Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[varwoche]

It's unacceptable when republicans try to game the system. It's unacceptable when democrats try to game the system.

It's a bit depressing to see fellow lefties defend Clinton's sketchy actions in such a knee jerk fashion.

 

[wareyin]

Do I understand you correctly that so long as Hillary is not an active criminal, there is not an issue?

Ok.

Wait, if Hillary is not a(n active?) criminal, what's the issue supposed to be?

 

[Ziggurat]

If you believe that Hillary Clinton violated the law, it would appear there are a whole bunch of other people who did so as well. The fact that these people have not been charged or convicted of law-breaking would indicate the behavior was not illegal at the time they engaged in it.

No. It indicates that it's not criminal. You can violate the law without committing a crime. But I didn't say she committed a crime.

 

[Tolls]

It's unacceptable when republicans try to game the system. It's unacceptable when democrats try to game the system.

It's a bit depressing to see fellow lefties defend Clinton's sketchy actions in such a knee jerk fashion.

Was she unique?
Did her predecessors do it?
(I have no idea at all).

She seems to be following the rules, from my limited reading on this...not that those rules are necessarily correct.

 

[sunmaster14]

Was she unique?
Did her predecessors do it?
(I have no idea at all).

She seems to be following the rules, from my limited reading on this...not that those rules are necessarily correct.

It is unknown if she's following the rules. The rules say that she must archive all important business-related documents. Since she was Secretary of State, I think all of her business-related documents were important, by definition. So if there is any evidence that any are missing, then I would argue that she broke the law. Of course, we don't know yet if any are missing. After two years of investigations into the Benghazi incident, we only just found out that she had a private email account through which she conducted all official business, so I think there is reason to be skeptical that she has been forthcoming.

 

[Leftus]

Could you please specify the law you believe she violated?

44 U.S. Code § 3101 to 3105.

It's not the using of personal emails. That is the red herring in this mess. It's the not turning them over until 2 years after she left office.

3101:
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Keeping all of the emails where she and only she had access to them does not furnish the information necessary to protect the government or the persons directly affected. See the negative responses to FOIA requests that have to be amended because she finally turned over the information.

Up until about 2 months ago, as far as the government knew, those documents did not exist. That is not, by spirit or letter, making or preserving records designed to furnish information. It's exactly the opposite.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It is unknown if she's following the rules. The rules say that she must archive all important business-related documents. Since she was Secretary of State, I think all of her business-related documents were important, by definition. So if there is any evidence that any are missing, then I would argue that she broke the law.

Firstly, broke the rules != broke the law. Agreed ?

Of course, we don't know yet if any are missing. After two years of investigations into the Benghazi incident, we only just found out that she had a private email account through which she conducted all official business, so I think there is reason to be skeptical that she has been forthcoming.

Really - you mean all those people she emailed during her entire tenure as secratary of state from @clintonemails ... and we just now realized she was using .gov addresss ?

No one realized it 2 years ago when “Guccifer” hacked blumenthals emails ?

How about this two year old piece from ap ?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/emails-top-obama-appointees-remain-mystery
WASHINGTON (AP) — Some of President Barack Obama's political appointees are using secret government email accounts to conduct official business, The Associated Press found, a practice that complicates agencies' legal responsibilities to find and turn over emails under public records requests and congressional inquiries.

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday acknowledged the practice and said it made eminent sense for Cabinet secretaries and other high-profile officials to have what he called alternative email accounts that wouldn't fill with unwanted messages. Carney said all their email accounts, public and otherwise, were subject to congressional oversight and requests by citizens under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

"There's nothing secret," Carney said.

Her email usage can't possibly be news to anyone who interacted with Secretary of state, can it ?

 

[Nova Land]

You can violate the law without committing a crime.

I didn't ask whether she committed a crime.

You said she violated the law. I asked you to specify which law you think she violated. You still haven't done so.

 

[NoahFence]

 

[carlitos]

It's unacceptable when republicans try to game the system. It's unacceptable when democrats try to game the system.

It's a bit depressing to see fellow lefties defend Clinton's sketchy actions in such a knee jerk fashion.

Thanks for saying that. I agree.

Look in the middle of this thread somewhere, and see where folks with gov't experience have commented. ".gov" probably sucks as a server, and anyone with savvy would probably try to avoid using it if they could.

 

[Nova Land]

44 U.S. Code § 3101 to 3105.

Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. You believe it is the Presidential Records Act of 1978 which she violated, specifically sections 3101, 3102, 3103, 3104 and 3105 of chapter 31.

How, specifically, did she violate those 5 sections?

(I assume you believe she violated all 5, since you cited 5 of the 7 sections to that chapter. If you only believe she violated 3101 -- the only one you quoted, and one which does not appear to contain the offense you then referred to -- there was no need to mention 3102, 3103, 3104 and 3105 in your comment.)

3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Are you saying that during the time she was Secretary of State the agency did not make and preserve records?

3102. Establishment of program of management

The head of each Federal agency shall establish and maintain an active, continuing program for the economical and efficient management of the records of the agency. The program, among other things, shall provide for

(1) effective controls over the creation and over the maintenance and use of records in the conduct of current business;

(2) cooperation with the Archivist in applying standards, procedures, and techniques designed to improve the management of records, promote the maintenance and security of records deemed appropriate for preservation, and facilitate the segregation and disposal of records of temporary value; and

(3) compliance with sections 2101-2117, 2501-2507, 2901-2909, and 3101-3107, of this title and the regulations issued under them.

Are you saying that there was not an active and continuing program for managing the records? That Hillary did not cooperate with the archivist? Or something else (perhaps having to do with those other sections referred to)?

