RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

Clinton aide Cheryl Mills leaves FBI interview briefly after being asked about emails

The questions that were considered off limits had to do with the procedure used to produce emails to the State Department so they could possibly be released publicly, the people said. Mills, an attorney herself, was not supposed to be asked questions about that — and ultimately never was in the recent interview — because it was considered confidential as an example of attorney-client privilege, the people said.

Seems like Ms. Mills and the FBI should take a gander at the Rules of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.11a

(a) A lawyer shall not accept other employment in connection with a matter which is the same as, or substantially related to, a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee. Such participation includes acting on the merits of a matter in a judicial or other adjudicative capacity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?postshare=4851462906536261&tid=ss_tw

 

[sunmaster14]

Oh sure, we can clearly see her hand was IN the cookie jar, but can you PROVE she took a cookie?
There are any number of perfectly good reasons for her hand to be in the cookie jar, besides taking a cookie.
Do we even know if there's a missing cookie or not?

And don't forget the crumbs on her face, and the way her cankles fill out her pantsuit.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Because his emails are supposed to be available to State, and they are not.

Therefore ...
"We can conclude that Bryan was acting very badly"

No, I think you skipped some premises.

She hired a guy who didn't follow the rules. Is it not obvious why that's a bad thing? Of course, it's not a surprising thing, given that she didn't follow the rules either.

I really don't think we have been presented with anywhere near enough information to determine if he followed the rules or not.

This one should be so obvious that if you don't already understand it, then that can only be by deliberate choice, and no effort by me can change that.

Try harder.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That was an amusing exchange. I especially liked the admission that it may not be ad hom after all, but with the qualifier that it might maybe sometime in the future turn into an ad hom.

So you are on the side of it simply being a gratuitous insult ? How exactly is that better ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<>
Seems like Ms. Mills and the FBI should take a gander at the Rules of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.11a

(a) A lawyer shall not accept other employment in connection with a matter which is the same as, or substantially related to, a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee. Such participation includes acting on the merits of a matter in a judicial or other adjudicative capacity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?postshare=4851462906536261&tid=ss_tw

Why, is it your legal opinion she violated them ?

More violations that exist only in internet forums.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh sure, we can clearly see her hand was IN the cookie jar, but can you PROVE she took a cookie?
There are any number of perfectly good reasons for her hand to be in the cookie jar, besides taking a cookie.
Do we even know if there's a missing cookie or not?

Crazy people on the skeptic board asking for proof she took the cookie.

 

[davefoc]

...


I really don't think we have been presented with anywhere near enough information to determine if he followed the rules or not.

...

Would you agree that things are a bit suspicious?
1. Taking the fifth
2. Missing emails
3. Is it common for nuts and bolts type workers like an IT guy to be a political appointee? Why did Clinton decide to shine her beneficence on Pagliano?
4. Clearly there was some bending of the rules to even get him the job because his boss wasn't actually a senate confirmed political appointee. Is this a common dodge so a politician can get a buddy a job?

I can see innocent explanations for all of it, but it sure looks like there is reason to be suspicious to me.

I continue to hold on to the idea that Democratic Party elites know enough about where this is going that an indictment or other major revelation isn't likely or they would have stepped in to halt Clinton's campaign. But maybe not, I don't know. The nonsense earlier up thread that Clinton isn't being investigated seems to have been put to rest. The FBI isn't interviewing Clinton assistants for the hell of it. This investigation seems to have a direction and it's hard to imagine a scenario where Clinton comes out unscathed. Maybe this ends with an announcement that no security breach was found and Clinton did some things she shouldn't have but they didn't rise to the level deserving criminal charges. I don't see how the Justice Department isn't savaged by this mess regardless of what they do.

 

[Ziggurat]

I really don't think we have been presented with anywhere near enough information to determine if he followed the rules or not.

Then by your own admission the public does not know what it should know.

But you're wrong anyways. State is supposed to have all his work emails. It is not credible that his actions have nothing to do with why they do not. Therefore, he did something wrong, even if the contents of the emails are perfectly innocuous.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Then by your own admission the public does not know what it should know.

But you're wrong anyways. State is supposed to have all his work emails. It is not credible that his actions have nothing to do with why they do not. Therefore, he did something wrong, even if the contents of the emails are perfectly innocuous.

Re: the hilited. Why is it impossible the state email archiving system is at fault, not Pagliano ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Would you agree that things are a bit suspicious?
1. Taking the fifth
2. Missing emails
3. Is it common for nuts and bolts type workers like an IT guy to be a political appointee? Why did Clinton decide to shine her beneficence on Pagliano?
4. Clearly there was some bending of the rules to even get him the job because his boss wasn't actually a senate confirmed political appointee. Is this a common dodge so a politician can get a buddy a job?

