Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

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

Then i suspect that you have not fully acquainted yourself with the facts.

I am sick to death of the "nothing to see here" "leave Hilary alone" "poor Clintons" arguments.

She arrogantly decided to circumvent basic record keeping and is now "negotiating" with the US Government about what Hillary Clinton thinks she will turn over.

I will stipulate that you don't care.

 

[Magyar]

So....where's the problem?

That it's a Democrat and specifically Clinton. When Jeb Bush does it and releases "all of the e-mails" well then there is nothing to see here move along.

 

[sunmaster14]

That it's a Democrat and specifically Clinton. When Jeb Bush does it and releases "all of the e-mails" well then there is nothing to see here move along.

Jeb Bush? Who's he? Was he one of the most senior officials in the United States government too, let alone 4th in line to succeed the President?

 

[johnny karate]

Jeb Bush? Who's he? Was he one of the most senior officials in the United States government too, let alone 4th in line to succeed the President?

Just so we're clear: You only hold certain elected officials to a standard of transparency?

Where exactly is the line drawn?

Governors are clearly given a pass. I guess their jobs aren't important enough to require transparency.

What about the Secretary of Treasury?

Secretary of Labor?

Attorney General?

How about Senators?

Congressman?

Also, Jeb Bush might be running for President. Don't you think the level of transparency with which he handles his administration is important?

 

[sunmaster14]

Just so we're clear: You only hold certain elected officials to a standard of transparency?

Where exactly is the line drawn?

Governors are clearly given a pass. I guess their jobs aren't important enough to require transparency.

What about the Secretary of Treasury?

Secretary of Labor?

Attorney General?

How about Senators?

Congressman?

Also, Jeb Bush might be running for President. Don't you think the level of transparency with which he handles his administration is important?

Well, as a start, let's at least draw the line between people who were covered by federal law and those who weren't. When we're done drawing that line, we might want to draw the line between people whose activities and communications were central to various federal investigations, including those by Inspectors General, the DOJ, and both houses of Congress, let alone Freedom of Information Act requests by members of the press and public watchdogs, and those who weren't. If there's time, we might also want to draw a line between the most prominent politician in the United States besides the President himself, and a guy who has been out of office for the last eight years and is named Jeb for God's sake.

 

[The Big Dog]

Jeb Bush? Who's he? Was he one of the most senior officials in the United States government too, let alone 4th in line to succeed the President?

Nah, just a standard tu quoque/distraction/evasion.

Typical fallacious reasoning from the "leave Hilary Alone" crowd.

 

[johnny karate]

Well, as a start, let's at least draw the line between people who were covered by federal law and those who weren't.

I'm not sure why that matters as you still haven't been able to articulate the law that Clinton supposedly broke.

When we're done drawing that line, we might want to draw the line between people whose activities and communications were central to various federal investigations, including those by Inspectors General, the DOJ, and both houses of Congress, let alone Freedom of Information Act requests by members of the press and public watchdogs, and those who weren't.

I see.

As long as a government official is never subjected to anything those things, no need for transparency.

But the moment they are, they needed to have that transparency already in place.

Makes complete sense.

If there's time, we might also want to draw a line between the most prominent politician in the United States besides the President himself, and a guy who has been out of office for the last eight years and is named Jeb for God's sake.

Well, that line has already been drawn.

I just want know exactly where it has been drawn.

All we know now is that is it somewhere between "Secretary of the State" and "governor".

 

[johnny karate]

Nah, just a standard tu quoque/distraction/evasion.

Typical fallacious reasoning from the "leave Hilary Alone" crowd.

I don't think we should "leave Hillary alone". I think this should be investigated, and then wait to see what the investigation yields. Like what is currently happening.

What this is instead is an opportunity for the manufactured outrage of those in this thread to be revealed as nothing more than partisan hackery from clumsy hypocrites.

And so far, it's working like a charm.

 

[varwoche]

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.

Yes indeed. Getting to the facts of the matter is not what I'm complaining about. I very much appreciate what you have to say, per usual.

 

[The Big Dog]

Last night I posted a link to the Cable that Clinton sent out that required all state Department employees, except Clinton and Huma and whoever else had access to @clintonemail.com, of course, to use secure government servers and email.

That directive referred to "FAM." I have located a copy of the regs for your perusal.

State Department PDF

I know, I know, what difference does it make anyway, Hilary 2016.....

 

[DavidJames]

I don't think we should "leave Hillary alone". I think this should be investigated, and then wait to see what the investigation yields. Like what is currently happening.

What this is instead is an opportunity for the manufactured outrage of those in this thread to be revealed as nothing more than partisan hackery from clumsy hypocrites.

And so far, it's working like a charm.

Well said. The investigation should run it's course and if there are legal repercussions, so be it.

However, like Benghazi I suspect anything other then a recommendation to hang Clinton, will end up being dragged on and on and on....

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm not sure why that matters as you still haven't been able to articulate the law that Clinton supposedly broke.

I'm quite sure you're using the word "articulate" incorrectly. It manifestly does not mean "explain at a level that a kindergartner could understand."

I see.

As long as a government official is never subjected to anything those things, no need for transparency.

But the moment they are, they needed to have that transparency already in place.

Makes complete sense.

No, that is not my point. My point is that these investigations have been going on for over two years, and only recently did we find that the State Department hadn't searched for relevant emails on her private server, nor were investigators even made aware that such a private server existed. Nor had the State Department been able to adequately comply with FOIA requests. That proves that Hillary's record-keeping was not "appropriate," and that the effect of her inappropriate record-keeping was to obstruct federal investigations and transparency in general. This compounds the offense and raises the "appropriate" level of scrutiny and attention by the media.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well said. The investigation should run it's course and if there are legal repercussions, so be it.

However, like Benghazi I suspect anything other then a recommendation to hang Clinton, will end up being dragged on and on and on....

Do you concede that all Benghazi investigations to date are incomplete, as Hillary's private (but still official!) emails concerning Benghazi were unavailable?

 

[The Big Dog]

Avid readers will recall that I pointed out that Hilary's cowboy/homebrewed server compromised The State Department's ability to impose its duties imposed by FOIA.

here is yet another great example, in particular the Gawker Blumenthal FOIA:

"The State Department replied to our request by saying that, after an extensive search, it could find no records responsive to our request," Trotter writes. "That is not to say that they found the emails and refused to release them—it is conceivable, after all, that the State Department might have attempted to deny the release of the Clinton-Blumenthal correspondence on grounds of national security or Blumenthal’s own privacy. Instead, the State Department confirmed that it didn’t have the emails at all."

here is the conclusion:

Either way, the private server will have helped her to evade at least one FOIA request. And we only know that much because a hacker stumbled on her emails. What, if anything, she deleted from her server may remain forever unknowable.

Perhaps this will be deemed just more "partisan hackery from clumsy hypocrites...."

 

[NoahFence]

Then i suspect that you have not fully acquainted yourself with the facts.

I am sick to death of the "nothing to see here" "leave Hilary alone" "poor Clintons" arguments.

She arrogantly decided to circumvent basic record keeping and is now "negotiating" with the US Government about what Hillary Clinton thinks she will turn over.

I will stipulate that you don't care.

I understand you're sick to death of "nothing to see here" arguments.

It's my point of view, and the general feeling I get about America, that we're ALL sick to death because of the Benghazi witch hunt. I'm sure this latest -gate controversy is as bad as you make it out to be. But all of our outrage over anything Hillary does was killed by the Benghazi witch hunt. That's on YOU.

 

[The Big Dog]

I understand you're sick to death of "nothing to see here" arguments.

Thanks, I understand your point.

Hey, I'm concerned about the Government withholding documents, and government transparency. I was unhappy when I learned that Obama Administration had withheld the Rhodes Memo, I was unhappy when i learned that Nixon's tapes were missing 18 minutes or so.

That is on me and I take FULL RESPONSIBILITY.

Thanks for posting.

 

[The Big Dog]

here is a thoughtful editorial regarding Clinton's conduct that I think you will enjoy reading and discussing:

If people aspire to public service, they should behave as stewards of a public trust, and that includes the records — all of them. Ms. Clinton’s use of private e-mail shows poor regard for that public trust.

Why did she not turn over the e-mails promptly upon leaving office? why indeed.

I hope that The Washington Post does not get branded as clumsy hypocrites like others posting in this thread have, but that is of course a risk one has to take.

 

[plague311]

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.

The why the hell did you ask? Did you ask just to handwave it away and give yourself some smug feeling of self-assurance? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in my entire life.

"Someone give feedback"

"Ok, well I have certifications, and practical experience in the field, and here's my analysis."

"YOUR OPINION IS CRAP CAUSE appeal_to_other_authority AND YOU JUST PLAY A GAME ON YOURS LOL"

What a waste of time, please, next time you ask for something be specific that your own ignorance is going to cause you to discard it.

What experience do you have by the way? May I ask your credentials? Do you have any network security experience? Was her system hacked? All I read in your reports is that it "could have been", not that it ever was.

Completely incredulous.

 

[Tony Stark]

I think that Republican witch hunters/conspiracy theorists aggressively pursuing this is going to have the opposite of its intended effect: normal, sane people will be even less likely to care.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm quite sure you're using the word "articulate" incorrectly. It manifestly does not mean "explain at a level that a kindergartner could understand."

Then allow me to clarify.

When I say "articulate" what I mean is explain what specific law was violated and how it was specifically violated instead of whining “I don't have time to look for what you ask right now (nor am I inclined to do it anyway)”.

In other words engage honestly and in good faith when challenged on claims one has made instead of copping out like an intellectual coward.

No, that is not my point. My point is that these investigations have been going on for over two years, and only recently did we find that the State Department hadn't searched for relevant emails on her private server, nor were investigators even made aware that such a private server existed. Nor had the State Department been able to adequately comply with FOIA requests. That proves that Hillary's record-keeping was not "appropriate," and that the effect of her inappropriate record-keeping was to obstruct federal investigations and transparency in general.

Obstruction of a federal investigation sounds like it might be illegal. Can you demonstrate Clinton commited such a crime?

Or is this just something else you take on “faith”?

This compounds the offense and raises the "appropriate" level of scrutiny and attention by the media.

I don’t have a problem with the scrutiny or attention by the media. It’s well-deserved, as far as I can tell.

What I do have a problem with is partisan hypocrites making claims they have no ability or intention of substantiating.