Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[davefoc]

I'm surprised just how wrong that headline is.

Lawyers from the justice department representing state department argued to a judge. What a strange way for wash times to put it.

It seems like the Obama administration is going into max defend mode over this.

I think on some things they will win without much question. Clinton was always in charge of deciding what was private and what was not. The fact that she used a personal server didn't effect that.

But I'm not so sure that Clinton couldn't have been forced to turn over emails. That is based on some pretty unambiguous rules that Clinton was in violation of. The notion that once she leaves the building the State Department couldn't force compliance seems like a stretch. This issue is moot right now anyway and I'm not sure why the Obama administration decided to bring it up in their filings.

And of course, once the issue of classified material came into play Clinton would have been forced to give up her hard disk ayway and my guess is that the FBI is beating the bushes trying to figure out who knows about back up procedures and the possible location of any media. I think there's a pretty good chance Clinton knew which way the wind was blowing on this and deleted the emails because she thought she'd be forced to turn over the hard disk. There was always a rock and hard place problem for Clinton on this. She could just do a simple delete in which case the FBI could probably recover most of the emails, or she could use special software to really scrub the disk in which case it's going to look like she was intentionally thwarting FBI efforts to figure out what went on as far as the classified files issue is concerned.

 

[Dog Town]

Hillary Clinton’s edge over the Republican presidential field is gone.

Hillary Clinton’s edge over the Republican presidential field is gone.

After weeks of moving steadily in opposite directions in public opinion polls, a CNN/ORC survey unveiled Thursday finds GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Jeb Bush now besting, or are at least on par with, the former secretary of state in general election matchups.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/poll-shows-clinton-lost-her-172400848.html

Lions and Tigers...

 

[davefoc]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1092355f52b17d06d1.jpg



Lions and Tigers...

For those of us who see the Republican party front runners as anti-science, anti-gay, pro-war, and pretty wacky in general this is bad news.

I truly don''t know what has gone on here with Clinton. She acted in a way that is not consistent with my general view of her which was that she was intelligent but a little sleazy. Sleazy coming from the tactics that she employed against Obama in 2008 and the questionable nature of some of the dealings involving her foundation.

But no part of me imagined that any part of her was stupid enough to have acted the way she did with regard to the handling of her emails. Was she operating at such a high arrogance level that she thought that rules that applied to the little people didn't apply to her? Was she operating in some kind of bubble where she failed to realize that the security of SoS communications was a serious business?

I truly don't know what she could been thinking or what her motivations were. Didn't it ever cross her mind that she could be forced to separate out her SoS emails on her email server and if she didn't do that under her own steam she could be forced to do it in various ways, all of which were going to look bad?

I don't know how big time politics work. In the Republican Party it seems like Karl Rove picked George Bush to be the principal Republican contender and that had so much power behind it that the little known at the time George Bush went on to win the Republican nomination. Is there anything like that on the Democratic side? Are the Democratic power elites taking a look at how Clinton will do in the swing states , evaluating her chances and if they don't look good will they suggest to her that she withdraw?

On the other hand, Clinton might survive. She needs a consistent story that she can repeat when needed. The Republicans are gaining a little traction with Benghazi by just repeating the same bogus mantra over and over. Clinton needs to not be indicted or be the subject of too scathing an FBI report and she needs that another major revelation in this scandal doesn't happen like her private emails surfacing or her IT guy turning against her.

If she believes that her private emails have been hacked and that it is only a matter of time before that shoe drops I hope for the good of the Democratic Party and IMO for the good of the country that she withdraws.

George Bush's service record strikes me as a scandal that had the potential to be even more damaging that this one. Can the Democrats do something to solve this problem for Clinton in a similar way? Maybe they need to hire Karl Rove to help them develop a strategy.

 

[Mike!]

< snip>
Maybe they need to hire Karl Rove to help them develop a strategy.

Speaking as a right wing loon, and given Mr. Rove's performance the last few election cycles, I have to say I think this is the very best thing she could possibly do at this point.
Better the ship sinks quickly without a trace rather than having to watch it falter, capsize, and finialy go down in a historic fashion that's spoken of in hushed voices a century after the fact.
Not to say I wouldn't find that outcome entertaining as well.

 

[Reheat]

Speaking as a right wing loon, and given Mr. Rove's performance the last few election cycles, I have to say I think this is the very best thing she could possibly do at this point.
Better the ship sinks quickly without a trace rather than having to watch it falter, capsize, and finialy go down in a historic fashion that's spoken of in hushed voices a century after the fact.
Not to say I wouldn't find that outcome entertaining as well.

Hilarious!

But, don't give away any secrets!