I can see innocent explanations for all of it, but it sure looks like there is reason to be suspicious to me.

1. No - that's probably good advice even if you have done nothing wrong.

2. No - as already discussed, State and Govt in general are a decade behind corporate america in IT. That archives and emails are missing is completely unsurprising and not nefarious

3/4. ? - I don't know anything about political appointments. Pagliano had previously worked as an IT director for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign - so she got him a job. That seems pretty straightforward.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/polit...ry-clinton-server-state-department/index.html
Political appointees are not uncommon at the State Department and other government agencies. The federal Office of Personnel Management puts out a list of political appointees, known as the "Plum Book," every four years.
In the most recent State Department Plum Book, published in 2012, several hundred such positions are outlined, including about a dozen in Kennedy's department. Pagliano is listed in the Plum Book as a "Special Advisor."
"That said, it is standard and routine, across administrations, for the State Department's under secretary for management to be involved in the placement of Schedule C staffers within the department," the official said.

I continue to hold on to the idea that Democratic Party elites know enough about where this is going that an indictment or other major revelation isn't likely or they would have stepped in to halt Clinton's campaign. But maybe not, I don't know. The nonsense earlier up thread that Clinton isn't being investigated seems to have been put to rest. The FBI isn't interviewing Clinton assistants for the hell of it. This investigation seems to have a direction and it's hard to imagine a scenario where Clinton comes out unscathed. Maybe this ends with an announcement that no security breach was found and Clinton did some things she shouldn't have but they didn't rise to the level deserving criminal charges. I don't see how the Justice Department isn't savaged by this mess regardless of what they do.

 

[The Big Dog]

Clinton Family Fixer Sid Blumenthal confidently declares that there will be no (further) "bombshells" in Hillary's emails.

Of course, Sid confidently predicted that Libya would be Hillary's crowning foreign policy achievement.

Oh Sid, I think the FBI might be curious where you were getting all that NSA intelligence you had no clearance to read....

The fact that Hillary pals around with scumbags like this is all you need to know about the Clintons.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: the hilited. Why is it impossible the state email archiving system is at fault, not Pagliano ?

Because we haven't heard that lots of employees lost their emails, and it's not just some of his that are missing but all of them.

But go ahead, believe it's all some weird coincidence if you want to. Faith is a powerful thing, and who am I to stand in the way of yours?

ETA: I also said not credible, I didn't say impossible.

 

[The Big Dog]

FBI Politely Challenges Hillary

Congenital liar Hillary Clinton has been staring with her lifeless eyes (like doll's eyes) into television cameras and repeating her campaign's spin that the FBI was doing a "security review" or "security inquiry." In fact her sleazy buddy Sid Blumenthal repeated that spin last night, as avid readers will attest.

The head of the FBI, however, was having none of it:

Clinton and her allies have repeatedly called the probe a routine “security inquiry.”

But Director James Comey told reporters that wasn’t an accurate description.

"It's in our name. I'm not familiar with the term 'security inquiry,' " Comey said at a roundtable with reporters, according to Politico.

“We’re conducting an investigation ... That’s what we do.”

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279552-fbi-head-challenges-clinton-on-email-probe

Yet Hillary and her cabal will no doubt continue to perpetrate the lie that it is a routine "security review."

When are people going to get pissed off that she has so little respect for her supporters and the truth that she will look right in the camera and lie incessantly?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I wonder if this is 16.5's link ... since he didn't include one ...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-investigation-fbi-james-comey-223071

if so...then should we take politico at their word ?

FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday he feels "pressure" to complete the federal investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server competently and quickly.

Wait, I have been assured by numerous posters in this thread, who are completely not involved with tthe investigation, that the FBI was investigating Clinton herself, not the server.

Now the director of the FBI says he feels "pressure" to complete the federal investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server competently and quickly.

Is he confused - did he forget he was actually investigating Clinton, like all the Internet forum posters keep saying ?

 

[sunmaster14]

I wonder if this is 16.5's link ... since he didn't include one ...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-investigation-fbi-james-comey-223071

if so...then should we take politico at their word ?

FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday he feels "pressure" to complete the federal investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server competently and quickly.

Wait, I have been assured by numerous posters in this thread, who are completely not involved with tthe investigation, that the FBI was investigating Clinton herself, not the server.

Now the director of the FBI says he feels "pressure" to complete the federal investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server competently and quickly.

Is he confused - did he forget he was actually investigating Clinton, like all the Internet forum posters keep saying ?

The words you highlighted were not Comey's words. The words 16.5 referred to were Comey's words. That's what quotation marks are for.

 

[DavidJames]

But go ahead, believe it's all some weird coincidence if you want to. Faith is a powerful thing, and who am I to stand in the way of yours?

While it's your "faith" that leads you to assume guilt.

Hypocrisy is a powerful thing, and who am I to stand in the way of yours.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The words you highlighted were not Comey's words. The words 16.5 referred to were Comey's words. That's what quotation marks are for.

Really ? Some of them are. Not the ones he is implying about challenging, though.

Clinton and her allies have repeatedly called the probe a routine “security inquiry.”

But Director James Comey told reporters that wasn’t an accurate description.

Those aren't Comeys words either. We don't know what question was asked.

We don't even get a complete response:

"It's in our name. I'm not familiar with the term 'security inquiry,' " Comey said at a roundtable with reporters, according to Politico.

“We’re conducting an investigation ... That’s what we do.”

But, sure, ok.

 

[davefoc]

1[taking the 5th]. No - that's probably good advice even if you have done nothing wrong.

A. He had gained substantially from his relationship with Clinton. Taking the fifth seems to have been against her interests. It seems like loyalty might have motivated him not to take the fifth. But even if loyalty isn't a driver for him, money probably is and he had done well as a Clinton buddy, taking the fifth probably precluded future Clinton derived benefits. So he had some pretty good motivation not to take the fifth. When he takes the fifth it is reasonable to suspect that he may have committed some kind of crime that he does not want to discuss without immunity.

B. You don't get to take the fifth because you didn't feel like answering some questions. There needs to be some reasonable chance of self incrimination. Taking the fifth suggests the possibility that something he has done is not completely legal and it is therefore suspicious for this reason alone.

2[missing emails]. No - as already discussed, State and Govt in general are a decade behind corporate America in IT. That archives and emails are missing is completely unsurprising and not nefarious

More facts are necessary here. How common is it for the State Department to lose all the emails of employees that leave the State Department? How is it that there isn't a trail of his emails with other State Department employees that could be used to recover his emails? Whether you want to call the missing emails suspicious or not, something strange or unexpectedly incompetent is going on here. If you were in charge of the FBI investigation would you ask Pagliano about the missing emails? I'm pretty sure you would and I'm pretty sure you'd be suspicious about what happened.[/quote]

3/4[political appointment]. ? - I don't know anything about political appointments. Pagliano had previously worked as an IT director for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign - so she got him a job. That seems pretty straightforward.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/polit...ry-clinton-server-state-department/index.html
Political appointees are not uncommon at the State Department and other government agencies. The federal Office of Personnel Management puts out a list of political appointees, known as the "Plum Book," every four years.
In the most recent State Department Plum Book, published in 2012, several hundred such positions are outlined, including about a dozen in Kennedy's department. Pagliano is listed in the Plum Book as a "Special Advisor."
"That said, it is standard and routine, across administrations, for the State Department's under secretary for management to be involved in the placement of Schedule C staffers within the department," the official said.

I read the same article. It is clear that shenanigans were pulled to allow his position to be filled with a political appointee. I don't know how common this is. Clearly the law exists to limit the number and scope of political appointees and he was outside what the law intended but perhaps not outside how the law is routinely abused. I don't know. Overall Clinton getting a job for a crony that setup an email server that was used to subvert State Department rules is suspicious. It is also interesting that as soon as Clinton was gone, he was gone. Couldn't he impress his bosses enough for them to attempt to retain him after Kerry took over. Is it possible that his bosses weren't pleased with him or the situation and when they had the chance he was let go?

 

[davefoc]

One thing to make note of with regard to Pagliano is that Pagliano malfeasance does not necessarily imply Clinton malfeasance. There are many bad things that Pagliano could have done that don't involve Clinton doing something bad as well, but still any kind of Pagliano bad actions are going to be embarrassing for Clinton who got him the job. I am a little surprised that Clinton used this approach to getting him a job. I would have guessed a routine job recommendation by Clinton would have gone a long way to securing a non political appointee kind of job for Pagliano. The big advantage to Clinton would have been that any bad actions on the part of Pagliano would have been on the person that made the decision to hire him and to a much lesser degree on Clinton.

One idea, that strains credulity, is that Pagliano didn't do any work in the State Department IT division. He just took advantage of his connections and picked up a pay check and nothing else. If this is true and it is revealed it will be a serious blow to Clinton who was responsible for getting him the job and who may have benefited in some way from Pagliano work or maybe even Pagliano silence that was essentially paid for by the State Department.

Close to the best scenario for Clinton is that Pagliano didn't comply with a regulation here or there that didn't involve Clinton in any way and he just wants a get out of jail free card before he talks about the mundane details of the legal and ethical work he did for Clinton.

Once again there aren't enough publicly available facts to constrain speculation about what is going on here.

 

[Ziggurat]

One thing to make note of with regard to Pagliano is that Pagliano malfeasance does not necessarily imply Clinton malfeasance.

True, but it would mean she had bad judgment in hiring.