RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[NoahFence]

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,

Any other year, that may be above-the-fold news. This cycle though, it hardly warrants a mention, given who she's up against.

 

[Allen773]

I like how people who have always been the staunchest apologists for the Bush-Cheney regime are suddenly so concerned about classified information being leaked or otherwise getting into the wrong hands. Where were you when Valerie Plame Wilson's career was ruined - and her CIA assets put in grave danger - because of a blatantly political outing by officials in the highest echelons of the second Bush administration?

 

[Allen773]

To the right-wingers who are oh so concerned about the Hillary emails:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

I'm sure each and every one of you were the first to condemn the Bush-Cheney regime for what the did to Joseph and Valerie Plame Wilson.

 

[The Big Dog]

To the right-wingers who are oh so concerned about the Hillary emails:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

I'm sure each and every one of you were the first to condemn the Bush-Cheney regime for what the did to Joseph and Valerie Plame Wilson.

Your logical fallacy is:

TU QUOQUE

But I completely agree with you. I think Dick Armitage and Hillary Clinton should have adjoining cells in prison.

 

[sunmaster14]

I like how people who have always been the staunchest apologists for the Bush-Cheney regime are suddenly so concerned about classified information being leaked or otherwise getting into the wrong hands. Where were you when Valerie Plame Wilson's career was ruined - and her CIA assets put in grave danger - because of a blatantly political outing by officials in the highest echelons of the second Bush administration?

Aside from the fact that:

(1) Hillary's security lapses are orders of magnitude worse since she was grossly negligent, the extent of the damage is unknown, and she went to great lengths to delay by many years the discovery that security was compromised;

(2) the Plame "outing" was not done for political purposes, but was instead an inadvertent leak by the career bureaucrat Richard Armitrage who didn't know that Plame's status was classified (it is disputed whether or not Plame was technically "covert");

(3) Bush allowed a special prosecutor to be sicked on his administration who used unethical tactics to put his people in legal jeopardy;

it's exactly the same thing.

 

[plague311]

I like how people who have always been the staunchest apologists for the Bush-Cheney regime are suddenly so concerned about classified information being leaked or otherwise getting into the wrong hands. Where were you when Valerie Plame Wilson's career was ruined - and her CIA assets put in grave danger - because of a blatantly political outing by officials in the highest echelons of the second Bush administration?

It doesn't matter, certain posters around here aren't even bothered by it. They'll find any minuscule difference and declare that the two are nothing alike. Bush's issue will be rationalized as "something" that happens. Take sunmasters post for instance. He found 3 things, that really don't matter, and dished away your whole post. At least 16.5 broke out the "tu quoque" broken record. Nevermind the fact that Bush did the exact same thing during the Presidential election, but sunmaster is quick with the "evidence" that the two situations are completely different.

 

[xjx388]

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.

You are unaware that doctors do indeed get fined, lose medicare privileges and go to jail for failing OIG audits? These things can and do happen.

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?

Me personally? I've never been audited. But the threat of an audit is enough to make sure we have our Compliance Plan in place and followed to the letter. But I personally know several doctors who have been fined and my wife graduated residency with another who went to jail.

For most of us, government audits are serious business that can have serious consequences. Shouldn't it be more so for those who run such important things as the State Department?

That is my point. I didn't say the laws were unimportant. I said deficiencies are rarely seen as criminal. Nor are deficiencies uncommon.

I would dispute "rarely."

 

[DavidJames]

It doesn't matter, certain posters around here aren't even bothered by it. They'll find any minuscule difference and declare that the two are nothing alike. Bush's issue will be rationalized as "something" that happens. Take sunmasters post for instance. He found 3 things, that really don't matter, and dished away your whole post. At least 16.5 broke out the "tu quoque" broken record. Nevermind the fact that Bush did the exact same thing during the Presidential election, but sunmaster is quick with the "evidence" that the two situations are completely different.

Posting history, and there are volumes, shows the only real difference is the party being discussed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are unaware that doctors do indeed get fined, lose medicare privileges and go to jail for failing OIG audits? These things can and do happen.

I assume you know what a straw man is, right?

Like changing what I said, "violations are common and the vast majority of the time, not criminal," to your straw argument, "no one is ever fined or sent to jail."

Not to mention trying to substitute Medicare fraud, which is the only time anyone does any jail time for the kinds of violations you are describing, for what I posted which has nothing to do with fraud.

Me personally? I've never been audited. But the threat of an audit is enough to make sure we have our Compliance Plan in place and followed to the letter.

Bull! Followed to the letter, now you are just making crap up.

But I personally know several doctors who have been fined and my wife graduated residency with another who went to jail.

The only way in hell this happened would have been for outright Medicare fraud. That's theft, that's not failure to have a perfect workplace audit.

Stop making crap up. Post some evidence. I did.