 

[mgidm86]

For those of us who see the Republican party front runners as anti-science, anti-gay, pro-war, and pretty wacky in general this is bad news.

I truly don''t know what has gone on here with Clinton. She acted in a way that is not consistent with my general view of her which was that she was intelligent but a little sleazy. Sleazy coming from the tactics that she employed against Obama in 2008 and the questionable nature of some of the dealings involving her foundation.

But no part of me imagined that any part of her was stupid enough to have acted the way she did with regard to the handling of her emails. Was she operating at such a high arrogance level that she thought that rules that applied to the little people didn't apply to her? Was she operating in some kind of bubble where she failed to realize that the security of SoS communications was a serious business?

I truly don't know what she could been thinking or what her motivations were. Didn't it ever cross her mind that she could be forced to separate out her SoS emails on her email server and if she didn't do that under her own steam she could be forced to do it in various ways, all of which were going to look bad?

I don't know how big time politics work. In the Republican Party it seems like Karl Rove picked George Bush to be the principal Republican contender and that had so much power behind it that the little known at the time George Bush went on to win the Republican nomination. Is there anything like that on the Democratic side? Are the Democratic power elites taking a look at how Clinton will do in the swing states , evaluating her chances and if they don't look good will they suggest to her that she withdraw?

On the other hand, Clinton might survive. She needs a consistent story that she can repeat when needed. The Republicans are gaining a little traction with Benghazi by just repeating the same bogus mantra over and over. Clinton needs to not be indicted or be the subject of too scathing an FBI report and she needs that another major revelation in this scandal doesn't happen like her private emails surfacing or her IT guy turning against her.

If she believes that her private emails have been hacked and that it is only a matter of time before that shoe drops I hope for the good of the Democratic Party and IMO for the good of the country that she withdraws.

George Bush's service record strikes me as a scandal that had the potential to be even more damaging that this one. Can the Democrats do something to solve this problem for Clinton in a similar way? Maybe they need to hire Karl Rove to help them develop a strategy.

I think you already figured it out. Greed, arrogance and her overwhelming need to be president have taken some of the intelligence out of her actions. She had to know that having her own server could come back to bite her, but that's where the arrogance kicks in. Having her own server is only part of the problem, it is the mixing of personal and government business into one account on that server that was monumentally stupid.

How anyone can trust a politician when they say that all of the emails that were deleted were personal is beyond me. That's like the police giving a weeks notice before serving a search warrant and expecting the meth lab to still be there when they break down the door.

This can probably be said about most or all presidential candidates to some degree, but Hillary's desire for the presidency seems all about herself, not the good of the country, not her party - and it shows more so than anyone I can remember, in her actions, what she says and how she says it. There is nothing about her that says to me that she sincerely wants to help our country.

She's wanted it for so long that I think her lack of sincerity is really difficult to hide. In contrast, Biden, during his interview with Colbert, said he didn't know if he had the emotional strength and heart to be President. Perhaps he's an Oscar worthy actor, but he came across as very sincere in that interview, and based on personality alone, he would get my vote over Hillary every time. I don't want someone in office who wants it as bad as she does.

On a side note (somewhat), I think it's funny that Kerry has created a new job called "Transparency Coordinator", and hired a Clinton donor to the position:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/09/246691.htm

I have also asked her to focus on improving our systems for responding to Freedom of Information Act and congressional requests faster and more efficiently.

Why would such a transparent administration need a Transparency Coordinator? Funny stuff.

Anyways, in summary, anything stupid Hillary has done is easily explained by greed and arrogance.

 

[logger]

Speaking as a right wing loon, and given Mr. Rove's performance the last few election cycles, I have to say I think this is the very best thing she could possibly do at this point.
Better the ship sinks quickly without a trace rather than having to watch it falter, capsize, and finialy go down in a historic fashion that's spoken of in hushed voices a century after the fact.
Not to say I wouldn't find that outcome entertaining as well.

Yes, Hopefully that sinking ship takes Rove with her.

 

[logger]

Anyways, in summary, anything stupid Hillary has done is easily explained by greed and arrogance.

Which is exactly what the "good" libs on here accuse republicans of. But they'll trip over themselves to vote for her.

 

[DavidJames]

For those of us who see the Republican party front runners as anti-science, anti-gay, pro-war, and pretty wacky in general this is bad news.

Thats the elephant at ISF that the Internet lawyers, DA's and vigilantes refuse to address. It's all about dragging HRC down to below those you just described. Says a hell of a lot about the state of Republicans and conservatives these days.

As for the rest of your post, I'll leave it to those I described to judge, convict and execute.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Not this "lib" but I guess that doesn't make me a "good" lib (WTFever that means).

 

[logger]

Thats the elephant at ISF that the Internet lawyers, DA's and vigilantes refuse to address. It's all about dragging HRC down to below those you just described. Says a hell of a lot about the state of Republicans and conservatives these days.

As for the rest of your post, I'll leave it to those I described to judge, convict and execute.

Funny how if a republican had done what HRC did, you'd just give them a pass?

How about putting big boy shorts on and just deal with it instead of complaining about her being so picked on.

 

[logger]

Not this "lib" but I guess that doesn't make me a "good" lib (WTFever that means).

Why would you think that, you're right in there.

 

[The Big Dog]

Thats the elephant at ISF that the Internet lawyers, DA's and vigilantes refuse to address. It's all about dragging HRC down to below those you just described. Says a hell of a lot about the state of Republicans and conservatives these days.

As for the rest of your post, I'll leave it to those I described to judge, convict and execute.

I think that HillDawg is doing a fine job herself of dragging herself down.

 

[Dog Town]

Thats the elephant at ISF that the Internet lawyers, DA's and vigilantes refuse to address. It's all about dragging HRC down to below those you just described.

Not a conservative, but I'll respond to this! Boo Hoo! HRC did this damage herself! All others are doing is pointing out the BS! What a sorry excuse for an argument," Poor HRC everyone is making up stuff, and picking on her"!
Pathetic actually! HRC only cares about becoming the First Fem POTUS, and will do anything to become it! NEVER trust her! I know I, and many, many others don't.

*ABH!!!!!!

 

[Dog Town]

I think you already figured it out. Greed, arrogance and her overwhelming need to be president have taken some of the intelligence out of her actions. She had to know that having her own server could come back to bite her, but that's where the arrogance kicks in. Having her own server is only part of the problem, it is the mixing of personal and government business into one account on that server that was monumentally stupid.

How anyone can trust a politician when they say that all of the emails that were deleted were personal is beyond me. That's like the police giving a weeks notice before serving a search warrant and expecting the meth lab to still be there when they break down the door.

This can probably be said about most or all presidential candidates to some degree, but Hillary's desire for the presidency seems all about herself, not the good of the country, not her party - and it shows more so than anyone I can remember, in her actions, what she says and how she says it. There is nothing about her that says to me that she sincerely wants to help our country.

She's wanted it for so long that I think her lack of sincerity is really difficult to hide. In contrast, Biden, during his interview with Colbert, said he didn't know if he had the emotional strength and heart to be President. Perhaps he's an Oscar worthy actor, but he came across as very sincere in that interview, and based on personality alone, he would get my vote over Hillary every time. I don't want someone in office who wants it as bad as she does.

On a side note (somewhat), I think it's funny that Kerry has created a new job called "Transparency Coordinator", and hired a Clinton donor to the position:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/09/246691.htm
Why would such a transparent administration need a Transparency Coordinator? Funny stuff.

Anyways, in summary, anything stupid Hillary has done is easily explained by greed and arrogance.

Well put!
Sadly, it's 100% TRUE!

 

[davefoc]

...

Anyways, in summary, anything stupid Hillary has done is easily explained by greed and arrogance.

Are you suggesting that greed was a driver behind the email scandal? Something like this: Clinton wanted to mix her SoS emails and her political and foundation emails because she thought it was to her advantage to present to the people that she was selling influence to that she did indeed mix her private business with her public SoS business even in using the same email address. Further she planned to prevent the discovery of her influence peddling by having complete control of her emails so that some government employee didn't stumble on evidence of her corruption.

As somebody that respected her and admired some of her accomplishments while at the same time accepting the fact that she might have been a little sleazier than the average politician, I think the above is probably not right and is too harsh a characterization of what was really going on. But it is also very hard to understand what in the world was going on in her mind when she embarked on the path that she took. Speaking as somebody that will probably vote for her, my biggest fear out of all this is that what has gone on here is representative of her leadership skills. And in this case her leadership skills didn't successfully recruit somebody that could give her reasonable advice on this or if she did recruit that person, her leadership skills did not create an environment where that person would provide candid advice.

And now the issue of recovering the emails from the hard disk is in play. It sounds like the hard disk was not actually wiped meaning that software was used to preclude the recovery of emails from it. This was another lose lose moment for her. If she had wiped the hard disk it would have been hard to explain the motivation for that other than she anticipated something like a review by the FBI and she took steps to prevent them from recovering anything from the disk. But now she may face the other side of that lose lose proposition, the emails will be recovered which makes her attempt at obfuscation look incompetent.

It seems like at every step of the way including dealing with the scandal as it unfolded Clinton has done the wrong thing, either because she has done a bad job of picking advisers or the advisers she has are just too scared to speak up.

Even after this thing came to light and she hadn't submitted any of her emails to the State Department for more than two years after she was supposed to there were some outs. She could have looked reasonably transparent if she had deleted any seriously damaging private emails and used some software to ensure they were unrecoverable, left the rest of her private emails in place. Then she could have done a more transparent separation process, provided the government with the electronic form of the emails and a paper version if they wanted that as well and just made a non-wiped hard disk available to the FBI if they came knocking.

ETA: It would be interesting to know if she understood that "deleting" her emails was not going to make them unrecoverable. I wouldn't fault her for not understanding that although it is does suggest that she has an unusually poor understanding of computer issues for somebody holding a high position in this modern world. But even if she didn't understand that I can't understand why none of her advisers would have known that and explained that to her. At this point she must be feeling pretty pissed off about whoever's advice she has been taking, but it won't do her any good to blame them publicly. The buck on this scandal stops with her and if she has incompetent advisers or competent advisers she's not listening to the problem is still hers.

 

[Dog Town]

Are you suggesting that greed was a driver behind the email scandal?

I hate to speak for others, but...
I'm going to take his second choice, arrogance, for a $1000 Alex!

 

[davefoc]

I hate to speak for others, but...
I'm going to take his second choice, arrogance, for a $1000 Alex!

I lean to arrogance as well, but with a big dollop of incompetence and a bit of corruption.

 

[shuize]

Are you suggesting that greed was a driver behind the email scandal? Something like this: Clinton wanted to mix her SoS emails and her political and foundation emails because she thought it was to her advantage to present to the people that she was selling influence to that she did indeed mix her private business with her public SoS business even in using the same email address. Further she planned to prevent the discovery of her influence peddling by having complete control of her emails so that some government employee didn't stumble on evidence of her corruption.

As somebody that respected her and admired some of her accomplishments while at the same time accepting the fact that she might have been a little sleazier than the average politician, I think the above is probably not right and is too harsh a characterization of what was really going on. But it is also very hard to understand what in the world was going on in her mind when she embarked on the path that she took. Speaking as somebody that will probably vote for her, my biggest fear out of all this is that what has gone on here is representative of her leadership skills. And in this case her leadership skills didn't successfully recruit somebody that could give her reasonable advice on this or if she did recruit that person, her leadership skills did not create an environment where that person would provide candid advice.

And now the issue of recovering the emails from the hard disk is in play. It sounds like the hard disk was not actually wiped meaning that software was used to preclude the recovery of emails from it. This was another lose lose moment for her. If she had wiped the hard disk it would have been hard to explain the motivation for that other than she anticipated something like a review by the FBI and she took steps to prevent them from recovering anything from the disk. But now she may face the other side of that lose lose proposition, the emails will be recovered which makes her attempt at obfuscation look incompetent.

It seems like at every step of the way including dealing with the scandal as it unfolded Clinton has done the wrong thing, either because she has done a bad job of picking advisers or the advisers she has are just too scared to speak up.

Even after this thing came to light and she hadn't submitted any of her emails to the State Department for more than two years after she was supposed to there were some outs. She could have looked reasonably transparent if she had deleted any seriously damaging private emails and used some software to ensure they were unrecoverable, left the rest of her private emails in place. Then she could have done a more transparent separation process, provided the government with the electronic form of the emails and a paper version if they wanted that as well and just made a non-wiped hard disk available to the FBI if they came knocking.

ETA: It would be interesting to know if she understood that "deleting" her emails was not going to make them unrecoverable. I wouldn't fault her for not understanding that although it is does suggest that she has an unusually poor understanding of computer issues for somebody holding a high position in this modern world. But even if she didn't understand that I can't understand why none of her advisers would have known that and explained that to her. At this point she must be feeling pretty pissed off about whoever's advice she has been taking, but it won't do her any good to blame them publicly. The buck on this scandal stops with her and if she has incompetent advisers or competent advisers she's not listening to the problem is still hers.

It really is lose/lose as the only reasonable explanations seem to boil down to incompetence or dishonesty (or incompetence and dishonesty).

 

[mgidm86]

Are you suggesting that greed was a driver behind the email scandal?

I hate to speak for others, but...
I'm going to take his second choice, arrogance, for a $1000 Alex!

You are correct! That should have been a $200 question though

I should have said greed and/OR arrogance. Greed with her desire for the Presidency, and arrogance in her handling of the email thing. And while we're at it - both greed and arrogance regarding the possible issues with the Clinton Foundation.

I think greed and arrogance led to some stupid decision making, though there may be some genuine preexisting incompetence in there as well.