Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
Do you feel as honored as I do to be participating in a thread created by the guy that single handedly got Clinton to turn over the thumb drive? The sheer political power being displayed on this obscure forum is jaw dropping, I must say.
Click to expand...

Evidence?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article30714762.html

Cited in the article - if you clicked.

If true, thats rather negligent in the most optimistic view of this scandal. I plan on looking into it further
Click to expand...
The server is only being turned over now. There has been no evidence (in the real sense of the word) produced yet.

The article also states this, ignored I'm sure, because it doesn't fit the Internet Vigilante style.
Revelations that dozens of Clinton’s emails now include classified information has prompted an FBI inquiry into whether classified information was improperly stored on her private server and a thumb drive held by her attorney. The news has sparked fear among national security experts that the federal government’s secrets may have been exposed or even hacked. However, the two inspectors general said the material in Clinton’s email was not marked as classified at the time. The FBI declined to comment.
Click to expand...

I suspect the FBI might comment once they find or not find evidence. Such discretion isn't found on Internet forums.

Another Edit: You state "if true". I suppose anecdotes are now evidence.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Surely you don't doubt the implied claim made, do you? Or are you asking for evidence beyond his claim? Sadly, but consistently for this thread, there is no evidence beyond his claim.
Click to expand...

Well, he predicted that Hillary's lawyers would have to turn over the data, and they did. I don't see how the link offered pertains to the claim that you're "participating in a thread created by the guy that single handedly got Clinton to turn over the thumb drive?"

Hell, even the claim that you're participating in this thread is a bit of a stretch.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Well, he predicted that Hillary's lawyers would have to turn over the data, and they did. I don't see how the link offered pertains to the claim that you're "participating in a thread created by the guy that single handedly got Clinton to turn over the thumb drive?"

Hell, even the claim that you're participating in this thread is a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...

I see you aren't an avid reader, then.
 
DavidJames said:
Another Edit: You state "if true". I suppose anecdotes are now evidence.
Click to expand...

the "if true" remark leaves room for the possibility that the situatuon may develop further and either show the degree of problems arising or reduce them. At this point, being marked as classified at a later date constitues negligence, which means im not incredibly concerned about jail time for her so much as i am concerned that shes not trustworthy with matters of national security.

Now, if you want to point out hillary fraudulent partisan attacks thats fine, but the degree to which people are defending her rivals the extent of claims that she deserves jail time for keeping those personal servers
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
the "if true" remark leaves room for the possibility that the situatuon may develop further and either show the degree of problems arising or reduce them. At this point, being marked as classified at a later date constitues negligence, which means im not incredibly concerned about jail time for her so much as i am concerned that shes not trustworthy with matters of national security.

Now, if you want to point out hillary fraudulent partisan attacks thats fine, but the degree to which people are defending her rivals the extent of claims that she deserves jail time for keeping those personal servers
Click to expand...

Having asked people who send/receive classified emails on their government computers, information that is not marked classified when sent is not an excuse for not following the law. This is a specific point made during the rather frequent security training.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Well, he predicted that Hillary's lawyers would have to turn over the data, and they did. I don't see how the link offered pertains to the claim that you're "participating in a thread created by the guy that single handedly got Clinton to turn over the thumb drive?"

Hell, even the claim that you're participating in this thread is a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...

It was a reference to my sig.

She "turned it over" because of the counterintelligence referral to the FBI indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Secretary Clinton's emails.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Having asked people who send/receive classified emails on their government computers, information that is not marked classified when sent is not an excuse for not following the law. This is a specific point made during the rather frequent security training.
Click to expand...

The issue is whether those items can be retroactively classified as illegal when initially they were not classified at the time. Dont get me wrong, its disturbing that she had a complete disregard for standard procedure... but im not sure going by letter of the law if it will take effect here. I just find it another nail in her qualifications to be POTUS unless something further comes up.

Its not a character assasination to point out her use of the server was at a bare minimum, a breach of internal regulations, and that's not treated kindly in most lines of work
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
The issue is whether those items can be retroactively classified as illegal when initially they were not classified at the time. Dont get me wrong, its disturbing that she had a complete disregard for standard procedure... but im not sure going by letter of the law if it will take effect here. I just find it another nail in her qualifications to be POTUS unless something further comes up.

Its not a character assasination to point out her use of the server was at a bare minimum, a breach of internal regulations, and that's not treated kindly in most lines of work
Click to expand...

The problem I have is this - since HC is no longer part of the state department, we have a private citizen in possession of state department documents, some of which may be the only copies that exist. It is as if she took the contents of her filing cabinet with her when she left office. To later give copies of some of these documents to someone without clearance is bad enough, but to then delete all of them from the server is illegal. It doesn't really matter when they were classified, they are state department property and not hers.

Sandy Berger got two years probation and a $50,000 fine for doing something similar.
 
I don't mean to derail the current discussion, but does someone have the actual quote from Hillary regarding why she installed her own private server? I recall reading that it was because she didn't want to carry two phones, i.e. one for personal e-mails and one for business e-mails. The way things get reported I'm sure if this is really the explanation or the (pun intended) phone-game distortion. I expect there is more to it than that.

If true, it makes no sense. Even as a trumped up excuse. Is she so technically unsavvy to think you can't handle multiple e-mail accounts on a single phone? And in the time to set up a personal server no one was able to explain this to her?

Regardless of the legality or the rules in place at the time, what is the real reason for the personal server? I can see it being done to have control and hide potential communications from others, but are there less nefarious reasons? Why would one want to keep work e-mails outside of the company/department one works for?
 
