RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

Some laws it is not a crime to break, but only an infraction. That's not really the case here.

Plus, along with breaking the law, Hillary also engaged in a conspiracy to conceal her lawbreaking.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
This is SOP for politics and business.
Click to expand...

Standard operating procedure is not to run your own email server, to use that server exclusively for all official business, to conceal possible security breaches of that server, etc, etc. Nothing about Clinton's corruption is standard operating procedure. But it will become standard operating procedure if she's elected president.
 
Ziggurat said:
Standard operating procedure is not to run your own email server, to use that server exclusively for all official business, to conceal possible security breaches of that server, etc, etc. Nothing about Clinton's corruption is standard operating procedure. But it will become standard operating procedure if she's elected president.
Click to expand...

Maybe she learned it from bush gwb43.com :blush:

But yeah, back to my actual point ( those rules are for the little people), not your strawman ...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
More:

And I found the employee report, turns out it was two people:

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.
Click to expand...

Oh my god... Hillary can wash her hands of it because her staff did it, and not her? That is ridiculous.

By the way, did you notice that SG bolded this line:

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

protip: don't emphasize things that are flat out lies.
 
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...


Read some on it now, couldn't find the actual report though. Can't find how/where/with whom she didn't cooperate.

So...status quo from my view.
 
tyr_13 said:
Read some on it now, couldn't find the actual report though. Can't find how/where/with whom she didn't cooperate.

So...status quo from my view.
Click to expand...


Easy enough to find:
Mrs. Clinton and her aides have played down the inquiries, saying that she would cooperate with investigators to put the email issue behind her. Even so, she declined to be interviewed by the inspector general, Steve A. Linick, or his staff, as part of his review. So did several of her senior aides.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0
 
tyr_13 said:
Read some on it now, couldn't find the actual report though. Can't find how/where/with whom she didn't cooperate.

So...status quo from my view.
Click to expand...

From p. 2 of the report (emphasis added):

OIG also interviewed dozens of former and current Department employees, including the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources (D-MR); the Under Secretary for Management (M); the Assistant Secretary and other staff in the Bureau of Administration (A); and various staff in the Office of the Secretary and its Executive Secretariat (S/ES), the Office of the Legal Adviser (L), the Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM), and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS). In conjunction with the interviews, OIG reviewed paper and electronic records and documents associated with these offices. OIG also consulted with NARA officials. Finally, OIG interviewed Secretary Kerry and former Secretaries Albright, Powell, and Rice. Through her counsel, Secretary Clinton declined OIG’s request for an interview. [7]
Click to expand...

And footnote 7 reads:

[7] In addition to Secretary Clinton, eight former Department employees declined OIG requests for interviews: (1) the Chief of Staff to Secretary Powell (2002-05); (2) the Counselor and Chief of Staff to Secretary Clinton (2009-13); (3) the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy to Secretary Clinton (2009-11) and the Director of Policy Planning (2011-13); (4) the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations to Secretary Clinton (2009-13); (5) the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Communication (2009-13); (6) the Director of the S/ES Office of Information Resources Management (2008-13); (7) a Special Advisor to the Deputy Chief Information Officer (2009-13) who provided technical support for Secretary Clinton’s personal email system; and (8) a Senior Advisor to the Department, who supervised responses to Congressional inquiries (2014-15). Two additional individuals did not respond to OIG interview requests: the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources (2011-13) and an individual based in New York who provided technical support for Secretary Clinton’s personal email system but who was never employed by the Department.
Click to expand...
 
tyr_13 said:
Read some on it now, couldn't find the actual report though. Can't find how/where/with whom she didn't cooperate.

So...status quo from my view.
Click to expand...

well, it has been linked at least twice in this very thread, but you couldn't find it....

'k.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-email-big-takeaways-state-dept-report/story?id=39382143

Here are five important takeaways from the report:

This Report is About Rules, Not Laws
The report essentially says that Clinton (and a number of her predecessors) failed to comply with recommended email policy and established practices of record-keeping....

Contradictory Statements?

If you visit Clinton’s campaign website, you will see talking points about her private email that say no rules were broken. “Was it allowed?” her website asks about her use of private email. “Yes. The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work,” the answer reads. But yesterday’s report offered a more nuanced answer...

Lack of Cooperation

Earlier this month Clinton, in response to questions about the FBI probe, Clinton said in an interview with CBS News that she would be willing to cooperate with any investigation. “I think last August I made it clear I'm more than ready to talk to anybody anytime,” Clinton said at the time.

Hacking Attempt

The report revealed that Clinton’s aides were very concerned about actual attempts to hack her email....

Clinton Emails We Haven’t Seen

Another major revelation from this report is that the State Department has an undisclosed number of emails in its possession that weren’t released to the public....

I think that's a decent list of points.

They make Clinton look more dishonest than anything else, IMO.

Will it matter in a few weeks, after she wins the nominations, and has Bill and Obama make nice rah rah speeches for her at the convention ?

Also, since this investigation was "put on hold" for the FBI investigation, I think a takeaway from it's release is that the FBI report is coming sooner, rather than later. Before the convention, I would guess.
 
"I have been incredibly open about doing that. I will continue to be open, and it's not an issue that is going to affect either the campaign or my presidency."

Open? Lets take a gander shall we? "Through her counsel, Secretary Clinton declined OIG’s request for an interview."

Ahh "open." She also said: "I have turned over all of my emails."

Yeah, except all the emails that were discussed for the first time in the IG Report. What a liar.

But in that contemptible pack of lies, we find one tiny nugget of truth: it isn't going to affect her "presidency," because there ain't gonna be one.
 
Ziggurat said:
Some laws it is not a crime to break, but only an infraction. That's not really the case here.

Plus, along with breaking the law, Hillary also engaged in a conspiracy to conceal her lawbreaking.
Click to expand...

And yet the report says she didn't follow the rules and neither did a whole slew of people in the State Department. That's not considered a crime either. It's a workplace audit, it uncovers errors and makes recommendations on how to rectify the deficiencies.

Why do all you right wingers insist on applying this double standard to Clinton?

Let's charge everyone in the department who has a deficiency with a crime. Let's go after Trump for all his criminal business frauds. And let's make sure the news media discusses Trump's crimes 10-20 times a day.

How about Sanders' wife and her mismanagement of the college funds? Surely there might be a workplace violation there if it gets an audit and daily scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
crestfallensidekick said:
Am I alone in thinking that this reflects quite poorly on HRC's character, but still thinks she's preferable to both Sanders and Trump?
Click to expand...
What it reflects the most poorly on is the news media which has the business model not of providing information and investigative reporting, but rather one looking for the next scandal, outrage and conflict. And when it isn't there, surely you can turn a workplace audit into a "devastating report" or "criminal" without ever checking to see if anyone else has ever been treated as a criminal for such workplace audit findings.
 
Bob001 said:
Easy enough to find:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0
Click to expand...
From the actual document:
Through her counsel, Secretary Clinton declined OIG’s request for an interview. ...

In addition to Secretary Clinton, eight former Department employees declined OIG requests for interviews: (1) the Chief of Staff to Secretary Powell (2002-05); (2) the Counselor and Chief of Staff to Secretary Clinton (2009-13); (3) the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy to Secretary Clinton (2009-11) and the Director of Policy Planning (2011-13); (4) the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations to Secretary Clinton (2009-13); (5) the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Communication (2009-13); (6) the Director of the S/ES Office of Information Resources Management (2008-13); (7) a Special Advisor to the Deputy Chief Information Officer (2009-13) who provided technical support for Secretary Clinton’s personal email system; and (8) a Senior Advisor to the Department, who supervised responses to Congressional inquiries (2014-15). Two additional individuals did not respond to OIG interview requests: the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources (2011-13) and an individual based in New York who provided technical support for Secretary Clinton’s personal email system but who was never employed by the Department
Click to expand...

Any lawyer would have made that recommendation given the open FBI investigation regardless of their client's culpability.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
From the actual document:


Any lawyer would have made that recommendation given the open FBI investigation regardless of their client's culpability.
Click to expand...

Now it's an investigation? I thought it was a security review. Also, Hillary claims there's no chance there will be an indictment, so what would she be worried about?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What it reflects the most poorly on is the news media which has the business model not of providing information and investigative reporting, but rather one looking for the next scandal, outrage and conflict. And when it isn't there, surely you can turn a workplace audit into a "devastating report" or "criminal" without ever checking to see if anyone else has ever been treated as a criminal for such workplace audit findings.
Click to expand...

Are you really blaming the media for accurately reporting on the IG's report?

That is.... remarkable.

workplace audit.... that is as ridiculous as the FBI doing a "security review." Oh well, any port in a storm...
 
TheL8Elvis said:
...
They make Clinton look more dishonest than anything else, IMO. ...
Click to expand...
But an additional possibility is she thought what she was doing was allowed. Mistakes differ from dishonesty.

Discussed on the news (I think Andrea Mitchell): The report could not find a single instance where she was advised or told it broke the rules and surely everyone who emailed her would have seen it was not a .gov address, ever.The pundit they were interviewing (sorry I don't recall the name) said that a lower level management of office procedures is really where the deficiency was focused. Not that Clinton didn't make the decision to use her server, but that a person whose job it was to manage procedural issues should have advised her not to.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom