Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[applecorped]

Handled poorly for President!

 

[davefoc]

It's only an excuse in that I am pointing out that using the state dept mail would have led to essentially the same outcome.
...

Is this true? Whether the emails were officially archived or not wouldn't the emails that are on the state department email server still have been available for discovery. It seems that you are making the technical and interesting point that the government is slow to capture email traffic in a formally archived way, however that doesn't mean that emails don't exist in other forms until they are archived.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's only an excuse in that I am pointing out that using the state dept mail would have led to essentially the same outcome.

But it wouldn't be the same outcome for reasons previously described, and furthermore, her decision to exclusively use her own private server was not made on the basis of final outcome. We don't excuse drunk driving if the person makes it home from the bar without getting into an accident, even though the result is "essentially the same" as calling a cab.

Thanks for pointing out my consistency

Consistency in error is not a virtue.

I think the only reason it got worse, is, as I said earlier - she handled it poorly.

She lied repeatedly, and now we know conclusively that she lied. In that sense, how she handled it has certainly made it worse. But what she lied about (such as classified info) is significant in its own right, and you're simply wrong to believe that her mishandling of this is the only relevant factor. No matter how little you care about this stuff, other people, including non-Republicans, do care about it.

 

[Dog Town]

It's only an excuse in that I am pointing out that using the state dept mail would have led to essentially the same outcome.

WRONG! FAIL!

ETA: Already addressed!

 

[The Big Dog]

Is this true? Whether the emails were officially archived or not wouldn't the emails that are on the state department email server still have been available for discovery. It seems that you are making the technical and interesting point that the government is slow to capture email traffic in a formally archived way, however that doesn't mean that emails don't exist in other forms until they are archived.

as mentioned repeatedly Hillary's misconduct resulted in multiple violations of FOIA.

There are at least 30 open records lawsuits pending as the result of this fiasco and the Justice Department has time and again conceded that the proper searches were not done due to Hillary's email practices.

Further, she did not provide them to the State Department's Accountability Review Boards) either.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

lets face it "transparency" is a "four-letter word" to Hillary, and her supporters just don't care.

She wants to be President???

 

[Newtons Bit]

Is this true? Whether the emails were officially archived or not wouldn't the emails that are on the state department email server still have been available for discovery. It seems that you are making the technical and interesting point that the government is slow to capture email traffic in a formally archived way, however that doesn't mean that emails don't exist in other forms until they are archived.

Worked for the IRS?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

WRONG! FAIL!

ETA: Already addressed!

Thanks for adding to the conversation with that well thought out response.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Is this true? Whether the emails were officially archived or not wouldn't the emails that are on the state department email server still have been available for discovery. It seems that you are making the technical and interesting point that the government is slow to capture email traffic in a formally archived way, however that doesn't mean that emails don't exist in other forms until they are archived.

Worked for the IRS?

I can't say what email retention policy the state department has or doesn't have. Generally ****** would seem to be accurate for most government agencies though.

It certainly appears that for everybody screaming transparency, they wouldn't have been any better off with state dept email.
It certainly appears that for everybody screaming classified information, they wouldn't have been any better off with state dept email.
It certainly appears that for everybody screaming security, they wouldn't have been any better off with state dept email.

I've made my case for why I find it to be not incompetence, and not a big deal. *shrugs*

 

[The Big Dog]

as mentioned repeatedly Hillary's misconduct resulted in multiple violations of FOIA.

There are at least 30 open records lawsuits pending as the result of this fiasco and the Justice Department has time and again conceded that the proper searches were not done due to Hillary's email practices.

Further, she did not provide them to the State Department's Accountability Review Boards) either.

She wants to be President???

It certainly appears that for everybody screaming transparency, they wouldn't have been any better off with state dept email.

 

[plague311]

Is this true? Whether the emails were officially archived or not wouldn't the emails that are on the state department email server still have been available for discovery.

No, they wouldn't, just like the multiple news reports stating that other top officials emails, that used the government system, have limited* emails from that time frame. I don't think the internet works like you think it does.

It seems that you are making the technical and interesting point that the government is slow to capture email traffic in a formally archived way, however that doesn't mean that emails don't exist in other forms until they are archived.

I don't think you've been paying attention. The government email system wasn't archiving emails on a regular basis for the State Department.

I wish internet lawyers in general would at least take some fundamental IT classes to educate themselves before spouting off. I haven't even bothered wasting my time with all of the technical ******** people are spouting here. It would take years.

 

[plague311]

That's why he said it from his point of view, and wasn't speaking for you. Everyone here knows how big of a stickler you are for transparency when it comes to Hillary. For everyone else? You couldn't give a ****, but for Hillary! You're all over it.

(I say this knowing your garbage comment about Powell.)

 

[davefoc]

I can't say what email retention policy the state department has or doesn't have. Generally ****** would seem to be accurate for most government agencies though.

It certainly appears that for everybody screaming transparency, they wouldn't have been any better off with state dept email.

So when the Republicans were attempting to scrounge up every bit of Benghzi stuff, Clinton's emails were provided to them, or the State Department wouldn't have complied anyway because they're so incompetent that they couldn't have searched Clinton's emails for Benghazi stuff if they had her emails on their servers? As Ziggurat has noted this argument is flawed because it attempts to absolve Clinton with the argument if she had done the right thing it wouldn't have worked out anyway, which is just a bogus argument. But the argument is bogus also because almost certainly somebody in the State Department would have had the ability to look through Clinton's emails and find the relevant ones if the State Department had Clinton's emails.

It certainly appears that for everybody screaming classified information, they wouldn't have been any better off with state dept email. It certainly appears that for everybody screaming security, they wouldn't have been any better off with state dept email.

This argument is slightly better than the one above. It fails for the reasons Ziggurat put forth, but it also isn't that strong an argument because one implication is that Clinton knew the State department servers weren't secure so instead of doing anything about that she just created her own server. Lastly, it isn't all that good an argument because it isn't known right now to what degree Clinton's server was compromised. There is a rumor that her private emails are for sale. It isn't known publicly who had access to her server and the backups of her server or how they were protected. And the guy who was responsible for some of that has taken the fifth amendment.[/quote]

I've made my case for why I find it to be not incompetence, and not a big deal. *shrugs*

No, you have made no case at all that Clinton's actions weren't incompetent with regard to her email server. [/quote]

Good frickin grief man she may lose the presidency over it. That doesn't sound like all that strong an argument that she was competent with respect to this issue. It doesn't take a friggin idiot to realize that sensitive probably classified material is going to be sent to the SoS on her email. But somehow Clinton seems to have not realized that and thought that a little hombrew mail server was a cool way to deal with that fact. And then rather than admit that not only had she been using her email server to handle sensitive admission she embarked on a series of misrepresentations about the situation which suggest either she was lying or she was strangely incompetent.

Incompetent actions are those actions that are taken where the risks outweigh the gains. Here Clinton actions offered no significant benefits for her or the country. Almost all that was possible here was downside.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's why he said it from his point of view, and wasn't speaking for you. Everyone here knows how big of a stickler you are for transparency when it comes to Hillary. For everyone else? You couldn't give a ****, but for Hillary! You're all over it.

(I say this knowing your garbage comment about Powell.)

He did... huh. Fortunately, I was actually speaking about the Justice Department lawyers who have told the Judges overseeing the FOIA lawsuits that full searches as required under FOIA had not been performed and thus the cases should be reopened?

My garbage comment about Powell? ... Oh wait, the one where I said he should have the jail cell right next to Hillary?

Lolz, see that is the problem with tu quoque arguments, they often show that that the person using the fallacy is acting hypocritically: You don't care about Powell, you are just trying to deflect the justified criticism of Hillary.

hell try Hillary and Powell right after each other, I just ask that they try Hillary first, deal?

Lolz

 

[The Big Dog]

It certainly appears that for everybody screaming transparency, they wouldn't have been any better off with state dept email.

In a filing in a separate court case against the State Department, government lawyers cautioned that the agency's resources for processing requests for Clinton-related files "are strained to the limit." Government lawyers said more than 16,500 new requests for Clinton-related files have been filed since September 2014 and there are now 87 court challenges pending in federal courts.

Thanks Hillary, that sure is convenient!

Maybe she could use her campaign war chest to reimburse We the People for the **** storm she raised?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So when the Republicans were attempting to scrounge up every bit of Benghzi stuff, Clinton's emails were provided to them, or the State Department wouldn't have complied anyway because they're so incompetent that they couldn't have searched Clinton's emails for Benghazi stuff if they had her emails on their servers? As Ziggurat has noted this argument is flawed because it attempts to absolve Clinton with the argument if she had done the right thing it wouldn't have worked out anyway, which is just a bogus argument. But the argument is bogus also because almost certainly somebody in the State Department would have had the ability to look through Clinton's emails and find the relevant ones if the State Department had Clinton's emails.

