Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[wareyin]

"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.

If wishes were horses...
So far, all you have is 'if'. Get back to me when you have something a little more concrete, please.

 

[Fudbucker]

If wishes were horses...
So far, all you have is 'if'. Get back to me when you have something a little more concrete, please.

The only "if" concerns whether she'll end up in prison. It's a foregone conclusion that she acted either stupidly or nefariously. As Dave pointed out, why on Earth would she give this kind of ammunition to the GOP? She's not that dumb, so I think there were some emails she really didn't want anyone to see.

Anyway, her campaign is in serious trouble because the GOP, after crying wolf for decades, has finally stumbled upon a real scandal, and people on both sides are reporting, and the government is investigating. Clinton has gone from denying anything wrong, to joking about wiping her server, to admitting she screwed up:

"She conceded in Iowa on Wednesday that she “knows people have raised questions about my email use as secretary of state, and I understand why. I get it. So here’s what I want the American people to know: My use of personal email was allowed by the State Department. It clearly wasn’t the best choice. I should have used two emails, one personal and one for work.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/27/wesley-pruden-hillary-clinton-offers-late-apology-/

At best, this is a serious misstep in her campaign that she can eventually recover from. I don't think that's possible- the damage is done- but six months from now it might not be front and center.

At worst, the investigation will continue and Clinton will be indicted.

 

[davefoc]

...

"She conceded in Iowa on Wednesday that she “knows people have raised questions about my email use as secretary of state, and I understand why. I get it. So here’s what I want the American people to know: My use of personal email was allowed by the State Department. It clearly wasn’t the best choice. I should have used two emails, one personal and one for work.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/27/wesley-pruden-hillary-clinton-offers-late-apology-/

I think the "I should have use two emails" is a bit of spin. There were probably several types of email on that server that probably overlapped in places:
1. Purely personal.
2. Political. Discussion of Democratic Party issues to discussion of her upcoming campaign and the fund raising for it.
3. Foundation related
4. Purely Secretary of State.

I think what she wanted to keep secret were emails from of the second and third type. I think she's a little old to be too worried about column one. I doubt she and Bill are having deeply personal exchanges these days and while there might be something she would like to keep secret about her relationship with her daughter I doubt anything there is going to be an impediment to her campaign. She seems to have thought the best way to keep items 2 and 3 private was to have a single email server and be the person in charge of figuring out what is type 4 and therefore subject to archiving requirements.

I think her thinking on this was muddled to say the least. She needed to keep her Secretary of State stuff away from everything else because the Secretary of State stuff was the stuff that she was legally required to turn over. It seems like almost any lawyer would have told her that, and the fact she was a lawyer and couldn't figure it out calls in to question her competence on this issue alone.

 

[mgidm86]

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

It actually falls somewhere between those two extremes.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hill...l-server-justice-department/story?id=33069662

Clinton ordered her campaign to turn the server and thumb drive over to the Justice Department amid a federal investigation into the security of the server and whether there was classified information in the emails from the private account she used while serving as secretary of state.

She had been asked by the Justice Dept, and she knew the FBI was now investigating. Politically, it would have been stupid to wait for a subpoena. She has been anything but forthcoming through this entire ordeal. Handing over a server that has been wiped clean isn't exactly a point in her favor by any stretch.

She was backed into a corner. She voluntarily handed over the server in the same way the FBI isn't investigating "her". It's semantics and politics.

 

[mgidm86]

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 don't agree with altering people's quotes like some posters do, but if I did, I would change the word 'Republican' to 'Hillary'. She is in deep doo doo.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

****, had she done that in March someone other than her toadies might be impressed, the fact she did it after the referral to the FBI makes the "voluntarily" utterly laughable.

 

[wareyin]

****, had she done that in March someone other than her toadies might be impressed, the fact she did it after the referral to the FBI makes the "voluntarily" utterly laughable.

Oh, right, more hyperbole? My fault for taking your statement seriously.

 

[wareyin]

I don't agree with altering people's quotes like some posters do, but if I did, I would change the word 'Republican' to 'Hillary'. She is in deep doo doo.

You know, Republicans have been saying this about both Clintons for decades. They've been wrong every single time, so far. It's nice to see someone who still has faith in their proclamations of imminent doom. Just let me know when anything actually comes out of this latest trumped up tempest in a teapot, please.

 

[wareyin]

<snip>And if she knowingly sent or received classified materials on her private server, then she'll have serious legal problems.

If wishes were horses...
So far, all you have is 'if'. Get back to me when you have something a little more concrete, please.

The only "if" concerns whether she'll end up in prison. It's a foregone conclusion that she acted either stupidly or nefariously. As Dave pointed out, why on Earth would she give this kind of ammunition to the GOP? She's not that dumb, so I think there were some emails she really didn't want anyone to see.

It appears you missed your own "if". Further, since your "if" isn't entirely likely, anyway, your foregone conclusions is based on a really shaky assumption. Then again, I do see that a lot in the Clinton bashers in this thread.

 

[logger]

It appears you missed your own "if". Further, since your "if" isn't entirely likely, anyway, your foregone conclusions is based on a really shaky assumption. Then again, I do see that a lot in the Clinton bashers in this thread.

An assumption that knows the Clinton history?

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh, right, more hyperbole? My fault for taking your statement seriously.

No, no hyperbole at all. Your response does not make any sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, I have been calling for her to turn it over for months. And when she did? It was blank, and when asked whether she wiped it, she asked "with a cloth."

What a freaking clown Hillary is.

 

[wareyin]

No, no hyperbole at all. Your response does not make any sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, I have been calling for her to turn it over for months. And when she did? It was blank, and when asked whether she wiped it, she asked "with a cloth."

What a freaking clown.

The FBI did not "seize" Clinton's server. You claimed the FBI seized Clinton's server. As that is obviously, factually untrue, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was hyperbole. Since you claim it was not hyperbole, what, then, was it: mistake, or lie?

 

[Mike!]

The FBI did not "seize" Clinton's server. You claimed the FBI seized Clinton's server. As that is obviously, factually untrue, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was hyperbole. Since you claim it was not hyperbole, what, then, was it: mistake, or lie?

So she can just stop by the FBI office and ask for it back then, any time she likes and they'll just hand it right back to her, no questions asked?

 

[wareyin]

So she can just stop by the FBI office and ask for it back then, any time she likes, no questions asked?

Perhaps you, like 16.5, should look up what legal seizure actually is:

In Criminal Law, a seizure is the forcible taking of property by a government law enforcement official from a person who is suspected of violating, or is known to have violated, the law.

There are several definitions there, ranging from Criminal to Civil seizure. Clinton handing the server over to the FBI fits none of them.

 

[Fudbucker]

It appears you missed your own "if". Further, since your "if" isn't entirely likely, anyway, your foregone conclusions is based on a really shaky assumption. Then again, I do see that a lot in the Clinton bashers in this thread.

Does it occur to you that it might not be Clinton-bashing when high-level Democrats are saying this:

"They’ve handled the email issue poorly, maybe atrociously, certainly horribly,” said Edward G. Rendell, a former governor of Pennsylvania and a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. “The campaign has been incredibly tone-deaf, not seeing this as a more serious issue. She should have turned over the email server at the start, because they should have known they’d be forced to give it up. But at this point, there’s nothing they can do to kill the issue — they’re left just playing defense.”

...

"A number of Democrats said in interviews that they were disturbed when Mrs. Clinton had joked that her Snapchat account messages “disappear all by themselves,” and had reacted peevishly to a reporter’s question about wiping her server. (“What, like with a cloth or something?” she had replied.)

“Instead of flippant and smart-aleck comments, it would just be better to come clean in a straightforward way,” said Pat Cotham, a Democratic national committeewoman and county commissioner from North Carolina. “People don’t expect you to be perfect, but they just want to know what the deal is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/u...mail-issue-frustrates-democratic-leaders.html

Do you at least admit that Hillary has handled the whole email issue terribly? Do you think that if she had to do it all over again, she should make the same choices?

 

[wareyin]

Does it occur to you that it might not be Clinton-bashing when high-level Democrats are saying this:

"They’ve handled the email issue poorly, maybe atrociously, certainly horribly,” said Edward G. Rendell, a former governor of Pennsylvania and a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. “The campaign has been incredibly tone-deaf, not seeing this as a more serious issue. She should have turned over the email server at the start, because they should have known they’d be forced to give it up. But at this point, there’s nothing they can do to kill the issue — they’re left just playing defense.”

...

"A number of Democrats said in interviews that they were disturbed when Mrs. Clinton had joked that her Snapchat account messages “disappear all by themselves,” and had reacted peevishly to a reporter’s question about wiping her server. (“What, like with a cloth or something?” she had replied.)

“Instead of flippant and smart-aleck comments, it would just be better to come clean in a straightforward way,” said Pat Cotham, a Democratic national committeewoman and county commissioner from North Carolina. “People don’t expect you to be perfect, but they just want to know what the deal is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/u...mail-issue-frustrates-democratic-leaders.html

Do you at least admit that Hillary has handled the whole email issue terribly? Do you think that if she had to do it all over again, she should make the same choices?

Can you actually read those quotes (from a retired Governor and a committee-person, rather than 'high-level' Democrats), and see any agreement that there is a possibility of jail, as you claimed? All I see is that they wish Clinton had handled the issue differently after it became public.

 

[The Big Dog]

The FBI did not "seize" Clinton's server. You claimed the FBI seized Clinton's server. As that is obviously, factually untrue, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was hyperbole. Since you claim it was not hyperbole, what, then, was it: mistake, or lie?

The only thing that is a lie was your claim that she voluntarily turned it over without being asked.

The term seize has a legal meaning, which is law enforcement taking possession or control of evidence. Hillary turned over the server and the thumb drive when it was discovered that they had top secret information on it rather than facing a warrant.

If she "voluntarily" turned it over she would have done it March. Further, she said at the bumbling UN press conference that she was not going to voluntarily turn it over. Hmm, I wonder what changed!

Pro-tip: it was the fact the FBI finally got involved.

 

[davefoc]

Can you actually read those quotes (from a retired Governor and a committee-person, rather than 'high-level' Democrats), and see any agreement that there is a possibility of jail, as you claimed? All I see is that they wish Clinton had handled the issue differently after it became public.

So your takeaway is that the Governor was saying that Clinton would be just fine on this if she had just handled it better?

Clinton faced a daunting problem when this became public and I think you're right that she could have handled it better and the problem would be less of an issue. But the reason that she handled it poorly seems to be the reason she is in this mess to begin with. She didn't think it was a big deal to avoid compliance with archiving regulations, she didn't think it was a big deal to implement a self serving scheme to select the emails to be released, she didn't think it was a big deal to put sensitive SoS communications on a private server run by individuals not vetted by the appropriate agencies and probably worst of all she didn't think it was a big deal to violate standard practices when it comes to the handling of classified material.

The first step on handling this was to get ahead of this thing months ago with some serious talk about her screwups and how they came about.

Perhaps after years of dealing with BS Republican attacks she wasn't prepared to deal with a fact based attack. The territory must have been a bit novel for the Republicans as well. Something like, "Wow, you mean we really have some facts this time and we don't need to just go with lunatic rants? Holy cripes, this could be awesome, somebody besides our hyper partisan base will give a crap about our hearings and our bluster. We could ride this to the White House. Happy Days."

 

[wareyin]

The only thing that is a lie was your claim that she voluntarily turned it over without being asked.

I'm sorry, do you have some evidence that Clinton didn't do that? Some sort of official request or search warrant from the FBI? Or is this more hyperbole?

The term seize has a legal meaning, which is law enforcement taking possession or control of evidence. Hillary turned over the server and the thumb drive when it was discovered that they had top secret information on it rather than facing a warrant.

If she "voluntarily" turned it over she would have done it March. Further, she said at the bumbling UN press conference that she was not going to voluntarily turn it over. Hmm, I wonder what changed!

Pro-tip: it was the fact the FBI finally got involved.

You appear to have missed the legal definition of 'seizure' I provided. As I asked before, do you have evidence of a search warrant? Because that's usually required for legal seizure.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm sorry, do you have some evidence that Clinton didn't do that? Some sort of official request or search warrant from the FBI? Or is this more hyperbole?


You appear to have missed the legal definition of 'seizure' I provided. As I asked before, do you have evidence of a search warrant? Because that's usually required for legal seizure.

Yes, I do! At the UN she said she wasn't going to turn it over, then there is a referral to the FBI and suddenly her and her lawyers are tripping all over themselves to deliver it to the FBI.

Further, you appear unaware of the fact that the server and the thumb drive had top secret data on them and therefore Hillary and her team were under a legal duty to return the governments property, warrant or not. That is not "voluntary"

Again, your point might not have been ridiculous if she turned over the server in March, the fact that she waited as long as she did makes your argument totally laughable.

And that ain't no hyperbole.

Voluntarily?