Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

fact Check Checks Hillary

State Department guidelines say. Instead they stipulate that there is “no expectation of privacy” for emails on a department email system. Clinton exclusively used a private email account at clintonemail.com while at the State Department and deleted about half of them because they were personal, she said.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/factchecking-hillary-clinton/

 

[12AX7]

And whaddya know, friendo. I'm now a rabid Hillary partisian!

I was accused of that too by another conservative poster. I offered the accuser a one year avatar bet if they could find a single post of mine here where I supported Hillary Clinton. The crickets still chirp.

His actual name is Eric Hothem. To call the misspelling a pseudonym is positively laughable. And yet you proclaim it as unvarnished fact.

This.

If it is a pseudonym, it's a very weak one.

Anyway, since 16.5 keeps ignoring this, here it is again:

For 16.5 and allies I have two questions:
1) Does this "controversy" make HRC unqualified for the presidency?

2) Is there any serious policy issue associated with this incident?

 

[The Big Dog]

In a bit of related hilarity, publisher of emails hacks Wikileaks is accusing email webmistress Hillary Clinton of ripping off their logo:

http://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2015/04/hillary_clinton_campaign_scooby_van_wikileaks_logo.html

 

[wareyin]

16.5, we'll ask again.

For 16.5 and allies I have two questions:
1) Does this "controversy" make HRC unqualified for the presidency?

2) Is there any serious policy issue associated with this incident?

Aside from a question of ally vs allies, I find these to be excellent questions, and am reposting them in hopes of an answer. So far all I see is someone sticking fingers in their ears and yelling "La La La I'm not listening!!"

 

[sunmaster14]

Aside from a question of ally vs allies, I find these to be excellent questions, and am reposting them in hopes of an answer. So far all I see is someone sticking fingers in their ears and yelling "La La La I'm not listening!!"

Those questions are hardly interesting enough to justify reposting them half a dozen times in this thread, but I'll answer them just to clear the decks so to speak.

1) Does this "controversy" make HRC unqualified for the presidency?

In the most literal sense, the answer is "no," just as the fact that Timothy Geithner cheated on his taxes did not make him unqualified to be Treasury Secretary (and consequently in charge of the IRS). Joseph Kennedy Sr. was chosen to be the first head of the SEC specifically because he was an infamous stock manipulator, so I guess there is a theory that there is even an advantage to hiring scoundrels to do a job that they have criminal expertise in.

However, in a practical sense, I think it would set a bad precedent to allow Hillary to get away with her email shenanigans, let alone reward her for it (in part) with the Presidency. If she derives benefit from keeping any controversial emails out of the public eye, how do you think she'll act once she has an order of magnitude more power?

2) Is there any serious policy issue associated with this incident?

Of course there is. There's the fundamental one about whether certain people should be above the law just because they're politically powerful. That's always present when a famous person skates free of an indictment under circumstances in which a drone from sector 7G would have had the book thrown at him. The narrower policy issue is contained in the answer to the currently unanswerable question "what was she hiding?" Presumably, Hillary had quite a lot of emails that she didn't want the world to see (hence the rather bold and drastic action that was taken to wipe the hard disk clean), and I think it's laughably hard to believe that they were all personal ones of the nature "what flowers should we order for Chelsea's wedding?" Hillary did an awful lot of stuff as Secretary of State, and all we have as a record is the stuff she and her lawyers were willing to have us see, which added up to roughly half of her total email production.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

State Department guidelines say. Instead they stipulate that there is “no expectation of privacy” for emails on a department email system. Clinton exclusively used a private email account at clintonemail.com while at the State Department and deleted about half of them because they were personal, she said.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/factchecking-hillary-clinton/

Yes. And ?

 

[The Big Dog]

Those questions are hardly interesting enough to justify reposting them half a dozen times in this thread,

reposted a half dozen times? Really?

In any event your answers were very well stated.

 

[wareyin]

Those questions are hardly interesting enough to justify reposting them half a dozen times in this thread, but I'll answer them just to clear the decks so to speak.

1) Does this "controversy" make HRC unqualified for the presidency?

In the most literal sense, the answer is "no," just as the fact that Timothy Geithner cheated on his taxes did not make him unqualified to be Treasury Secretary (and consequently in charge of the IRS). Joseph Kennedy Sr. was chosen to be the first head of the SEC specifically because he was an infamous stock manipulator, so I guess there is a theory that there is even an advantage to hiring scoundrels to do a job that they have criminal expertise in.

However, in a practical sense, I think it would set a bad precedent to allow Hillary to get away with her email shenanigans, let alone reward her for it (in part) with the Presidency. If she derives benefit from keeping any controversial emails out of the public eye, how do you think she'll act once she has an order of magnitude more power?

The answer is no. Glad you agree.

2) Is there any serious policy issue associated with this incident?

Of course there is. There's the fundamental one about whether certain people should be above the law just because they're politically powerful. That's always present when a famous person skates free of an indictment under circumstances in which a drone from sector 7G would have had the book thrown at him. The narrower policy issue is contained in the answer to the currently unanswerable question "what was she hiding?" Presumably, Hillary had quite a lot of emails that she didn't want the world to see (hence the rather bold and drastic action that was taken to wipe the hard disk clean), and I think it's laughably hard to believe that they were all personal ones of the nature "what flowers should we order for Chelsea's wedding?" Hillary did an awful lot of stuff as Secretary of State, and all we have as a record is the stuff she and her lawyers were willing to have us see, which added up to roughly half of her total email production.

Given that it has been posted previously in this thread that the State Dept only saved 6%(iirc) of their emails, do you have any evidence of a drone from 7g, or any other low level employee, getting the book thrown at them?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Did you mean to quote my own posts and accuse me of dodging questions and ignoring arguments?

Yes.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes. And ?

yes, and Hillary should not have unilaterally destroyed them because they were subject to unanswered FOIA requests, Subpoenas and Congressional Requests.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes.

Ok....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

yes, and Hillary should not have unilaterally destroyed them because they were subject to unanswered FOIA requests, Subpoenas and Congressional Requests.

Wait, what ? I thought the whole problem with her cowbrew server was that she set it up to avoid being subject to FOIA act requests.

You mean to tell me you believe all her non-work emails on her private email server are actaully subject to FOIA requests ? And she set her server up for nothing ?

I don't think the law works in the way you apparently think it does.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wait, what ? I thought the whole problem with her cowbrew server was that she set it up to avoid being subject to FOIA act requests.

You mean to tell me you believe all her non-work emails on her private email server are actaully subject to FOIA requests ? And she set her server up for nothing ?

I don't think the law works in the way you apparently think it does.

I'm not sure you are following. She set up the cowboy server to have CONTROL over the documents, so she alone decides what is "non-work emails."

She destroyed what she considered to be private, something that historians, investigators, or just the "reg'lar folk" she wants to have a conversation with might have wanted to decide for themselves.

She had this planned ever since her "can you imagine" comment back in 2000.

Sure, she managed to completely **** up the story when she claimed she did a term serach, and then did a 180 and claimed that all the documents were searched, but as explained before, keeping track of lies is hard work.

 

[SezMe]

Thanks for responding although you did take the heat off 16.5.

Those questions are hardly interesting enough to justify reposting them half a dozen times in this thread, but I'll answer them just to clear the decks so to speak.

In that light, what are interesting questions that have arisen?

1) Does this "controversy" make HRC unqualified for the presidency?
In the most literal sense, the answer is "no," just as the fact that Timothy Geithner cheated on his taxes did not make him unqualified to be Treasury Secretary (and consequently in charge of the IRS). Joseph Kennedy Sr. was chosen to be the first head of the SEC specifically because he was an infamous stock manipulator, so I guess there is a theory that there is even an advantage to hiring scoundrels to do a job that they have criminal expertise in.

However, in a practical sense, I think it would set a bad precedent to allow Hillary to get away with her email shenanigans, let alone reward her for it (in part) with the Presidency. If she derives benefit from keeping any controversial emails out of the public eye, how do you think she'll act once she has an order of magnitude more power?

We're gonna eliminate candidates because they've been involved in some shenanigans? Especially at the level of SoS. That leaves us with Elmer P. Snerdball from Podunkville as the only remaining candidate.

2) Is there any serious policy issue associated with this incident?

Of course there is. There's the fundamental one about whether certain people should be above the law just because they're politically powerful.

That's not a policy issue. That's an enforcement issue. And, IMO, one of the worst aspects of Obama/Holder has, in fact, been their complete lack of spine when it comes to enforcement of existing laws and policy. So HRC fits nicely into their approach to the DOJ.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm not sure you are following. She set up the cowboy server to have CONTROL over the documents, so she alone decides what is "non-work emails."

Probably.

She destroyed what she considered to be private, something that historians, investigators, or just the "reg'lar folk" she wants to have a conversation with might have wanted to decide for themselves.

Well then, the law shouldn't have explicitly allowed her to choose to use her own email. That way, they maybe could have had a say in it. Although there is still no evidence that using the state dept email servers would have guaranteed she couldn't delete her emails.

She had this planned ever since her "can you imagine" comment back in 2000.

Either she can tell the future, or you can read her mind. Either way, impressive

Sure, she managed to completely **** up the story when she claimed she did a term serach, and then did a 180 and claimed that all the documents were searched, but as explained before, keeping track of lies is hard work.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to provide anything beyond innuendo and accusation.

 

[The Big Dog]

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to provide anything beyond innuendo and accusation.

yawn.

As part of a nine-page statement released after the former Secretary’s press conference at the United Nations Wednesday afternoon, Clinton’s office detailed the “multi-step” process her counsel used to determine which emails it was required to submit to State.

OUTRAGE

Three days later, Hillary does a 180 and claims that they did look at all the emails.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-deleted-emails-individually-reviewed-spokesman/story?id=29654638

Sure ya did Hillary, she just "forgot" to mention it.

lol, what a scumball.

 

[12AX7]

Yawn.

Oh the outrage.



Cowbow Homebrewz! OMG!

lol, what a scumball.

I know, right?

 

[12AX7]

Oh by the way, since you apparently can't see these questions:

For 16.5 and allies I have two questions:
1) Does this "controversy" make HRC unqualified for the presidency?

2) Is there any serious policy issue associated with this incident?

 

[wareyin]

She destroyed what she considered to be private, something that historians, investigators, or just the "reg'lar folk" she wants to have a conversation with might have wanted to decide for themselves.

Does anybody else see the inherent problem with Clinton, and only Clinton, being expected to publicly release her private emails so that the public can go through them and decide which ones Clinton is allowed to deem private?

Well then, the law shouldn't have explicitly allowed her to choose to use her own email. That way, they maybe could have had a say in it. Although there is still no evidence that using the state dept email servers would have guaranteed she couldn't delete her emails.

What a scumball, doing what the law explicitly allowed her to do! <shakes fist>

 

[NoahFence]

Can't wait for November 8th 2016. The sound of Republican heads exploding will be glorious.

By then it'll just be understood. They'll accept the inevitable long before November 2016.

More wimper than explosion.