Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

It's your claim, based on the article you linked, that the server was not secure. Do you not remember?

Since you can't prove it, you could simply withdraw the claim instead of pretending that you're being treated unfairly.

I proved the claim that the first time there was any evidence that the server was secure was three months after it was up and running.

I was told that she "might" have otherwise secured it. There was no evidence for that, of course.

The burden is on Hillary to prove that it was secure. Hillary has made it very clear that she is going to fight any attempts to see the server.

Looks like the evidence for it being grossly insecure is pretty clearly established.

 

[quadraginta]

....just checking in to see if anyone other than partisan hacks gives a : yet...

Waiting for the perp walk.

Then, after a "fair"* trial, we can string 'er up.

(*- For limited definitions of "fair".)

 

[12AX7]

you don't get the concept of bored at work? This is a chew toy to me. Like other hyper-partisan threads.

Same here; this is better than a movie.

Oh by the way, remember when about 5 million Bush emails went missing?

Didn't Darrell Issa just blame IBM software for that and call it a day?

Weird ain't it?

I'm still trying to find a thread started by 16.5 over that one. No luck so far.

 

[NotJesus]

I proved the claim that the first time there was any evidence that the server was secure was three months after it was up and running.

But that's not what you claimed. You claimed there was no security, and you have no way of knowing that.

Looks like the evidence for it being grossly insecure is pretty clearly established.

Wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

SNIP

Your Derailment/Fallacy is a Tu Quoque.

International "Skeptics" Forum, indeed.

 

[The Big Dog]

But that's not what you claimed. You claimed there was no security, and you have no way of knowing that.

Wrong.

I know it because Hillary and her team has failed to prove it, and has refused to let anyone else look at her server.

Thanks for posting, tho.

 

[DavidJames]

Hillary has also not proved she didn't kill Vince Foster.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary has also not proved she didn't kill Vince Foster.

I assume that was directed at the person who said i had to prove that the cowboy server was NOT secure?

Good one!

 

[quadraginta]

Hillary has also not proved she didn't kill Vince Foster.

But she could have.

So it must be true.

String 'er up.

 

[The Big Dog]

Martin O'Malley when asked if he would require his secretary of state to use an official server should he become commander-in-chief, O’Malley said, “Sure, it would be important to me.”

LOL! O'Malley 2016!

 

[theprestige]

Hrm. This looks fine as far as it goes, but let me try:

Here's some thoughts. A Republican believes:

A conservative believes:

1. Sabotaging peace talks is fine as long as the president is a Democrat

Sabotaging peace talks is fine as long as it's done within the boundaries defined in the Constitution, the legislators are acting in their official capacity, and they have a fundamental disagreement with the executive about the spirit or substance of the peace talks. Party doesn't enter into it, though obviously people on either side of the partisan divide will disagree about which policy should be pursued regarding the peace talks.

2. Shutting down the government is fine if you don't get your way.

Yes, absolutely. It is one of the great features of the system, and should be used more often.

3. Scientific theories are bogus if they lead to actions that might harm the fossil fuel industry.

Appeal to Science to advance a partisan goal is a legitimate political tactic, but can also be legitimately opposed. Rhetorically, rejecting the appeal for political reasons can look like a rejection of the science itself--it can even *be* a rejection of the science itself for political purposes. I'm okay with that. Don't like it? Don't politicize the science, and don't tie your preferred partisan goal to an Appeal to Science.

4. Banking crises every now and then are just fine as long as the bank managers can make a lot of money.

In general, boom-and-bust cycles are an acceptable trade-off to having free markets. Bank managers making a lot of money is a red herring.

 

[Ziggurat]

Things just keep getting worse.

http://time.com/3741847/the-clinton-way/

She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department–spurred by the congressional investigation–asked her to do so. And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache–31,830 emails–did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be “private, personal records.”

Why were the other messages deleted? Not only do we not know what they contain, it turns out that even Hillary doesn't know what they contain.

