Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[TheL8Elvis]

No idea what you mean. Whether or not there are gaps is not a subjective thing. If you think Trey Gowdy is lying, then perhaps you should present evidence that there are no gaps.

Gaps are not subjective, but whether or not they are relevant absolutely is.

It's not necessary to have been Secretary of State to draw the conclusions I have. Being able to do basic arithmetic is sufficient.

Let me try an analogy ...
A store sells 1200 snow shovels a year
That's an average of 120 a month.
It is unlikely there is a month they didn't sell snow shovels....

Does that sound right to you ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I have already presented a cogent argument that Hillary committed a crime. I cited the statute and the regulations, and somebody else cited an additional regulation that answered even the absurd quibbles over the meaning of the word "appropriate." Nobody has made a successful rebuttal. At best, all anybody has managed to do is misrepresent my words, taunt me, and then flee from the thread.

Darrel Issa rebutted you:
Did she break a law for which there is a penalty? Not really. But there’s a big difference between being open, transparent, honest and having public integrity and only when you get caught do you turn in documents

 

[paulhutch]

To me gaps in an email record during any fast moving urgent situation indicates that people are using communications choices correctly. When time is important you'd better pick up the phone and make a voice call, it allows instant confirmation that the message got through. If it's a bit less time critical then you can FAX the info and trust that the receipt is accurate (it usually is). If you don't care how long it takes for the information to be delivered that's the only time you should use email for important information.

Shorter version, don't send an email or FAX to emergency services, dial 911.

 

[Mike!]

" I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not send confidential communications with that email, personal severer."

 

[Reheat]

" I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not send confidential communications with that email, personal severer."

Isn't that pretty similar to "I didn't have sex with that woman." Peas in a pod?

 

[Sherkeu]

I just read that she didn't even give over the emails in digital format. She sent them over as a stack of printed PAPER! Really?
I'm sure it's within the "rules", but when a lawyer does this, it means they want to make it harder to find anything.

I think she blew it with her press conference by responding with such hubris...and those legalese answers of having "followed the rules" which don't answer the actual question. She appeared defensive, evasive, and irritated.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I just read that she didn't even give over the emails in digital format. She sent them over as a stack of printed PAPER! Really?
I'm sure it's within the "rules", but when a lawyer does this, it means they want to make it harder to find anything.

Unless the state department were going to print them out anyway:

relevant:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-press-conference/

The State Department did offer details on how the emails would be released prior to Clinton's press conference. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said after the review of the 55,000 pages of documents Clinton turned over to State — which would take months — they would be posted on a publicly accessible website. The 300 emails pertaining to the request made by the congressional committee investigating the attacks in Benghazi, amounting to about 900 pages, will be released first.

Psaki said the review wouldn't cost taxpayers anymore than a review of emails sent entirely through an official State Department email would, as both are done with hard-copy printouts.

I think she blew it with her press conference by responding with such hubris...and those legalese answers of having "followed the rules" which don't answer the actual question. She appeared defensive, evasive, and irritated.

She could have done better, I agree.

 

[sunmaster14]

Gaps are not subjective, but whether or not they are relevant absolutely is.



Let me try an analogy ...
A store sells 1200 snow shovels a year
That's an average of 120 a month.
It is unlikely there is a month they didn't sell snow shovels....

Does that sound right to you ?

Nope, but I consider it very unlikely that they don't sell any snow shovels in the aftermath of a big snowstorm.

 

[sunmaster14]

Darrel Issa rebutted you:
Did she break a law for which there is a penalty? Not really. But there’s a big difference between being open, transparent, honest and having public integrity and only when you get caught do you turn in documents

There's a qualifier in there. As I've pointed out before, there actually isn't a penalty specified. This is true for many federal laws, but it doesn't mean they aren't laws which can be broken.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Nope, but I consider it very unlikely that they don't sell any snow shovels in the aftermath of a big snowstorm.

I doesn't sound right because I meant 100 shovels a month. I am bad at maths.

But I think the point was well explained by paulhutch

To me gaps in an email record during any fast moving urgent situation indicates that people are using communications choices correctly. When time is important you'd better pick up the phone and make a voice call, it allows instant confirmation that the message got through. If it's a bit less time critical then you can FAX the info and trust that the receipt is accurate (it usually is). If you don't care how long it takes for the information to be delivered that's the only time you should use email for important information.

Shorter version, don't send an email or FAX to emergency services, dial 911.

 

[The Big Dog]

Nope, but I consider it very unlikely that they don't sell any snow shovels in the aftermath of a big snowstorm.

Further, I tend to look askance when the people selling the snow shovels admit they destroyed a bunch of the invoices that they stored in their garage....

More importantly, we know Hillary's staff was emailing like crazy after huge events, like Benghazi.

But not Hillary.... hmmmmm.......

 

[Sherkeu]

Unless the state department were going to print them out anyway:

But now they have to scan all 55,000 pages to redigitize them all. They cannot easily search for key words or dates until that is done. In 2015, that's ridiculous. But who am I to argue govt efficiency?

 

[sunmaster14]

I doesn't sound right because I meant 100 shovels a month. I am bad at maths.

But I think the point was well explained by paulhutch

Actually, in looking into this a bit more, I see that Gowdy was referring to a 2011 trip to Libya that Hillary took (i.e. before the Benghazi incident). As you can see from the link, she is looking at her smartphone (reading probably) while on the plane. Gowdy also claims that there are months' long gaps in the record. I don't really buy this fax/voice is faster than email argument. These days, email is fast enough that it's possible to carry on a conversation in real time (while multi-tasking, which is why it is my preferred method of communication). Also, it leads to fewer misunderstandings and gives either party a chance to review the communications at their leisure. Regardless, if we can trust Gowdy (and I think Democrats on the committee have access to the same information he does and would surely gainsay him if he were wrong), then Clinton must have deleted many work-related emails.

 

[sunmaster14]

But now they have to scan all 55,000 pages to redigitize them all. They cannot easily search for key words or dates until that is done. In 2015, that's ridiculous. But who am I to argue govt efficiency?

Also, when you print out an email, a lot of information is lost. All of the metadata, as well as any attachments, and sometimes previous emails in the string that had been forwarded or replied to.

 

[mgidm86]

Sorry, quote and edit function only works sporadically at this site with Firefox.

TheL8Elvis:

Darrel Issa rebutted you:
Did she break a law for which there is a penalty? Not really. But there’s a big difference between being open, transparent, honest and having public integrity and only when you get caught do you turn in documents

That is actually the main concern by me, and probably most people in this thread. The title of the thread and OP say nothing about breaking the law, though some people are arguing that she did, which she may have.

You are asking for proof that the emails she deleted were government emails and not private, which is not possible for people on this forum to do even if they did still exist. The fact that she deleted them will make it a lot more difficult for anyone else to prove as well. We don't have access to her server, and so far nobody else does either. She has refused to grant FOIA requests to the point where she is now being sued for the information.

Her actions look bad and her arguments for them are weak and arrogant. Printing out 55,000 pages of emails is a good way of saying, "Here are your emails, now kiss my butt". That is over 25 cases of paper if you buy it new.

Good point above by sunmaster14 about meta data possibly not being available in printed emails.

Hillary's official response to all of this is "trust me". Politician + Lawyer + Clinton != trust. A person who acts like she does is not someone I want behind the desk in the oval office.

 

[wareyin]

Hillary's official response to all of this is "trust me". Politician + Lawyer + Clinton != trust. A person who acts like she does is not someone I want behind the desk in the oval office.

I think this sums it all up. This issue riles up the people who don't trust Clinton, and were never going to vote for her anyway. The rest of us are not bothered.

 

[davefoc]

I think this sums it all up. This issue riles up the people who don't trust Clinton, and were never going to vote for her anyway. The rest of us are not bothered.

There is a group of people in the country that will not vote for a Democrat and there is a group of people in the country that will only vote for a Democrat. I agree that this incident did not effect that reality. In addition there is a small group of people that are not going to vote for Clinton because they don't like her for various reasons even if they are Democrats. This incident might have increased the size of that group a bit.

There is also the reality that Clinton nomination is not a slam dunk and this incident has undoubtedly energized some of the potential opposition candidates a bit and as such this incident is politically significant.

The next presidential election will probably be decided by moderates in swing states that might vote Democrat or Republican depending on what their ideas are about the specific candidates and this incident has hurt Clinton with that group. FWIW, this looks like one of the first real scandals of the Obama administration to me (most of them were manufactured completely or massively exaggerated by partisan spinners). But I agree it isn't a major scandal, it is just a real one and that will hurt Clinton with the moderates.

Clinton looks worse on this incident than some of the partisans in this thread would like to admit. She looks:
1. Elitist - The rules only apply to other people
2. Evasive - There must be something she intended to hide with this scheme.
3. Naive about digital security - How does she know that this little private server of hers was adequately secured?
4. Naive about the reason for the rules - Her defense that she wants all the emails made public excluding the ones she decides not to make public makes her sound stupid
5. Out of it - People expect to use their company email for work and their private email for private communications for a raft of reasons. She seems to have been unaware of that if you believe her silly explanations.

Still, I'm a registered Republican that will probably vote for her if she gets the nomination instead of some war happy, science denying, government shutting down Republican.

ETA: Has anybody been identified as the Eric Hoteham yet?

 

[logger]

war happy, science denying, government shutting down Republican.

The left accuses Hillary of being all that, you need to aim a little lower and go for Warren, with that said, you need to change your registration as you aren't really a republican.

 

[Foolmewunz]

There is a group of people in the country that will not vote for a Democrat and there is a group of people in the country that will only vote for a Democrat. I agree that this incident did not effect that reality. In addition there is a small group of people that are not going to vote for Clinton because they don't like her for various reasons even if they are Democrats. This incident might have increased the size of that group a bit.

There is also the reality that Clinton nomination is not a slam dunk and this incident has undoubtedly energized some of the potential opposition candidates a bit and as such this incident is politically significant.

The next presidential election will probably be decided by moderates in swing states that might vote Democrat or Republican depending on what their ideas are about the specific candidates and this incident has hurt Clinton with that group. FWIW, this looks like one of the first real scandals of the Obama administration to me (most of them were manufactured completely or massively exaggerated by partisan spinners). But I agree it isn't a major scandal, it is just a real one and that will hurt Clinton with the moderates. Clinton looks worse on this incident than some of the partisans in this thread would like to admit. She looks: 1. Elitist - The rules only apply to other people 2. Evasive - There must be something she intended to hide with this scheme. 3. Naive about digital security - How does she know that this little private server of hers was adequately secured? 4. Naive about the reason for the rules - Her defense that she wants all the emails made public excluding the ones she decides not to make public makes her sound stupid 5. Out of it - People expect to use their company email for work and their private email for private communications for a raft of reasons. She seems to have been unaware of that if you believe her silly explanations. Still, I'm a registered Republican that will probably vote for her if she gets the nomination instead of some war happy, science denying, government shutting down Republican.
ETA: Has anybody been identified as the Eric Hoteham yet?

I'm decidedly not a registered re.... re.... re... (I can't even get my fingers to type those two words sequentially.) I'm not of THAT party, as is fairly well known.

And I agree with the hilited portions of your post.

What I disagree with is that this isn't partisan bloviation. While there are Dems who came out asking questions and pointing at problems, they will ultimately rally 'round "the candidate". Right now, they're keeping their powder dry in case they need to swing towards an unknown dark horse (no color pun intended), and they'll be able to point out, in any case, that they questioned their own royalty on issues of privilege and eggshell walking over the letter of the law. But you don't see a Tea Party style revolution on the left of the Democratic Party. Bill and Barack co-opted those segments and out-maneuvered the ones they couldn't suck into the "team".

Unless Obama really throws Billary under the oncoming bus (which is actually a three-wheeled battery driven golf cart), the Dems aren't biting the hands that feed them. Coming into the next election the DNC can do nothing if not supported by the TWO machines. The Clinton machine and the Obama machine. So we haven't seen full-force partisan support yet. But we are definitely seeing full force partisan opposition; the anti factions salivating over the issue.

They don't care about good governance, the law or procedure. They care about tracking the little droplets of Clinton blood on the path and cornering the beast in its lair. You get enough Cro Magnon together, even with pointed fire-hardened sticks, they can take down a cave bear. The only thing they don't know is whether there's another bear coming 'round behind them. Right now, though, they're starting their hunting chant to keep their courage up... they're only on the approach to the cave.

 

[Noztradamus]

Hillary Clinton: 'I fully complied with every rule I was governed by'

Can you spot the loophole?