3103. Transfer of records to records centers

When the head of a Federal agency determines that such action may affect substantial economies or increased operating efficiency, the head of such agency shall provide for the transfer of records to a records center maintained and operated by the Archivist, or, when approved by the Archivist, to a center maintained and operated by the head of the Federal agency.

Do you think she violated this section while she was in office? If so, in what way?

3104. Certifications and determinations on transferred records

An official of the Government who is authorized to certify to facts on the basis of records in such official’s custody, may certify to facts on the basis of records that have been transferred by such official or such official’s predecessors to the Archivist, and may authorize the Archivist to certify to facts and to make administrative determinations on the basis of records transferred to the Archivist, notwithstanding any other law.

Do you think she violated this section while she was in office? If so, in what way?

3105. Safeguards

The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records the head of such agency determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist. Safeguards shall include making it known to officials and employees of the agency--

(1) that records in the custody of the agency are not to be alienated or destroyed except in accordance with sections 3301-3314 of this title, and

(2) the penalties provided by law for the unlawful removal or destruction of records.

Do you think she violated this section while she was in office? If so, in what way?

 

[The Big Dog]

In an appalling act of cynicism, Hillary Clinton requested that the State Department release the emails that she and her legal team culled through and gave to them less than two months ago. What about the six years of FOIA requests, what about the subpoenas, what about the Court orders that you caused State to violate Hillary?

What about the other documents that your phalanx of lawyers said you didn't have to turn over?

Vote Hillary 2016, It is Not Clear that She is an Active Felon!

 

[The Big Dog]

By the way, here is an interesting article in case anyone believes this is a partisan issue:

But if regular voters aren't paying attention, the Democratic power brokers who hold sway over the nomination process in key states — the legislators, local party chairmen and plugged-in activists — most definitely are. The questions some of them are raising are less about the specifics of the stories and more about the long-established narratives they feed: That the secretive Clintons, enabled by unquestioning loyalists, play by their own rules.

"The questions relating to Hillary are more about, are we tired of the same old thing?"

 

[Augustine]

Have you ever used a .gov service of any kind? They suck, completely and totally. If I wanted to keep stuff private no way I'd use a system that requires you to click windows security bypasses to ignore certificate mismatches each and every single time in order to use a system chocked with featurebloat only a bureaucracy could invent.

We used military issued email in the National Guard but with all the hassles (including a requirement to change password every 150 days, requiring 2 uppers two lowers two numbers two symbols and two of whatever you want for a total of ten characters, unique from the last ten passwords you used and don't you dare forget it or your account will be locked) and a cumbersome interface totally unlike anything else on earth except maybe one of the old walled-garden proto internet engines. Nearly all the soldiers I supervised used commercial email. We had to update our contact info every freaking month because the unit couldn't trust soldiers to actually have access to a PC with a CAC reader in order to reset passwords regularly. I had a CAC reader thrust into my hand one month by a senior NCO so I'd go away. Didn't sign for it or anything. Then I had to spend the rest of drill attempting to install the "middleware" to get it working. Ended up having to go to one soldier's house between drills to help him get his CAC working so we could reset his password so he could download the stupid monthly unit newsletter to know what drill requirements were upcoming.

Of all the things to dislike Hillary for (and I'm sure our lists would have at least a few points of overlap) using a private email address on a server she controlled is the least important.

I hardly think the email usage of a junior enlisted/junior NCO in the National Guard and the email usage of the Secretary of State of the United States are comparable. The email content you are handling and your attractiveness as a hacking target are insignificant compared to the Secretary of State. Or did you send USRs through personal email? Ever?

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't ask whether she committed a crime.

But you asked why various other people who may have done something similar were not prosecuted, which requires that it be a crime, since you can't prosecute someone for violating the law if that violation is not a crime. You may not have asked if it was a crime, but your argument very much assumed that I claimed it was.

You said she violated the law. I asked you to specify which law you think she violated. You still haven't done so.

You're right, *I* didn't. But Leftus did.

 

[Nova Land]

You're right, *I* didn't. But Leftus did.

In my first post I asked you what law you believed Hillary Clinton had violated:

Could you please specify the law you believe she violated?

The law you likely have in mind is the Presidential Records Act, which was enacted in 1978.

That is indeed the law which Leftus believes Hillary violated. It sounds like you are confirming that the Presidential Records Act is the law you had in mind as well, although you still haven't clearly said so.

Is that the law you believe Hillary Clinton violated? If so, could you please specify in what way you believe she violated it?

As a help to you in answering the question, I have quoted all 5 sections Leftus referred to. Is it one of these, or some other section? If it's one of these, which one(s) and in what way(s)?

 

[Donal]

I can absolutely see how a Republican would, as that is their innate position when it comes to democrats. Why assume innocence when it's so much easier to be confident in tampering?

Given the revelations of the last...forever, do any government officials really get the benefit of the doubt?

 

[Donal]

*shrug* It's an inevitability. All she has to do is announce it and it's curtains for any Republican that tries. I don't even need to worry about it, she's a shoe in.

Said every Hillary fan for the last 20 years.

 

[carlitos]

To be fair, some of them said "shoo-in."

 

[Tony Stark]

I hardly think the email usage of a junior enlisted/junior NCO in the National Guard and the email usage of the Secretary of State of the United States are comparable. The email content you are handling and your attractiveness as a hacking target are insignificant compared to the Secretary of State. Or did you send USRs through personal email? Ever?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cf0722-4815-41ca-b602-9bfe8ecdb256_story.html