Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
I would probably encounter some problems unless there was an established history of my predecessors using personal email, and in this case the company didn't have a policy that said I couldn't. That's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.
Click to expand...
Except for the official memo sent to department employees from Clinton's office directing employees to "avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts".

But, the wording leaves wiggle room. I'll concede to oranges and tangerines. :)
 
varwoche said:
Except for the official memo sent to department employees from Clinton's office directing employees to "avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts".

But, the wording leaves wiggle room. I'll concede to oranges and tangerines. :)
Click to expand...

LoL I accept that proposal, it seems reasonable. I did admit that it was sleazy, but at the time it probably didn't seem like a priority.
 
16.5 said:
By the way, Hillary Clinton destroyed more than half of her emails from her tenure as Secretary of State.

Let that sink in.

Furthermore, it appears that she did so despite numerous outstanding FOIA requests.
Click to expand...

FOIA doesn't apply to her personal emails.

Where is the evidence that she destroyed any relevant emails ?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
FOIA doesn't apply to her personal emails.

Where is the evidence that she destroyed any relevant emails ?
Click to expand...

Lol! She destroyed them. That is like a person who killed their parents and then claims she is an orphan.

She set up her own cowboy server, sat on the documents for years, turned over what she wanted to, and destroyed the rest. Destroyed them.

Plus she and her hubby have a bit of a history with stashing documents where investigators can't find them.

She is toast.
 
16.5 said:
Lol! She destroyed them. That is like a person who killed their parents and then claims she is an orphan.

She set up her own cowboy server, sat on the documents for years, turned over what she wanted to, and destroyed the rest. Destroyed them.

Plus she and her hubby have a bit of a history with stashing documents where investigators can't find them.

She is toast.
Click to expand...

How is she toast ?

I asked before, and you avoided answering. Try again:

TheL8Elvis said:
Evidence of said emails.

Should be pretty easy to find, as there was someone who was not clinton on the receiving end of all of them...
Click to expand...
 
TheL8Elvis said:
FOIA doesn't apply to her personal emails.

Where is the evidence that she destroyed any relevant emails ?
Click to expand...

There isn't any that I have heard. If she deleted unfavorable government emails that went outside the server, I think some will eventually be exposed.

This story still has legs.

They will continue to look at the emails she turns over and compare it to her normal frequency, world events, travel schedule, known communications issues, personal events etc..., and it will give a good idea of what could be in the "missing" pile and who would be on the receiving end.

With potentially thousands of them out there, she could be headed for several mini-scandals in the months ahead.

Even if she deleted one by mistake, and it isnt particulary important, it could come back to bite her. By not being transparent from the start, every email that turns up can be used to attack her. Too many excuses from her could just make her look incompetent.

Of course, this is all speculation.
 
quadraginta said:
Why do you think that? Because both houses of Congress are so blatantly partisan in Hillary's favor that they'll just let her skate?
Click to expand...

She's not in office. What exactly do you think Congress can do? Impeach her?
 
varwoche said:
I followed Benghazi closely enough that it's obvious to me that Clinton's critics are full of steaming BS. Other than that, I strongly agree with you.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with this.
I disliked her before this revelation. But given the alternatives, I'll hold my nose and vote for her. Worst case, I wouldn't vote. I most certainly wouldn't vote for the GOP candidate.
Click to expand...

I agree with this somewhat. My feelings about Clinton before this revelation were ambivalent and I might vote for a Republican except any Republican I'd vote for couldn't win the nomination.
Indeed. The arguments presented in this thread in defense of her behavior strike me as blatant, knee-jerk partisanship (except for the argument that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that she broke the law), speaking as an IT professional.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with this as well, although I'm not an IT professional.
 
To be honest, I see email as being more like a phone conversation than a written document. We don't require that government officials record all phone conversations, now do we?

Seriously, it's a non issue in my book.
 
Sherkeu said:
There isn't any that I have heard. If she deleted unfavorable government emails that went outside the server, I think some will eventually be exposed.

This story still has legs.

They will continue to look at the emails she turns over and compare it to her normal frequency, world events, travel schedule, known communications issues, personal events etc..., and it will give a good idea of what could be in the "missing" pile and who would be on the receiving end.

With potentially thousands of them out there, she could be headed for several mini-scandals in the months ahead.

Even if she deleted one by mistake, and it isnt particulary important, it could come back to bite her. By not being transparent from the start, every email that turns up can be used to attack her. Too many excuses from her could just make her look incompetent.

