Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[davefoc]

The problem here is that Ziggurat, and now you, are basing your scenarios on the assumption of incompetence while having absolutely no knowledge on what security measures were taken. That should give you pause, here, if you are not one who has already assumed his conclusion that Clinton is incompetent.

As I've noted, I don't understand what she or her apparatchiks were thinking when she did this. I don't see any scenario in which her actions with regard to this were likely to be compliant with record keeping requirements, with security requirements and with just common sense.

I think it's reasonable to suspect incompetence when somebody does something that doesn't offer significant advantage while at the same time subjecting herself and others to the risk of substantial harm.

To counter the suspicion of incompetence it is only necessary to show that Clinton had some goal that might have been facilitated with her use of a personal email server that was of significant value when compared to risks associated with engaging in potentially illegal activities and risks associated with the handling of sensitive/classified material. If somebody has done this in this thread I didn't notice it.

As I have noted above, I will probably end up voting for Clinton even though I think this issue suggests that she is both corrupt and incompetent. Ziggurat wondered why I would vote for Clinton despite my views on this. That is not a question that I can quickly answer except to say that the likely Republican candidates have done things I believe are worse and/or they have policy ideas that I am more strongly opposed to than some of Clinton's ideas I disagree with. I have a much more cynical view of politics than I had before the Bush administration. Corruption is deeply embedded in American politics and maybe all politics. I don't expect to get to vote for a completely non-corrupt candidate and I accept that.

 

[Mike!]

As the head of her department, she couldn't follow basic procedure or standards. Part of that standard is to use the same tools provided as a standard feature of the department - in this case emails. It ensures the same security measures are in place, and that the same representation of the department is followed in email communications. In most areas of work, failing to follow proper procedure for basic tasks, that makes an entity look disorganized and as ranks as incompetence. This is regardless of whether it's a democrat or a republican violating the procedure. Hillary just looks worse because she did all of this as the head of her department.

If you want to say her decisions were no big deal.... fine, but the incompetence label doesn't come out of a vacuum

But it does suck.

 

[The Big Dog]

Source: FBI ‘A-team’ leading ‘serious’ Clinton server probe, focusing on defense info

The CFR also require a damage assessment once a possible compromise has been identified "to conduct an inquiry/investigation of a loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure of classified information."

Farrell said, "There is no evidence there has been any assessment of Mrs. Clinton and her outlaw server."

Hey, it is COWBOY server, although with the FBI sniffing around major criminal violations, "outlaw server" is growing on me.

 

[DavidJames]

As I've noted, I don't understand what she or her apparatchiks were thinking when she did this. I don't see any scenario in which her actions with regard to this were likely to be compliant with record keeping requirements, with security requirements and with just common sense.

Ok, so you agree with Zig and others an appeal to incredulity is the correct approach.

I think it's reasonable to suspect incompetence when somebody does something that doesn't offer significant advantage while at the same time subjecting herself and others to the risk of substantial harm.

Considering that no one knows what security may (or may not) have been place, exactly why did you reach this conclusion. Just common sense right?

To counter the suspicion of incompetence it is only necessary to show that Clinton had some goal that might have been facilitated with her use of a personal email server that was of significant value when compared to risks associated with engaging in potentially illegal activities and risks associated with the handling of sensitive/classified material. If somebody has done this in this thread I didn't notice it.

NO NO NO. It is not necessary for anyone to do anything to counter YOUR (or anyone's) suspicion. A primer in skeptical thinking could help you here.

Ziggurat wondered why I would vote for Clinton despite my views on this. That is not a question that I can quickly answer except to say that the likely Republican candidates have done things I believe are worse and/or they have policy ideas that I am more strongly opposed to than some of Clinton's ideas I disagree with. I have a much more cynical view of politics than I had before the Bush administration. Corruption is deeply embedded in American politics and maybe all politics. I don't expect to get to vote for a completely non-corrupt candidate and I accept that.

This paragraph closely represents my thoughts (but goes much earlier then Bush).

Do you wonder why the same people show up in all these anti-Clinton/Obama threads bashing, proclaiming guilt, but almost never seen talking about candidates they support? It's become clear to me.

 

[mgidm86]

Even if that were true it illustrates gross incompetence, doesn't it?

What email server did Hillary have for classified material?

Great question. Are we to believe that Hillary received and sent no classified information, and did not expect to do so, during her entire term as Secretary Of State? If she believed that she would be dealing with any classified information at all, then using her own server was negligent at best.

 

[Leftus]

Here's another POV of the issue presented by one of the talking heads on the news, probably MSNBC but I'm not sure which station.

You turn over 50K emails with permission or even a request they be made public. And/or there is a FOIA request for the emails.

Before said emails are released to the public, the departments from which the emails originated or were relevant to are given the option of reviewing the material and approving or denying release. Denying the release to the public involves reclassifying the material if it wasn't previously deemed classified.

It may turn out that is all this is about.

She was required, by law, to turn those over to the State Department. You don't get credit for doing what you are legally required to do, and you should lose credit for doing it years after you were obligated to do so. Our collective right to that information should not be at the whim of a single person.

Clinton had no authority to be the sole owner of what essentially belongs to the people. She had no authority to deny the public access to information they are lawfully allowed to have. Stating that she finally decided to follow that portion of the federal record keeping acts is not a point in her favor.

Had she turned them over and said "I want the State Department to hold these for 50 years before releasing" would have had the same legal impact and authority as her stating "I want them to be released as soon as possible." It's an utterly meaningless statement as to when the documents will be made public.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ok, so you agree with Zig and others an appeal to incredulity is the correct approach.

Do you wonder why the same people show up in all these anti-Clinton/Obama threads bashing, proclaiming guilt, but almost never seen talking about candidates they support? It's become clear to me.

Appeal to incredulity? Lolz.

By the way, your "same people blah blah blah" nonsense? Nobody cares.

 

[Ziggurat]

Considering that no one knows what security may (or may not) have been place

It amuses me that you think this is a defense of Clinton's actions. It is not. The thing about handling classified information is that you don't get to pick and choose what security measures you protect it with. You MUST, by law, use the government-approved methods. And whatever else Hillary may have done in the way of security (which you admit that you don't know if she did anything), she didn't take the government-approved measures.

NO NO NO. It is not necessary for anyone to do anything to counter YOUR (or anyone's) suspicion.

That is not true. When handling classified information, the handler must indeed demonstrate that they handled it correctly. So the burden of proof in this case is properly on Hillary.

Do you wonder why the same people show up in all these anti-Clinton/Obama threads bashing, proclaiming guilt, but almost never seen talking about candidates they support? It's become clear to me.

Do you wonder why the same people show up in all these threads attacking Clinton critics, proclaiming their malice, but are almost never seen actually defending Clinton? It's become clear to me.

 

[davefoc]

It amuses me that you think this is a defense of Clinton's actions. It is not. The thing about handling classified information is that you don't get to pick and choose what security measures you protect it with. You MUST, by law, use the government-approved methods. And whatever else Hillary may have done in the way of security (which you admit that you don't know if she did anything), she didn't take the government-approved measures.



That is not true. When handling classified information, the handler must indeed demonstrate that they handled it correctly. So the burden of proof in this case is properly on Hillary.



Do you wonder why the same people show up in all these threads attacking Clinton critics, proclaiming their malice, but are almost never seen actually defending Clinton? It's become clear to me.

Thank you Ziggurat. This is the response I would have liked to have made if I hadn't been annoyed at DavidJames's response.

I have openly admitted I don't understand what is going on here. On the surface it looks like she acted stupidly and corruptly, but perhaps there is an explanation for Clinton's actions that doesn't involve incompetence or corruption. I don't see what it is, but I am more than willing to read what it is. I hope there is one. I don't hate Clinton and I admire her for her accomplishments. I'm probably going to vote for her.

DavidJames said:

NO NO NO. It is not necessary for anyone to do anything to counter YOUR (or anyone's) suspicion. A primer in skeptical thinking could help you here.

You don't seem to realize it DavidJames but you are the one making the claim . You are claiming that there is an explanation for Clinton's actions with regard to the email scandal that doesn't involve corruption or incompetence. Great. So just tell it what it is. My only claim is that I don't see how an explanation that doesn't involve corruption or incompetence can be right. So far neither Clinton nor anybody participating in this thread has succeeded in putting forth what that explanation is which makes me think it is likely that there isn't one.

You seem to believe an innocent explanation is possible. If your belief is based on the idea that all things are possible and maybe there is an innocent explanation here, then there is no dispute, but your claim would be so weak as to be essentially useless. If your claim is that an innocent explanation exists because you know of an innocent explanation. Great. Just tell us what it is.

 

[Fudbucker]

At last you begin to display an imagination. Either that or a difficulty with reading comprehension.



What a coincidence! I'm still waiting for you to support your own claim, rather that expect others to disprove it. Remember, an inability to imagine being wrong is not supporting your claim. I know you dislike repetition, but I find it does help when someone is struggling with a concept. Obviously it's not always effective, though.

Ziggurat is correct: there is no plausible scenario that has Hillary using a private email server. The most charitable reading of the facts is incompetence. Given Hillary's changing answers regarding classified emails, the most probable scenario is some nefarious activity she was trying to cover up.

ETA: If there was a good explanation for Hillary using a private server, she would have given it when the story first broke. Since she hasn't, we have to conclude there's some other non-good (bad) explanation for her actions that she doesn't want to talk about. The only two plausible ones are incompetence or deceit.

 

[Beeyon]

The problem here is that Ziggurat, and now you, are basing your scenarios on the assumption of incompetence while having absolutely no knowledge on what security measures were taken. That should give you pause, here, if you are not one who has already assumed his conclusion that Clinton is incompetent.

(This post is made in complete sincerity despite the clownishness of my previous post)

I think this may be a fair point. Let's pretend that Clinton repeatedly told her staff that the email was strictly non-classified subject matter. We have reason to believe that there was some control over who knew Clinton's email address; let's pretend that whenever the email was given to non-staff, the recipients were warned not to send classified material. It is plausible that there could be procedural controls in place that would make Clinton's email server not entirely negligent with regards to classified information handling.

But if that's the case, why aren't we hearing that story?

 

[davefoc]

(This post is made in complete sincerity despite the clownishness of my previous post)

I think this may be a fair point. Let's pretend that Clinton repeatedly told her staff that the email was strictly non-classified subject matter. We have reason to believe that there was some control over who knew Clinton's email address; let's pretend that whenever the email was given to non-staff, the recipients were warned not to send classified material. It is plausible that there could be procedural controls in place that would make Clinton's email server not entirely negligent with regards to classified information handling.

But if that's the case, why aren't we hearing that story?

I think it is a fair point about one aspect of this issue which is unlikely to be based on something that actually happened because as you noted, nobody is claiming that Clinton published memos to inform people that sensitive materials should not be sent to her via email and further nobody is claiming that Clinton followed procedures associated with receiving classified or classifiable materials for any email that she received.

But this point, even if it were valid, is only relevant to one aspect of this issue. There is also the issue of whether Clinton ever intended to provide her emails for archiving. It appears she did not which suggests corruption in that she seems to have intended to violate the law until she was forced to provide copies of her emails. (And apparently to provide maximal annoyance for everybody involved Clinton only provided printed copies and not electronic copies).

There is also the fact that Clinton mixed SoS business, non-SoS business and personal emails on the same email system. It seems like even a marginally competent lawyer could have seen the potential problems for Clinton with this approach.

 

[wareyin]

But this point, even if it were valid, is only relevant to one aspect of this issue. There is also the issue of whether Clinton ever intended to provide her emails for archiving. It appears she did not which suggests corruption in that she seems to have intended to violate the law until she was forced to provide copies of her emails. (And apparently to provide maximal annoyance for everybody involved Clinton only provided printed copies and not electronic copies).

Can you name one Secretary of State who provided emails for archiving, prior to Clinton? I'm not aware of one. In fact, we know that not only did Powell use a Gmail account, he never turned over a single email for archiving. If it was routine to not provide emails for archiving, why do you assume it is corrupt of Clinton to do so?

 

[Ziggurat]

Can you name one Secretary of State who provided emails for archiving, prior to Clinton? I'm not aware of one.

Yes. Condoleezza Rice.

 

[davefoc]

Can you name one Secretary of State who provided emails for archiving, prior to Clinton? I'm not aware of one. In fact, we know that not only did Powell use a Gmail account, he never turned over a single email for archiving. If it was routine to not provide emails for archiving, why do you assume it is corrupt of Clinton to do so?

Why are you asking this question? The laws and rules point to the notion that Clinton was required to provide her emails for archiving. Not following rules and laws is a form of corruption. It seems likely that archiving would have happened automatically for State Department employees that weren't using their own email server. It is not clear why she attempted to prevent her emails from being archived but no plausible answer has been put forth by her, so all that is left is speculation. Please feel free to provide a possible reason that doesn't involve corruption or incompetence.

As to the everybody else did it excuse: Apparently everybody else didn't do it if Ziggurat is correct above, but more importantly email was still becoming a standard means of communication when Powell was Secretary of State and the country had not lived through the lost email scandal involving the Bush administration. Rules had been put in place to preserve official communications and Clinton chose to ignore those rules or she was unaware of them which would make it seem that Clinton was more incompetent than is plausible.

I appreciate the fact that you want to minimize what Clinton has done here. I'd like to believe that this wasn't of much significance. Certainly considering the endless exploitation by the Republicans of the Benghazi tragedy for their partisan political purposes it is easy to just lump the email scandal in with that kind of thing. The difference here is that there is unequivocal evidence of Clinton malfeasance although Clinton's motivations for the malfeasance remain unclear. If incompetence was a major factor then finding a motive may not be possible. Maybe she just acted stupidly.

 

[wareyin]

Why are you asking this question? The laws and rules point to the notion that Clinton was required to provide her emails for archiving. Not following rules and laws is a form of corruption. It seems likely that archiving would have happened automatically for State Department employees that weren't using their own email server. It is not clear why she attempted to prevent her emails from being archived but no plausible answer has been put forth by her, so all that is left is speculation. Please feel free to provide a possible reason that doesn't involve corruption or incompetence.

It is not clear that she attempted to prevent her emails from being archived, so speculation as to why is a bit premature. Please feel free to support your own claim, rather than asking me do disprove it.

As to the everybody else did it excuse: Apparently everybody else didn't do it if Ziggurat is correct above, but more importantly email was still becoming a standard means of communication when Powell was Secretary of State and the country had not lived through the lost email scandal involving the Bush administration. Rules had been put in place to preserve official communications and Clinton chose to ignore those rules or she was unaware of them which would make it seem that Clinton was more incompetent than is plausible.

Email was simultaneously not a big deal when Powell was Secretary of State, but while he was SoS, it was a huge deal how Bush failed to archive? I have yet to see the State Dept, or any actual authority on the matter, claim Clinton broke the rules. Speculation on why Clinton broke rules that you have not established existed or applied to her in order to call her incompetent is not plausible.

I appreciate the fact that you want to minimize what Clinton has done here. I'd like to believe that this wasn't of much significance. Certainly considering the endless exploitation by the Republicans of the Benghazi tragedy for their partisan political purposes it is easy to just lump the email scandal in with that kind of thing. The difference here is that there is unequivocal evidence of Clinton malfeasance although Clinton's motivations for the malfeasance remain unclear. If incompetence was a major factor then finding a motive may not be possible. Maybe she just acted stupidly.

I appreciate that 16.5, Ziggurat, and a few others want to pretend some significance to what Clinton has done here. So far, the relevant authorities aren't agreeing that there is something there. But, following the Republican Rule Book, keep telling lies loud enough and long enough, and eventually you can get some people to believe anything.

 

[The Big Dog]

It is not clear that she attempted to prevent her emails from being archived, so speculation as to why is a bit premature. Please feel free to support your own claim, rather than asking me do disprove it.

....

I appreciate that 16.5, Ziggurat, and a few others want to pretend some significance to what Clinton has done here. So far, the relevant authorities aren't agreeing that there is something there. But, following the Republican Rule Book, keep telling lies loud enough and long enough, and eventually you can get some people to believe anything.

Of course she set it up to avoid having her emails searched, there were dozens of FOIA requests during her term that were not properly answered because of her misconduct.

The FBI seized her server because it was "unimportant"?

 

[Fudbucker]

It is not clear that she attempted to prevent her emails from being archived, so speculation as to why is a bit premature. Please feel free to support your own claim, rather than asking me do disprove it.



Email was simultaneously not a big deal when Powell was Secretary of State, but while he was SoS, it was a huge deal how Bush failed to archive? I have yet to see the State Dept, or any actual authority on the matter, claim Clinton broke the rules. Speculation on why Clinton broke rules that you have not established existed or applied to her in order to call her incompetent is not plausible.



I appreciate that 16.5, Ziggurat, and a few others want to pretend some significance to what Clinton has done here. So far, the relevant authorities aren't agreeing that there is something there. But, following the Republican Rule Book, keep telling lies loud enough and long enough, and eventually you can get some people to believe anything.

"This week, the inspector general of the nation’s intelligence agencies, I. Charles McCullough III, informed members of Congress that Mrs. Clinton had “top secret” information, the highest classification of government intelligence, in her account."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/u...tate-department.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

There is obviously "something" there. The FBI is investigating the emails, Clinton's story keeps evolving, there is no plausible reason why classified information should be on Clinton's private server, nor does the NY Times follow "the Republican Rule book". And if she knowingly sent or received classified materials on her private server, then she'll have serious legal problems.

 

[davefoc]

...

But, following the Republican Rule Book, keep telling lies loud enough and long enough, and eventually you can get some people to believe anything.

I have not noticed anybody lying in this thread. If you mean to suggest that Clinton's actions were innocent because Republicans (and perhaps to a lesser degree Democrats) attempt to misrepresent and exaggerate potential scandals for their political benefit then I think the point is invalid. Republican lying and misrepresenting doesn't serve to make Clinton less guilty of being stupid or corrupt. If anything it heightens the possibility that she is stupid. The Republicans have been harassing the Clintons for years, often unfairly. Why in the world would she hand the Republicans an issue like this to bash her with if she was all that bright?

Nobody, except 16.5 who quoted Trump for the sake of humor, has based the views they have put forth on what Republicans claim.

As to your claim that it isn't clear that she acted to prevent her emails from being archived: This is really a stretch. She didn't conform with requirements that she provide her emails for archiving and she didn't even begin to work on the process of turning her emails over until she was forced to. Clinton seems to have seen herself as above regulations that required that her emails be archived and just decided not to comply with those regulations. The alternative is that she was bizarrely unaware of this issue and didn't think about having her emails archived until she was forced to. I don't think Clinton was that stupid.

And the evidence suggests that she wasn't that stupid because one of her defenses of her actions with regard to this is that she complied with the rules because the people she sent emails would have had their emails archived. This is, of course, a stupid defense for at least two reasons, but the fact that she made the defense suggests she was aware of requirements to archive her emails.

As to what the relevant authorities are thinking right now isn't clear: It is in the Democratic Party's interest for this either to go completely out of control and eliminate Clinton as a candidate or to bury this to the degree they can and hope she can be elected despite it. So any ideas about whether this was a serious issue or not based on what the relevant authorities are doing or saying is problematic. Stuff like this is political and it will be awhile before people are forced to take a stand. Undoubtedly people are trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing before they decide to say or do much of anything.

 

[wareyin]

Of course she set it up to avoid having her emails searched, there were dozens of FOIA requests during her term that were not properly answered because of her misconduct.

The FBI seized her server because it was "unimportant"?

By 'FBI seized', you mean Clinton voluntarily turned over without being asked, right?