RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[WildCat]

So what?

If "ifs" and "buts" were cake and nuts, what a wonderful Christmas it would be!

 

[DavidJames]

If "ifs" and "buts" were cake and nuts, what a wonderful Christmas it would be!

If due process mattered, this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... And yet she somehow has committed a series of acts that show a staggering lack of skill and intelligence. I don't know what is going on here. I think SG's theory might be that I have overestimated the significance of all this. I hope she's right....

You are also seriously overreacting to how this reflects on lack of skill and intelligence.

She had her reasons, it was hardly ignorance. It hasn't affected her winning the nomination now has it? No state secrets were hacked. Nothing happened other than a predictable GOP crap storm.

When there is no indictment will you be willing to reconsider you are overreacting to this?

 

[davefoc]

You are also seriously overreacting to how this reflects on lack of skill and intelligence.

She had her reasons, it was hardly ignorance. It hasn't affected her winning the nomination now has it? No state secrets were hacked. Nothing happened other than a predictable GOP crap storm.

When there is no indictment will you be willing to reconsider you are overreacting to this?

If winning the nomination is a binary issue then it probably hasn't because unless something very unusual happens she will be the Democratic Party nominee. But is the email scandal part of the reason that Sanders has been doing better? Some of the pundits that favor him think so given that some of the pro Sanders pundits have written editorials on HuffingtonPost suggesting that one should vote for Sanders because the email issue may do Clinton in.

I realize that very little troubles you about this scandal but yesterday there were two editorials by roughly neutral publications (USA today and I forget the other) ripping on Clinton about her behavior with regards to this. Obviously Clinton can survive right wing editorials excoriating her, that has been going on almost non stop for years. But I am concerned when more mainstream neutral publications contain strongly anti Clinton material.

As to overreacting about how this reflects on her skill and intelligence: I hope you're right. I would feel more comfortable if this was just arrogance, hypocrisy and a willingness to ignore rules she doesn't like. But the way she went about this has resulted in a complete failure of whatever she sought to accomplish and may cost her the presidency. And frankly a lot of her actions just look stupid to me.

Did nobody explain to her the dilemma with her hard disk? She couldn't completely wipe the hard disk clean without looking very suspicious and if all she did was delete the data it wouldn't prevent the emails from being recovered. This is common knowledge to wide swaths of the population. Don't any of the people she is aware of have rudimentary computer knowledge? And there are so many other steps along the way where everything she did has just made this scandal worse. You can blame the Republicans all you like but this was a huge gift to them provided by Clinton completely under her own steam.

 

[The Big Dog]

If due process mattered, this thread wouldn't exist.

LOLZ!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If winning the nomination is a binary issue then it probably hasn't because unless something very unusual happens she will be the Democratic Party nominee. But is the email scandal part of the reason that Sanders has been doing better? Some of the pundits that favor him think so given that some of the pro Sanders pundits have written editorials on HuffingtonPost suggesting that one should vote for Sanders because the email issue may do Clinton in.

I realize that very little troubles you about this scandal but yesterday there were two editorials by roughly neutral publications (USA today and I forget the other) ripping on Clinton about her behavior with regards to this. Obviously Clinton can survive right wing editorials excoriating her, that has been going on almost non stop for years. But I am concerned when more mainstream neutral publications contain strongly anti Clinton material.

As to overreacting about how this reflects on her skill and intelligence: I hope you're right. I would feel more comfortable if this was just arrogance, hypocrisy and a willingness to ignore rules she doesn't like. But the way she went about this has resulted in a complete failure of whatever she sought to accomplish and may cost her the presidency. And frankly a lot of her actions just look stupid to me.

Did nobody explain to her the dilemma with her hard disk? She couldn't completely wipe the hard disk clean without looking very suspicious and if all she did was delete the data it wouldn't prevent the emails from being recovered. This is common knowledge to wide swaths of the population. Don't any of the people she is aware of have rudimentary computer knowledge? And there are so many other steps along the way where everything she did has just made this scandal worse. You can blame the Republicans all you like but this was a huge gift to them provided by Clinton completely under her own steam.

Dave my friend, there are no neutral news agencies given scandal is what they sell. Look at the language used, it's hype, it sells, and no doubt many of the reporters are invested in the scandals, they need not even be lying about it, it's the lens they see the world through.

I know you've drawn all sorts of conclusions about my dismissive POV. But the fact of the matter is, I deal with workplace compliance on a regular basis as a consultant. That's all this is, a workplace that wasn't in compliance with the law. It's going on in every large workplace in the country. It's the nature of the workplace and workplace regulatory law.

No one mishandled state secrets, no servers were hacked except the official server. It's a tempest in a teapot. No big workplaces are in perfect compliance with the laws that govern them. Many of them have deficiencies much more serious than this.

 

[sunmaster14]

Dave my friend, there are no neutral news agencies given scandal is what they sell. Look at the language used, it's hype, it sells, and no doubt many of the reporters are invested in the scandals, they need not even be lying about it, it's the lens they see the world through.

I know you've drawn all sorts of conclusions about my dismissive POV. But the fact of the matter is, I deal with workplace compliance on a regular basis as a consultant. That's all this is, a workplace that wasn't in compliance with the law. It's going on in every large workplace in the country. It's the nature of the workplace and workplace regulatory law.

No one mishandled state secrets, no servers were hacked except the official server. It's a tempest in a teapot. No big workplaces are in perfect compliance with the laws that govern them. Many of them have deficiencies much more serious than this.

I don't think I have enough eyeroll smileys in my post buffer to do this post justice.

I love how the Clintonites play with language. First, a criminal investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation was merely a security review. Now, Clinton broke some workplace rules, but not the law. Never mind that those "rules" happen to be regulations promulgated pursuant to federal statutes, hence they are federal laws.

It sure would be nice if the next time I break the law, I could just refer to it as a rule. Or perhaps more of a guideline than a rule.

"Yes, Mr. IRS-man, your financial review does seem to have uncovered some examples where I failed to follow tax rules guidelines - specifically paying tax on those Powerball winnings. But next time, I promise, I'll be sure not to make that same mistake."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think I have enough eyeroll smileys in my post buffer to do this post justice.
...

Yes because those of you that don't work with workplace compliance don't have a clue about reality.

But but it's a law! Oh the outrage.

Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards aka LAWS!

The following is a list of the top 10 most frequently cited standards* following inspections of worksites by federal OSHA. OSHA publishes this list to alert employers about these commonly cited standards so they can take steps to find and fix recognized hazards addressed in these and other standards before OSHA shows up. Far too many preventable injuries and illnesses occur in the workplace.

OIG report

As is the case throughout the Federal Government, management weaknesses at the Department have contributed to the loss or removal of email records, particularly records created by the Office of the Secretary. These weaknesses include a limited ability to retrieve email records, inaccessibility of electronic files, failure to comply with requirements for departing employees, and a general lack of oversight...

Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State.

AKA you find this kind of thing with any workplace compliance audit.

Oh the horror, who would have thought.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't think I have enough eyeroll smileys in my post buffer to do this post justice.

I love how the Clintonites play with language. First, a criminal investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation was merely a security review. Now, Clinton broke some workplace rules, but not the law. Never mind that those "rules" happen to be regulations promulgated pursuant to federal statutes, hence they are federal laws.

It sure would be nice if the next time I break the law, I could just refer to it as a rule. Or perhaps more of a guideline than a rule.

"Yes, Mr. IRS-man, your financial review does seem to have uncovered some examples where I failed to follow tax rules guidelines - specifically paying tax on those Powerball winnings. But next time, I promise, I'll be sure not to make that same mistake."

But people who work in "compliance" have explained that not every workplace is 100% in compliance, therefore people who intentionally set up a private server to intentionally evade Governmental Transparency rules should not only get a pass, they should get a promotion!

 

[xjx388]

Dave my friend, there are no neutral news agencies given scandal is what they sell. Look at the language used, it's hype, it sells, and no doubt many of the reporters are invested in the scandals, they need not even be lying about it, it's the lens they see the world through.

I know you've drawn all sorts of conclusions about my dismissive POV. But the fact of the matter is, I deal with workplace compliance on a regular basis as a consultant. That's all this is, a workplace that wasn't in compliance with the law. It's going on in every large workplace in the country. It's the nature of the workplace and workplace regulatory law.

No one mishandled state secrets, no servers were hacked except the official server. It's a tempest in a teapot. No big workplaces are in perfect compliance with the laws that govern them. Many of them have deficiencies much more serious than this.

Except that if my business fails a compliance audit because of similar oversights, the doctors can get fined huge amounts of money, lose Medicare participation and even end up in jail. Workplace compliance isn't always such a low-level annoyance and it should be less so in the State Department.

 

[Ziggurat]

No one mishandled state secrets

Wrong.

no servers were hacked except the official server.

You don't know that.

It's a tempest in a teapot.

You keep saying that, and yet it keeps getting worse.

No big workplaces are in perfect compliance with the laws that govern them.

Funny you should recognize this fact, but still fail to understand the obvious implication about the nature of the regulatory state. But no matter: Hillary's transgressions were not the result of the law being too complex or obscure, or compliance being too difficult. Her decisions were obviously bad from the start, with no legitimate justification.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If winning the nomination is a binary issue then it probably hasn't because unless something very unusual happens she will be the Democratic Party nominee. But is the email scandal part of the reason that Sanders has been doing better? Some of the pundits that favor him think so given that some of the pro Sanders pundits have written editorials on HuffingtonPost suggesting that one should vote for Sanders because the email issue may do Clinton in.

I realize that very little troubles you about this scandal but yesterday there were two editorials by roughly neutral publications (USA today and I forget the other) ripping on Clinton about her behavior with regards to this. Obviously Clinton can survive right wing editorials excoriating her, that has been going on almost non stop for years. But I am concerned when more mainstream neutral publications contain strongly anti Clinton material.

As to overreacting about how this reflects on her skill and intelligence: I hope you're right. I would feel more comfortable if this was just arrogance, hypocrisy and a willingness to ignore rules she doesn't like. But the way she went about this has resulted in a complete failure of whatever she sought to accomplish and may cost her the presidency. And frankly a lot of her actions just look stupid to me.

Did nobody explain to her the dilemma with her hard disk? She couldn't completely wipe the hard disk clean without looking very suspicious and if all she did was delete the data it wouldn't prevent the emails from being recovered. This is common knowledge to wide swaths of the population. Don't any of the people she is aware of have rudimentary computer knowledge? And there are so many other steps along the way where everything she did has just made this scandal worse. You can blame the Republicans all you like but this was a huge gift to them provided by Clinton completely under her own steam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/cheryl-mills-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0

“Certainly from my standpoint, I wish that had been something we thought about,” Cheryl D. Mills, who was chief of staff when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, testified in a deposition on Friday in a lawsuit against the State Department brought by a conservative legal group.
...
Ms. Mills said repeatedly that she could not recall any specific discussions in Mrs. Clinton’s office about how to preserve her emails to ensure that they would be available when the State Department responded to requests under the Freedom of Information Act, the law passed after Watergate to encourage government transparency.
...
Asked whether anyone had raised concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s emails would not show up in public records requests, Ms. Mills said: “I’m not aware of it. They might have.” She said repeatedly that she wished she and other advisers had given more thought to the issue.

Interpret it how you will.

I read that as "yes, we totally knew what we were doing - we didn't think we would get caught/it would be an issue"

 

[Childlike Empress]

Tweet of the day:

Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled.

Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President.

 

[sunmaster14]

Tweet of the day:

A self-serving tweet to say the least. But at least it's aimed at the right target.

 

[DavidJames]

Republican boosters and treason suspects crying from Mother Russia have at least one thing in common. Hatred of due process for their political enemies.

 

[The Big Dog]

Republican boosters and treason suspects crying from Mother Russia have at least one thing in common. Hatred of due process for their political enemies.

"Hatred of due process" has just surpassed "I am a workplace compliance consultant" as hands down the absolute worst argument in this thread.

Gonna be tough to top that!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Except that if my business fails a compliance audit because of similar oversights, the doctors can get fined huge amounts of money, lose Medicare participation and even end up in jail. Workplace compliance isn't always such a low-level annoyance and it should be less so in the State Department.

Note "Can get" Yes, all those laws have penalties that can be levied. Yes, you can get huge fines, can lose accreditation, can lose Medicare funding can can can can.

How many times do your audits turn up deficiencies? What happens? They are ordered corrected. How much has anyone been fined? Have you ever had a completely perfect audit that found absolutely everything in compliance?
That is my point. I didn't say the laws were unimportant. I said deficiencies are rarely seen as criminal. Nor are deficiencies uncommon.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

I read that as "yes, we totally knew what we were doing - we didn't think we would get caught/it would be an issue"

I read it as, it wasn't something that was on the front burner, preserving documents for the press and right wing FOIA requests took a back seat to the actual business of the State Department.

 

[The Big Dog]

I read it as, it wasn't something that was on the front burner, preserving documents for the press and right wing FOIA requests took a back seat to the actual business of the State Department.

That is marvelous! setting up Hillary's homebrew cowboy server was quite possibly the first thing she did, in fact, IIRC, Eric Hoteham, and the rest of Hillary's little IT gnomes were setting up the server and domain at the exact moment she was testifying during the confirmation hearing!

In fact, some would say that Hillary had been training her whole life to subvert governmental transparency laws,

 

[Childlike Empress]

Republican boosters and treason suspects crying from Mother Russia have at least one thing in common. Hatred of due process for their political enemies.

Actually this young man is remarkably adult for a 32 years old Yankistani and what he does is far from "crying" (childish remark, btw). He's presidential material, just wait a decade or two.