Of course, this is all speculation.
Click to expand...

I agree that the way it was handled leaves the situation open to future "email bombs" showing up and disproving what was claimed.

However, I think there are assumptions being made in this thread, behind some of the arguments being made, that are probably incorrect.
Namely "ZOMG Hillary has to have sent gazillions of (classified) emails to people not at a .gov address !!!11!!!"

I tend doubt she ran the state dept by email, or even sent (m)any s00per-sekrit emails to other foreign entities, etc. She no doubt had 'people' to do things, send out department memos,etc. And like most politicians, probably did things in a certain way to either ensure there was a trail, or to make sure there was not a trail. I mean when you can sit on the Senate Subcommittee for Privacy, Technology and the Law and never have sent an email, certainly you can run the state department without sending emails, too ?

I'm also not going to blame her for following the law and using it to her (perceived) advantage.
 
CBS Radio reported this morning that Hillary might have "done more harm than good."

No kidding, ridiculous justification (convenience), admission that she destroyed documents, and arrogant statement that her server is going to remain private.

and that was after a week of working on her spin???

Martin O'Malley is looking pretty good now.
 
16.5 said:
here's an interesting article from Slate that I recommend to you.

When it comes time to collect the records, the government wants them in a secure place where they control the content, not the author whose motivations for archival constancy may be more lax or at odds with impartial observers. Update, March 4: And sure enough, the New York Times reports, when investigators asked for emails, the State Department didn’t turn over everything because officials there didn’t know about Clinton’s private accounts.
Click to expand...

Well, here's the thing:

If there's some uber conspiracy going on, why didn't they just use the phone, which is not subject to being a government record, rather than email? There's nothing conspiracy-wise which keeping track of emails in this fashion can prevent. Sure, email can be an official document -- but generally only when the sender intends it as such, which sort of requires by the very nature of such things that it be on the record and available to scrutiny by the appropriate authorities anyway.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
To be honest, I see email as being more like a phone conversation than a written document.
Click to expand...

You may think so, but the law doesn't. People have gone to jail for many years because they were too lazy to pick up the phone.

We don't require that government officials record all phone conversations, now do we?
Click to expand...

Everybody who works in an industry where documents and records of communications must be stored (e.g. the financial industry where I work requires all electronic and written communications be stored for 6 years, and I pay thousands of dollars per year to GlobalRelay to do that for me) knows that if you want to communicate anything that is ethically or legally questionable, you do it by phone. It's an annoyance, because email is so much more convenient, but that's just the way the world works. Hillary surely knew this, but she must have decided that it was worth the potential political inconvenience of using a private email server to have the convenience of using email which could be expunged as needed.
 
Manopolus said:
Well, here's the thing:

If there's some uber conspiracy going on, why didn't they just use the phone, which is not subject to being a government record, rather than email? There's nothing conspiracy-wise which keeping track of emails in this fashion can prevent. Sure, email can be an official document -- but generally only when the sender intends it as such, which sort of requires by the very nature of such things that it be on the record and available to scrutiny by the appropriate authorities anyway.
Click to expand...

The phone can be inconvenient. You can't always reach the person you want to talk to at the time you call. A Secretary of State, in particular, is often in a very different time zone from the people she needs to communicate with.

Another factor is that an email can seem perfectly fine and appropriate at the time you sent it, but, in retrospect, can look very bad. For example, suppose Hillary waxed eloquently in a series of emails (to other people using private email) about how Libya was going to turn into a thriving democracy during our intervention there. Might she be a little embarrassed about those emails now? Couldn't they be used to attack her judgment? I'm sure her political adviser would tell her to delete them if it was in her power to do so.
 
16.5 said:
Obama's preferred hometown paper does a fact check, and concludes that Hillary was more than a little truth challenged:

http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/7/71/429983/fact-check-hillary-clinton-email

Maybe she had her subscription emails deleted along with the other 55 percent of her emails.
Click to expand...

This is remarkable (emphasis added):

CLINTON: “It had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.”

THE FACTS: While Clinton’s server was physically guarded by the Secret Service, she provided no evidence it hadn’t been compromised by hackers or foreign adversaries. She also didn’t detail who administered the email system, if it received appropriate software security updates, or if it was monitored routinely for unauthorized access.
Click to expand...

So, the email server really was in her house, and it was only physically "guarded" by the secret service because her husband is a former President of the US, and therefore his home was under secret service protection. Large men with guns has not generally been regarded as the best solution to computer security, but I guess it's better than nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom