Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[logger]

.

Whether or not you think my comment adds to the discussion, my argument should be clear enough. I see this email controversy as yet more alarmist hand-wringing with little substance.

This is the Clintons, it is what they do. Whether she broke the law, time will tell. The point is the Clintons operate this way, they feel they are above the normal procedure of doing things. It will get much worse if she is nominated or elected. They are corrupt people and you libs know it.

 

[logger]

Its going to be interesting what actual emails are found and how she handled them.

 

[The Big Dog]

Its going to be interesting what actual emails are found and how she handled them.

You'll never see them all. Billary has purged them.

You don't think she set up a server in her bedroom to share her emails with the American people do you?

 

[logger]

You'll never see them all. Billary has purged them.

You don't think she set up a server in her bedroom to share her emails with the American people do you?

Yes but what if she didn't disclose certain ones that are floating out there? Or if she lied in some way about what was disclosed.

 

[uke2se]

Its going to be interesting what actual emails are found and how she handled them.

I actually agree. If Clinton acted in violation of the law she should be punished accordingly and publicly critisized. If she acted aaccording to the letter of the law but against the spirit, she still deserves critisism.

If this all turns out to be another faux scandal, however, I trust her detractors will speak up and apologize, right?

 

[Matthew Cline]

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".

Once she left that office/post, I'd think that her servers would no longer be an agency recordkeeping system.

As this was done by every Secretary of State before Hillary with the exception of one, where was the outrage when they all did the same?

I had no idea. I find that to be concerning.

 

[logger]

This is what I'm getting at.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414835/did-hillary-commit-felony-shannen-coffin

 

[The Big Dog]

I actually agree. If Clinton acted in violation of the law she should be punished accordingly and publicly critisized. If she acted aaccording to the letter of the law but against the spirit, she still deserves critisism.

If this all turns out to be another faux scandal, however, I trust her detractors will speak up and apologize, right?

Well considering there are 11,000 pending foia requests that will be further delayed because Hillary was playing games with her private server, I'll apologize right after Hillary does.

 

[NoahFence]

This is the Clintons, it is what they do. Whether she broke the law, time will tell. The point is the Clintons operate this way, they feel they are above the normal procedure of doing things. It will get much worse if she is nominated or elected. They are corrupt people and you libs know it.

Corrupt Clinton's equal scandal. Corrupt Bush's equal thousands of dead servicemen and women, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi citizen's, the total loss of trillions of dollars and of course the creation and spread of ISIS.

But please, let's talk about a personal email server.

 

[The Big Dog]

Corrupt Clinton's equal scandal. Corrupt Bush's equal thousands of dead servicemen and women, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi citizen's, the total loss of trillions of dollars and of course the creation and spread of ISIS.

But please, let's talk about a personal email server.

Oh gee, Noahfence is angry we are talking about Hillary again, so is actively trying to another thread jack with a b-bu-bu-BUSH!

Say, Noah, your post is a false dichotomy. We can talk about both things!

Why don't you go post an Iraq war thread in...... History, and the rest of us will be there shortly.

Leave Hillary alone! Check!

 

[Sherkeu]

I find extremely odd the claim that no one knew the email address that they used to email Hillary, or that she replied to them with.

Very odd. Obama stated he didn't know either. Of course, he must have known but why say he did not?

If it's all "no big deal" and above board to have her own server, then why is she so quiet about it? She should just state what her intentions were and why having it was better for America and the effectiveness of her high-level position and stop all the headlines.

People seem to be defending her mostly on legal terms. I'm more concerned with professional ethics and integrity. Like, when she set it up her first day in the role, what was she thinking? Did Obama not use .gov either? Do lots of senior govt officials also use their own servers and keep hush about it? What was the rationale for her decision?
There might be a good reason, but I haven't heard it yet!

 

[Sherkeu]

Corrupt Clinton's equal scandal. Corrupt Bush's equal thousands of dead servicemen and women, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi citizen's, the total loss of trillions of dollars and of course the creation and spread of ISIS.

But please, let's talk about a personal email server.

That is what this thread is about.

"But she isn't as bad as xxx" is just such a terrible argument. (Moral equivalence anyone?)

 

[uke2se]

That is what this thread is about.

"But she isn't as bad as xxx" is just such a terrible argument. (Moral equivalence anyone?)

It's a tu-quoque argument, and I wish people knew better than to use it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This is the Clintons, it is what they do. Whether she broke the law, time will tell. The point is the Clintons operate this way, they feel they are above the normal procedure of doing things. It will get much worse if she is nominated or elected. They are corrupt people and you libs know it.

Well, if it's any consolation to you, I cannot stand Hillary Clinton. It's visceral rather than political. And I understand why people see Bill Clinton as a sleazy guy.

BUT, however bad the Clintons may be, they bring out the absolute WORST in their enemies. For all the investigating that went on in the 90s, they never came up with anything of substance. That is why they had to drag Monica Lewinski through the mud. You say Clinton exploited her, but she was dogging him. She would have looked back on her affair with him as fun adventure if it had remained a private matter between consenting adults.

And then they locked up Susan MacDougal because she refused to participate in their witch hunt. That was pretty ruthless.

Republicans have damaged and even destroyed their own careers in this mad pursuit. Ken Starr could have been a Supreme Court Justice. Bob Livingston could have been Speaker of the House. Where are they now?

Dorothy Rabinowitz, a journalist for whom I have tremendous admiration, took a wrecking ball to her reputation when she published an unsubstantiated rape allegation, which everyone now agrees is both implausible and lacking credibility.

So, I'm a bit jaded whenever the right-wing anger machine gets going on the Clintons. We'll see where this latest fit of apoplexy goes. I'm guessing nowhere.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

We'll see where this latest fit of apoplexy goes. I'm guessing nowhere.

I'm betting you are right. When even Darrell Issa doesn't think there is a case, where else can it go?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/08/lindsey-graham_0_n_6826064.html

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has long alleged cover-ups in the Clinton State Department, said Sunday morning that Clinton's email dealings were shady, but not illegal.

"Did she break a law for which there is a penalty? Not really," Issa said on CNN.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Well considering there are 11,000 pending foia requests

11,000?

Did they get a bulk discount?

 

[The Big Dog]

11,000?

Did they get a bulk discount?

Yes. 11,000 foia requests.

Lots of people care about governmental transparency.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's a tu-quoque argument, and I wish people knew better than to use it.

It's not necessarily a tu quoque. It could be just an intentional derail. This is often the case I think when people post like this. They're either guilty of a logical fallacy or a Rule 11 breach, but not necessarily both.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Dorothy Rabinowitz, a journalist for whom I have tremendous admiration, took a wrecking ball to her reputation when she published an unsubstantiated rape allegation, which everyone now agrees is both implausible and lacking credibility.

Everyone? From everything I've read and seen, it is both plausible and credible. A hell of a lot more credible than the Woody Allen accusation that Nicholas Kristof published on behalf of his good friends.

 

[Leftus]

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


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.)

Each one of those rules were in effect when she was in office. The sections I refer to were in effect the entire time she was in office. In 2011, while she was in office, the President did make some changes for efficiency (EO 18539) but the text of public law 90-620 remained unimpacted. The EO basically stated that the US should try to keep all of this stuff electronic. Which, btw, when she turned over her emails she did not. They were printed.

From the GPO

§3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties

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.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1297.)

3102 - 1984
3103 - 1984
3104 - 1984
3105 - 1984

The big change in 84? 1984—Pub. L. 98–497 substituted “Archivist” for “Administrator of General Services”.

So, can we now agree that the laws I pointed to were the laws that were in effect while she was in office?

The time limit is acts that the head of an agency must take. As the head of the agency, she took no such actions. It took 2 years after she left office for her to turn in what she was supposed to turn in. So while it doesn't give a timeline while in office, it does require someone to be in office to accomplish the task.