Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[wareyin]

He was either just being diplomatic, or was more focused on bigger crimes like obstruction of justice or mishandling of classified information. The jury is still out on that kind of stuff, in part because of the issue of intent.

I find it very telling that it apparently never occurred to you that Gowdy may have merely been being honest.

But Clinton clearly violated record handling regulations, which counts as breaking the law. Whether or not you want to call that a crime (and Hillary Clinton a criminal), I suppose depends on whether or not you want to escalate the controversy at this time. Even I think language like that is over-the-top. I wouldn't call Hillary a criminal, but I am convinced that she broke the law, and did so willfully.

The question was, what has she done for which there will be consequences? Right now, you appear to be crowing over an instance of "breaking the law" akin to driving 1 mph over the speed limit. At least you are convinced that she willfully broke the law, so what more do we need?

 

[wareyin]

The Hillar-ious (se what I did there?) thing is that her apologists are reduced to arguing that she is not a criminal.

Wait, you and sunmaster14 claim that she broke the law, yet you think it's "Hillar-ious" that everyone else is "reduced to arguing that she is not a criminal"?? Yet, when people let the claims of criminality pass without comment, your side crows that we have no answer to them. Odd, how those "heads I win, tails you lose" situations work.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What is it that she did, again? We know that the personal server was not illegal, nor was withholding personal emails. So what, exactly has she done that "will have consequences"?

She used a personal server to handle government emails that should have been on the government system as policy generally dictates. Do I really need to point out that the government is required to retain a record of emails due to the nature of FOAI requests and that her breach of policy crimps that capability?

Obviously some claim to know she did...something, but instead of evidence, we have conjecture. We have charlatans hawking books full of sketchy information, but no evidence. We have no consensus on what we need Clinton's personal emails to find, we're just lurching from one wild claim of what could be in them to another.

If anything is "illegal" it's that her decision to use a personal server is in conflict with the requirement to retain records. This is separate from the Republican effort to perv through her emails for Benghazi and donation sources... For the record, I do not think on that basis alone though I'd be calling for her to go to jail. It still falls into the category of "policy failure" and "loophole" that takes away from her qualifications

As far as I'm concerned, her decision to delete everything was a bad one... she made the call to mix in her private conversations with her business emails, which needlessly complicated her situation but it was a stupid move on her part.... all the emails should have been available - albeit I think there should have been a bipartisan or 3rd party committee handling it to help deal with the privacy aspect.

Little late now for that...

 

[wareyin]

She used a personal server to handle government emails that should have been on the government system as policy generally dictates. Do I really need to point out that the government is required to retain a record of emails due to the nature of FOAI requests and that her breach of policy crimps that capability?

That isn't really an answer to what she has done that will have consequences, unless by consequences you mean nothing will happen.

If anything is "illegal" it's that her decision to use a personal server is in conflict with the requirement to retain records. This is separate from the Republican effort to perv through her emails for Benghazi and donation sources... For the record, I do not think on that basis alone though I'd be calling for her to go to jail. It still falls into the category of "policy failure" and "loophole" that takes away from her qualifications

As far as I'm concerned, her decision to delete everything was a bad one... she made the call to mix in her private conversations with her business emails, which needlessly complicated her situation but it was a stupid move on her part.... all the emails should have been available - albeit I think there should have been a bipartisan or 3rd party committee handling it to help deal with the privacy aspect.

Little late now for that...

And the Republican effort to perv through her emails in an effort to find something, anything that they can pin on her is what makes this a conspiracy theory. They don't even know what they're looking for, just hoping that there is something that will stick.

 

[The Big Dog]

As far as I'm concerned, her decision to delete everything was a bad one... she made the call to mix in her private conversations with her business emails, which needlessly complicated her situation but it was a stupid move on her part.... all the emails should have been available - albeit I think there should have been a bipartisan or 3rd party committee handling it to help deal with the privacy aspect.

Little late now for that...

That which you say is due to acting stupidly, it appears to me that she did everything intentionally. Remember this is the woman who asked "can you imagine" when asked about her email use and complained about all the investigations she was subject to.

She set up her own server, which gave her complete control, and then brazenly destroyed documents when she learned people were looking for them.

She claims that they are "private" and just expects people to accept her word for it.

Unfortunately, she has plenty of people who will and are sticking up for her, going so far as to claim that even investigating it is a "conspiracy theory" despite how utterly ludicrous that is.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That isn't really an answer to what she has done that will have consequences, unless by consequences you mean nothing will happen.

It will make her life more difficult for her presidential bid... if shes trying to portray herself as trustworthy and qualified for the job. although i agree, people who plan to vote for her will still vote for her regardless

 

[DavidJames]

It will make her life more difficult for her presidential bid... if shes trying to portray herself as trustworthy and qualified for the job. although i agree, people who plan to vote for her will still vote for her regardless

and vice versa of course

 

[Grizzly Bear]

and vice versa of course

Yeah, im mostly talking consequences in terms of support with independents. This far out however its hard to tell to what degree this will contribute to anything. Its certainly an issue IMO, but there may be bigger things coming up or maybe not. As long as she remains a pretty solo nominee runner its likely to be a while before anything catches up to her anyway

 

[sunmaster14]

I find it very telling that it apparently never occurred to you that Gowdy may have merely been being honest.

It's possible that he was being completely sincere and was just not up to speed on all of the applicable regulations. I consider it unlikely because he's a pretty sharp guy, but the Federal Records Act is not his bailiwick, and he's a busy man. I didn't know what the regulations actually were until I looked them up when all this become public.

The question was, what has she done for which there will be consequences? Right now, you appear to be crowing over an instance of "breaking the law" akin to driving 1 mph over the speed limit. At least you are convinced that she willfully broke the law, so what more do we need?

I never thought there would be consequences for Hillary. I think there should be, but I don't think there will be. Certainly, Obama's DOJ won't look into it, and the media will play defense for her if it starts to look like it is causing serious damage during the general election. It's too arcane a subject for the public to grasp anyway, so although it contributes marginally to her reputation as a diva who thinks the rules don't apply to her, the effect will be small. If she becomes President, though, I think the net effect of the episode will be to make her more likely to flout inconvenient limits on her power. When you get away with bad behavior, you tend to think you can get away with it again.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That which you say is due to acting stupidly, it appears to me that she did everything intentionally. Remember this is the woman who asked "can you imagine" when asked about her email use and complained about all the investigations she was subject to.

She set up her own server, which gave her complete control, and then brazenly destroyed documents when she learned people were looking for them.

She claims that they are "private" and just expects people to accept her word for it.

Unfortunately, she has plenty of people who will and are sticking up for her, going so far as to claim that even investigating it is a "conspiracy theory" despite how utterly ludicrous that is.

"Stupid move" was because she mixed in personal and work emails. Anything that follows from that decision is essentially her fault IMO. For the life of me, I think it's very unprofessional to go mixing personal matters with the professional baggage. Not sure how other cases of this compare in that regard to be honest but can see part of the reason for her moves given the often unflattering nature of such things and how they can play against people in a political environment.

Not defending her for it, but I can see a few motivations for her staying mute on them

 

[The Big Dog]

As we know, Hillary's cowboy server had emails not only from her own account, but also other governmental employees, most particularly Huma Abedin. Whether Hillary turned emails relating to Huma's governmental work over to State, or destroyed them is an open question. Hillary has not said, and continues to duck questions from the press.

Judicial watch is going to court to reopen a previous case in which Abedin's emails were requested and not turned over

The Associated Press is on the hunt for them too.

This should be very interesting. Did Hillary destroy Huma's emails without looking at them, simply because she was in charge of the server?

Avid readers want to know.....

 

[plague311]

As we know, Hillary's cowboy server had emails not only from her own account, but also other governmental employees, most particularly Huma Abedin. Whether Hillary turned emails relating to Huma's governmental work over to State, or destroyed them is an open question. Hillary has not said, and continues to duck questions from the press.

Judicial watch is going to court to reopen a previous case in which Abedin's emails were requested and not turned over

The Associated Press is on the hunt for them too.

This should be very interesting. Did Hillary destroy Huma's emails without looking at them, simply because she was in charge of the server?

Avid readers want to know.....

Evidence?

 

[jhunter1163]

This e-mail server is the GOP's McGuffin. Anything could be on that server! OMGBenghazi!!!!one!!!eleventy!! IRS!! Whitewater! Weiner! Jimmy Hoffa! John Wilkes Booth! We HAVE to know what's in there! We HAVE to know how long Chelsea agonized over guest favors! And whether or not Hillary had any input as to whether Chelsea invited her bitchy college roommate who invited her to HER wedding, but Chels blew her off. Transparency!

 

[The Big Dog]

This e-mail server is the GOP's McGuffin. ...snip

Contrarily, you seem to be suggesting that there was nothing of value on the server, and are willing to take Hillary's word that whatever she destroyed was "private." Not very skeptical....

We know that Huma's emails were on there, did any search them before they were destroyed?

I'm looking for a serious answer, if you are going to just post that juvenile hyperbole, you needn't bother replying.

 

[jhunter1163]

Can you explain to me why Huma Abedin is relevant in any way, other than as an attempt to bring her husband, the disgraced Anthony Weiner, back into the news?

 

[DavidJames]

Can you explain to me why Huma Abedin is relevant in any way, other than as an attempt to bring her husband, the disgraced Anthony Weiner, back into the news?

Or said another way, wasn't the guy who did the Popular Mechanics article on 9/11 related to the homeland security guy?

 

[The Big Dog]

Can you explain to me why Huma Abedin is relevant in any way, other than as an attempt to bring her husband, the disgraced Anthony Weiner, back into the news?

Abedin was U.S. Secretary of State Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department and is continuing in her role as traveling chief of staff for Clinton's 2016 campaign for President.

The AP to cite one example is suing to get email records regarding the fact that Abedin was allowed to retain special government employee status in apparent violation of the program's rules, creating myriad conflicts of interest.

Suggesting that the AP is seeking this information (since 2013!) to bring her husband back into the news is simply ludicrous.

 

[plague311]

Can you explain to me why Huma Abedin is relevant in any way, other than as an attempt to bring her husband, the disgraced Anthony Weiner, back into the news?

I thought this was in regards to Benghazi, but now it seems the investigation has turned into just "Hillary and those around her". I haven't seen Huma brought up in relation to Benghazi, I didn't know she played a role so I guess I don't understand why her emails are so important.

 

[plague311]

Abedin was U.S. Secretary of State Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department and is continuing in her role as traveling chief of staff for Clinton's 2016 campaign for President.

The AP to cite one example is suing to get email records regarding the fact that Abedin was allowed to retain special government employee status in apparent violation of the program's rules, creating myriad conflicts of interest.

Suggesting that the AP is seeking this information (since 2013!) to bring her husband back into the news is simply ludicrous.

Oh, so it doesn't have anything at all to do with the Benghazi investigation. This has now just become a witch hunt for anything Hillary related that could possibly be deemed as improper. Well, at least this is one step closer to admitting it's just a partisan crap shoot.

 

[jhunter1163]

From Huma Abedin's Wikipedia page:

Senator Chuck Grassley raised questions about Abedin's work as a State Department employee, concerning the fact that she held four jobs[26] from June 2012 to February 2013,[13][27][28][29] as a part-time aide to Clinton while working as a consultant to private clients for consulting firm Teneo Holdings[27][28] and she was working for the Clinton Foundation and also working for Clinton as an assistant.[26] The State Department and Abedin both responded, with the State Department indicating that it uses special government employees routinely "to provide services and expertise that executive agencies require" and Abedin stating that she did not provide any government information or inside information gained from her State Department job to her private employer. Grassley found the letters unresponsive.

So they did respond. Grassley just didn't like the response that he got. They're not "stonewalling".