Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[DavidJames]

Sorry, duplicate post

that would describe about 98% of them

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

well back to business....

In March, a House committee asked Mrs. Clinton to give the server to a third party to determine whether she had turned over all of the work-related emails.

Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David E. Kendall, said in response to the request that there was no reason to hand over the server because there was nothing on it.

So, maybe someone needs to take a look at David Kendall too? Keep in mind that the server had top secret data on it and was sitting in an data storage center in New Jersey.

Who else had access to that server, Hillary.

Riiiight. Like she should cooperate with the whims of the witch hunters.

Darrell Issa is obsessed with Clinton and Benghazi. He has such poor credibility his own party took him off the Oversight Committee.

California's Darrell Issa loses power along with House oversight committee post

The Benghazi investigation is a farce and an embarrassment to the GOP.

 

[Leftus]

They have since ended their inquiry. The FBI continues to look for any copies of confidential material that might be loose. That doesn't make a criminal investigation, that makes a security sweep.

It's only the Clinton haters that want it to be criminal.


Oh, by the way, speaking of goalpost moving, which is it, criminal use of a private email server, or criminal misconduct handling government secrets?

Receiving, storing, and sending classified information on a non-classified server (email or otherwise) is a crime when you have a security clearance. Which means that the FBI looking for those loose documents is a criminal investigation when it comes to who owned, used and controlled the server.

 

[DavidJames]

Receiving, storing, and sending classified information on a non-classified server (email or otherwise) is a crime when you have a security clearance. Which means that the FBI looking for those loose documents is a criminal investigation when it comes to who owned, used and controlled the server.

Of course it is, that's why you quoted the FBI.

 

[The Big Dog]

Riiiight. Like she should cooperate with the whims of the witch hunters.

Darrell Issa is obsessed with Clinton and Benghazi. He has such poor credibility his own party took him off the Oversight Committee.

California's Darrell Issa loses power along with House oversight committee post

The Benghazi investigation is a farce and an embarrassment to the GOP.

My post had nothing to do with Darrell Issa, and he is not and has never been on the select committee.

Your post had nothing to do with my post.

Witch hunters. Clinton haters. Those aren't arguments at all.

 

[davefoc]

...

The Benghazi investigation is a farce and an embarrassment to the GOP.

Yes, it was, but it served their purposes, it fired up a percentage of the base and in net probably won a few more moderates than they lost with their shenanigans. They got as much as they could have hoped for.

Then came Clinton and her email fiasco. All of a sudden they had a real issue with real malfeasance they could point to. Clinton has mishandled this at every step of the way and even if the claim that this scandal is all about appearance was true (obviously I don't agree with that) Clinton's missteps in handling the scandal have contributed to an overall impression of incompetence. What the heck was this woman thinking? Even after the egregiously bad idea to use a private server there were some outs. Clinton had warnings from the state department that there was something here she needed to do something about and she did nothing except perhaps make incredibly bad jokes. Was her staff afraid to confront her with bad news?

This scandal has not only hurt Clinton directly, it has worked to get old long gone Clinton scandals some new air time. Who the hell remembered Eric Hothem and the furniture scandal? Not me for sure, but now I've been reminded of it. Who in the electorate had heard about Clinton and the possibility of conflict of interests between her foundation and her SoS job. I had barely heard of that and now it has new life as a partial driver for the actions Clinton took with regard to her email server. The Benghazi scandal was winding down. Without new facts there just wasn't anything left to exploit and now Clinton is seen as hiding potentially relevant input to the congress.

Even Clinton's little kerfuffles with her secret service agents have gotten more air time.

This is a friggin mess and for those of us who do not want to see one of the Republican front runners become president it is hard to imagine what Clinton could have done to make that any more likely than what she has done here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Receiving, storing, and sending classified information on a non-classified server (email or otherwise) is a crime when you have a security clearance. Which means that the FBI looking for those loose documents is a criminal investigation when it comes to who owned, used and controlled the server.

No, it can be criminal. Applying 'criminal' to this situation is wishful thinking.

WA Times re Colin Powell

“He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” an aide for Mr. Powell said in a statement, Politico reported.

“He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, ...
The Times reported that before the regulations went into effect, Mr. Powell also “used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders.”

Media Matters

Appearing on ABCs This Week on Sunday, Powell was asked how he responded to the State Department request last year that all former secretaries hand over emails from their time in office. Powell confirmed that he had used private email while secretary but that he didn't hand over any emails to the State Department because his private emails were all gone.

"I don't have any to turn over," he explained. "I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files." Powell's revelation is important because it puts into perspective the email protocol of a former secretary of state. By his own account, Powell's emails, unlike Clinton's, include his regular communications with foreign dignitaries. What was he emailing them in the lead-up to the war in Iraq? We'll never know.

Big Story

Such slippage of classified information into regular email is "very common, actually," said Leslie McAdoo, a lawyer who frequently represents government officials and contractors in disputes over security clearances and classified information.

What makes Clinton's case different is that she exclusively sent and received emails through a home server in lieu of the State Department's unclassified email system. Neither would have been secure from hackers or foreign intelligence agencies, so it would be equally problematic whether classified information was carried over the government system or a private server, experts say.

Ironically Clinton's communications wouldn't have been more secure with a .gov address:

... the State Department's unclassified email system has been penetrated by hackers believed linked to Russian intelligence.

Tempest in a tea pot, for sure.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As long as there is so much partisan posts in the thread anyway, here's an excellent op ed from today:
Clinton Emails My ASS–Condi Rice, Colin Powell, GWB All Used Private Servers !!

Hypocrisy has always been a Republican strong suit, so the current iteration regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server is by no mean a surprise. Hyperventilating Republicans rush to the cameras claiming they’ve found the smoking gun proving their political opponents aren’t just wrong, but that they’re criminals. Traffic hungry reporters take “off the record” spin and run with it, publishing dramatic (and click-driving) stories predicting perp walks any day. Then months later, when the facts actually come out, there is far less to the story than meets the eye.

Supposedly Rice rarely used email, she was apparently Inter-tubes challenged.

 

[The Big Dog]

As long as there is so much partisan posts in the thread anyway, here's an excellent op ed from today:
Clinton Emails My ASS–Condi Rice, Colin Powell, GWB All Used Private Servers !!

Supposedly Rice rarely used email, she was apparently Inter-tubes challenged.

you mean partisan posts quoting the Washington Post and CBS?

Liberal beef! Solid stuff there. And I thought your arguments reached their nadir when you posted "Clinton haters" but it seems you got a shovel and determined to keep on digging....

 

[The Big Dog]

No, it can be criminal. Applying 'criminal' to this situation is wishful thinking.

WA Times re Colin Powell


Media Matters


Big Story

Ironically Clinton's communications wouldn't have been more secure with a .gov address:

Tempest in a tea pot, for sure.

Or we can throw Colin Powell in the prison cell next to hillary....

tu quoque arguments SUUCCCKKKKK...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, the system was supposed to automatically archive all emails.

evidence required, especially since the article in question states:
The State Department also realized it was not automatically preserving internal communications, evidence of which has also been presented earlier in the thread.

IOW, you just pulled that ******** about a glitch out of your ass.

Are you claiming that they were intentionally withholding documents from government archives in violation of the law? I'll go with that if you'd like...

Nice strawman. Evasion noted.

Bwahahahahaha! She preserved them by deleting them from her server and giving them up only when pressured by the top law enforcement agency in the country.

But she preserved them, unlike the state dept. Thanks for playing.

 

[The Big Dog]

evidence required, especially since the article in question states:
The State Department also realized it was not automatically preserving internal communications, evidence of which has also been presented earlier in the thread.

IOW, you just pulled that ******** about a glitch out of your ass.



Nice strawman. Evasion noted.



But she preserved them, unlike the state dept. Thanks for playing.

you do know that Hillary claimed that she copied people to ensure that they were collected, and she was in CHARGE of the department that **** the bed.

liar and incompetent, she's ready....

 

[WildCat]

evidence required, especially since the article in question states:
The State Department also realized it was not automatically preserving internal communications, evidence of which has also been presented earlier in the thread.

IOW, you just pulled that ******** about a glitch out of your ass.

If they "realized it was not automatically preserving" them, isn't it implied that it was supposed to be automatically preserving them? And therefore there was a glitch?

Nice strawman. Evasion noted.

That word... I don't think it means what you think it means.

But she preserved them, unlike the state dept. Thanks for playing.

She preserved them by deleting them?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Or we can throw Colin Powell in the prison cell next to hillary....

tu quoque arguments SUUCCCKKKKK...

A tu quoque would have been them both doing something wrong. No one's saying Powell did anything wrong.

You should think about that.

 

[The Big Dog]

A tu quoque would have been them both doing something wrong. No one's saying Powell did anything wrong.

You should think about that.

uh, no. What people are or are not saying about Powell tells us nothing about whether what Hillary did is wrong.

That is why it is a fallacy and why your post was wrong.

 

[Leftus]

No, it can be criminal. Applying 'criminal' to this situation is wishful thinking.

WA Times re Colin Powell


Media Matters


Big Story

Ironically Clinton's communications wouldn't have been more secure with a .gov address:

Tempest in a tea pot, for sure.

Two problems, the first is that nothing you've posted deals with the statement about securing classified documents on a server.

The second is that the information she received was never meant to be on the .gov email address either.

We also don't know if she was ever hacked. It's like saying you've never had a virus because you've never run a virus scan. We don't know if she was ever hacked because there are no security logs to verify the claim.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If they "realized it was not automatically preserving" them, isn't it implied that it was supposed to be automatically preserving them? And therefore there was a glitch?

No, that's just your assumption.

'They' weren't supposed to be archiving emails automatically, individuals were supposed to - as has been covered earlier in the thread already.

That word... I don't think it means what you think it means.

When you start with "Are you claiming that..." it's a good indicator you aren't going to be arguing against what I actually said.

She preserved them by deleting them?

You got a word wrong - she printed them first, so she preserved them bybefore deleting them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Two problems, the first is that nothing you've posted deals with the statement about securing classified documents on a server.

The second is that the information she received was never meant to be on the .gov email address either.

We also don't know if she was ever hacked. It's like saying you've never had a virus because you've never run a virus scan. We don't know if she was ever hacked because there are no security logs to verify the claim.

I appreciate that from a "common sense" broad sort of view, there are potential problems with clintons server and classified documents. But I think your posts are to broad, and don't cover the nuance of the situation. Neither the legal nuances, nor the political ones.

As far as security logs, being hacked, etc. We don't have any of that information to make informed statements about what occurred or didn't occur, what exists or doesn't exist.

And of course, no one is ever going to prove she wasn't hacked, right ? But it would be silly to ask someone to prove a negative, wouldn't it ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<>
On a different subject, no one replied to my question about whether Eric Hoteham has been formally identified. I understand that there was speculation about who he was based on a similarity to the name of a Clinton confidant, but that story seems strange. He misspelled his own name? He was trying to hide behind a pseudonym that was childishly close to his own name?

It never moved beyond speculation that it was him, as far as I know/can tell.

I have not seen any explanation of why that name was used.

What was going on in Clinton land when she and some subset of her advisers decided that setting up her own private email server where she would mix her private business emails, her SoS emails and her personal emails was a good idea?

Did no one advance the idea that the security of the SoS email server was a big deal and that there might be some security issues with a home brew server? Did no one advance the notion that when Clinton commingled all of her emails that complying with archiving regulations was going to be difficult? Did nobody advance the legal argument that discovery actions aimed at one type of communications could lead to discovery of other types of communications that could cause embarrassment or even legal problems for Clinton?

Perhaps they concluded that the SoS's emails were unclassified, so they really weren't a big deal.

 

[The Big Dog]

I appreciate that from a "common sense" broad sort of view, there are potential problems with clintons server and classified documents. But I think your posts are to broad, and don't cover the nuance of the situation. Neither the legal nuances, nor the political ones.

As far as security logs, being hacked, etc. We don't have any of that information to make informed statements about what occurred or didn't occur, what exists or doesn't exist.

And of course, no one is ever going to prove she wasn't hacked, right ? But it would be silly to ask someone to prove a negative, wouldn't it ?

Oh man! You are so close to a breakthrough.

No it would not be silly to ask Hillary to prove she wasn't hacked, because basic damage controls dictate treating an uncontrolled server as compromised unless shown otherwise. Further, she had exclusive control over the server and we know she took steps to modify/delete the data on it.

Sorry if you don't think that is "fair" but Hillary could have avoided this whole situation if she had just decided not to indulge her rank paranoia, and put her selfish interests ahead of the Nation.