RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob001 said:
Without defending The Government, broadly speaking, the record keepers can't find records they don't have. Anything Clinton exchanged with someone who didn't have a gov. address wouldn't be on government servers. And FOIA requests have to be tailored pretty precisely; it's easy for bureaucrats to evade requests on technicalities.

CNN is running clips of Hillary making claims that are directly contradicted by the IG report ("I consulted the proper officials, I received permission," etc.). She also, unlike all other Secs State, apparently would not cooperate with the investigation.
Click to expand...
Any email from Clinton to anyone with a .gov address would have had Clinton's return email address on it and unless she was using a .gov domain on that server of hers, it would have been obvious.

Everyone she ever emailed at the State Department had to be aware of her address.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Doesn't change a thing. Mucking up workplace regulations no matter the degree as in this case is simply not criminal.

This is what all you wishfully thinking right wingers fail to understand. You can find workplace regulation laws broken in any large establishment on any day. And some of those 'broken laws' are serious laws and serious offenses.

No one gets indicted. Not unless you kill a bunch of people and get charged with criminal negligence. Or unless you break additional laws like General Petraeus did.
Click to expand...

Of course, it's quite dishonest to compare "workplace regulations" to sensitive information handling rules. But setting that aside...

Violating company policies may not get you indicted, but it'll frequently get you fired. Would you say Clinton should have been terminated in 2012?
 
Beeyon said:
This is the most interesting part of the OIG report I've seen.



During Hillary's tenure at the Department of State, disciplinary action was initiated against Gration for using commercial email to conduct day to day business.
Click to expand...

"And other infractions" and he was in Nairobi, and he resigned before the procedure was carried through to its end. Do we know if Clinton was aware of this or not and do we know if it seemed to be different circumstances in her opinion given
OIG could find no other instances where the Department initiated disciplinary procedures against a senior official for using non-Departmental systems for day-to-day operations
Click to expand...
And we know other people in the department were also using private email addresses.
 
Beeyon said:
Of course, it's quite dishonest to compare "workplace regulations" to sensitive information handling rules. But setting that aside...

Violating company policies may not get you indicted, but it'll frequently get you fired. Would you say Clinton should have been terminated in 2012?
Click to expand...

The problem with those of you who look at said government workplace regulations and think these are serious criminal laws is you have no idea but these are rarely seen as criminal violations.

I work with this stuff every day. People violate workplace safety law in serious ways at every worksite. They violate patient confidentiality, infection control, you name it. The FOIA law is not any more serious of a violation than say a law which mandates mine safety that could lead to deaths, that sometimes do lead to deaths. Even then it's rare the violators are changed with criminal violations.

I get it that this is news to people. Especially since the GOP is trying so hard to create outrage and get people to think this was as criminal as taking bribes or giving confidential information to your girlfriend for her book.

But it isn't! It just isn't.
 
You guys want evidence of what I'm saying, look up convictions and prosecutions of FOIA laws. See how they compare.

Granted this one is a state records law but I'm having a hard time finding anyone prosecuted for failing to follow FOIA record keeping law:
Arkansas housing director criminally convicted for violating public records law
Last Thursday, Forte was found guilty and convicted of a Class C misdemeanor.
Judge Alice F. Lightle described Forte’s actions as a “negligent violation of the FOIA” and sentenced him to pay a $100 fine and an additional $140 in court costs.
Click to expand...


You guys do the search. Let's see who else has been prosecuted for not keeping proper records or properly managing records according to FOIA law.
 
Beeyon said:
This is the most interesting part of the OIG report I've seen.



During Hillary's tenure at the Department of State, disciplinary action was initiated against Gration for using commercial email to conduct day to day business.
Click to expand...

Pffffft, those rules are for the little people. Hillary doesn't need no stinkin' rules.
 
WildCat said:
Pffffft, those rules are for the little people. Hillary doesn't need no stinkin' rules.
Click to expand...

Got any little people prosecuted for FOIA violations? I think it's the other way around, only Clinton would be accused of criminal wrong doing for something everyone else does routinely.
 
Hillary will not be prosecuted for her sneering contempt of foia.

She has simply been proven unfit to be president.

The fact she refused to cooperate shows that it is hillary first, always.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The problem with those of you who look at said government workplace regulations and think these are serious criminal laws is you have no idea but these are rarely seen as criminal violations.

I work with this stuff every day. People violate workplace safety law in serious ways at every worksite. They violate patient confidentiality, infection control, you name it. The FOIA law is not any more serious of a violation than say a law which mandates mine safety that could lead to deaths, that sometimes do lead to deaths. Even then it's rare the violators are changed with criminal violations.
Click to expand...

Nice evasion regarding whether Clinton should have been terminated.

Edit:

I actually agree with you regarding FOIA. As someone with federal employee experience and experience in classified contexts, FOIA compliance concerns are probably on par or below safety regulations. On the other hand, rules regarding handling classified information are much more harshly enforced.
 
Last edited:
Beeyon said:
Nice evasion regarding whether Clinton should have been terminated.

Edit:

I actually agree with you regarding FOIA. As someone with federal employee experience and experience in classified contexts, FOIA compliance concerns are probably on par or below safety regulations. On the other hand, rules regarding handling classified information are much more harshly enforced.
Click to expand...

Was this asked of me somewhere upstream? :confused:

No, you don't fire people for workplace law violations. You don't close businesses down. You issue edicts for corrections and a timeframe for it to be done plus a directive for how you show said corrections were made. Which is what this report is akin to.

Re the classified data, that's not even proved yet. Again people are clueless about these kinds of violations. Did you remember Colin Powell adamantly disagreed that emails he was told should have been classified actually should have been?

Such is the nature of opinions about what should or shouldn't be classified.

It's also worth noting that both Obama and GW Bush changed their directives on what should be classified during their terms. Classifying material is a work in progress.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eo13292inout.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
 
something something powell, something something Bush!

The hilarious part? Powell cooperated.

Slick hilly intentionally evaded state department rules and she and her staff refused to cooperate in the investigation Now she wants a promotion to be our top law enforcement officer?

**** No.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Oh great, correct the record is here.

:D
Click to expand...

Cowardly accusation when you don't name anyone. So who are you accusing of being a shill, specifically? What evidence do you have? Did you not name anyone because you know it's wrong to attack the arguer and not the argument?
 
tyr_13 said:
Cowardly accusation when you don't name anyone. So who are you accusing of being a shill, specifically? What evidence do you have? Did you not name anyone because you know it's wrong to attack the arguer and not the argument?
Click to expand...

Just joshing ya bro! Obviously...

Any on topic comment about the IG report? Anything? How about the fact hillary did not cooperate?
 
16.5 said:
Just joshing ya bro! Obviously...

Any on topic comment about the IG report? Anything? How about the fact hillary did not cooperate?
Click to expand...

Haven't read it. Don't plan on it tonight. Best guess is that the cherries will be picked by tomorrow and all the freaking out will lead back to status quo.

I'm highly skeptical of anything you call a 'fact' though, so perhaps I will become curious enough tonight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom