Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

Ignoring the difference between 'claiming Clinton destroyed personal emails' and 'agreement that Clinton admitted destroying personal emails' does not help your argument.

You claimed that Clinton had never seen the emails she destroyed. Your link does not support that. If you think it does, please quote the passage, sentence, or paragraph.

Even if you are able to substantiate that claim, it is not evidence for your claim that she destroyed work emails.

Continuously pointing out that your links don't say what you claim, and that you have not been able to support any assertions, is becoming tiresome. I don't think there is anything to he gained by asking you to support your assertions again.

You called them personal emails, swallowing Hillary's word, and now seem to be playing a silly pedantic game.

you are correct tho, you'll continue to ask for more and more detailed links, Gainsay them, get them again, ignore them, and eventually change the subject.

You are wasting all of our time.

 

[Tricky]

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."

Lewis Carroll - "The Hunting of the Snark"​

 

[wareyin]

You called them personal emails, swallowing Hillary's word, and now seem to be playing a silly pedantic game.

you are correct tho, you'll continue to ask for more and more detailed links, Gainsay them, get them again, ignore them, and eventually change the subject.

You are wasting all of our time.

No quote from your link that supports your claim? Darn

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Other than she lied about the fact that her emails to other senior State Department officials were automatically saved, and as the head of that department utterly failed to ensure that they were.

It's not her fault, she doesn't run the IT dept.
And I don't believe she lied, as that requires intent.

I do agree, however, it's her responsibility, as head of the dept, if emails were not archived.

No it is not legal to destroy documents that are subject to FOIA and subpoenas.

She didn't destroy those documents - she destroyed her personal email.

Where is your evidence she destroyed work emails that ought to have been archived ?

Evidence? Lets talk evidence. Is there any evidence that Cowboy Web Mistress Clinton searched the cowboy servers for other responsive documents relating to State Department business?

Not yet? Huh, my concern is she is going to start lawyering up and taking the Fifth soon. Thoughts?

My thought is I am still waiting for you to produce links to EVIDENCE, not conjecture.

Let me be clear, I have no problem with people finding her actions problematic. I've stated before, her intent was clearly to control her email.

But so far, it's not been any actions that are illegal.

“We haven’t seen any evidence of a crime,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Sunday about Hillary Clinton’s private email use during her service as Secretary of State.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Turns out Jeb Bush used private e-mails too, and like Clinton, he released some, but not all of them to the public. Oddly, the Liberal Media has not exactly been all over him for this.

Although politically speaking Bush was probably smarter to preempt the email release demands the way he did. This is bound to eventually come up if he makes a serious run for office regardless. I still think the level of attention on Hillary is largely for ratings and political points... and elections are ripe for these things.

Unfortunately, it's the same security risk

 

[DavidJames]

Hyper-partisans may be willing to take her word for it, unfortunately skeptics are not.

Actually, should you decide to read and comprehend this thread you'll find no one willing to take her word for it. Only you are pronouncing guilt before the facts are in. Odd that you consider that approach skeptical.

 

[Tricky]

Although politically speaking Bush was probably smarter to preempt the email release demands the way he did. This is bound to eventually come up if he makes a serious run for office regardless. I still think the level of attention on Hillary is largely for ratings and political points... and elections are ripe for these things.

Unfortunately, it's the same security risk

Agreed. Although most of the outrage seems to be over simply using private email, and in this they are pretty much in the same boat. It's also a bit ironic that many people are furious when they think the government is snooping into their private email and phone, but then also feel that they should have the right to snoop into a politician's private email.

 

[NoahFence]

She destroyed 30,000 emails without looking at them.

She admitted it.

Evidence.

You are welcome.

So she signed up for a free vacation at a home show and got inundated by spam.

 

[wareyin]

So she signed up for a free vacation at a home show and got inundated by spam.

All that has been provided in support for the claim that Clinton's server was not secure, or that she destroyed government property, has been mere speculation over possible explanations. This is mere speculation on a possible explanation for the emails. Therefore this is as much evidence as Clinton needs to be cleared of wrongdoing, correct?

 

[NoahFence]

All that has been provided in support for the claim that Clinton's server was not secure, or that she destroyed government property, has been mere speculation over possible explanations. This is mere speculation on a possible explanation for the emails. Therefore this is as much evidence as Clinton needs to be cleared of wrongdoing, correct?

That's exactly right. I live in a modest house, and after having attended home shows in the past, I'd get on average 10 spam emails per week.

Now she used to live in the White House! If you extrapolate, 30,000 emails is well within the realm of possibility.

 

[wareyin]

That's exactly right. I live in a modest house, and after having attended home shows in the past, I'd get on average 10 spam emails per week.

Now she used to live in the White House! If you extrapolate, 30,000 emails is well within the realm of possibility.

One wonders how many of the emails were for overseas viagra addressed to Bill!

 

[sunmaster14]

All that has been provided in support for the claim that Clinton's server was not secure, or that she destroyed government property, has been mere speculation over possible explanations. This is mere speculation on a possible explanation for the emails. Therefore this is as much evidence as Clinton needs to be cleared of wrongdoing, correct?

Even assuming Clinton is acting in good faith (and such an assumption would be ridiculous, quite frankly), it is a statistical certainty that she deleted work-related emails. By her own admission, all of her work emails went through her private email account. By her own admission, they only flagged emails that were to sent to or received from a .gov account or contained the full names of one of 100 work-related email correspondents, or contained a handful of keywords related to the Benghazi fiasco. By her own admission, over 30,000 of the roughly 60,000 emails in her account did not fit the search criteria. What are the chances that at least one of those was a work-related email that just happened to escape the rather porous filter she chose? What are the chances that thousands did? Pretty good I bet.

On top of that, she immediately deleted those emails that did not fit the search criteria, and she now refuses to grant access to her server for a more thorough search. If she were involved in litigation (and she may be soon), there would be an automatic presumption that she was hiding something. Sanctions would follow, and the burden of proof would shift against her.

It's important to remember that she's the one who chose to commingle her work and personal email in a single account. This is not a matter of invading her privacy. She did that to herself. Of course, she seems to have decided to commit a fait accompli and just brazen this out by hiring the likes of James Carville to shout loudly on TV.

 

[davefoc]

Turns out Jeb Bush used private e-mails too, and like Clinton, he released some, but not all of them to the public. Oddly, the Liberal Media has not exactly been all over him for this.

Was Jeb Bush constrained by the same federal rules and laws that Clinton was?

From this National Review article :
...
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.”...

I wasn't quite sure what to make Tricky's theory that the liberal media wasn't making something out of the fact that other well known Republican politicians has used their own email accounts. I've seen the argument made here and other places that there is some kind of equivalency. There is some kind of equivalency but it is not exact and the Republican politicians that used private email accounts have been criticized for that and Republican politicians that released emails for archiving only after being pressured to do so by scandal deserve more criticism and any Republican politicians that violated the clear cut rules of their department with regard to email practices deserve a lot of criticism and perhaps some legal consequences. So if the everybody-does-it excuse is the argument you want to make, first find some Republican politicians that have not complied with federal regulations the way Clinton did in a time frame after email policies regarding archiving and security had been strengthened.

 

[wareyin]

Was Jeb Bush constrained by the same federal rules and laws that Clinton was?

From this National Review article :
...
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.”...

I wasn't quite sure what to make Tricky's theory that the liberal media wasn't making something out of the fact that other well known Republican politicians has used their own email accounts. I've seen the argument made here and other places that there is some kind of equivalency. There is some kind of equivalency but it is not exact and the Republican politicians that used private email accounts have been criticized for that and Republican politicians that released emails for archiving only after being pressured to do so by scandal deserve more criticism and any Republican politicians that violated the clear cut rules of their department with regard to email practices deserve a lot of criticism and perhaps some legal consequences. So if the everybody-does-it excuse is the argument you want to make, first find some Republican politicians that have not complied with federal regulations the way Clinton did in a time frame after email policies regarding archiving and security had been strengthened.

Such as these guys?

• Jeb Bush personally chose which of his emails he deemed “state business” when he did his initial email dump a few months ago. The rest? Nah, we don’t get to see those.
• Marco Rubio used a private email account when he was speaker of the Florida House and admits he deleted them.
• Scott Walker was caught using a personal email account as the governor of Wisconsin.
• Rick Perry used a private email account during his long tenure as governor of Texas

.

Every one of the above men is running for president and yet, they did exactly the same thing Hillary Clinton did: they all used a private email to conduct public business. Remember Mitt Romney? He ran for president and destroyed his emails and computers after he left the Massachusetts’ governor’s office.

Hat tip to remirol for the link!

 

[davefoc]

Such as these guys?



Hat tip to remirol for the link!

Perhaps, I didn't state what I meant clearly. There seem to be examples of Republicans using private email accounts to conduct government business.

None of them seem to have been subject to the same rules that governed archiving as Clinton. Clinton appears to have violated the rules governing emails when she left office.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's not her fault, she doesn't run the IT dept.
And I don't believe she lied, as that requires intent.

I do agree, however, it's her responsibility, as head of the dept, if emails were not archived.



She didn't destroy those documents - she destroyed her personal email.

Where is your evidence she destroyed work emails that ought to have been archived ?



My thought is I am still waiting for you to produce links to EVIDENCE, not conjecture.

Let me be clear, I have no problem with people finding her actions problematic. I've stated before, her intent was clearly to control her email.

But so far, it's not been any actions that are illegal.

“We haven’t seen any evidence of a crime,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Sunday about Hillary Clinton’s private email use during her service as Secretary of State.

Hillary says it is personal email and you believe her? K.

We already covered the Trey Gowdy thing, no reason to spam it again.

 

[The Big Dog]

Agreed. Although most of the outrage seems to be over simply using private email, and in this they are pretty much in the same boat. It's also a bit ironic that many people are furious when they think the government is snooping into their private email and phone, but then also feel that they should have the right to snoop into a politician's private email.

I am utterly baffled that people are repeating the obvious nonsense that the emails Hillary destroyed were "private."

I miss folks being skeptical around here.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Was Jeb Bush constrained by the same federal rules and laws that Clinton was?

From this National Review article :
...
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.”...

It's not clear at all that the quote above is something that applies to email in her private email account.

We have Issa and Gowdy stating there is no crime ... only the pundits and the Internet are claiming something illegal happened.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's not clear at all that the quote above is something that applies to email in her private email account.

We have Issa and Gowdy stating there is no crime ... only the pundits and the Internet are claiming something illegal happened.

Issa said there was no crime FOR WHICH THERE IS A PENALTY

Gowdy said he had no evidence of a crime yet.

Therefore your statement is false.

 

[logger]

Echoes my take so far: it may be legal, that doesn't mean it looks right. Especially in someone who would like the country to trust her as their leader. I didn't like Bush before election because of the crowd he hung out with. I didn't like Obama before election because of the crowd he hung out with. Hillary is one of the crowd I would not want a candidate hanging out with.

My personal opinion. YMMV.

Agreed

I'm tired of the "ruling elite" that has been running this country. We certainly need new people to step up. Having 2nd and 3rd generation people take over for the ones before them is troubling.