For most of us, government audits are serious business that can have serious consequences. Shouldn't it be more so for those who run such important things as the State Department?

I would dispute "rarely."

Your imaginary world does not match the real world. Sorry. Workplace law is very complex and employees are imperfect.

Yes, we all strive for perfection. And yet every year when the audit is done again, there will be more deficiencies to be corrected again. That's the real world. Though I'm not surprised a lot of people have a fantasy view that if it is a law, every workplace must be in perfect compliance.

 

[John Nowak]

Posting history, and there are volumes, shows the only real difference is the party being discussed.

I'm convinced. I won't vote for Richard Armitage or GW Bush in 2016.

 

[xjx388]

It doesn't matter, certain posters around here aren't even bothered by it. They'll find any minuscule difference and declare that the two are nothing alike. Bush's issue will be rationalized as "something" that happens. Take sunmasters post for instance. He found 3 things, that really don't matter, and dished away your whole post. At least 16.5 broke out the "tu quoque" broken record. Nevermind the fact that Bush did the exact same thing during the Presidential election, but sunmaster is quick with the "evidence" that the two situations are completely different.

So push for Bush's prosecution. It's not anyone here's fault that no one pursued that. Whatever laws were broken in the Bush situation (or any other situation) is irrelevant to what happened here with Clinton and off-topic. Invoking whatever transgressions happened in Bush's administration is indeed a tu quoque and it's appropriate to point that out, broken record or not.

Did she break the law and if so, does that impact her qualifications to be President? I think she did and it does. You may disagree but bringing up other people's transgressions is not really helpful. You need to argue about why this particular situation is really just a minor bureaucratic snafu. I am not convinced.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the OIG Webpage re audits

Q: Will the agency have a chance to respond to or rebut OIG findings?

A: Yes, although the form may vary. We usually discuss preliminary findings with agency staff as we identify them during our fieldwork. Agency staff can, and should, work with us during fieldwork to ensure that our information is factually correct and to promptly resolve any issues or miscommunications.

After fieldwork, we generally hold an exit conference with agency officials to discuss what we found and solicit feedback. Following the exit conference, we issue a draft report. Under our professional standards (and the particular circumstances), an agency generally has between 15 and 30 days to provide us with written comments that include, for each recommendation, a statement of agreement or disagreement. An agency can use its response to provide a proposed action or updates on steps already taken to address OIG’s recommendations or to point out areas of disagreement with our findings or recommendations. Remember that an agency must support any disagreements included in the response.

We will consider the agency’s response to the draft as we create our final report and will revise the report as appropriate. In most cases, we will include agency comments as an appendix to the final report....

Q: What is an audit action plan and why does an agency need to give OIG one?

A: When we issue the final report, we request in the transmittal memorandum that the auditee prepare an action plan to address the report's recommendations. The plan should describe the specific actions the agency has taken, or plans to take, in response to our recommendations, as well as a schedule for their completion. Department Administrative Order (DAO) 213-5 allows the agency 60 days to provide the plan (unless we state otherwise in the memorandum).

The Department tracks its operating units’ progress against the recommendations in our audits, evaluations, and other reviews. Congress also asks for periodic reports on the status of any recommendations that have not been implemented by the operating unit. Therefore, it is important that the agency submit a complete plan within the mandatory time frame and provide updates at the required intervals....

See anything there about criminal charges? About the expectation of perfection? About fines levied before the worksite has a chance to make corrections?

Oh wait! Here's something:

Inspections and evaluations conform to the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency's Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation (January 2012), which defines inspections and evaluations simply as reviews that do not constitute an audit or a criminal investigation. (For further details, please see FAQs About OIG Investigations.)

More

OIG cannot compel anyone to be interviewed; however, management can direct an employee to be interviewed as requested by OIG, and take disciplinary action if the employee declines.

 

[sunmaster14]

From the OIG Webpage re audits

See anything there about criminal charges? About the expectation of perfection? About fines levied before the worksite has a chance to make corrections?

Oh wait! Here's something:

More

And this is relevant why? OIGs do not have the authority to pursue criminal investigations or charge anybody with anything. However, they do have a considerable amount of credibility in drawing conclusions of fact and law.

I'll note for the record that the OIG completely vindicated my read of the situation based on the publicly available facts. I'm still waiting for DavidJames to report back on how the crow tastes.

 

[Fudbucker]

I like how people who have always been the staunchest apologists for the Bush-Cheney regime are suddenly so concerned about classified information being leaked or otherwise getting into the wrong hands. Where were you when Valerie Plame Wilson's career was ruined - and her CIA assets put in grave danger - because of a blatantly political outing by officials in the highest echelons of the second Bush administration?

But officer, he was speeding too!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But officer, he was speeding too!

How long are you going to keep repeating this straw man?

No one is saying the speeder shouldn't get a ticket. Perhaps you are of the belief women who are caught speeding should be singled out to lose their licenses?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Perhaps you are of the belief women who are caught speeding should be singled out to lose their licenses?

Amazing.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Yes, we all strive for perfection. And yet every year when the audit is done again, there will be more deficiencies to be corrected again. That's the real world. Though I'm not surprised a lot of people have a fantasy view that if it is a law, every workplace must be in perfect compliance.

You insist on calling this a question of ordinary workplace compliance. So look at it that way: Suppose the director of a major medical center installed a private email server in his home without soliciting approval or even the opinion of anybody else, and conducted all his official business on his private server? All messages he sent or received about patient records and medical consults, financial data, personnel matters etc. were stored on his personal server and isolated from the center's official system? Would that just be a matter of "workplace compliance?" Or would it maybe raise some questions about the director's intent and motives?

The fact is that Hillary went to great lengths to do something nobody else had ever done, she didn't ask anybody about it, and she lied about it ridiculously when it was discovered. You think that doesn't say something about her character and judgment, even if she doesn't get charged criminally?

 

[Mike!]

You insist on calling this a question of ordinary workplace compliance. So look at it that way: Suppose the director of a major medical center installed a private email server in his home without soliciting approval or even the opinion of anybody else, and conducted all his official business on his private server? All messages he sent or received about patient records and medical consults, financial data, personnel matters etc. were stored on his personal server and isolated from the center's official system? Would that just be a matter of "workplace compliance?" Or would it maybe raise some questions about the director's intent and motives?

The fact is that Hillary went to great lengths to do something nobody else had ever done, she didn't ask anybody about it, and she lied about it ridiculously when it was discovered. You think that doesn't say something about her character and judgment, even if she doesn't get charged criminally?

It's okay because she had her reasons.

Nuttin' to see here folks, move along.

 

[xjx388]

I assume you know what a straw man is, right?

Like changing what I said, "violations are common and the vast majority of the time, not criminal," to your straw argument, "no one is ever fined or sent to jail."

You said "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." Your repetition and italicizing of the word "can" makes it sound like you think it can happen but it rarely ever does. I dispute your characterization. Doctors going to jail for fraud and other violations is commonplace. It is sufficiently commonplace that we have to have a detailed Compliance Plan in place specifying how careful we are not to commit fraud.

Not to mention trying to substitute Medicare fraud, which is the only time anyone does any jail time for the kinds of violations you are describing, for what I posted which has nothing to do with fraud.

How do you think fraud is discovered? There are several ways and one of them is, you guessed it, OIG audits. And you are leaving out HIPAA violations, Stark Violations and Anti-Kickback Violations.

Bull! Followed to the letter, now you are just making crap up.

Sure, I am, just like everyone who is out to get Hillary is just making crap up. BTW, I don't appreciate the implication that I don't take Compliance seriously. That's a pretty big allegation in the medical community, not some petty thing as you seem to think it is.

The only way in hell this happened would have been for outright Medicare fraud. That's theft, that's not failure to have a perfect workplace audit.

Medicare fraud is one way and I've already mentioned others. And all of these violations are often discovered as a result of an audit and subsequent investigation by OIG, FBI and State agencies. Exactly like what happened with Clinton. The IG has issued a report showing that Clinton violated the law and there has already been a referral to the DOJ with the requisite FBI investigation.

Stop making crap up. Post some evidence. I did.

Do you really need evidence that doctors are prosecuted as a result of OIG audits? In any case, here is a doctor I knew who was investigated for violating the Anti-Kickback Statute and subsequently referred to the OIG who did an audit of his billing and referred him to the FBI. He's in prison now.

Your imaginary world does not match the real world. Sorry. Workplace law is very complex and employees are imperfect.

Oh, I just got it! You seem to be equating genuine mistakes that everyone makes and show up on audits as "deficiencies" and what Clinton did. I wholeheartedly disagree. What she did is more on a par with what the doctor in the case I linked to did. In both cases, their was purposeful action to circumvent a pretty serious federal law.

Yes, we all strive for perfection. And yet every year when the audit is done again, there will be more deficiencies to be corrected again. That's the real world. Though I'm not surprised a lot of people have a fantasy view that if it is a law, every workplace must be in perfect compliance.

It's not a fantasy world, you are merely equating two very different things. The more serious the law, the more seriously the deficiencies have to be treated.
I will grant that when OSHA comes and dings you for not having the proper gloves or sharps disposal procedure, that's not a serious issue unless you continuously and willfully do things to circumvent the law. But when you risk the confidential information in US government files by purposefully installing a system in your home that circumvents the safeguards put in place in government systems . . .that sounds a bit more serious than when a doctor doesn't have a fire extinguisher where it needs to be.

 

[WildCat]

Posting history, and there are volumes, shows the only real difference is the party being discussed.

This thread isn't about you.