RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[TheL8Elvis]

HEE Hee! the King of cherry picking gets hoisted again.

let me make this simple

2013 Clinton goes to Platte River who arranges back up with datto.
Mid 2014 State Department begins asking for documents
Mid 2014 Clinton arranges that all emails be sent to her lawyers
October or November 2014 Clinton instructs Platte River to cut data storage of all emails
February 2015, Clinton advises Platte River to save only emails sent during the most recent 30 days. datto ordered to do likewise
By Mid-2015 All old emails from state department days "deleted"
August 2015 Clinton's lawyer advises that Hillary's cowboy server is blank “The information had been migrated over to a different server for purposes of transition,” Wells told The Washington Post. “To my knowledge, the data on the old server is not available now on any servers or devices in Platte River Networks’ control.”
September 2015: Lo and behold, the old emails from the blank server that were deleted from Platte River are in fact sitting in cloud storage at Datto!
September 2015 to present: Hillary and the Shillaries soil themselves!

Fantastic!


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article37968711.html#storylink=cpy

Fantastic ! from your link :

Boian said the firm had set up a 30-day retention policy for the backup server in 2013, at the request of Clinton’s representatives, meaning that any emails deleted would disappear within 30 days. Boian said Platte River did not “wipe” the server clean, such as by overwriting deleted material several times with encrypted data.
...

Despite Boian’s statement that Platte River set up a 30-day revolving retention policy for Clinton’s emails, Johnson’s letter noted that Platte River employees were directed to reduce the amount of email data being stored with each backup. Late this summer, Johnson wrote, a Platte River employee took note of this change and inquired whether the company could search its archives for an email from Clinton Executive Service Corp. directing such a reduction in October or November 2014 and then again around February, advising Platte River to save only emails sent during the most recent 30 days.

Those reductions would have occurred after the State Department requested that Clinton turn over her emails.
...
Johnson asked the firm to produce copies of all communications it had relating to Clinton’s server, including those with Platte River and the Clinton firm.”

Where is the email from the Clinton firm so directing ?

ETA:

Mid 2014 Clinton arranges that all emails be sent to her lawyers - if they were gone ... how did she send them to her lawyer ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Also ... just to add .. the last 3 or 4 pages of Paglianos email, and PRN/Datto backups ... both 6 month old news.

Nothing new. No reason to be re-hashing, unless you're just desperate for something about Hillary to be hating on ...

 

[The Big Dog]

Where is the email from the Clinton firm so directing ?

ETA:

Mid 2014 Clinton arranges that all emails be sent to her lawyers - if they were gone ... how did she send them to her lawyer ?

You are really not following here, are you? They were not destroyed until after they were given to the lawyers, but were deleted by no later than the time Hillary gave her UN Speech, about the same time at which Platte River and datto were ordered to delete all emails after 30 days.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here are the emails showing Hillary pushing through her IT guy as a "political appointee" reporting to Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy and the incredulous reactions from long time IT employees.

Of course, the only reason she went through all this bizarre conduct was to further shield her sneering contempt for governmental transparency from prying eyes.

Yeah, she did it for "convenience." Damn, she is one of the sleaziest people on Earth.

Read these knowing that he was actively running Hillary's cowboy server throughout this entire period, and all his emails are missing.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-april-29-email-production-01441/

Also ... just to add .. the last 3 or 4 pages of Paglianos email, and PRN/Datto backups ... both 6 month old news.

Nothing new. No reason to be re-hashing, unless you're just desperate for something about Hillary to be hating on ...

Actually, the Pagliano emails were just released on May 9. I simply pointed out the similarities between "What a bunch a..." and this is some" Shaddy (sic) ****."

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh yeah, I forgot no nothings blathering on about areas which they have no clue and, shockingly, getting it wrong in ways to support their view. Architects for the truth anyone?

"No nothings..." tee hee!

By the way, I find that view hurts my personal fee fees.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

DUPLICATE

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You are really not following here, are you? They were not destroyed until after they were given to the lawyers,<>

But, that's the problem that was being complained about - that somehow they weren't being retained:

<> The fact that it was directed to use a 30-day retention policy (which would wipe out all of the emails that Clinton should have known were Federal Records that needed to be archived) is bad in and of itself. <>

Absolutely! <>

Can you kindly clarify what your complaint is exactly ? Because you are all over the place.

 

[The Big Dog]

But, that's the problem that was being complained about - that somehow they weren't being retained:

Can you kindly clarify what your complaint is exactly ? Because you are all over the place.

My complaint that you believe they always had a thirty day rule was false and completely untrue.

The 30 day rule for ALL EMAILS went into effect in February of 2015.

If they had that 30 day rule imposed in 2013, then all her emails would have eventually been deleted before being given over to the lawyers.

 

[malbec]

Good to read that all 20 000 E-mails are ready for release , with several countries having full details and specifically Russia and the French Intelligence Service .
This is reported in Project.Nsearch and separately in a video interview involving Webb and Heneghan
They cover areas like ,
HC represented a child rapist and laughed about getting him off!
Mitt Romney , the money launderer for the Bush Clinton crime syndicate. Details available
Bezos has been evading taxes and is now attacking Trump to stop him because he knows he's in trouble!
Trump leads Hillary by 7 points nationally according to French Intelligence! This is being hidden by the fake news.
Hillary guilty of war crimes in Libya
They talk about the Bush involvement in the JFK assassination and 9/11. et al
Great stuff .
And if it's all true --- which takes little believing --- that is even better .

 

[applecorped]

little indeed

 

[uke2se]

Good to read that all 20 000 E-mails are ready for release , with several countries having full details and specifically Russia and the French Intelligence Service .
This is reported in Project.Nsearch and separately in a video interview involving Webb and Heneghan
They cover areas like ,
HC represented a child rapist and laughed about getting him off!
Mitt Romney , the money launderer for the Bush Clinton crime syndicate. Details available
Bezos has been evading taxes and is now attacking Trump to stop him because he knows he's in trouble!
Trump leads Hillary by 7 points nationally according to French Intelligence! This is being hidden by the fake news.
Hillary guilty of war crimes in Libya
They talk about the Bush involvement in the JFK assassination and 9/11. et al
Great stuff .
And if it's all true --- which takes little believing --- that is even better .

Thanks for getting involved on the anti-Hillary side, Malbec. It's not that it really needed to lose credibility, but It's still funny.

 

[davefoc]

...
HC represented a child rapist and laughed about getting him off!
....

Malbec's post contained several accusations that I hadn't heard of before. I looked into the one I quoted above I think it's fair to put this in the partisan attack research bin where facts are less important than emotion. This kind of thing in net probably harms Clinton a bit otherwise the opposition spinners wouldn't attempt to use crap like this to discredit Clinton. Fortunately for Clinton the damage from things like the Vince Foster nonsense and this is limited. Mostly a bunch of people that weren't going to vote for her anyway have yet more of a reason not to but most of the swing moderate voters are unlikely to be persuaded by this kind of thing.

Unfortunately for Clinton, the email scandal doesn't quite fit this pattern. Yes the partisan pundits are churning the scandal like mad and they are drifting off into ridiculous partisan spinning to make the scandal seem as bad as possible. So in that way it is similar to many of the other right wing attacks on Clinton. The problem for Clinton is that underlying the email scandal are some facts that are problematic even without partisan right wing spinning. My sense of it is that after the FBI report is released Clinton won't be substantially worse off than she is now with regard to the scandal and I think she can survive that. But I'm concerned and I don't see how the release of the report is not going to be problematic for Clinton.

Article on the HC laughed about getting a child rapist off "scandal"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...7/did-hillary-clinton-ask-be-relieved-rapist/

 

[DavidJames]

Malbec's post contained several accusations that I hadn't heard of before. I looked into the one I quoted above I think it's fair to put this in the partisan attack research bin where facts are less important than emotion. This kind of thing in net probably harms Clinton a bit otherwise the opposition spinners wouldn't attempt to use crap like this to discredit Clinton. Fortunately for Clinton the damage from things like the Vince Foster nonsense and this is limited. Mostly a bunch of people that weren't going to vote for her anyway have yet more of a reason not to but most of the swing moderate voters are unlikely to be persuaded by this kind of thing.

Unfortunately for Clinton, the email scandal doesn't quite fit this pattern. Yes the partisan pundits are churning the scandal like mad and they are drifting off into ridiculous partisan spinning to make the scandal seem as bad as possible. So in that way it is similar to many of the other right wing attacks on Clinton. The problem for Clinton is that underlying the email scandal are some facts that are problematic even without partisan right wing spinning. My sense of it is that after the FBI report is released Clinton won't be substantially worse off than she is now with regard to the scandal and I think she can survive that. But I'm concerned and I don't see how the release of the report is not going to be problematic for Clinton.

Article on the HC laughed about getting a child rapist off "scandal"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...7/did-hillary-clinton-ask-be-relieved-rapist/

I think this is a pretty good summation of this issue. I like the word "problematic". I agree it is now and even if she comes up legally clean, there may be some on the fence* who would not vote for her because of it. I think the biggest impact will be on those rabid Sanders supporters who've backed themselves into a corner proclaiming HRC worse then the Anti-Christ. To paraphrase what I've said many times, if someone is supporting Sanders and refuses to vote for HRC or worse, votes for Trump, they are insane. They would be redefining the phrase cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

*On the fence LOL - Is there really anyone who would be on the fence between HRC and Trump?

 

[mgidm86]

I think this is a pretty good summation of this issue. I like the word "problematic". I agree it is now and even if she comes up legally clean, there may be some on the fence* who would not vote for her because of it. I think the biggest impact will be on those rabid Sanders supporters who've backed themselves into a corner proclaiming HRC worse then the Anti-Christ. To paraphrase what I've said many times, if someone is supporting Sanders and refuses to vote for HRC or worse, votes for Trump, they are insane. They would be redefining the phrase cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

*On the fence LOL - Is there really anyone who would be on the fence between HRC and Trump?

Actually, yes. If it gets down to Trump or Hillary. Hillary would bring us four more years of tax and spend economics. Obama 2. She is a very bad choice. But Trump could be even worse. Or, maybe we get lucky and he is not?

I guess you'd call it sitting on the fence, except that on one side of the fence is a huge alligator and on the other side a big black pit with some scary sounds coming out of it. It's more like being afraid to fall off the fence and pleading for a helicopter to come along.

if someone is supporting Sanders and refuses to vote for HRC or worse, votes for Trump, they are insane.

If someone is supporting Sanders they are already insane, or worse. Really though, we're all just desperate for something different, and I don't blame anyone for liking Trump or Sanders. Hillary, yes.

This election is a good indicator of how unhappy people are with the government. (ETA: Duh!)

 

[The_Animus]

Those last 20 bites of excrement didn't taste very good but maybe the next one will be better.
-American Voters

 

[davefoc]

... Hillary would bring us four more years of tax and spend economics. Obama ...

A little off the topic, but also a bizarre notion given reality. Part of Republican shtick is to claim they are fiscally conservative. They aren't. They spend at least as much as the Democrats although they lean toward bombs over food stamps and they often don't want to impose taxes to pay for their special interest spending. I didn't realize that there were still people participating in this forum that would continue to believe Republican mythology on this versus the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

...

This election is a good indicator of how unhappy people are with the government. (ETA: Duh!)

There is no doubt that, particularly in the South, there are people that sit around talking about what a bad president Obama is. But it is also true that Obama would probably win again and against the current contenders would win with a greater margin than before. So not everybody is all that unhappy with the government or at least not more than is the norm.

I think your premise that this election is a good indicator that people are unhappy with the government is mostly wrong. First, there is always a more leftist component in the Democratic Party trying to get their guy nominated. Sanders isn't unique in that. Secondly, Clinton has been the likely Democratic Party nominee for quite awhile. Many Democrats don't like her for various reasons but one of the main ones is they think she's too much of a moderate. There are other issues as well, including this email scandal, which has reduced her popularity and it would be expected that there would be at least one strong contender for the nomination. This doesn't say anything about whether people are happy or not with the government.

Similarly the rise of Trump is do to many factors, only one of which is that people are unhappy with the government. But even here there are confounding factors. Many people were going to be unhappy with Obama just because he was black and since he didn't change that during his presidency that faction hasn't gone away. Are they unhappy with the government because the country hasn't done well under Obama or because Obama is black or because Obama is a Democrat? It is very difficult to sort out why some people are unhappy with Obama when being black and a Democrat are such major drivers for the opinions of many people. But given the major improvements in the economy of the country over the last seven years it is pretty reasonable to think that being black and a Democrat are key components of a lot of the dissatisfaction with Obama.

 

[mgidm86]

A little off the topic, but also a bizarre notion given reality. Part of Republican shtick is to claim they are fiscally conservative. They aren't. They spend at least as much as the Democrats although they lean toward bombs over food stamps and they often don't want to impose taxes to pay for their special interest spending. I didn't realize that there were still people participating in this forum that would continue to believe Republican mythology on this versus the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I didn't say Republicans were the answer. I did not say they are fiscally conservative.

I'll withdraw my "tax and spend" claim because who knows what she will do, she changes her own platform so often it's hard to predict. I know what she has done though and I don't like much of it at all.

I do believe it will resemble Obama era economics and that's what I should have said (I kind of did). More of the same drain on the economy...or if you're an Obama fan - more of the great economy we've all enjoyed in recent years.

I was commenting on your question of how can anyone be sitting on the fence between her and Trump. People on one side think people who vote for the other side are stupid. If one thinks that a vote for Trump is stupid, there are an equal amount of people who think a vote for Hillary is stupid.

Just because one side believes they are right doesn't make them so, and it doesn't make other people stupid, especially in politics.

I think anyone who genuinely likes Hillary for president is stupid. I think anyone who genuinely likes Trump for president is stupid. Being on the fence is the sign of a sane mind. I may not climb down at all.

ETA: I just contradicted myself in the last paragraph haha oh well, I'll leave it.

 

[davefoc]

[see above]

Fair enough.

It is an interesting question about who would be sitting on the fence at this time. Probably somebody steeped in Clinton hatred but who thinks Trump might be worse. I don't get the Clinton hatred. That sounds like a topic for another thread. Maybe somebody has some insights about it that I am missing.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I will only say this.... This election cycle is a complete cluster bugger. As many negatives as hillary has the alternatives in my opinion are not much better...

 

[uke2se]

I will only say this.... This election cycle is a complete cluster bugger. As many negatives as hillary has the alternatives in my opinion are not much better...

What's better about the alternatives?