JohnnyG said:
The problem I have is this - since HC is no longer part of the state department, we have a private citizen in possession of state department documents, some of which may be the only copies that exist. It is as if she took the contents of her filing cabinet with her when she left office. To later give copies of some of these documents to someone without clearance is bad enough, but to then delete all of them from the server is illegal. It doesn't really matter when they were classified, they are state department property and not hers.

Sandy Berger got two years probation and a $50,000 fine for doing something similar.
Click to expand...
Lots of Internet lawyers have declared her guilty of a crime. When pushed, they will say, well yeah she's guilty but the those who would charge her are all looking the other way, accusing them basically of being themselves guilty of crimes. Pretty convenient huh.

If she broke a law she should receive the appropriate punishment. Since you are so certain, maybe you can get the legal ball rolling.
 
Monza said:
I don't mean to derail the current discussion, but does someone have the actual quote from Hillary regarding why she installed her own private server? I recall reading that it was because she didn't want to carry two phones, i.e. one for personal e-mails and one for business e-mails. The way things get reported I'm sure if this is really the explanation or the (pun intended) phone-game distortion. I expect there is more to it than that.

If true, it makes no sense. Even as a trumped up excuse. Is she so technically unsavvy to think you can't handle multiple e-mail accounts on a single phone? And in the time to set up a personal server no one was able to explain this to her?

Regardless of the legality or the rules in place at the time, what is the real reason for the personal server? I can see it being done to have control and hide potential communications from others, but are there less nefarious reasons? Why would one want to keep work e-mails outside of the company/department one works for?
Click to expand...

here is her quote:

First, when I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two. Looking back, it would've been better if I'd simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn't seem like an issue.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of any legitimate purpose why Hillary wanted to use her own server. Here is what she said in 2000:

"As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I —- I don’t even want -— why would I ever want to do e-mail?" she's seen on tape telling Peter Paul on home video captured at a fundraiser.

"Can you imagine?" she said.
Click to expand...

Times changed and Clinton used email throughout her tenure as secretary of state, but used a personal server in the erroneous belief she could shield those communications from disclosure. She was and is wrong
 
Monza said:
I don't mean to derail the current discussion, but does someone have the actual quote from Hillary regarding why she installed her own private server? I recall reading that it was because she didn't want to carry two phones, i.e. one for personal e-mails and one for business e-mails. The way things get reported I'm sure if this is really the explanation or the (pun intended) phone-game distortion. I expect there is more to it than that.

If true, it makes no sense. Even as a trumped up excuse. Is she so technically unsavvy to think you can't handle multiple e-mail accounts on a single phone? And in the time to set up a personal server no one was able to explain this to her?

Regardless of the legality or the rules in place at the time, what is the real reason for the personal server? I can see it being done to have control and hide potential communications from others, but are there less nefarious reasons? Why would one want to keep work e-mails outside of the company/department one works for?
Click to expand...

I don't completely reject the carry one device argument. Regardless of what reason one wants to believe here it is hard to come up with a scenario where Clinton doesn't look stupid.

I imagine that she had an adviser, maybe the Hoteham guy, tell her that he could set up a server for her and thereby capture all her correspondence for future books, restrict access to it so that embarrassing emails could be hidden and make it so that she could access all her email from one device.

Clinton looks stupid here because she put at risk sensitive communications, put herself in a place where she potentially broke rules and laws, put herself above rules that applied to almost everybody else in the state department and if the scheme was discovered Clinton put herself and the Obama administration in a position to be embarrassed by the existence of the private server. The situation also goes to Clinton's questionable judgment when she trusted an adviser who recommended a scheme that was a bad idea for a host of reasons.

I'll still probably vote for her instead of any of the Republicans although if by some miracle the Republicans nominate a guy that isn't anti-science, anti-gay, pro-war I might vote for that guy instead of Clinton but right now it looks like to get the Republican nomination you need to be anti-science, anti-gay and pro-war so all this stuff about how bad Clinton is, is for me moot. Whatever she did with her email shenanigans it is so much less important than signing a letter to the Iranians trying to undermine the POTUS or shutting down the government for some partisan ego trip fantasy that I have a hard time getting too excited about her stupidity and bad judgment on this issue.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Now, if you want to point out hillary fraudulent partisan attacks thats fine, but the degree to which people are defending her rivals the extent of claims that she deserves jail time for keeping those personal servers
Click to expand...
We disagree on this, significantly. Asking for due process and pointing out similarities with previous administrations is no way the same as saying she deserves jail time. At least not in this country.

I'm pretty sure she won't get your vote regardless though will she :).

I would prefer not to be in a position to vote for her, but if any of those clowns currently running to oppose her actually do, then yeah, I'll vote for her. My decision will be based on a ton of factors, mostly policy based, and this situation is far down the on my list.
 
16.5 said:
...Clinton used email throughout her tenure as secretary of state, but used a personal server in the erroneous belief she could shield those communications from disclosure. She was and is wrong
Click to expand...
Can you point out her saying she used a personal server to shield communications from disclosure?
 
DavidJames said:
Lots of Internet lawyers have declared her guilty of a crime. When pushed, they will say, well yeah she's guilty but the those who would charge her are all looking the other way, accusing them basically of being themselves guilty of crimes. Pretty convenient huh.

If she broke a law she should receive the appropriate punishment. Since you are so certain, maybe you can get the legal ball rolling.
Click to expand...
Straw men are indeed convenient.

Do you think that taking state department documents home after leaving office is legal?

Do you think that giving classified material to someone without security clearance is legal?

Do you think destroying what could be the only copies of state department documents without their consent is legal?

If you answer yes to any of those questions, then you must think HC broke the law. If not, please explain why Sandy Berger was convicted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom