RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
tyr_13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

'k.
 
Ziggurat said:
Perhaps not. The well connected can get away with crimes the rest of us cannot.....
Click to expand...

Nice over-dramatization but almost certainly if you broke this same law, you would not be charged with a crime. Actually, every worker in the country if they work in a large enough establishment is getting away with breaking these kinds of laws as well. And no they are not being fired either.

Rachel Maddow pointed out another revelation in the report:
As a result, printing and filing remained the only method by which emails could properly be preserved within the Office of the Secretary in full compliance with existing FAM guidance
Click to expand...

I think that extends the people not in compliance to more than just those people in the State Department who've been using their private email for work related communication.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Nice over-dramatization but almost certainly if you broke this same law, you would not be charged with a crime. Actually, every worker in the country if they work in a large enough establishment is getting away with breaking these kinds of laws as well. And no they are not being fired either.

Rachel Maddow pointed out another revelation in the report:


I think that extends the people not in compliance to more than just those people in the State Department who've been using their private email for work related communication.
Click to expand...

Hillary is not going to get fired. She is looking for a huge promotion.

she intentionally evaded record keeping regulations and then refused to cooperate.

I think that all those people you keep talking about, if they had done that, they would not be getting a promotion.

Particularly after lying about it for so, so long.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, and according to the IG's report staff who expressed concerns about it were told by their bosses to mind their own business.
 
The only question that matters is: Did Hillary Clinton violate the Federal Records Act? That others may have also is irrelevant. If I rob a bank and get caught, it will not matter that others got away with similar crimes.

If she did -and it appears more and more likely that she did- then it certainly calls into question her respect and/or understanding for the law. A person who does not respect or understand the basic laws which govern her position should not be elected President. That's pretty much the end of the discussion for me.
 
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...

I am not a "wishful-thinking right-winger." I would love a chance to vote for a Sanders-Warren ticket. And you -- and Hillary -- don't seem to grasp the distinction between "not criminal" and "not right." It's extremely unlikely that Hillary will be indicted. But the email business is one example -- among many -- of her distasteful penchants for sneaky secrecy, self-righteous self-justification, and basic dishonesty. Going back to the beginning: If the only issue was that she wanted to use just one email address for convenience, she could have used a .gov address (which would have been set up for her automatically except she didn't want it) for everything. But that's not what she chose to do.
 
xjx388 said:
The only question that matters is: Did Hillary Clinton violate the Federal Records Act? That others may have also is irrelevant. If I rob a bank and get caught, it will not matter that others got away with similar crimes.

If she did -and it appears more and more likely that she did- then it certainly calls into question her respect and/or understanding for the law. A person who does not respect or understand the basic laws which govern her position should not be elected President. That's pretty much the end of the discussion for me.
Click to expand...

That question was answered in the affirmative a long, long time ago. The real question was whether she did so with malice aforethought. Did she create an elaborate private system that put national security at risk just to avoid compliance with the Federal Records Act? That question has now also been answered in the affirmative. Another question is whether she lied to and obstructed department officials who had responsibility to the nation to safeguard the department's emails systems and ensure compliance with the Federal Records Act and the FOIA. The answer to that is that she did in fact lie and obstruct, or direct her subordinates to lie and obstruct. That is the main thing new that I learned from the IG report.

My opinion is that this is a devastating report. Hillary's survival depends on how far the mainstream media and the Obama administration are willing to go to cover her considerably exposed ass. I wonder if Joe Biden is getting warmed up in the bullpen.
 
Ziggurat said:
So you're conceding that Hillary is a criminal. Baby steps, baby steps.
Click to expand...

Chris Matthews asked his guest tonight the same thing, "Did Hillary break the law." She answered yes and then did a poor job of pointing out, so does everyone who has ever driven over the speed limit.
No she is not a criminal.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Chris Matthews asked his guest tonight the same thing, "Did Hillary break the law." She answered yes and then did a poor job of pointing out, so does everyone who has ever driven over the speed limit.
No she is not a criminal.
Click to expand...


When a person gets pulled over for speeding, its not really a good argument that everyone else is speeding too. And a person with speeding tickets can't then get a job as a delivery driver.

She broke a federal law that directly pertains to her position and responsibility to the public. And she wants to be President?
 
xjx388 said:
The only question that matters is: Did Hillary Clinton violate the Federal Records Act? That others may have also is irrelevant. If I rob a bank and get caught, it will not matter that others got away with similar crimes.

If she did -and it appears more and more likely that she did- then it certainly calls into question her respect and/or understanding for the law. A person who does not respect or understand the basic laws which govern her position should not be elected President. That's pretty much the end of the discussion for me.
Click to expand...
Ever broke the speed limit LAW?

Man this country is so full of criminals, maybe 70% of the adult population give or take? Why should Clinton be singled out.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Ever broke the speed limit LAW?

Man this country is so full of criminals, maybe 70% of the adult population give or take? Why should Clinton be singled out.
Click to expand...

So there shouldn't be laws, or laws shouldn't be enforced, or what? Hillary had one of the highest, most powerful jobs in government. Much of what she did was literally a matter of life and death. You think maybe she should be held to higher standards than some insurance clerk?
 
More:
NARA reported that 80 percent of agencies had an elevated risk for the improper management of electronic records, reflecting serious challenges handling vast amounts of email, integrating records management functionality into electronic systems, and adapting to the changing technological and regulatory environments
Click to expand...

And I found the employee report, turns out it was two people:
Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.
Click to expand...
This isn't Clinton's doing, it's the person the employees reported their concerns to.

We are back to, sorry, I'm just not outraged by this.
 
Bob001 said:
So there shouldn't be laws, or laws shouldn't be enforced, or what? Hillary had one of the highest, most powerful jobs in government. Much of what she did was literally a matter of life and death. You think maybe she should be held to higher standards than some insurance clerk?
Click to expand...

Bob, there's nothing I can do to help you understand this concept unless you try harder:

You don't fire people for workplace law violations. You don't close businesses down. You don't arrest people or charge them with crimes. 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.

Why should Clinton be charged with a crime when no other persons would be charged with a crime under these circumstances?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Bob, there's nothing I can do to help you understand this concept unless you try harder: ....
Click to expand...
The concept you don't seem to grasp -- and I repeat myself here -- is that an activity that is not criminal, or at least doesn't result in criminal prosecution, can still demonstrate bad judgment, bad character, deviousness and dishonesty. And instead of talking generally about all workplaces and all regulations and what you think all employees do, why not narrow the field to the percentage of cabinet-level officials who go to the trouble and expense of installing a private email server in their basement to evade federal record-keeping requirements, including rules that she enforces against lower-level employees, and lies about it when it's revealed? That's a universe of one, as far as we know.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
H. Clinton


State Department IG Report Fn 7.

Yeah, that needs no further comment....
Click to expand...

TheL8Elvis said:
As usual, dishonest cherry pick.

"Let me ask you about developments in the investigation into your email server. Apparently the FBI has contacted your team in terms of talking to you. What can you tell us about that?"

Clinton just said she, herself, hasn't been contacted by the FBI, but made no mention about the FBI contacting her aides.

"No one has reached out to me yet but last summer, I think last August, I made it clear I'm more than ready to talk to anybody anytime, and I've encouraged all my assistants to be very forthcoming, and I hope this is close to being wrapped up."
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
Contemptible Clinton Campaign Clown claims that the State Inspector General has an "anti-Clinton bias." Well that did not take long to attack the messenger.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-aide-questions-timing-of-email-investigation

“I’m more than ready to talk to anybody, anytime. And I’ve encouraged all of, you know, my assistants to be very forthcoming."*

*not the press, and certainly not the State Department Inspector General!
Click to expand...

Becuase when you cherry picked that quote the first time, it wasn't enough ? :eye-poppi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom