RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[shuize]

She turns over work related emails. She doesn't turn over personal communications.

Exactly. Why should Clinton have to turn over any emails related to foreign donations to the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State? Those were all "personal" and no one can prove they weren't. That's why she erased all of them.

 

[Mike!]

No thoughts or comments from the Rah Rah Hillary camp on the time discrepancies?

The State Department's record of Clinton emails begins on March 18, 2009 — almost two months after she entered office.

But by Jan. 28 — a week after her swearing in — she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1.

Looks like the Cowboy Server was up and running a couple months before she claims it was.

 

[DavidJames]

No thoughts or comments from the Rah Rah Hillary camp on the time discrepancies?

I'm not aware of any "Rah Rah Hillary" people in this thread. Certainly not me. There are, however, people like me who would like to see the investigation play out before pronouncing guilt.

 

[Dog Town]

I'm not aware of any "Rah Rah Hillary" people in this thread.

O' Really?

 

[WildCat]

I'm not aware of any "Rah Rah Hillary" people in this thread.

 

[Mike!]

Gad, that laugh.
All she needs now is a pointy hat and a broom.

 

[davefoc]

Did we ever find out who Eric was?

Wow, haven't seen an AUP post in awhile. Nice to see one.

As to your question: It gets asked every now and then in the thread. It seems strange and a little funny that there isn't a definitive answer yet from Clinton since she received the 2012 TI [Transparency International]-USA Integrity Award when Clinton was secretary of state for "recognizing her contributions as secretary of state in raising the importance of transparency and anticorruption as elements of U.S. policy,"

And the state department now has a transparency czar.

But regardless the identity of Eric Hoteham remains a semi-mystery. For quite awhile there has been speculation that it is Eric Hothem, a Clinton apparatchik that has been involved in a few Clinton scandals previously. (illegal removal of furniture from White House and alleged bribery of Bill Clinton's brother to keep him from testifying). ETA: But would Eric Hothem misspell his name or make up a false name so close to his own that it would be obvious who the false name referred to?

http://freebeacon.com/politics/is-t...m-actually-longtime-clinton-aide-eric-hothem/

ETA2: I wonder what Transparency International thinks of their 2012 aware recipient now.

 

[Mike!]

Wow, haven't seen an AUP post in awhile. Nice to see one.

As to your question: It gets asked every now and then in the thread. It seems strange and a little funny that there isn't a definitive answer yet from Clinton since she received the 2012 TI [Transparency International]-USA Integrity Award when Clinton was secretary of state for "recognizing her contributions as secretary of state in raising the importance of transparency and anticorruption as elements of U.S. policy,"

And the state department now has a transparency czar.
But regardless the identity of Eric Hoteham remains a semi-mystery. For quite awhile there has been speculation that it is Eric Hothem, a Clinton apparatchik that has been involved in a few Clinton scandals previously. (illegal removal of furniture from White House and alleged bribery of Bill Clinton's brother to keep him from testifying). ETA: But would Eric Hothem misspell his name or make up a false name so close to his own that it would be obvious who the false name referred to?

http://freebeacon.com/politics/is-t...m-actually-longtime-clinton-aide-eric-hothem/

ETA2: I wonder what Transparency International thinks of their 2012 aware recipient now.

The Orwell estate is demanding royalties.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How can you possibly know that the Petraeus emails were personal? Apparently the defense department didn't think so. They turned them over to the State Department that said that "the emails could now be subject to public disclosure".

Yes the one article you linked to used the word, personal, but other articles used the word personnel . Have you seen the emails? Do you know something that the State Department doesn't about the emails? What kind of personal email chain that went on between Petraeus and Clinton for 10 or 11 emails do you envision?

With respect, you and the Clinton defenders are looking at this scandal with the eyes of partisans. Partisans are not going to decide this election. This election will be decided by moderate voters in swing states and the defense of Clinton in this thread will not be as persuasive to them as it seems to the partisans in this thread. The question right now is whether Clinton, even with her miscellaneous baggage, is the Democrat's best hope.

I highlighted three words, personal matters, retired, and the chain starts before she became secretary of state.

Unless we know what was in it, I don't see the issue. Being turned over to the State Department, who knows what criteria her staff used to categorize it as personal and what criteria the current investigators are using to call it work related.

I just watched Clinton's interview on Meet the Press. She said they bounced more than 1200 emails back to her they deemed personal.

More than 1,200 emails that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department are personal and not part of the federal record, the government's chief records officer ruled.

The State Department asked the National Archives and Records Administration to review 1,246 emails the State Department identified as personal in nature.

That was completely consistent with what Clinton said in the interview: her staff went through the emails and separated out personal ones. Clinton also said the reason they were deleted was, once the sorting was done she was asked what to do with the personal emails and she said, I don't need them, so they were deleted.

Everything she said fit the evidence.

So if >1200 were misclassified by the staff as work related when they were personal, it's not suspicious to find out some that seemed personal to Clinton's staff might be considered work related by the government reviewers.

What's being missed in this effort to find Clinton deceitful (and I find it interesting you think I'm the one looking at it from a blindly partisan POV) is that they still have found nothing hidden that was incriminating.

I do infectious disease consulting with various clients. I work with their hospital and clinic staff to improve work practices. We do chart audits. There are always things people don't chart correctly. We do work practice audits. There are always deficiencies, sometimes important things are missed. Not everyone does procedures correctly even when they do do them.

That's the nature of any workplace.

Just out of curiosity, what field do you work in? Is everyone at your workplace perfect little worker bees, never getting any procedures wrong? It's amazing to me that people are finding everyday work practices outrageous if not perfect.

It comes back to, find something Clinton actually did wrong. So far this nit picking has not impressed me.

 

[The Big Dog]

I highlighted three words, personal matters, retired, and the chain starts before she became secretary of state.

Unless we know what was in it, I don't see the issue. Being turned over to the State Department, who knows what criteria her staff used to categorize it as personal and what criteria the current investigators are using to call it work related.

I just watched Clinton's interview on Meet the Press. She said they bounced more than 1200 emails back to her they deemed personal.

That was completely consistent with what Clinton said in the interview: her staff went through the emails and separated out personal ones. Clinton also said the reason they were deleted was, once the sorting was done she was asked what to do with the personal emails and she said, I don't need them, so they were deleted.

Everything she said fit the evidence.

So if >1200 were misclassified by the staff as work related when they were personal, it's not suspicious to find out some that seemed personal to Clinton's staff might be considered work related by the government reviewers.

What's being missed in this effort to find Clinton deceitful (and I find it interesting you think I'm the one looking at it from a blindly partisan POV) is that they still have found nothing hidden that was incriminating.

I do infectious disease consulting with various clients. I work with their hospital and clinic staff to improve work practices. We do chart audits. There are always things people don't chart correctly. We do work practice audits. There are always deficiencies, sometimes important things are missed. Not everyone does procedures correctly even when they do do them.

That's the nature of any workplace.

Just out of curiosity, what field do you work in? Is everyone at your workplace perfect little worker bees, never getting any procedures wrong? It's amazing to me that people are finding everyday work practices outrageous if not perfect.

It comes back to, find something Clinton actually did wrong. So far this nit picking has not impressed me.

You find it "interesting" that people think you are operating from a blindly partisan pov? This is while you repeat a completely silly campaign talking point about emails being returned to her?

You do infectious disease consulting? Cool, let's run a little experiment. Take all your communications and medical records and store them on your own little filing system in your basement. And then when people come looking for the records, at your deposition, say things like you are being super transparant, and what difference does it make. And then when everyone figures out you were running your own little record storage system in your basement, say things like "there were no rules against it!" Plus you destroyed over half of them.

See how that works out for ya.

 

[davefoc]

I see three reasons that Clinton may have wanted to use a personal server.
1. Secrecy - She wanted to exclude her SoS emails from archiving requirements.
2. Arrogance - Hey look at me. I'm a special person. I have my own server not like the rest of the riff raff working for the government.
3. Convenience - She would have had to carry a second device for her personal emails

The third reason has been pretty thoroughly debunked but one aspect of her reason confuses me a bit. Since she planned to mix her private and SoS emails on her personal server, why didn't she just save the trouble and expense of the personal server and use her SoS email address for her SoS and private emails?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see three reasons that Clinton may have wanted to use a personal server.
1. Secrecy - She wanted to exclude her SoS emails from archiving requirements.
2. Arrogance - Hey look at me. I'm a special person. I have my own server not like the rest of the riff raff working for the government.
3. Convenience - She would have had to carry a second device for her personal emails

The third reason has been pretty thoroughly debunked but one aspect of her reason confuses me a bit. Since she planned to mix her private and SoS emails on her personal server, why didn't she just save the trouble and expense of the personal server and use her SoS email address for her SoS and private emails?

Arrogance, really? Conde Rice always seemed arrogant to me, Clinton, not so much.

I don't think the archiving was an issue. Open to public scrutiny maybe, but archiving? She was correct in that all the emails that came and went between her and any .gov address were indeed saved in the archives. Maybe it wasn't as easily searchable but what else do the Benghazi witch hunters have to do with all that time anyway?

I know she said carrying the two devices and that was dumb. But I can see the convenience of only having to check one email.

The point is, I don't think her wanting some privacy and control over people reading her exchanges is the big deal it's being made out to be.

Find the crime that was being hidden. Until then, all people have is presumed guilty without evidence.

If you scrutinized anyone in any workplace you would no doubt find some flaw(s) in their performance. There's nothing to be outraged by here. There just isn't.

 

[DavidJames]

I see three reasons that Clinton may have wanted to use a personal server.
1. Secrecy - She wanted to exclude her SoS emails from archiving requirements.
2. Arrogance - Hey look at me. I'm a special person. I have my own server not like the rest of the riff raff working for the government.
3. Convenience - She would have had to carry a second device for her personal emails

The third reason has been pretty thoroughly debunked...

Unless those "debunking" can show logs of their reading her mind, sorry, but BS.

 

[Dog Town]

I just watched Clinton's interview on Meet the Press.

Hmmm... So you are aware of her explanation about the E-mails between her and the General then? Finally? I wonder?

Because she did not claim them to be personal, as you seem to be so sure of.
Her response was this:
“There was a transition period. I wasn’t that focused on my email account,”Hmm...
Here's an article that states such. If ,as it seems, memory has failed you.
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/hi...mails-flip-flops-bruising-meet-184007870.html

 

[davefoc]

Unless those "debunking" can show logs of their reading her mind, sorry, but BS.

I stopped short of saying debunked completely because I agreed with your idea that you would have had to read her mind to know categorically that her claim she did it so that she wouldn't need to carry two devices was false.

But it seems that she did carry multiple devices, and it also seems that she doesn't mind asking her staff to provide gofer duty so it seems likely that she could have asked one of them to carry the burdensome second device. But my question went to why she would have needed a second device at all. She combined her private and SoS emails on her personal server. Why couldn't have done the same on the government server? Then she wouldn't have needed that burdensome second device at all.

 

[Dog Town]

...BS.

Yes, Slick Hilly is full of that. Only non critical thinking people, in denial, can't see & smell that!
"Needed server to only carry one device" H.R.C.
BS indeed!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I stopped short of saying debunked completely because I agreed with your idea that you would have had to read her mind to know categorically that her claim she did it so that she wouldn't need to carry two devices was false.

But it seems that she did carry multiple devices, and it also seems that she doesn't mind asking her staff to provide gofer duty so it seems likely that she could have asked one of them to carry the burdensome second device. But my question went to why she would have needed a second device at all. She combined her private and SoS emails on her personal server. Why couldn't have done the same on the government server? Then she wouldn't have needed that burdensome second device at all.

Carrying two devices was an off the cuff remark.

But as a woman who didn't grow up with a computer, and with a son that is in the computer tech field, even though I'm online all the time and use my computer constantly, I call him all the time to set stuff up for me, or tell me how to do stuff. Maybe that's where we are perceiving things differently here.

I have no trouble believing an older woman like Clinton would prefer one email address. Especially since as Clinton said, the server had been set up at their house for years. She had a tech person set up her email account using it. That makes perfect sense to me and I see nothing suspicious about it. And the last job I had had a very complex computer system. You had to use it, of course, but it was a hassle to get my work emails from home.

 

[davefoc]

Carrying two devices was an off the cuff remark.

But as a woman who didn't grow up with a computer, and with a son that is in the computer tech field, even though I'm online all the time and use my computer constantly, I call him all the time to set stuff up for me, or tell me how to do stuff. Maybe that's where we are perceiving things differently here.

I have no trouble believing an older woman like Clinton would prefer one email address. Especially since as Clinton said, the server had been set up at their house for years. She had a tech person set up her email account using it. That makes perfect sense to me and I see nothing suspicious about it. And the last job I had had a very complex computer system. You had to use it, of course, but it was a hassle to get my work emails from home.

If she preferred one email address why didn't she just use her SoS email address?

I am a bit confused on what you are saying about the server. Didn't she (or perhaps the foundation) pay somebody $5,000 to set one up?

Why did she use her senator email address when she was a senator and not use her SoS address when she was the SoS? It seems like it would be much more important to use her SoS address than her Senator address.

As far as your comments suggesting that her computer skills weren't great: I suspect that's true and it certainly isn't a prerequisite for the presidency that they be great. Still, her level of awareness about what is a fact of everyday life seems surprisingly low. But what is most troubling is the low quality of her advisers or her failure to listen to informed advisers on computer issues. Part of being president is figuring out what technical advisers to listen to. She pretty much failed that test here. Is that because sycophancy is a more important characteristic of advisers than actual skills for her?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'll go with the route that she's a lying sack of crap that shouldn't be elected because of many reasons inclusive of this scandal, but still innocent until proven beyond a doubt guilty of CRIMINAL activity.

One thing that does peeve me in regards to criticism of her actions is the premise that while there is suspicion that she wanted to avoid the FOIA process and it may be implied through her actions, it's still up in the air whether the evidence sufficiently shows this. And call me perfectionist but I've bitched about due process in some of the threads about the cop shootings, and I see no reason not to apply that standard here either in spite of my views of Hillary's character.

I think unless there eventually is a criminal case most people who are not partisans in the true sense will boil this down to:

Is she the best candidate in the primaries for Democrats and can someone better be found before we get to the general elections?

Will the voter bloc make aspects of this scandal primary deciding factors in nominating her?

Then if it comes to the general Election is it a lesser of two evils selection where both are crappy candidates?

At the moment I'd rather a better Democrat candidate rises up so I can atleast boil down my choice compared to a Republican rival down to the better ideology, and policies rather than which of the two corrupt crazies are the least corrupt and crazy. That choice I had between Charlie Christ and Rick Scott left a terrible after taste in my mouth a while back. Right now the only one that even remotely comes across as honest is ironically a self described socialist that I can't stand the thought of considering.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If she preferred one email address why didn't she just use her SoS email address?

I am a bit confused on what you are saying about the server. Didn't she (or perhaps the foundation) pay somebody $5,000 to set one up?

Why did she use her senator email address when she was a senator and not use her SoS address when she was the SoS? It seems like it would be much more important to use her SoS address than her Senator address.

From Wiki:

The server, purchased in 2008 for her 2008 presidential campaign, was physically installed at the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York. It was managed by Clinton staffers with limited IT expertise or security clearance until 2013,[6]

Can you not picture someone who had been using the server and email system not wanting to change when she changed jobs? Because I can. I hate new software.

As far as your comments suggesting that her computer skills weren't great: I suspect that's true and it certainly isn't a prerequisite for the presidency that they be great. Still, her level of awareness about what is a fact of everyday life seems surprisingly low. But what is most troubling is the low quality of her advisers or her failure to listen to informed advisers on computer issues. Part of being president is figuring out what technical advisers to listen to. She pretty much failed that test here. Is that because sycophancy is a more important characteristic of advisers than actual skills for her?

You keep using the view from your shoes. Have you considered things look different from other people's shoes?