RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Ziggurat]

Harm done, not harm that might have happened and didn't, come on boys, can't be that hard, Clinton being so evil and all. Let's hear it.

That has never, ever been the relevant standard. You have been informed of this repeatedly. Your continued insistence on the obviously wrong standard at this late date can only be considered deliberately dishonest.

 

[Dog Town]

That has never, ever been the relevant standard. You have been informed of this repeatedly. Your continued insistence on the obviously wrong standard at this late date can only be considered deliberately dishonest.

This standard seems reasonable.

18 United States Code Section 1924 reads:

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term ‘classified information of the United States’ means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That has never, ever been the relevant standard. You have been informed of this repeatedly. Your continued insistence on the obviously wrong standard at this late date can only be considered deliberately dishonest.

No, Zig. From where I stand the issue of why the email kerfuffle is so outrageous has never been answered.

I'm not asking about any standards. I'm saying, because it's what the evidence supports, that this is a made up, aka contrived, outrage.

There is nothing to this. But the right wing spouts bull that it's some horrendous criminal act. It's a friggin' email server. End of outrage.

Nothing bad happened. No one was denied access to FOIA requested documents. There's no access the server was hacked. There's no evidence the emails were wiped, they were only deleted. There's no evidence any harm resulted from these supposedly horrendous security breaches.

What are you outraged about? It's a right wing manufactured mountain made out of an itty bitty molehill.

 

[Fudbucker]

No, Zig. From where I stand the issue of why the email kerfuffle is so outrageous has never been answered.

I'm not asking about any standards. I'm saying, because it's what the evidence supports, that this is a made up, aka contrived, outrage.

There is nothing to this. But the right wing spouts bull that it's some horrendous criminal act. It's a friggin' email server. End of outrage.

Nothing bad happened. No one was denied access to FOIA requested documents. There's no access the server was hacked. There's no evidence the emails were wiped, they were only deleted. There's no evidence any harm resulted from these supposedly horrendous security breaches.

What are you outraged about? It's a right wing manufactured mountain made out of an itty bitty molehill.

Posts like these are why it's hard to take you seriously.

Is firing a gun in the air stupid and irresponsible? Yes. Does the stupidity of firing a gun in the air depend on someone being harmed? No. Will you be charged even if no one was harmed? Yes.

 

[sunmaster14]

No, Zig. From where I stand the issue of why the email kerfuffle is so outrageous has never been answered.

I'm not asking about any standards. I'm saying, because it's what the evidence supports, that this is a made up, aka contrived, outrage.

There is nothing to this. But the right wing spouts bull that it's some horrendous criminal act. It's a friggin' email server. End of outrage.

Nothing bad happened. No one was denied access to FOIA requested documents. There's no access the server was hacked. There's no evidence the emails were wiped, they were only deleted. There's no evidence any harm resulted from these supposedly horrendous security breaches.

What are you outraged about? It's a right wing manufactured mountain made out of an itty bitty molehill.

We don't know what the extent of the harm was. It is almost certainly classified, and it's possible that our intelligence agencies don't even know the extent of the harm. Even the possibility that certain secrets were leaked could necessitate prophylactic measures that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The CIA is not just going to leave its sources and methods exposed and hope for the best. If they think Hillary might have compromised something (even at a 10% chance), they'll stop using it, and develop something else (probably at great cost).

Hillary's obfuscation and obstruction has actually made matters worse. By deleting emails and refusing to come clean about what she may have exposed to foreign intelligence agencies, she makes counterintelligence much, much harder.

If Obama thought the Democratic Party had a Plan B, Hillary would almost certainly be toast. The suspense right now is all about whether Democrats really do have a viable Plan B. Could "B" stand for Bernie, or Biden, or possibly Bloomberg?

 

[NoahFence]

The email flap is the only thing that could be mistaken as a legitimate gripe against Hillary. Therefore, conservatards make it much bigger than it really is.

 

[The Big Dog]

"You're willing to say it was an error in judgment, you should've apologized?" Cuomo asked Clinton.

"No. I'm not willing to say it was an error in judgment because what -- nothing that I did was wrong. It was not -- it was not in any way prohibited. And so--"

"Not apologizing sooner, I mean,"

"Well, apologizing sooner, as soon as you can," Clinton replied. "But part of the problem, and I would just say this as, not an excuse, but just as an explanation.

"When you're facing something like that you got to get the facts. And it takes time to get the facts. And so when I said, 'Hey, take all my emails, make them public' -

I apologize, but not really because nothing I did was wrong, and take and read all my emails, except for the tens of thousands I destroyed.

And people are going to vote for this sociopath?

 

[wareyin]

I apologize, but not really because nothing I did was wrong, and take and read all my emails, except for the tens of thousands I destroyed.

And people are going to vote for this sociopath?

Probably, yes.

You would prefer Trump?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Probably, yes.

You would prefer Trump?

Why not Bernie?

 

[wareyin]

Why not Bernie?

Going by the likely nomination, which is why I also didn't say Fiorina.

Also, the poster I addressed is not going to vote Democrat no matter what.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Will do!
That was quick. Didn't even have to leave the post.

Your claim was:

For someone who won't answer any questions directed towards them, you seem fairly demanding of explanations to questions I've already answered.

Which is nonsense. I didn't answer your two specific questions because, as I explained in my response, I don't see how it's relevant.

But, if it makes you happy...

When was the last day she could have complied with the law (and please provide cite and reasoning)?

I don't know.

When did she turn over the records?

Dec. 2014

It doesn't take a law degree to see who was required to take certain actions. Nor does it take long to see when Clinton was in that roll. The law and the calendar are quite clear. These are not questions of opinions. These are questions of fact.

Totally disagree.

But if you want a lawyer's opinion, and someone who ran the FOIA for 25 years, let's go with Dan Metcalfe and his almost year old article on Politico..

Another opinion piece claiming she broke the law.

And here's one claiming she didn't:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...lary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

Dueling opinion pieces - which is why I am asking where are the non-opinion pieces ?

If it's so clear she broke law, why isn't there a clamor from the right wing congressman, senators and presidential candidates to charge her ? "partisan politics" doesn't cut it as an answer.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I apologize, but not really because nothing I did was wrong, and take and read all my emails, except for the tens of thousands I destroyed.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85696.pdf#page=5

The intention of this guidance is not to require the preservation of every E-mail message. Its purpose is to direct the preservation of those messages that contain information that is necessary to ensure that departmental policies, programs, and activities are adequately documented. E-mail message creators and recipients must decide whether a particular message is appropriate for preservation

And people are going to vote for this sociopath?

Poisoning the well or loaded question, pick one ...

 

[The Big Dog]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85696.pdf#page=5

The intention of this guidance is not to require the preservation of every E-mail message. Its purpose is to direct the preservation of those messages that contain information that is necessary to ensure that departmental policies, programs, and activities are adequately documented. E-mail message creators and recipients must decide whether a particular message is appropriate for preservation

Certain E-mail messages that are not Federal records may still be subject to pending requests and demands under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and litigation and court orders, and should be preserved until no longer needed for such purposes.
—
Classified information must be sent via classified E-mail channels only, with the proper classification identified on each document

 

[DavidJames]

Another opinion piece claiming she broke the law.

And here's one claiming she didn't:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...lary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

Dueling opinion pieces - which is why I am asking where are the non-opinion pieces ?

Some people are very shocked that some of us ask for the process to play out before judging and sentencing. It's so obvious, well just read this op'ed and read my thoughts, no indictment needed, she clearly broke the law and is guilty. It's all so clear.

As you point out, there are other op'ed's with differing opinions, well that's shocking as well.

That's why the rational response is to let things play out.

Let's be honest (heh), none of the anti-HRC folks would vote for her, none (remember, I said let's be honest). So why the tangled panties?

HDS, that's why.

But wait, some would say, I'm not saying she's guilty, just that it's clear she had poor judgement and can't be trusted.
Sure, that's based on the same set of facts that are in dispute. That's not rational either, just a passive aggressive form of HDS.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, Zig. From where I stand the issue of why the email kerfuffle is so outrageous has never been answered.

I'm not asking about any standards. I'm saying, because it's what the evidence supports, that this is a made up, aka contrived, outrage.

There is nothing to this. But the right wing spouts bull that it's some horrendous criminal act. It's a friggin' email server. End of outrage.

Nothing bad happened. No one was denied access to FOIA requested documents. There's no access the server was hacked. There's no evidence the emails were wiped, they were only deleted. There's no evidence any harm resulted from these supposedly horrendous security breaches.

What are you outraged about? It's a right wing manufactured mountain made out of an itty bitty molehill.

Some people are very shocked that some of us ask for the process to play out before judging and sentencing. It's so obvious, well just read this op'ed and read my thoughts, no indictment needed, she clearly broke the law and is guilty. It's all so clear.

As you point out, there are other op'ed's with differing opinions, well that's shocking as well.

That's why the rational response is to let things play out.

Let's be honest (heh), none of the anti-HRC folks would vote for her, none (remember, I said let's be honest). So why the tangled panties?

HDS, that's why.

Yep, HDS indeed....

 

[applecorped]

Yep, HDS indeed....

it should be called DDS at this point

 

[wareyin]

it should be called DDS at this point

Because getting HDS sufferers to provide evidence supporting their claims is like pulling teeth?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Every indication thus far is that she did break government regulations that that dictate how official department communications should have been handled. Most of the legal and regulatory verbeage has been posted by others on this.

The FBI investigation is purely focused on the classified contents that may have been transmitted in that system. My expectation... and thus far whats played out is that if shes not charged with anything she still has to deal with the damage it did to her trustworthiness. Unlike an indictment of criminal behavior and willful negligence...voters who otherwise dont trust her over this could concievably still vote for her depending on the alternative candidates and whether she is still more attractive as a choice than others enoufh to override concerns on this matter.

I suspect that sums up a few points (which had been mentioned much earlier in the thread but bear repeating)

 

[applecorped]

Because getting HDS sufferers to provide evidence supporting their claims is like pulling teeth?

Much better than what I was thinking.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

And people are going to vote for this sociopath?

As opposed to this sociopath, or this one? Hell yes!

Actually, having a psychopathic personality is not necessarily a bad thing in a president.

Fearless Dominance, which reflects the boldness associated with psychopathy, was associated with better rated presidential performance, leadership, persuasiveness, crisis management, Congressional relations, and allied variables; it was also associated with several largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance, such as initiating new projects and being viewed as a world figure...

These findings indicate that the boldness associated with psychopathy is an important but heretofore neglected predictor of presidential performance, and suggest that certain features of psychopathy are tied to successful interpersonal behavior.