Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 4

[The Big Dog]

A private server in use for classified government information is either a problem, or it isn't. It's either a legal matter subject to FOIA, or it isn't.

Please stop. The server being run by a private person before he became president is not subject to foia. A server being run by the President is not subject to foia.

 

[plague311]

Seeing this thread bump made me realize how little of a **** I give about Hillary or her server.

The big dog doesn't even understands basic network or IT processes. No reason to listen to anything he posts about it.

Moving on.

 

[plague311]

Please stop. The server being run by a private person before he became president is not subject to foia. A server being run by the President is not subject to foia.

Yes it is subject to FOIA. Do research son.

 

[The Big Dog]

"`[T]he President's immediate personal staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole function is to advise and assist the President' are not included within the term `agency' under the FOIA." Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 156, 100 S.Ct. 960, 971, 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980) (quoting H.R.CONF.REP. No. 1380, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 15 (1974)), 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6267.

 

[mgidm86]

Seeing this thread bump made me realize how little of a **** I give about Hillary or her server.

The big dog doesn't even understands basic network or IT processes. No reason to listen to anything he posts about it.

Moving on.

Cussing and insults - obviously you have no emotional stake in this at all. This is what critical thought is all about! Thanks for the demonstration. Hey, Plague311 doesn't care everyone, so you shouldn't either.

I didn't see any mention of I.T. by TBD but I saw some claims about the FOIA process.

Far as I can tell (I won't stake my life on it just yet) the President is not subject to FOIA and I've seen multiple sources.

https://freedomofinformationacts.uslegal.com/agencies-subject-to-foia/

Advisers to elected officials usually are not subject to the provisions of FOIA. Although the executive office of the president is an agency under FOIA, neither the White House office which includes the President and his/her aides, nor the office of the President is subject to FOIA.

https://www.rcfp.org/federal-open-g...om-information-act/which-agencies-are-covered

FOIA also applies to the Executive Office of the President and the Office of Management and Budget, but not to the President, his immediate staff, the Office of the Vice President or the Office of Administration, which advises the president.

White House formally exempts office from FOIA regs [this is from 2015 during the "Transparency Administration"]
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/235900-white-house-exempts-office-from-foia-regs

While much of White House operations are not subject to FOIA laws and regulations – including the president, vice president and immediate advisors – one of its largest offices, the Executive Office of the President, must hand over certain documents when requested.

......

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued the office after being denied access to documents it had requested to obtain details about a slew of emails that had gone missing from White House servers.

After a lengthy appeal, the court upheld the ruling that the Office of Administration, which advises and assists the president, is not an “agency” as defined by the FOIA.

Silly Green Monkey
A private server in use for classified government information is either a problem, or it isn't.

It is a problem, but for some people it is only so when the "other side" does it.

 

[varwoche]

... Far as I can tell (I won't stake my life on it just yet) the President is not subject to FOIA and I've seen multiple sources.

https://freedomofinformationacts.uslegal.com/agencies-subject-to-foia/

https://www.rcfp.org/federal-open-g...om-information-act/which-agencies-are-covered

White House formally exempts office from FOIA regs [this is from 2015 during the "Transparency Administration"]
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/235900-white-house-exempts-office-from-foia-regs

Thank you!

 

[plague311]

For 5 years.... They are exempt for 5 years.

Thanks.

 

[plague311]

Cussing and insults - obviously you have no emotional stake in this at all. This is what critical thought is all about! Thanks for the demonstration. Hey, Plague311 doesn't care everyone, so you shouldn't either.

Neat. Thanks for sharing.

I didn't see any mention of I.T. by TBD but I saw some claims about the FOIA process.

Then read the ******* thread. No, he didn't mention IT in that specific post, but he's made several failed attempts previously...like not understanding the difference between bytes and bits. I tend to not listen to people who have proven they know nothing about the topic at hand. Your post is another prime example of this.

Far as I can tell (I won't stake my life on it just yet) the President is not subject to FOIA and I've seen multiple sources.

As I said, for 5 years. They're exempt for 5 years and the incoming POTUS can raise it to 12 years I believe. Then it's just like every other FOIA request.

Also, just to make a point, Presidents don't ******* run servers. Ya dig?

Hillary didn't "run" her server. Trump doesn't "run" his server, etc. It's just not part of their job description. So the initial premise is ******* stupid.

It is a problem, but for some people it is only so when the "other side" does it.

Obviously.

 

[Allen773]

Are we done with this topic yet?

 

[eerok]

Are we done with this topic yet?

Not a chance. Those who still hate Hillary at this point are holding a deep, existential grudge, and this taint on their sensibilities is as indelible as cheap curry spilled on a white T-shirt.

 

[pgwenthold]

Not a chance. Those who still hate Hillary at this point are holding a deep, existential grudge, and this taint on their sensibilities is as indelible as cheap curry spilled on a white T-shirt.

Besides, things are getting ugly for Trump and republicans. Therefore, they need to attack Clinton.

 

[The Big Dog]

Are we done with this topic yet?

oh golly, if only that were true! Unfortunately a federal court judge entered an order this week that hillary and others were deliberately evading the law

Golly i guess you want us to bury our head? Oh no , the big dog is going to continue to expose these ******* lying criminal *****

so? not done! Thanks for asking.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Talk is cheap for some judges - but if he could make anything stick, he would.

 

[The Big Dog]

The Fix was in from the Beginning

We all know that one of the seminal events in Hillary email abuse was the fact that the intelligence community inspector general said that they had evidence that classified to Top Secret level date was in Hillary's emails.

Peter Strzok testimony: DOJ declined to get a warrant to obtain possession of Clinton's private email server but instead entered into an agreement with Clinton lawyers to get the server. Part of the agreement? Not searching Clinton Foundation emails.

He said that DoJ lawyers concluded that they could not satisfy the probable cause requirement. This is despite having been told by the Inspector General for the CIA and other agencies that there was classified data improperly stored on the server.

Next time you think that Obama and Lynch are not corrupt, remember this.

They disgust me

 

[Garrette]

Not going to get into a discussion, but the outrage here and I've seen elsewhere is both stupid and inconsistent.

First, the emails were not suspected to be related to the Foundation, had no reason to be suspected to be related to the Foundation, and were not indicated to be related to the Foundation by what the CIA said; DoJ searched what they needed to search.

Second, looking at the Strozk testimony it becomes clear that both Strozk and Comey were not trying to protect Clinton but were trying hard to do their jobs thoroughly.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not going to get into a discussion, but the outrage here and I've seen elsewhere is both stupid and inconsistent.

First, the emails were not suspected to be related to the Foundation, had no reason to be suspected to be related to the Foundation, and were not indicated to be related to the Foundation by what the CIA said; DoJ searched what they needed to search.

Second, looking at the Strozk testimony it becomes clear that both Strozk and Comey were not trying to protect Clinton but were trying hard to do their jobs thoroughly.

1. assertion without evidence
2. Strozk and comey were writing the exoneration memo before they interviewed her.

By the way, nothing you have said at all contradicts what I wrote about DoJ/Lynch or Comey.

Lynch's DoJ also nixed the espionage act charges that Comey suggested and they handed out immunity like candy to Clinton's sleazy associates.

That tarmac meeting is not looking any better now, is it?

 

[Garrette]

1. assertion without evidence
2. Strozk and comey were writing the exoneration memo before they interviewed her.

By the way, nothing you have said at all contradicts what I wrote about DoJ/Lynch or Comey.

Lynch's DoJ also nixed the espionage act charges that Comey suggested and they handed out immunity like candy to Clinton's sleazy associates.

That tarmac meeting is not looking any better now, is it?

My last involvement as I am familiar with your tactics -- and, no, your tactics do not comprise honest posts honestly discussed .

1. Subtle attempt to reverse burden of proof
2. Make up your mind. Did Comey want to exonerate or to press espionage charges?

As to DoJ and Lynch, they may be sleazy as hell, but what you have here is neither smoke nor gun and certainly falls far short if what you hand wave away in other threads about Trump and cronies.

And the floor is yours.

 

[WilliamSeger]

1. assertion without evidence
2. Strozk and comey were writing the exoneration memo before they interviewed her.

By the way, nothing you have said at all contradicts what I wrote about DoJ/Lynch or Comey.

Lynch's DoJ also nixed the espionage act charges that Comey suggested and they handed out immunity like candy to Clinton's sleazy associates.

That tarmac meeting is not looking any better now, is it?

If you're such a legal beagle, why do you ignore the reason Comey gave for not bringing charges against Clinton? Basically, it was that to bring criminal charges, you have to prove intent.

If you don't answer honestly, don't expect a reply.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And the floor is yours.

If you don't answer honestly, don't expect a reply.

Don't expect a reply for at least 2 weeks.

The Big Dog has been suspended for a fortnight for multiple breaches of the MA including ignoring moderator directions.

 

[Loss Leader]

We all know that one of the seminal events in Hillary email abuse was the fact that the intelligence community inspector general said that they had evidence that classified to Top Secret level date was in Hillary's emails.

My memory is that a couple emails contained information that, while not classified at the time they were written, later became classified. I don't know of any email that contained information that was classified at the time the email was sent. I think that's a pretty important distinction.