Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
Hid the very existence until she was caught!
Hides the very server until she gets caught!
Will hide the server until they serve the subpoena!

lolz, what a scumbag she is.
Click to expand...

Can you explain to me how she "hid" the fact that all her emails came from her very own email server ?
 
davefoc said:
The author of the National Review article argues that she destroyed emails that she wasn't allowed to because she did so in a way that violated the rules of the Records Management Manual. His argument is that she was required to comply with exit procedures that involved a formal review of what she was allowed to remove.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as I stated earlier, I am not clear those rules actually apply to a personal email account. Legally, not morally.

Those rules seemed to be geared towards physical removal of documents, and it is unclear to me how that would apply to a personal email account that was legally allowed to be used for work purposes.

davefoc said:
There does seem to be something of a legal issue here. If you were Joe Blow State Department worker using government email you would need to have submitted your emails for archiving and review before you got to extract from it that which you saw as personal. Clinton only used a private account so does that mean she could be the final arbiter of what was business and what was personal? This seems like a pretty big loophole to any kind of regulation about the archiving of emails for people that conduct government business with their personal email accounts.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. And it wouldn't surprise me if that is the exact loophole HRC sought to exploit by using a private email account.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-claim-that-emails-to-officials-immediately/

"The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department," she said Tuesday.

But department spokeswoman Jen Psaki made clear on Friday that this was not the way the system worked.

She said the department only started automatically archiving emails for other senior officials in February.

"They have long been planning to do this. It's just something that it took some time to put in place," Psaki said, adding that they'll "continue to ... take steps forward."

Before February, these senior officials would have been responsible for flagging their own official records for preservation. And as an inspector general report released earlier this week made clear, that often was not happening.

So, she would have been responsible for flagging her own emails ... which is what she did ... yet somehow it's a huge problem.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-claim-that-emails-to-officials-immediately/

"The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department," she said Tuesday.

But department spokeswoman Jen Psaki made clear on Friday that this was not the way the system worked.

She said the department only started automatically archiving emails for other senior officials in February.

"They have long been planning to do this. It's just something that it took some time to put in place," Psaki said, adding that they'll "continue to ... take steps forward."

Before February, these senior officials would have been responsible for flagging their own official records for preservation. And as an inspector general report released earlier this week made clear, that often was not happening.

So, she would have been responsible for flagging her own emails ... which is what she did ... yet somehow it's a huge problem.
Click to expand...

Don't you understand? Cowboy server, homebrew. I mean, seriously.
 
You may wish to read Maureen Dowd's brutal take down of Hillary Clinton's latest shenanigans:

Now you, Hillary, are following the same disheartening “We’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse” pattern. You started the “Guernica” press conference defending your indefensible droit du seigneur over your State Department emails by referring to women’s rights and denouncing the letter to Iran from Republican senators as “out of step with the best traditions of American leadership.”

None of what you said made any sense. Keeping a single account mingling business and personal with your own server wasn’t about “convenience.” It was about expedience. You became judge and jury on what’s relevant because you didn’t want to leave digital fingerprints for others to retrace. You could have had Huma carry two devices if you really couldn’t hoist an extra few ounces.
 
As mentioned before, the Associated Press has sued the State Department to compel them to comply with long outstanding and almost completely ignored FOIA requests covering the following subjects:

1. Two requests seeking Clinton's calendar and schedules.
2. Emails and records regarding Huma Abedin's designation as a Special Governmental Employee
3. Emails regarding the raid on Osama Bin laden's compound
4. Emails regarding NSA surveillance programs
5. Emails regarding BAE Systems' violation of the Arms Control Act.

Seems like something that would be in the public's interest, don't you all agree?
 
16.5 said:
As mentioned before, the Associated Press has sued the State Department to compel them to comply with long outstanding and almost completely ignored FOIA requests covering the following subjects:

1. Two requests seeking Clinton's calendar and schedules.
2. Emails and records regarding Huma Abedin's designation as a Special Governmental Employee
3. Emails regarding the raid on Osama Bin laden's compound
4. Emails regarding NSA surveillance programs
5. Emails regarding BAE Systems' violation of the Arms Control Act.

Seems like something that would be in the public's interest, don't you all agree?
Click to expand...

You are aware that the State Department has more than one employee, are you not?
 
What will Republicans do when this "scandal" fails to prevent Hillary from being elected president?
 
jhunter1163 said:
You are aware that the State Department has more than one employee, are you not?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your post is supposed to mean.

I took that list directly from AP's lawsuit against the State Department that clearly states that it was looking for Hillary Clinton's emails, and has been thwarted since as early as 2010.
 
16.5 said:
I'm not sure what your post is supposed to mean.

I took that list directly from AP's lawsuit against the State Department that clearly states that it was looking for Hillary Clinton's emails, and has been thwarted since as early as 2010.
Click to expand...

At least some of the items on your list appear to be outside the purview of the Secretary of State. For example, a request for information on NSA surveillance would be better directed to the NSA, would it not? Even if the emails were not retained on the "homebrew" server, they would be retained in the recipient's files, would they not?
 
jhunter1163 said:
At least some of the items on your list appear to be outside the purview of the Secretary of State. For example, a request for information on NSA surveillance would be better directed to the NSA, would it not? Even if the emails were not retained on the "homebrew" server, they would be retained in the recipient's files, would they not?
Click to expand...

The Associated Press issued FOIA requests to the State Department seeking these emails (and other communications). Whether they issued similar FOIA's to the NSA is quite beyond the point.

The AP sued the State Department last week because The State Department did not turn over these emails.

Again, whether the recipient may have copies, that again is totally irrelevant particularly where two of those entities (Huma's outside employer and BAE Systems) are not subject to FOIA.
 
16.5 said:
The Associated Press issued FOIA requests to the State Department seeking these emails (and other communications). Whether they issued similar FOIA's to the NSA is quite beyond the point.
Click to expand...

Why? If this is indeed about actually finding out about the NSA's surveillance program, rather than a partisan fishing expedition, why wouldn't the AP send a similar request to the NSA?

Again, whether the recipient may have copies, that again is totally irrelevant particularly where two of those entities (Huma's outside employer and BAE Systems) are not subject to FOIA.
Click to expand...

But the government entities are subject to FOIA. Again, if this is really about getting information rather than a partisan witch-hunt against Clinton, why are the FOIA requests not being directed to the recipients?
 
jhunter1163 said:
Why? If this is indeed about actually finding out about the NSA's surveillance program, rather than a partisan fishing expedition, why wouldn't the AP send a similar request to the NSA?

But the government entities are subject to FOIA. Again, if this is really about getting information rather than a partisan witch-hunt against Clinton, why are the FOIA requests not being directed to the recipients?
Click to expand...

Wait, are you saying that the Associated Press was engaging in "a partisan fishing expedition," and "a partisan witch-hunt against Clinton"?

That is simply remarkable.

I am a bit at a loss to understand that type of reasoning.

Don't issue a FOIA to Hillary because maybe you can get information elsewhere? By the way, what makes you say that AP did not FOIA NSA?
 
16.5 said:
Wait, are you saying that the Associated Press was engaging in "a partisan fishing expedition," and "a partisan witch-hunt against Clinton"?

That is simply remarkable.

I am a bit at a loss to understand that type of reasoning.

Don't issue a FOIA to Hillary because maybe you can get information elsewhere? By the way, what makes you say that AP did not FOIA NSA?
Click to expand...

You were the one who asserted that it was irrelevant whether they did or didn't. If it was me, and I couldn't get information from Hillary, I'd go to the recipients. But that's just me.

And meanwhile, the government hit its debt limit today;

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/03/13/us/politics/ap-us-treasury-debt-limit.html

But let's talk about e-mails instead. Much more important than the full faith and credit of the US government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom