Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Leftus]

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

You stopped reading the law early. It's not just keeping records but making them available. It's the latter part she did not do. I'm not willing to give any government official two years after they leave office to make good something they should have been doing daily.

Her emails were in possession of Hillary Clinton and not the US Government. By not turning those records over to the US Government she was in violation of those sections every day she was in office and the two years after until she turned them in. The part she failed was the latter part of 3101 where it states "... and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government..."

In doing so, the government was not able to fully comply with the FOIA act put forward to them. Again, to the government they never existed. And they would have never existed until someone in the National Archives asked for them. By keeping them away from the Government and the people of the United States, she was in violation of the law as she had a proactive duty to provide them.

Since her system did not satisfy the requirements of 3101 that the records be available to the government she automatically failed 3102. By keeping the records for years after she left office and never once providing the records while in office she failed 3103 and 3104. And by playing keep-away from the archivist, there is no way she could meet the requirements of 3105.

Now, assuming that she kept perfect records, would be so kind as to explain why you think that her keeping the records on her servers and her servers alone meets the standard being "... 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."

And if it did, why did the government respond to a number of FOIA requests that the information they are now providing from her emails didn't exist at that time while still meeting the requirements quoted above. Either her system furnished the records an the Government lied about not being available or they weren't available because her system was not designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal rights (FOIA) of persons directly affected by the agency's activities.

 

[Leftus]

That can't possibly be true that "the government" didn't know what email address HRC was sending email from, can it ?

Did no one ever look at the "reply-to" in the header ? Or send her an email ???

The problem wasn't the use of a private email. The problem was not making them available to the archives.

 

[Matthew Cline]

I haven't read the relevant laws/regulations, so I don't know if Hillary broke any of them. But if they're written in such a way that someone working for the government can keep private control of work emails, and only needs to hand them over the government when the government asks, then they really need to be fixed.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The problem wasn't the use of a private email. The problem was not making them available to the archives.

From page 2 of this thread:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...il_account_how_she_responds_will_tell_us.html

Update, March 4: And sure enough, the New York Times reports, when investigators asked for emails, the State Department didn’t turn over everything because officials there didn’t know about Clinton’s private accounts.

I think the question is still open about when and what was "made available".

I am still leaning towards the thought that the letter of the law was followed, but not the spirit.

I still have a hard time understanding how through all the Benghazi hearings there was no outcry about the lack of emails from clintonemails.com ?

 

[The Big Dog]

It seems that Eric Hoteham is Eric Hothem, Hilary's bag man for the pay off to Bill's brother Roger for the scandal over the clemency decisions, AND her point person for the dispute regarding the furniture the Clinton's took out of the White House when they left.

Ok.....

wow

 

[The Big Dog]

State Department reports that it will take several months to review the documents, while Gowdy is looking for the documents on an expedited basis.

Will this be the first time in history that a major candidate's campaign will be interrupted to explain just what the hell she was thinking in subpoenaed testimony before Congress?

Probably not, I'd be stunned if she runs.

O'Malley 2016. Book it

 

[Tony Stark]

Actually, 16.5, would you like to have an avatar bet on whether Hillary will run? I mean you are so sure she won't...

 

[The Big Dog]

Will you admit that you were delusional when you are proven wrong?

Of course not. I know that Hilary is a sociopath and megalomaniac.

For Christ sakes, she set up a garbage private server while at the same time threatening her lower level employees regarding their use of private emails.

She has been wildly out of touch for 30 years. I'd be surprised if she ran, at the same time I would not be surprised that she was delusional.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is an update from the New York Times. Note that Hilary sent a squad of attorneys to NEGOTIATE with State Department representatives to obtain access to official State Department records that she was improperly storing on her personal email server.

Her conduct is as appalling as her contempt for governmental transparency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-asks-state-dept-to-review-emails-for-public-release.html?_r=0

And then she claims to want the documents released? Wow, what sneering contempt.

She is toast.

 

[The Big Dog]

any technical types (and I know we have our fair share) had a chance to vet the articles I posted above about the lack of security in Hillary's homebrew server system?

 

[Tony Stark]

any technical types (and I know we have our fair share) had a chance to vet the articles I posted above about the lack of security in Hillary's homebrew server system?

Compare and contrast to the lack of security at state.gov which we know for a fact has been hacked.

 

[The Big Dog]

Is it your intention to keep pushing the limits? You need to tone it down. Avid readers know I'm no fan of the constant witch hunting about Hillary, but if you intend on sticking around, tone it down.
Personally I don't want to see you go.

Witch hunt? Did you read the New York times article about her lawyers "negotiating" with the state department about what state department documents she was willing to turn over?

If it was a witch hunt, the lawyers should have immediately told Congress and let them use their contempt power.

Hillary's contempt for transparancy is laid bare. She is toast.

 

[plague311]

any technical types (and I know we have our fair share) had a chance to vet the articles I posted above about the lack of security in Hillary's homebrew server system?

I gave a full analysis on what you had stated and you completely ignored it. I mean, I can give you the same analysis again, but what's the point if you're just going to ignore it?

This implication that government systems are "way more secure" and referring to servers in a house as "homebrew systems" is completely ridiculous. Security on anything is as good as the time you put into it. If she had a good IT guy then they were just as secure as they would be anywhere else. If the server is rather unknown than the likeliness that she would get hacked would be massively lower than the governments. As previously stated the governments servers are under constant threat by legitimate hackers with high-level skills. Just landing on her email server would be extremely random and even more unlikely.

I have a feeling this will be followed by an appeal to authority by the Gawker article you posted before, which again was just that guys opinion. He had no evidence, none at all, that her servers were threatened, hacked, or had any form of security breach at all. Just a bunch of "what if" style complaints.

 

[The Big Dog]

I gave a full analysis on what you had stated and you completely ignored it. I mean, I can give you the same analysis again, but what's the point if you're just going to ignore it?

This implication that government systems are "way more secure" and referring to servers in a house as "homebrew systems" is completely ridiculous. Security on anything is as good as the time you put into it. If she had a good IT guy then they were just as secure as they would be anywhere else. If the server is rather unknown than the likeliness that she would get hacked would be massively lower than the governments. As previously stated the governments servers are under constant threat by legitimate hackers with high-level skills. Just landing on her email server would be extremely random and even more unlikely.

I have a feeling this will be followed by an appeal to authority by the Gawker article you posted before, which again was just that guys opinion. He had no evidence, none at all, that her servers were threatened, hacked, or had any form of security breach at all. Just a bunch of "what if" style complaints.

Well that and the half of dozen security experts he quoted. Plus the other post that showed the certificates were compromised. Plus the facts that clintonemail.com was known for a long time before 2013. Plus the fact that Clinton herself issued a directive explicitly prohibiting the use of personal emails due to their lack of security.

But hey, as you point out, appeal to authority. Silly computer experts.

I understand you have a minecraft server, so equal, or something.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Many pieces of bad evidence do not make good evidence.

 

[NoahFence]

Witch hunt? Did you read the New York times article about her lawyers "negotiating" with the state department about what state department documents she was willing to turn over?

If it was a witch hunt, the lawyers should have immediately told Congress and let them use their contempt power.

Hillary's contempt for transparancy is laid bare. She is toast.

The witch hunt is the rabid rights body of work. That's all they've done done for the last few years. Seemingly all time not spent on ignorant attacks on Obama has been dedicated to attacking Hillary. The constant barrage has left your intended audience bored, and deaf.
Bottom line on these emails... who cares?

 

[Leftus]

Bottom line on these emails... who cares?

Those who care if their government operates as transparently as possible should.

Those emails are the work product of a federal employee. They are not owned by Clinton. They are owned by you and I, and the generations that came before and those ye to arrive. We shouldn't grant the right to be the sole owner to any official and withhold our collective property just because of ... well, I'm not sure if she ever gave a reason why she didn't turn them over. And we shouldn't turn a blind eye because they share the same label as one votes.

 

[NoahFence]

Those who care if their government operates as transparently as possible should.

Those emails are the work product of a federal employee. They are not owned by Clinton. They are owned by you and I, and the generations that came before and those ye to arrive. We shouldn't grant the right to be the sole owner to any official and withhold our collective property just because of ... well, I'm not sure if she ever gave a reason why she didn't turn them over. And we shouldn't turn a blind eye because they share the same label as one votes.

People don't care because of the points you didn't feel the need to acknowledge. Which sort of proved my point

 

[Leftus]

People don't care because of the points you didn't feel the need to acknowledge. Which sort of proved my point

When I said:
And we shouldn't turn a blind eye because they share the same label as one votes.

I addressed your point. Party affiliation may be the reason why people are turning a blind eye, but it isn't a very compelling reason for it. Nor should it be something we should strive for.

 

[NoahFence]

When I said:
And we shouldn't turn a blind eye because they share the same label as one votes.

I addressed your point. Party affiliation may be the reason why people are turning a blind eye, but it isn't a very compelling reason for it. Nor should it be something we should strive for.

Well I personally have no party affiliation, and I'm sick to death of the constant barrage against Hillary.