they are in possession of at the time of request. Either they had the documents, in which case Hillary did nothing wrong, or they did not have the documents, in which case they complied with the FOIA request to the full extent required by law.

As far as your failure to understand the vulnerabilities of Hillary's garbage system, here is another article:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

If you think that a system that was so insecure that Hillary could never know that she was getting hacked is "safe" I can't help you.

Hillary 2016!

More claims of possibility, as though they trump what actually happened.

 

[Nova Land]

Here's the first post in which Leftus claimed Clinton violated the PRA:

44 U.S. Code § 3101 to 3105.

It's not the using of personal emails... It's the not turning them over until 2 years after she left office.

No. That was not against the rules at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. No time limit was specified during that time. There should have been, I agree -- but there wasn't.

If you disagree, please quote the text in the regulations which were in effect during Hillary's term in office which specify what the time limit is. It's not there.

(That's why in 2014 Barack Obama put into effect new regulations which do specify a time limit. It's a limit which current SoS John Kerry and other current and future government officials will need to respect. But it did not apply to Hillary Clinton because it went into effect after she left office. I'll devote a separate post to that.)

 

[The Big Dog]

Did Hillary Clinton break the law?

There's a lot of chaff on the pages of this thread since that question was raised 6 pages ago, so here's a quick recap of the key posts related to this claim.

In post 64 back on page 2 Ziggurat asserted Hillary Clinton had violated the law, but conspicuously failed to specify which law.

I asked Zig to specify which law had been broken. Zig chose not to respond to the question, but eventually Leftus asserted that Hillary Clinton had violated the Presidential Records Act (sections 3101 to 3105), and Ziggurat tacitly agreed with that. (Leftus' assertion is false. I'll post more on that after I finish this recap.)

To make it easier for people to check whether Clinton violated those sections of the PRA, I posted the text of those 5 sections in post # 91.

In post # 125 sunmaster14 claimed that the law Clinton violated was the Federal Records Act, specifically 36 CFR 1236.22(b). But after questioning by johnny karate, sunmaster admitted (post # 150) he didn't actually know how Clinton had violated that law and did not intend to look it up.

In posts 161, 267 and 277, Leftus returns to the (incorrect) claim that Clinton violated the Presidential Records Act.

And I see there are several new posts on this page from wayerin and 16.5, in which wayerin asks what the time limit for archiving the private account e-mails was and 16.5 incorrectly claims it was 20 days.

I hope this recap is useful. I'm now going to catch up on replying, first to Leftus' claim that Clinton violated the PRA and then to sunmaster's claim that Clinton violated the FRA.

Your recap regarding my post is wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

Was the FOIA request made to Hillary personally? During her tenure? Or was it made to her department, after her tenure, and after you claim she removed the documents from her department? The department is only obligated to provide documents they are in possession of at the time of request. Either they had the documents, in which case Hillary did nothing wrong, or they did not have the documents, in which case they complied with the FOIA request to the full extent required by law.

More claims of possibility, as though they trump what actually happened.

Ok.

 

[wareyin]

I believe when I said that holding onto the documents for 2 years after she left office without turning them over means she did not turn them over in keeping with the letter or spirit of the law. After all, it required the head of the agency to take acts and Clinton, while head of the agency, never complied. If we are going to tightly construe it to have no time frame, then we must also tightly construe it to who must act. And the actor, the head of the agency, never acted.

Second, Gawker media put forth a FOIA request (previously linked) in which the government responded that they had no emails from the Clinton email domain. Which means that her actions violated both the FOIA request as well as the record keeping act which stated that she was required to make those records available.

A government that responds correctly and fully to the governed matters. Complying with FOIA requests is an important method that citizens have to check on how their government is behaving.

Now if you would be so kind as to answer my questions. Had the national archives not requested her to return her book, when do you think she planned on returning it? How much time should any politician be allowed to comply with the law?

I will happily answer your questions, but I doubt my answers will be useful. First, had the National Archives not requested her to return the book, I do not know when, or honestly if, she planned on returning it. However, it was returned, so that really does not matter to me. Second, a politician should allowed whatever time the law limits to time of compliance. If the law did not limit time of compliance, I am not going to get upset about the time to comply taken.

 

[wareyin]

Did Hillary Clinton break the law?

There's a lot of chaff on the pages of this thread since that question was raised 6 pages ago, so here's a quick recap of the key posts related to this claim.

In post 64 back on page 2 Ziggurat asserted Hillary Clinton had violated the law, but conspicuously failed to specify which law.

I asked Zig to specify which law had been broken. Zig chose not to respond to the question, but eventually Leftus asserted that Hillary Clinton had violated the Presidential Records Act (sections 3101 to 3105), and Ziggurat tacitly agreed with that. (Leftus' assertion is false. I'll post more on that after I finish this recap.)

To make it easier for people to check whether Clinton violated those sections of the PRA, I posted the text of those 5 sections in post # 91.

In post # 125 sunmaster14 claimed that the law Clinton violated was the Federal Records Act, specifically 36 CFR 1236.22(b). But after questioning by johnny karate, sunmaster admitted (post # 150) he didn't actually know how Clinton had violated that law and did not intend to look it up.

In posts 161, 267 and 277, Leftus returns to the (incorrect) claim that Clinton violated the Presidential Records Act.

And I see there are several new posts on this page from wayerin and 16.5, in which wayerin asks what the time limit for archiving the private account e-mails was and 16.5 incorrectly claims it was 20 days.

I hope this recap is useful. I'm now going to catch up on replying, first to Leftus' claim that Clinton violated the PRA and then to sunmaster's claim that Clinton violated the FRA.

Minor (to everyone else) nitpick, but it's wareyin, not wayerin, please.