If they have that ability - how come they couldn't search for all the emails from hdr22@clintonemail.com and find the emails she sent from her private server ?

Again, you are making an argument from incredulity because you don't understand the state dept's email.

I keep pointing out:
automatic archiving began just last month for “dozens” of top officials — such as deputy secretaries, under secretaries and assistant secretaries. “Our goal is to apply this to all employee mailboxes by the end of 2016,” she said.

So no, even if she used hdr22@state.gov, the state dept wouldn't have had the emails. They relied on her to print out and archive her emails.

This argument is slightly better than the one above. It fails for the reasons Ziggurat put forth, but it also isn't that strong an argument because one implication is that Clinton knew the State department servers weren't secure so instead of doing anything about that she just created her own server. Lastly, it isn't all that good an argument because it isn't known right now to what degree Clinton's server was compromised.

Worst case, it was compromised just the same as @state.gov. Which makes the outcome just the same- no worse, possibly better.

There is a rumor that her private emails are for sale. It isn't known publicly who had access to her server and the backups of her server or how they were protected. And the guy who was responsible for some of that has taken the fifth amendment.
No, you have made no case at all that Clinton's actions weren't incompetent with regard to her email server.

Really, rumors for radaronline (and no place else) count as a good basis for an argument now ?

Good frickin grief man she may lose the presidency over it. That doesn't sound like all that strong an argument that she was competent with respect to this issue. It doesn't take a friggin idiot to realize that sensitive probably classified material is going to be sent to the SoS on her email. But somehow Clinton seems to have not realized that and thought that a little hombrew mail server was a cool way to deal with that fact.

Again, you keep ignoring the fact that classified emails are on a different and segregated network. That her "state dept email" was not the right place to send classified email.

Again, you are making an argument from incredulity because you don't understand the state dept's email, or classified networks.

And then rather than admit that not only had she been using her email server to handle sensitive admission she embarked on a series of misrepresentations about the situation which suggest either she was lying or she was strangely incompetent.

I wouldn't admit I knew about classified material either. It wasn't supposed to be sent on that network, it wasn't marked, so I am sure as far as she could tell, she didn't think she had any.

Incompetent actions are those actions that are taken where the risks outweigh the gains. Here Clinton actions offered no significant benefits for her or the country. Almost all that was possible here was downside.

I'm not sure I agree with your definition.

 

[The Big Dog]

If they have that ability - how come they couldn't search for all the emails from hdr22@clintonemail.com and find the emails she sent from her private server ?

Again, you are making an argument from incredulity because you don't understand the state dept's email.

I keep pointing out:
automatic archiving began just last month for “dozens” of top officials — such as deputy secretaries, under secretaries and assistant secretaries. “Our goal is to apply this to all employee mailboxes by the end of 2016,” she said.

they couldn't search Hillary's cowboy server because Hillary did not allow them too. This is so freaking basic, again, I am at a loss.

Further, you don't have to "archive" documents to make them to subject to search under FOIA

Just another feint like your "known outside the government" fiasco...

 

[logger]

I've made my case for why I find it to be not incompetence, and not a big deal. *shrugs*

This is a perfect example of the drip drip drip.

The Clintons have been doing this for years, information is dripped out so as to make it look like no big deal. Its the job of republicans to go after this, time will tell.

What in hell would you call it if not incompetence, the only other option is she was trying to hide something. Its good to be a democrat.

 

[logger]

I wouldn't admit I knew about classified material either. It wasn't supposed to be sent on that network, it wasn't marked, so I am sure as far as she could tell, she didn't think she had any.

Wow, of the hundreds, maybe thousands of classified emails she received, she didn't know any of them were classified?

 

[The Big Dog]

This is a perfect example of the drip drip drip.

The Clintons have been doing this for years, information is dripped out so as to make it look like no big deal. Its the job of republicans to go after this, time will tell.

What in hell would you call it if not incompetence, the only other option is she was trying to hide something. Its good to be a democrat.

Hell, I fully agree this was not incompetence. She knew exactly what she was doing and why.

Now she might be incompetent about lying about it now, but she is simply a bad (although very, very eager) liar. You'd think with as much practice as she has had, she'd be better at it.....

 

[Dog Town]

Thanks for adding to the conversation with that well thought out response.

No crying in politics!