RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

To you it probably does seem that way.

In the real world, she doesn't have to, as has been explained and he rules shown numerous times.
.

she does not have to show that the documents she destroyed based on the claim that they were personal were personal?

'k.

Hee hee hee! Just a few posts ago you were saying that people need to "back up" their claims. Not Hillary tho. Because she "doesn't have to."

 

[TheL8Elvis]

she does not have to show that the documents she destroyed based on the claim that they were personal were personal?

'k.

You are using the same losing argument as judicial watch.

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000150-4439-dcc0-ad7e-d43fd4aa0000

Hee hee hee! Just a few posts ago you were saying that people need to "back up" their claims. Not Hillary tho. Because she "doesn't have to."

Yes, people who post here, members of this skeptic forum, need to "back up" their claims if they expect to be taken seriously.

Based on this, you do not expect to be taken seriously. Congratulations.

 

[The Big Dog]

You are using the same losing argument as judicial watch.

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000150-4439-dcc0-ad7e-d43fd4aa0000

Yes, people who post here, members of this skeptic forum, need to "back up" their claims if they expect to be taken seriously.

Based on this, you do not expect to be taken seriously. Congratulations.

did you mean to quote an order that destroys your premise and from a Judge who ordered discovery into Hillary's email shenanigans??

Yes, people are supposed to back up their claims, particularly when all they slavishly do is repeat the party line of the Clinton Campaign staff, and when they insist that members here prove the negative.

But she and presumably you don't "have to."

'k.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

did you mean to quote an order that destroys your premise and from a Judge who ordered discovery into Hillary's email shenanigans??

Yes, i meant to post that order. Your characterization of it is, as usual, incorrect.

Yes, people are supposed to back up their claims, <SNIP>

Then go ahead.

Lolz, you know the Doj submitted that stuff in camera for a reason, right????

The reason being the fact that Hillary's cowboy server was lousy with top secret intell.

 

[The Big Dog]

So no real disagreement here. She deleted her personal email, as she was allowed.

Then go ahead.

Your logical fallacy is...

Oh wait, you said you and Hilldawg didn't have to prove that...

'k.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Your logical fallacy is...

Oh wait, you said you and Hilldawg didn't have to prove that...

'k.

Wow, it appears you are really having a difficult time following this thread.



But let's go ahead and be clear.

Your claim is what, exactly ?

From the most recent discussion, it appears to be you don't believe Clinton was allowed to decide, for herself, which of her email correspondences were federal records.

Is that correct ?

 

[sunmaster14]

Wow, it appears you are really having a difficult time following this thread.



But let's go ahead and be clear.

Your claim is what, exactly ?

From the most recent discussion, it appears to be you don't believe Clinton was allowed to decide, for herself, which of her email correspondences were federal records.

Is that correct ?

No, she absolutely is not allowed to decide for herself which of her email correspondences are federal records. Whether or not something is a federal record is independent of her subjective judgment. As a practical matter, she is given first crack at curating her own emails, but that doesn't mean she has the right to discard a federal record just because she feels like it.

Do you think that if an email were recovered which had been deleted or withheld by her because she deemed it to be not a federal record, but it contained classified information and/or official communications in her capacity as Secretary of State, that she wouldn't be subject to sanctions because it was her decision to make? If you think so, you would be wrong.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, she absolutely is not allowed to decide for herself which of her email correspondences are federal records. Whether or not something is a federal record is independent of her subjective judgment. As a practical matter, she is given first crack at curating her own emails, but that doesn't mean she has the right to discard a federal record just because she feels like it.

I disagree, you are completely wrong, the state dept manual clearly states it is based on judgement

https://fam.state.gov/searchapps/vi...L,MESSAG&url=/FAM/05FAM/05FAM0440.html#M443_2

b. 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 In making these decisions, all personnel should exercise the same judgment they use when determining whether to retain and file paper records.

 

[sunmaster14]

I disagree, you are completely wrong, the state dept manual clearly states it is based on judgement

https://fam.state.gov/searchapps/vi...L,MESSAG&url=/FAM/05FAM/05FAM0440.html#M443_2

b. 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 In making these decisions, all personnel should exercise the same judgment they use when determining whether to retain and file paper records.

I hope you don't mind if I go to the actual statute, which has legal force, rather than an employee manual, from which you draw an excerpt which doesn't even mean what you imply it means (my emphasis added):

§ 3301. Definition of records

(a) RECORDS DEFINED.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—As used in this chapter, the term “records”—

(A) includes all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the United States Government or because of the informational value of data in them; and

(B) does not include —

(i) library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes; or

(ii) duplicate copies of records preserved only for convenience.

(2) RECORDED INFORMATION DEFINED.— For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ´recorded´ information includes all traditional forms of records, regardless of physical form or characteristics, including information created, manipulated, communicated, or stored in digital or electronic form.

(b) DETERMINATION OF DEFINITION.—The Archivist’s determination whether recorded information, regardless of whether it exists in physical, digital, or electronic form, is a record as defined in subsection (a) shall be binding on all Federal agencies.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, she absolutely is not allowed to decide for herself which of her email correspondences are federal records. Whether or not something is a federal record is independent of her subjective judgment. As a practical matter, she is given first crack at curating her own emails, but that doesn't mean she has the right to discard a federal record just because she feels like it.

Do you think that if an email were recovered which had been deleted or withheld by her because she deemed it to be not a federal record, but it contained classified information and/or official communications in her capacity as Secretary of State, that she wouldn't be subject to sanctions because it was her decision to make? If you think so, you would be wrong.

Don't fall into his bait and switch trap.

He claimed that her records were "personal records," yet he asked now about "Federal Records." Note the switch? Not only did it allow him to evade the request for evidence again, he moved the goalposts. It is such transparently dishonest argument.

No she cannot unilaterally destroy documents that are potentially responsive to FOIA requests, Congressional subpoenas and Congressional Records requests.

 

[The Big Dog]

I hope you don't mind if I go to the actual statute, which has legal force, rather than an employee manual, from which you draw an excerpt which doesn't even mean what you imply it means (my emphasis added):

Further, his own link destroys the bait and switch:

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.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I hope you don't mind if I go to the actual statute, which has legal force, rather than an employee manual, from which you draw an excerpt which doesn't even mean what you imply it means (my emphasis added):

I don't mind - I don't see the problem, based on what you wrote, as the state dept manual defines what's appropriate:

includes all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency
i.e what is defined in the state dept manual.

 

[sunmaster14]

I don't mind - I don't see the problem, based on what you wrote, as the state dept manual defines what's appropriate:

includes all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency
i.e what is defined in the state dept manual.

That doesn't mean the agency has discretion. You're reading it incorrectly. The Archivist (which is an actual person, or group of people) has final say.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Don't fall into his bait and switch trap.

He claimed that her records were "personal records," yet he asked now about "Federal Records." Note the switch? Not only did it allow him to evade the request for evidence again, he moved the goalposts. It is such transparently dishonest argument.

No she cannot unilaterally destroy documents that are potentially responsive to FOIA requests, Congressional subpoenas and Congressional Records requests.

In your haste while gish-galloping ... you forgot to answer my question:

Wow, it appears you are really having a difficult time following this thread.



But let's go ahead and be clear.

Your claim is what, exactly ?

From the most recent discussion, it appears to be you don't believe Clinton was allowed to decide, for herself, which of her email correspondences were federal records.

Is that correct ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That doesn't mean the agency has discretion. You're reading it incorrectly. The Archivist (which is an actual person, or group of people) has final say.

No you are.
See, I can do it too.
...


This is going nowhere.

Clinton was allowed to decide what were personal emails, and delete them.

There has yet to be any demonstrable evidence that she deleted what she was not allowed.

When you have evidence beyond your opinion, please post it.

 

[The Big Dog]

In your haste while gish-galloping ... you forgot to answer my question:

Yes, actually I did, I pointed out the bait and switch, your evasion of my requests for evidence and then nuked you from orbit with this:

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.
Oh by the way? Should I also note that she was not employee at the time she destroyed those records?

drops mic

Damn, I love it when a plan comes together!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, actually I did, I pointed out the bait and switch, your evasion of my requests for evidence and then nuked you from orbit with this:

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.

Oh yeah .. which ones ?

Oh by the way? Should I also note that she was not employee at the time she destroyed those records?

drops mic

Damn, I love it when a plan comes together!

You mean when she deleted personal emails from her personal email server, and even the judge recognized he couldn't tell her not to ?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-state-214533

Acting in a Freedom of Information Act suit filed by the conservative group Judicial Watch, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton ultimately agreed to issue another order telling the State Department to ask Clinton to preserve “any official records reflecting State Department affairs, in her possession or control,” but he declined to issue a broader order attempting to freeze all of Clinton’s personal email.

“I would order the State Department make the request of her to produce specifically any State Department-related information in her emails,” Walton said. “I can’t in my view order that the State Department do any more than that.”

So yeah, she has to turn over her work emails, like she did. Bravo.

 

[sunmaster14]

Oh yeah .. which ones ?




You mean when she deleted personal emails from her personal email server, and even the judge recognized he couldn't tell her not to ?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-state-214533

Acting in a Freedom of Information Act suit filed by the conservative group Judicial Watch, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton ultimately agreed to issue another order telling the State Department to ask Clinton to preserve “any official records reflecting State Department affairs, in her possession or control,” but he declined to issue a broader order attempting to freeze all of Clinton’s personal email.

“I would order the State Department make the request of her to produce specifically any State Department-related information in her emails,” Walton said. “I can’t in my view order that the State Department do any more than that.”

So yeah, she has to turn over her work emails, like she did. Bravo.

The court action is against the State Department, not against Hillary Clinton personally. That is why ordering her to do anything is outside the judge's jurisdiction in that particular case. It doesn't mean that the State Department couldn't sue Clinton to recover all of her emails from the time frame in question, or a criminal complaint couldn't be filed which orders her to preserve all of her emails, both personal and work-related. In fact, a judge would very likely order it given the fact pattern that has been established.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh yeah .. which ones ?

That about sums up the quality of the argument we have come to expect around here from Hillary supporters.

say you read the latest news?

Sullivan said the State Department’s inspector general last month faulted the department and Clinton’s office for overseeing processes that repeatedly allowed “inaccurate and incomplete” FOIA responses, including a May 2013 reply that found “no records” concerning email accounts Clinton used, even though dozens of senior officials had corresponded with her private account.

 

[plague311]

The court action is against the State Department, not against Hillary Clinton personally. That is why ordering her to do anything is outside the judge's jurisdiction in that particular case. It doesn't mean that the State Department couldn't sue Clinton to recover all of her emails from the time frame in question, or a criminal complaint couldn't be filed which orders her to preserve all of her emails, both personal and work-related. In fact, a judge would very likely order it given the fact pattern that has been established.

Do you ever get tired of using your mind reading as an argument? The more you post the more I notice that the majority of your posts are you claiming what judges, or people in higher up positions would do just based on what you think.

If what you say is the case, why haven't they taken that course of action? Whatever that stupid watch groups name is hasn't been shy in doing everything in its power to this point, why wouldn't they follow your simple, laid out plan? I'm going to assume because you're extremely wrong about something, that's generally the way it goes. You know, Occam's Razor and all.