Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

Have you ever used a .gov service of any kind? They suck,

well it appears that whether or not .gov services " suck," Hilary's homebrew system was a security and transparency nightmare:

as Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Nate Cardozo put it: "Clinton's decision to forgo the State Department's servers is inexplicable and inexcusable."

 

[Nova Land]

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.

I agree with that as well.

My posts are not intended as a defense of Hillary Clinton's e-mail practices, which I think displayed poor judgment at best.

I originally posted in response to a comment by Ziggurat in which he claimed: "I'd feel even better if she hadn't violated the law and used a private email account ..."

The claim that Hillary Clinton had violated the law by using a private e-mail account appeared factually dubious to me.

It's a small point. But it's the kind of small point which the right-wing echo chamber often inserts into discussions and misleads people into believing through sheer repetition. That makes rational discussion much harder. I therefore thought it would be good to check whether Ziggurat was correct on this or not. (It appears he was not.) But my interest was in questioning a dubious claim -- not in defending Hillary Clinton's record-keeping practices.

 

[The_Animus]

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.

I second this. It may turn out to be nothing, but that can't be known unless it is looked into. And it should be looked into.

 

[The Big Dog]

I second this. It may turn out to be nothing, but that can't be known unless it is looked into. And it should be looked into.

I respectfully suggest that it the contention that it will turn out to be nothing is already proven false.

Take a look at the Gawker article I just posted. Not only was it totally insecure, information could be deleted without a trace.

 

[sunmaster14]

I agree with that as well.

My posts are not intended as a defense of Hillary Clinton's e-mail practices, which I think displayed poor judgment at best.

I originally posted in response to a comment by Ziggurat in which he claimed: "I'd feel even better if she hadn't violated the law and used a private email account ..."

The claim that Hillary Clinton had violated the law by using a private e-mail account appeared factually dubious to me.

It's a small point. But it's the kind of small point which the right-wing echo chamber often inserts into discussions and misleads people into believing through sheer repetition. That makes rational discussion much harder. I therefore thought it would be good to check whether Ziggurat was correct on this or not. (It appears he was not.) But my interest was in questioning a dubious claim -- not in defending Hillary Clinton's record-keeping practices.

It appears that Hillary Clinton's record-keeping practices ran afoul of regulations which were first promulgated in 1995 and then clarified and tightened in 2009 (i.e. 36 CFR 1236.22(b), to be precise). Regulations are part of the law, so running afoul of a regulation is tantamount to breaking the law. I suppose one could quibble here and say that technically it is the federal agency that Hillary ran which is the lawbreaker, and not she personally, but I'm not sure even Hillary has the chutzpah to make that claim.

ETA: Here's a nice analysis at DailyKos. I realize that the DailyKos is an extremist website and often out of touch with reality, in addition to being rather anti-Hillary in 2008, but I think the aphorism about stopped clocks applies in this case.

 

[johnny karate]

I agree with that as well.

My posts are not intended as a defense of Hillary Clinton's e-mail practices, which I think displayed poor judgment at best.

I originally posted in response to a comment by Ziggurat in which he claimed: "I'd feel even better if she hadn't violated the law and used a private email account ..."

The claim that Hillary Clinton had violated the law by using a private e-mail account appeared factually dubious to me.

It's a small point. But it's the kind of small point which the right-wing echo chamber often inserts into discussions and misleads people into believing through sheer repetition. That makes rational discussion much harder. I therefore thought it would be good to check whether Ziggurat was correct on this or not. (It appears he was not.) But my interest was in questioning a dubious claim -- not in defending Hillary Clinton's record-keeping practices.

And that's exactly how the gamesmanship here works.

The needle is moved from "Hillary Clinton did something maybe worthy of further investigation" to "Hillary Clinton broke the law". And if you challenge that claim you are labeled a knee-jerk Hillary defender and derided.

It's a tactic designed to keep you back on your heels and on the defensive, and avoid any kind of real or honest discussion.

 

[Nova Land]

Certainly, just scraping the tip of the iceberg:

FOIA

FOIA and Orders

subpoenas

Instead of scraping iceberg tips, perhaps you could present the evidence which you think is to be found at the links you posted.

It will take you a lot less time to find and quote whatever it is you think supports your point (which is: Hillary held every one of her official emails on her personal server for over six years thereby causing State to violate FOIA, Court Orders, and Subpoenas) than it will for Roger Ramjets to wade through those sites in search of something that you haven't specified clearly.

I make it a principle not to click on links unless the person presenting them either quotes, paraphrases or summarizes the points to be found at the link which they feel are relevant to the discussion. If it's not worth their time to find and quote or paraphrase the relevant bits, then it's probably not worth my time either. (If it were something which actually gave strong support to their point, I'd expect them to be delighted for the chance to quote it. The fact they prefer not to quote it indicates even the person linking to it realizes it's not very strong evidence.)

By the way: one thing I can see simply by mousing over the links is that two go to website of birther Larry Klayman and the other goes to a GOP site. Neither strikes me as a good source for evidence. If there's evidence to be found at either site, it would be good for you to look up the source they cite and continue following the citation trail until you come to a reliable source. When you do -- i.e. when you have actual evidence to share -- provide the evidence and a link to the actual source, not to the opinion site which is echoing it.

 

[johnny karate]

It appears that Hillary Clinton's record-keeping practices ran afoul of regulations which were first promulgated in 1995 and then clarified and tightened in 2009 (i.e. 36 CFR 1236.22(b), to be precise). Regulations are part of the law, so running afoul of a regulation is tantamount to breaking the law. I suppose one could quibble here and say that technically it is the federal agency that Hillary ran which is the lawbreaker, and not she personally, but I'm not sure even Hillary has the chutzpah to make that claim.

Can you quote the exact section of that law that was violated? Thanks.

 

[sunmaster14]

Can you quote the exact section of that law that was violated? Thanks.

Sure (emphasis added):

36 CFR 1236.22
...

(b) Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.

 

[The Big Dog]

Instead of scraping iceberg tips, perhaps you could present the evidence ...

By the way: one thing I can see simply by mousing over the links is that two go to website of birther Larry Klayman and the other goes to a GOP site. Neither strikes me as a good source for evidence....

HI! Thanks for, you know "weighing in"!

I was responding to a post that said, and i want to quote it in its entirety:

EVIDENCE

So I gave him EVIDENCE, and links to boot! which you "moused" over. 'k!

A complaint, the actual subpoenas, etc.

Your response was to complain, I dunno, I gave him too much? And a bunch of ad hominems.

By the way? "website of birther Larry Klayman."

EVIDENCE?

lol, just *********** with you, Klayman has not been part of Judicial Watch for almost a decade. It was in the news.

 

[Nova Land]

It appears that Hillary Clinton's record-keeping practices ran afoul of regulations which were first promulgated in 1995 and then clarified and tightened in 2009 (i.e. 36 CFR 1236.22(b), to be precise).

You appear to be saying that Hillary Clinton did not violate the Presidential Records Act of 1978, as Leftus claimed (and Ziggurat appeared to agree with Leftus about), and that it's a different law which her record-keeping practices violated.

All right, that's progress. Unfortunately your post is extremely lacking in details about this law which you think Hillary Clinton violated.

If you're familiar with 36 CFR 1236.22(b), could you tell us a little bit more about it? I ask because, from the link you provided, it appears to be related to "Parks, Forests and Public Property".

36 CFR - Parks, Forests, and Public Property

 

[NoahFence]

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.

Maybe if the rabid right didn't make a cottage industry out of faux outrage, we'd perk up a bit more when we heard "wolf"!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm still waiting for someone to address the fact that although she was sending and receiving emails from the domain "clintonemails.com" , some posters keep claiming no one actually knew that the domain existed...

 

[Tony Stark]

I think people are delusional if they think voters will even remember this non-scandal a year from now. Of course, some people are willing to latch on to any potential scandal involving the Clintons no matter how full of BS it is and their motivations are obvious.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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

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

By "not an active criminal", I'm pretty sure 16.5 means "not currently committing a crime". For example, we can arrest people for murder after the act, rather than only if they're caught in the actual act.

 

[Tony Stark]

By "not an active criminal", I'm pretty sure 16.5 means "not currently committing a crime". For example, we don't arrest people for murder only if they're caught in the actual act.

We also don't arrest people for things that weren't crimes when they happened.

 

[The Big Dog]

I think people are delusional if they think voters will even remember this non-scandal a year from now. Of course, some people are willing to latch on to any potential scandal involving the Clintons no matter how full of BS it is and their motivations are obvious.

I agree! At this point, I would be astonished if she even ran...

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

We also don't arrest people for things that weren't crimes when they happened.

Obviously.

 

[Tony Stark]

I agree! At this point, I would be astonished if she even ran...

Then you're even more delusional than I thought. She will definitely run and will definitely win the Dem nomination and likely win the Presidency.

 

[Nova Land]

I was responding to a post that said, and i want to quote it in its entirety:

EVIDENCE

So I gave him EVIDENCE, and links to boot!

No, you did not give him evidence, either in normal print or all-caps. You gave him links.

If you gave him evidence, please quote it. All I see in that post is those links.

Klayman has not been part of Judicial Watch for almost a decade. It was in the news.

I didn't know that. Thank you; I'll try to remember that for the future.

Ah! Checking the Wikipedia page on Larry Klayman, it does confirm he founded Judicial Watch as I remembered. It doesn't mention him leaving the group (it's not a very detailed article) but I'm willing to take your word on that since the article does include that in 2014 Klayman won a defamation lawsuit against Judicial Watch for $181,000.

So even though its birther founder is no longer connected to Judicial Watch, the group itself continues to be an unreliable source of information. If there's something on the Judicial Watch site which you think supports the claim you made, it would be good to check their cite until you can find a reliable news source for whatever the information is.