 

[sunmaster14]

Here is a persuasive argument that Hillary committed a crime which carries severe penalties (emphasis added):

That Mrs. Clinton is not the ultimate arbiter of whether her records must be preserved is made very clear in the Department of State’s own records-management manual. Under a provision titled “Removal Procedures,” the manual sets forth the process that each Department of State employee must go through upon separation (i.e., resignation or retirement) from the department. In addition to relinquishing classified materials, all employees are required to clear the removal of any unclassified materials through records-management officials.

First, the “departing official or a staff member must prepare an inventory of personal papers and nonrecord materials proposed for removal.” The departing official must then “request a review of the materials proposed for removal.” Lest Mrs. Clinton claim she was not subject to this rule, the manual provides that this review process is specifically required for “Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate.”

...

Despite her repeated protestations at yesterday’s press conference that she followed all applicable rules, it is pellucid that she did not. Mrs. Clinton plainly did not just remove personal e-mails without clearing that removal with records officials; she also did not even return official records. Her defense now is that returning the documents two years later is good enough. But the same records manual emphatically rebuts that post-hoc justification. The department’s records manual requires that departing officials “must ensure that all record material that they possess is incorporated in the Department’s official files and that all file searches for which they have been tasked have been completed, such as those required to respond to FOIA, Congressional, or litigation-related document requests.” And lest the employee not get the message, the manual adds that “fines, imprisonment, or both may be imposed for the willful and unlawful removal or destruction of records as stated in the U.S. Criminal Code (e.g., 18 U.S.C., section 2071).”

 

[mgidm86]

I think this sums it all up. This issue riles up the people who don't trust Clinton, and were never going to vote for her anyway. The rest of us are not bothered.

Take "Clinton" out of the equation and it still equals distrust, and it should.

It is true, I do do not like Clinton and I admit it freely. Of course it's going to rile up people who already don't trust her, and there are good reasons not to. That doesn't mean I approve of every slam against her. This is a big deal to me and the fact that it isn't for other people concerns me.

 

[sunmaster14]

Here's a related article which claims that Hillary is still plainly acting in violation of the law:

Not only did she conceal and apparently delete files without completing an inventory and enabling State Department record retention officers to review her claim of privacy. Even with respect to the thousands emails she has finally revealed, she is still withholding information. What Mrs. Clinton hoarded on her server are (or were until deleted) electronic communications; what she has reportedly turned over, by contrast, are paper copies of those e-mails –reportedly, 30,490 e-mails comprising 55,000 printed pages. The paper copies may or may not have some information deleted from them.

The government record is the e-mail, the electronic communication itself. A paper copy is just a picture – and perhaps an incomplete one – of an actual electronic mail. When I left the Justice Department, I had to surrender my files and my credentials, not photocopies of them. The photocopies are depictions of the records, they are not the records. The public is entitled to maintain the actual records in the government’s filing system. It is Mrs. Clinton who must content herself with photocopies (and only of files that contain whatever categories of non-classified information she is permitted to retain as a private citizen).

 

[12AX7]

Your Derailment/Fallacy is a Tu Quoque.

International "Skeptics" Forum, indeed.

Nah, just another example of your hypocritical, selective outrage.

 

[davefoc]

Here is a persuasive argument that Hillary committed a crime which carries severe penalties (emphasis added):

This is looking very messy for Clinton. The arguments the guy put forth didn't seem like the partisan spin and hyper exaggeration arguments involved in the Obama administration scandals up to now.

One problem for Clinton is that the statements from her supporters and especially the statements from Clinton herself have, in net, probably done her more harm that good. I think it was John Dickerson at Slate that made the point that the reason a good defense of Clinton hasn't been put forth is that there isn't one. Perhaps it is time that Clinton comes to grips with that reality and begins to deal with the problem in a way that sounds like she understands the problem.

After seven years or so of making up scandals and trying to tie the Obama administration to every bad thing that happens in the world the Republicans are probably doing a little happy dance now that they've got a real one to milk. The scandal even gives the Republicans a new basis for saying Benghazi again. They will like that. It also has the potential to put pressure on the Obama administration for not adequately monitoring Clinton and not prosecuting her now that it's pretty clear she went off the reservation.

And to the partisan Clinton supporters in this thread: It might seem that the partisan clap trap that you've been fed about this mess makes sense. And it probably does to the true believer partisans, but all the points that you've made in Clinton's defense have been strongly rebutted by non-partisan writers. This is a mess and wishing it wasn't isn't going to fix it.

 

[wareyin]

Take "Clinton" out of the equation and it still equals distrust, and it should.

It is true, I do do not like Clinton and I admit it freely. Of course it's going to rile up people who already don't trust her, and there are good reasons not to. That doesn't mean I approve of every slam against her. This is a big deal to me and the fact that it isn't for other people concerns me.

The fact that it isn't even a "big deal" to partisan witchhunters like Issa really ought to show you how contrived the outrage really is on this issue.

 

[wareyin]

This is looking very messy for Clinton. The arguments the guy put forth didn't seem like the partisan spin and hyper exaggeration arguments involved in the Obama administration scandals up to now.

One problem for Clinton is that the statements from her supporters and especially the statements from Clinton herself have, in net, probably done her more harm that good. I think it was John Dickerson at Slate that made the point that the reason a good defense of Clinton hasn't been put forth is that there isn't one. Perhaps it is time that Clinton comes to grips with that reality and begins to deal with the problem in a way that sounds like she understands the problem.

After seven years or so of making up scandals and trying to tie the Obama administration to every bad thing that happens in the world the Republicans are probably doing a little happy dance now that they've got a real one to milk. The scandal even gives the Republicans a new basis for saying Benghazi again. They will like that. It also has the potential to put pressure on the Obama administration for not adequately monitoring Clinton and not prosecuting her now that it's pretty clear she went off the reservation.

And to the partisan Clinton supporters in this thread: It might seem that the partisan clap trap that you've been fed about this mess makes sense. And it probably does to the true believer partisans, but all the points that you've made in Clinton's defense have been strongly rebutted by non-partisan writers. This is a mess and wishing it wasn't isn't going to fix it.

Meh, nobody is wishing this wasn't a mess. Seriously, that you have to lump everyone who isn't "outraged" by this non-scandal into a "partisan Clinton supporter" does more harm to your point than good. As has been repeatedly pointed out, when even partisan witchhunters like Issa think this isn't a big deal, all the faux outrage in the world won't engage those who don't already hate/dislike Clinton.

 

[davefoc]

Meh, nobody is wishing this wasn't a mess. Seriously, that you have to lump everyone who isn't "outraged" by this non-scandal into a "partisan Clinton supporter" does more harm to your point than good. As has been repeatedly pointed out, when even partisan witchhunters like Issa think this isn't a big deal, all the faux outrage in the world won't engage those who don't already hate/dislike Clinton.

For clarification, I don't think this is some sort of great scandal. This is a tiny thing compared to undermining executive branch international negotiations for partisan political purposes.*

But I do think it is a real scandal meaning that the I think Clinton did something wrong and possibly illegal. The argument that Issa would be exploiting it if it were something serious doesn't seem like much of an argument to me. As we speak Republican strategists are trying to figure out how to exploit this to their greatest advantage. I don't expect them to go after this in one great burst of activity and then be done with it. They will implement strategies to draw this out. The will save some of their powder from this incident for use in the general election.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited off topic content.

ETA:
This is pretty close to the only scandal of the Obama administration that can be tied directly to Obama. Although it might not be obvious because of the relentless scandal mongering by the Republicans the Obama administration has been free of real scandals that have much of a connection to Obama. It seems like a real piece of crap to me that Clinton has dragged the Obama administration into a mess because Obama trusted Clinton too much. She was a major jerk towards Obama in the primaries and now fast forward seven years later she brings scandal into his administration because of her shenanigans.