Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

The article specifically says the information in the email was known outside the government:

The email, originally sent to Abedin by another State Department employee, Timmy Davis, features information about an attack on the Libyan town of Adjabiya by forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi -- information Davis learned from government sources, but which was also known outside the government.
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_Email_1_296/HRCH1/DOC_0C05739666/C05739666.pdf

How do you conclude that data "which was also known outside the government" is substantial non-public data/additional classified data that was not published at the time" ?

You really think "the brits report qadafi forces are moving from sirte to briga" is TS classified information which would have put the US in grave danger if it got out ? And only the british knew it ... Unbelievable.

Note the magnificent swift movement of the goalposts folks!

You'll notice that he mentions the attack on the Libyan town of Adjabiya by forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi which was known outside the government, but In fact I mentioned a 1. United States Africa Command assessment 2. a British government assessment; 3. British analysis of how recent movement by Gadhafi forces from Sirte to Brega could foretell future attacks on Ajdabiya. say those are different! Imagine that.

And then after showing non-public info in the email, the goalposts are launched into orbit by complaining that 'Sirte to Brega could foretell future attacks on Ajdabiya" data should not have been top secret or some such nonsense.

Oh well, you didn't actually expect that he was not going to waste our time did you?

 

[Ziggurat]

You haven't demonstrated she was actually attempting to evade any FOIA. She may not have been timely about it, but she did produce it.

Is your argument that she cannot have tried to evade FOIA because she didn't succeed in evading FOIA? That would be silly.

But yes, I haven't proven that she tried to evade FOIA. It's just the most reasonable explanation. Furthermore, even if she didn't try to evade FOIA, that was certainly the effect, at least for a while. And even a temporary evasion of FOIA is a bad thing, even if it was (implausibly) just accidental.

Also every other person in that email chain was using state.gov email - it certainly should have been easy to find.

You didn't ask about just one email chain. Nor should FOIA evasion be a problem for only that one email chain.

 

[davefoc]

You haven't demonstrated she was actually attempting to evade any FOIA. She may not have been timely about it, but she did produce it.

Also every other person in that email chain was using state.gov email - it certainly should have been easy to find.

So - I award you partial credit, thanks for answering the question.

There are three pieces of evidence that point strongly to the theory that Clinton did not intend to provide emails to be archived.
1. She made no effort to provide emails for archiving until she was forced to.
2. She commingled her personal business, personal and SoS emails suggesting that she had no plans to ever separate them.
3. When the Republicans were scrounging for every possible piece of Benghazi stuff it would have been obvious to her that if she had not had a private email server that the Republicans would have had access to her emails. It would have also been obvious that the Republicans had a legal right to obtain Clinton Benghazi related emails. Despite this she made no effort to reveal the fact that she had not provided her emails to the government for archiving.

The above arguments are based to a degree on the theory that Clinton is not one of the stupidest people on the planet. It is possible that all three arguments are wrong and Clinton is just drop dead stupid. I don't believe that is the case.

She understood it was a requirement to provide emails for archiving otherwise she wouldn't have made the lame excuse about how the emails that she sent to the people with government email addresses were automatically archived.

Since government compliance with FOIA requirements depend on the government having the document to meet the requirement with it is obvious that part of her intent was to thwart FOIA requirements.

 

[wareyin]

There are three pieces of evidence that point strongly to the theory that Clinton did not intend to provide emails to be archived.
1. She made no effort to provide emails for archiving until she was forced to.
2. She commingled her personal business, personal and SoS emails suggesting that she had no plans to ever separate them.
3. When the Republicans were scrounging for every possible piece of Benghazi stuff it would have been obvious to her that if she had not had a private email server that the Republicans would have had access to her emails. It would have also been obvious that the Republicans had a legal right to obtain Clinton Benghazi related emails. Despite this she made no effort to reveal the fact that she had not provided her emails to the government for archiving.

The above arguments are based to a degree on the theory that Clinton is not one of the stupidest people on the planet. It is possible that all three arguments are wrong and Clinton is just drop dead stupid. I don't believe that is the case.

She understood it was a requirement to provide emails for archiving otherwise she wouldn't have made the lame excuse about how the emails that she sent to the people with government email addresses were automatically archived.

Since government compliance with FOIA requirements depend on the government having the document to meet the requirement with it is obvious that part of her intent was to thwart FOIA requirements.

How to assume your conclusion:

Step 1: Assume Clinton was trying to evade FOIA requests
Step 2: Provide lots of conjecture based on your assumptions.
Step 3: Claim that the only alternative to your conjecture is something worse.
Step 4: Use your conjecture that is based on your assumption as proof that your assumption is correct.

Well done.

 

[davefoc]

How to assume your conclusion:

Step 1: Assume Clinton was trying to evade FOIA requests
Step 2: Provide lots of conjecture based on your assumptions.
Step 3: Claim that the only alternative to your conjecture is something worse.
Step 4: Use your conjecture that is based on your assumption as proof that your assumption is correct.

Well done.

Really?

First, I did not claim proof. I used the words, "strongly suggest".

Secondly, there are two ways to view the notion that Clinton was trying to avoid compliance with the FOIA.
1. She was directly trying to avoid compliance with the FOIA.
2. She did things that made compliance with the FOIA impossible. Failure to turn over relevant documents that would be sought through an FOIA action is trying not to comply with FOIA requirements whether failure to comply with FOIA was her motivation or not. Only Clinton knows what her motivation for her actions was. All we can know is what the effect of her actions was.
Thirdly. You have been asked repeatedly to provide an explanation for Clinton's actions with regard to her email that has an alternative explanation to corruption or incompetence. You have completely failed to provide any such explanation, so even you seem to have difficulty coming up with one. I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is very likely that corruption or incompetence was at play here.
Fourthly If there was a simple explanation for any of this Clinton or her minions would have put that explanation forth. Clinton has said that the private email server was a bad idea. Was it also a bad idea to not comply with the rules that required turning over material for archiving? She is quiet on that point, I suggest because there is no defense for her actions that doesn't involve corruption or incompetence.

As I noted above, your dogged defense of the indefensible looks even more strained when you see that your partisan buddies are jumping ship. This is not Benghazi. This is not made up Fox News crap. This was a series of errors driven by some combination of arrogance, corruption and incompetence. She was ridiculously slow to realize the significance of her failures here which is another point against her.

 

[wareyin]

Really?

First, I did not claim proof. I used the words, "strongly suggest".

Well, that certainly changes things. How about we change it from assuming your conclusion to...assuming your conclusion, in light of not using the word proof?

Secondly, there are two ways to view the notion that Clinton was trying to avoid compliance with the FOIA.
1. She was directly trying to avoid compliance with the FOIA.
2. She did things that made compliance with the FOIA impossible. Failure to turn over relevant documents that would be sought through an FOIA action is trying not to comply with FOIA requirements whether failure to comply with FOIA was her motivation or not. Only Clinton knows what her motivation for her actions was. All we can know is what the effect of her actions was.
Thirdly. You have been asked repeatedly to provide an explanation for Clinton's actions with regard to her email that has an alternative explanation to corruption or incompetence. You have completely failed to provide any such explanation, so even you seem to have difficulty coming up with one. I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is very likely that corruption or incompetence was at play here.

If I don't prove you wrong, then your original assumption was correct? That's not a good way to prove your claim.

Fourthly If there was a simple explanation for any of this Clinton or her minions would have put that explanation forth. Clinton has said that the private email server was a bad idea. Was it also a bad idea to not comply with the rules that required turning over material for archiving? She is quiet on that point, I suggest because there is no defense for her actions that doesn't involve corruption or incompetence.

And again, your unsupported claim is automatically correct unless proven otherwise?

As I noted above, your dogged defense of the indefensible looks even more strained when you see that your partisan buddies are jumping ship. This is not Benghazi. This is not made up Fox News crap. This was a series of errors driven by some combination of arrogance, corruption and incompetence. She was ridiculously slow to realize the significance of her failures here which is another point against her.

This is clearly made up Fox News crap. If not, please direct me to what charges have been filed.

 

[davefoc]

[see above]

Either you are in complete denial or I am just wrong. Not only just me, the partisan Democrats that I went to dinner with a few days ago, the HuffingtonPost, FactCheck.org and most of the posters in this thread, many of whom have somewhat moderate political views.

ETA: Once again, you accuse people of assuming something which isn't directly knowable because anything is possible. This is a silly argument. You have been give every opportunity in this thread to explain Clinton's email practices in a way that doesn't involve corruption or incompetence. You can't do it or you would have. What you can do is claim that there is always the possibility that there is one and nobody knows what it is. I wonder if you give anybody that isn't on what you think is your political team this kind of leeway. I doubt it. You have behaved like a pure partisan in this thread and your posts show no signs of the ability to let facts in that aren't in sync with your partisan view of the world.

ETA2

...

This is clearly made up Fox News crap. If not, please direct me to what charges have been filed.

This is your argument? She hasn't been indicted so there can't be anything to this? George Bush wasn't indicted, I guess that makes him a really good president.

 

[WildCat]

You haven't demonstrated she was actually attempting to evade any FOIA. She may not have been timely about it, but she did produce it.

After she had her staff decide what was to be saved and then wiped the server of the rest, of course.

 

[applecorped]

After she had her staff decide what was to be saved and then wiped the server of the rest, of course.

Wiped with a cloth?

 

[Mike!]

Wiped with a cloth?

I believe we've established it was a soiled, ragged, old blue dress, of unknown origin.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Really?

First, I did not claim proof. I used the words, "strongly suggest".

Secondly, there are two ways to view the notion that Clinton was trying to avoid compliance with the FOIA.
1. She was directly trying to avoid compliance with the FOIA.
2. She did things that made compliance with the FOIA impossible. Failure to turn over relevant documents that would be sought through an FOIA action is trying not to comply with FOIA requirements whether failure to comply with FOIA was her motivation or not. Only Clinton knows what her motivation for her actions was. All we can know is what the effect of her actions was.
Thirdly. You have been asked repeatedly to provide an explanation for Clinton's actions with regard to her email that has an alternative explanation to corruption or incompetence. You have completely failed to provide any such explanation, so even you seem to have difficulty coming up with one. I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is very likely that corruption or incompetence was at play here.
Fourthly If there was a simple explanation for any of this Clinton or her minions would have put that explanation forth. Clinton has said that the private email server was a bad idea. Was it also a bad idea to not comply with the rules that required turning over material for archiving? She is quiet on that point, I suggest because there is no defense for her actions that doesn't involve corruption or incompetence.

As I noted above, your dogged defense of the indefensible looks even more strained when you see that your partisan buddies are jumping ship. This is not Benghazi. This is not made up Fox News crap. This was a series of errors driven by some combination of arrogance, corruption and incompetence. She was ridiculously slow to realize the significance of her failures here which is another point against her.

I have. I don't think you really addressed it.

 

[applecorped]

I believe we've established it was a soiled, ragged, old blue dress, of unknown origin.

At first I thought that read "unknown organ"!

 

[wareyin]

Either you are in complete denial or I am just wrong. Not only just me, the partisan Democrats that I went to dinner with a few days ago, the HuffingtonPost, FactCheck.org and most of the posters in this thread, many of whom have somewhat moderate political views.

Well, argument by anecdote is certainly convincing. I checked out the HuffingtonPost Politics section, and there is not one article on their page about the email 'scandal'. It isn't a scandal except for those who desperately want it to be (since they don't have a viable candidate to beat Clinton), or to those naive or gullible enough to believe the first category.

ETA: Once again, you accuse people of assuming something which isn't directly knowable because anything is possible. This is a silly argument. You have been give every opportunity in this thread to explain Clinton's email practices in a way that doesn't involve corruption or incompetence. You can't do it or you would have. What you can do is claim that there is always the possibility that there is one and nobody knows what it is.

Once again you claim that your unsupported conjecture is likely because you haven't heard a convincing counter argument. As has been pointed out, you have been given at least one, you merely ignored it. Further, it is your responsibility to support your claim, not mine to prove you wrong.

I wonder if you give anybody that isn't on what you think is your political team this kind of leeway. I doubt it. You have behaved like a pure partisan in this thread and your posts show no signs of the ability to let facts in that aren't in sync with your partisan view of the world.

Sadly, my 'team' is the ones who actually have the facts, what little is known, and are comfortable waiting until the proper authorities actually investigate, condemn, or indict Clinton. The other 'teams' range from the conspiracy theorists, to those who hate Clinton so much they will believe anything they read against her, to those who are so naive or credulous that they believe the only thing you and your 'team' have: conjecture based on speculation and assumptions.

ETA2


This is your argument? She hasn't been indicted so there can't be anything to this? George Bush wasn't indicted, I guess that makes him a really good president.

Well, that's a non sequitor. Clinton is continuously being accused of actual crimes, ranging from espionage, to failure to properly report a forwarded email, to spoliation. The fact that she hasn't been indicted (nor is even being investigated, contrary to more claims here) is quite the argument against these accusations. If you don't believe these accusations, then exactly what do you believe Clinton has done wrong? You've already said she's the better candidate who is likely to get your vote, so why all the effort to swallow this made up Fox News 'scandal'? And honestly, giving any credulity to the claims that Clinton's deleted emails are for sale really speaks to how rational you are being in this.

 

[WildCat]

Hillary's lead in Iowa has evaporated: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/qpoll-iowa-213462

This is the weakest slate of Dem presidential candidates I have ever seen! And that's counting on Biden entering the race. If the Dems don't find a fresh face and soon 2016 will go to to the GOP candidate.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Really?

First, I did not claim proof. I used the words, "strongly suggest".

Secondly, there are two ways to view the notion that Clinton was trying to avoid compliance with the FOIA.
1. She was directly trying to avoid compliance with the FOIA.
2. She did things that made compliance with the FOIA impossible. Failure to turn over relevant documents that would be sought through an FOIA action is trying not to comply with FOIA requirements whether failure to comply with FOIA was her motivation or not. Only Clinton knows what her motivation for her actions was. All we can know is what the effect of her actions was.
Thirdly. You have been asked repeatedly to provide an explanation for Clinton's actions with regard to her email that has an alternative explanation to corruption or incompetence. You have completely failed to provide any such explanation, so even you seem to have difficulty coming up with one. I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is very likely that corruption or incompetence was at play here.
Fourthly If there was a simple explanation for any of this Clinton or her minions would have put that explanation forth. Clinton has said that the private email server was a bad idea. Was it also a bad idea to not comply with the rules that required turning over material for archiving? She is quiet on that point, I suggest because there is no defense for her actions that doesn't involve corruption or incompetence.

As I noted above, your dogged defense of the indefensible looks even more strained when you see that your partisan buddies are jumping ship. This is not Benghazi. This is not made up Fox News crap. This was a series of errors driven by some combination of arrogance, corruption and incompetence. She was ridiculously slow to realize the significance of her failures here which is another point against her.

I have. I don't think you really addressed it.

Let me be more specific. I have asked this question before ... What would be different if she had used HRC@state.gov ?

1) we would know her email was hacked, because we know the state dept email has been hacked multiple times.

2) She claims it was her practice to send things to people at their state.gov address. It's reasonable to think this would cover archiving most of her email. But ....

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-state-department-archiving-emails-116062
After a week of deflecting questions about how emails were handled during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, the agency finally acknowledged that the email traffic of other senior officials was not automatically or routinely archived.
...
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said it would be incorrect to call the emails destroyed since some might be retrievable through technology. But she acknowledged that regular archiving of the work email in-boxes of senior officials besides the secretary did not begin until “February of this year.”
...
But in another day of intense questioning from reporters, Psaki said automatic archiving began just last month for “dozens” of top officials — such as deputy secretaries, under secretaries and assistant secretaries. “Our goal is to apply this to all employee mailboxes by the end of 2016,” she said.​

So even if she used her HRC@state.gov email, we still wouldn't have an archive of her mail for FOIA.

3) she would still likely have had a non govt email address, like every other top person in the administration:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/emails-top-obama-appointees-remain-mystery
WASHINGTON (AP) — Some of President Barack Obama's political appointees are using secret government email accounts to conduct official business, The Associated Press found, a practice that complicates agencies' legal responsibilities to find and turn over emails under public records requests and congressional inquiries.

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday acknowledged the practice and said it made eminent sense for Cabinet secretaries and other high-profile officials to have what he called alternative email accounts that wouldn't fill with unwanted messages. Carney said all their email accounts, public and otherwise, were subject to congressional oversight and requests by citizens under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

"There's nothing secret," Carney said.​

4) People sent her emails containing what some agencies contend is TS material. (2 emails identified so far out of 50,000) That would have happened even if she was using HRC@state.gov.

She still could have had her @clintonmails server. Abedin and whoever else could have had accounts. Or they could have all used gmail as well as their state department emails. Clearly there is a disconnect between agencies and work flow in classifying information. It's been pointed out that state department routinely sends things as Sensitive But Unclassified that other agencies would claim is classified. Nobody has produced any "smoking gun" emails that HRC is trying to hide. Should be pretty easy to do if they exist - after all, they all had to go to someone else , right ? And let's not forget ... this all came about because of a how many year long benghazi investigation which has proven what, exactly ?

Sure, she is clearly technically incompetent. And I think she has handled this poorly from a political persepctive.

But I see more manufactured outrage about "classified material" and "FOIA" than actual incompetence.
Almost all of this would have likely worked the same, state dept email or private email.

 

[WildCat]

4) People sent her emails containing what some agencies contend is TS material. (2 emails identified so far out of 50,000) That would have happened even if she was using HRC@state.gov.

Wow, you're saying they would have sent her those emails on the proper server if she hadn't had her cowboy server?

That's kind of the entire point, isn't it?

I asked this before, and got no reply from any of the "Hillary is my candidate right or wrong" posters... did Hillary expect to never send or receive classified material in her email when she set it up as her sole, exclusive email?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Wow, you're saying they would have sent her those emails on the proper server if she hadn't had her cowboy server?

That's kind of the entire point, isn't it?

I asked this before, and got no reply from any of the "Hillary is my candidate right or wrong" posters... did Hillary expect to never send or receive classified material in her email when she set it up as her sole, exclusive email?

Her normal .gov email would not have been on the secure network. It's not supposed to receive classified information either (it wouldn't be the proper server either) But since the server hosting those emails is in the governments possession, rather than hers, she would avoid a lot of the "knowingly gave classified information to unauthorized person" type charges.

Also, keep in mind that it's impossible to email from the secure network to a non secure network email. For her employees to have sent her emails that originated as a classified email, they would have been required to use a non-electronic method of copying the data and retyping it into a new email. They definitely knew what they were doing was wrong. The fact that she asked her employees to do this for her is equally troubling.

 

[Ziggurat]

So even if she used her HRC@state.gov email, we still wouldn't have an archive of her mail for FOIA.

That's really not an excuse. She had no way of knowing when she set up her server that State would fail to archive emails it was supposed to archive. And if she had used State email and State failed to archive them, then at least it wouldn't be her fault. But it is her fault that State didn't have them when it was supposed to have them and thus failed to answer FOIA requests in a timely manner, because she didn't use the State email system, which she was supposed to do but chose not to.

Sure, she is clearly technically incompetent. And I think she has handled this poorly from a political persepctive.

And from a security perspective. And from an accountability perspective. And from a management perspective.

So, from pretty much every perspective that's relevant to her job.

But I see more manufactured outrage

You've been using that phrase since page 1. And yet, the mess keeps getting deeper for Hillary with each new revelation and exposed lie. Perhaps the people who were outraged at the start had a clearer picture of where this was heading than you did.

 

[The Big Dog]

"manufactured outrage"? If it was no big deal, why did Hillary lie about it so much?

It ain't Hillary's fault she totally ********** up, it was that damn right wing conspiracy.

Hell Hillary got right up there on national TV and said she didn't even think about it! Damn GOP making Hillary *********** lie about her cowboy server.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's really not an excuse. She had no way of knowing when she set up her server that State would fail to archive emails it was supposed to archive. And if she had used State email and State failed to archive them, then at least it wouldn't be her fault. But it is her fault that State didn't have them when it was supposed to have them and thus failed to answer FOIA requests in a timely manner, because she didn't use the State email system, which she was supposed to do but chose not to.

It's only an excuse in that I am pointing out that using the state dept mail would have led to essentially the same outcome.

And from a security perspective. And from an accountability perspective. And from a management perspective.

So, from pretty much every perspective that's relevant to her job.

So you assert. I disagree.

You've been using that phrase since page 1. And yet, the mess keeps getting deeper for Hillary with each new revelation and exposed lie. Perhaps the people who were outraged at the start had a clearer picture of where this was heading than you did.

Thanks for pointing out my consistency

I think the only reason it got worse, is, as I said earlier - she handled it poorly.