Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[TheL8Elvis]

Here is your original post:

1. your three minutes per email is ridiculously high.2. to do a large scale document review, you hire a law firm with lots of baby lawyers to review every single scrap of paper.
3. can you imagine going in before a federal judge and telling her that you destroyed over half the documents that the other side was seeking? No of course you can't because that would be criminally insane. Yet that is what Hillary just did.

You claim my estimate is high, provide evidence.

I predict evidence will not be forthcoming ...

 

[wareyin]

Here is your original post:


You claim my estimate is high, provide evidence.

I predict evidence will not be forthcoming ...

Standard procedure from one side in this thread is to treat the possibility of something as evidence of that thing. Therefore, if I were to claim that it's possible to examine emails faster than 3 minutes on average, that counts as evidence.

Even if it were doable at 1 minute each, hiring a law firm to examine them would be pretty expensive! Of course, no cost is to high (for Clinton to pay) to satisfy some people.

 

[Sherkeu]

It will be interesting to see how that OF-109 form plays out.

If she signed it, she lied. If she didn't, she violated protocol. Somehow, after a week of asking, State cannot say if she signed or not. (I'm guessing she didn't and it will all be blamed on some "confusion" between staff).

Further, what did John Kerry get in terms of transition if he didnt have her relevant work-related communications? Seems he would be missing a lot of info to do his job properly. (or at least an efficient way to search for relevant info without digging into paper files)

The fact that the press cannot get answers to seemingly simple questions makes it look like stalling while another plausible story is constructed. Perhaps there is no story that works yet.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is your original post:


You claim my estimate is high, provide evidence.

I predict evidence will not be forthcoming ...

Standard procedure from one side in this thread is to treat the possibility of something as evidence of that thing. Therefore, if I were to claim that it's possible to examine emails faster than 3 minutes on average, that counts as evidence.

Even if it were doable at 1 minute each, hiring a law firm to examine them would be pretty expensive! Of course, no cost is to high (for Clinton to pay) to satisfy some people.

here is evidence:

time to turn over all emails without holding back any that are going to get destroyed? 0 seconds.

awww, Hillary has to pay money to lawyers to improperly withhold documents? that is terrible.

 

[wareyin]

here is evidence:

time to turn over all emails without holding back any that are going to get destroyed? 0 seconds.

awww, Hillary has to pay money to lawyers to improperly withhold documents? that is terrible.

That is evidence that you believe you are entitled to read Clinton's private emails. It's also evidence that you agree that no cost is too high for Clinton to pay to satisfy your curiosity. It's not really evidence of anything else, though.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/13/us-cybersecurity-usa-idUSKBN0M92LE20150313

(Reuters) - The State Department on Friday said it was upgrading the security of its unclassified computer network to defend against cyber attacks, leaving some employees unable to send outside emails or access the internet.
...
Other State Department employees said they were unable to send emails outside the agency, although internal emails continue to flow, and that they could not get access to the Internet from their desktop computers.

But the real threat is homebrew cowboy rogue server

 

[mgidm86]

~60,000 emails.

Say an average of 3 minutes to review each email = 3000 hours

So at 8 hours a day, that's 375 days.

Yeah, that's a tad 'inconvenient'

If this were true, imagine how much time she must have spent in writing these emails?

It would take me much much longer than 3 minutes to type out an email that would take someone 3 full minutes to read. I can read a full page, maybe 2 from a book in 3 minutes. I could skim it for important facts or "keywords" in much less time. My average email length is very short, but her mileage may vary.

That is evidence that you believe you are entitled to read Clinton's private emails.

Or is it evidence that she combined the two knowing that she could later claim this? Combining private and work email was either stupid or calculated, possibly both.

 

[wareyin]

Or is it evidence that she combined the two knowing that she could later claim this? Combining private and work email was either stupid or calculated, possibly both.

It has already been shown in this thread that government officials combining private and work email was (and still is in many cases) common practice.

 

[davefoc]

...


I think it's pathetic that all of these investigations haven't found the email address previously. It's so pathetic that I feel it may be planned. It goes to show that the previous committees were not only useless but poorly planned and poorly run. You can say that it's all a cover up by the media and the President, but I don't buy it. ...

An interesting point. What the hell is going on here? Didn't anybody notice that they didn't have any of Clinton's emails to review in the Benghazi investigations/witch hunts?

 

[davefoc]

It will be interesting to see how that OF-109 form plays out.

If she signed it, she lied. If she didn't, she violated protocol. Somehow, after a week of asking, State cannot say if she signed or not. (I'm guessing she didn't and it will all be blamed on some "confusion" between staff).

Further, what did John Kerry get in terms of transition if he didnt have her relevant work-related communications? Seems he would be missing a lot of info to do his job properly. (or at least an efficient way to search for relevant info without digging into paper files)

The fact that the press cannot get answers to seemingly simple questions makes it look like stalling while another plausible story is constructed. Perhaps there is no story that works yet.

It is strange, isn't it? It does seem that the collection of records, especially emails, has not been a priority for any group.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...up_with_digital_records_its_incompetence.html

On the specifics of the John Kerry question though, I suspect that Clinton would have provided a general overview of every issue that she was involved in, hopefully in writing and she might have quoted some of her emails. I am not sure he would have expected to be given a dump of her overall job related emails.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It is strange, isn't it? It does seem that the collection of records, especially emails, has not been a priority for any group.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...up_with_digital_records_its_incompetence.html

On the specifics of the John Kerry question though, I suspect that Clinton would have provided a general overview of every issue that she was involved in, hopefully in writing and she might have quoted some of her emails. I am not sure he would have expected to be given a dump of her overall job related emails.

Is there any actual evidence that email plays a vital role in the day-to-day activities of the secretary of state ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

here is evidence:

time to turn over all emails without holding back any that are going to get destroyed? 0 seconds.

awww, Hillary has to pay money to lawyers to improperly withhold documents? that is terrible.

As expected, no evidence.

 

[davefoc]

Is there any actual evidence that email plays a vital role in the day-to-day activities of the secretary of state ?

An interesting question. I haven't worked regularly as an engineer for more than ten years now, but when I did emails were the principle means of formal communication both inside and outside the company. I had assumed that ten years later that this would have been standard practice for most professions. But maybe the state department is different? Maybe significant communications are carried out through some sort of very secure link? Perhaps there are rules against even using email for significant international discussions? Maybe that's why that nobody thought to ask for Clinton emails. They just wouldn't have expected to find much of substance in them with regard to Benghazi or anything else. Still, it seems a little odd given the number of investigations and the tenacity with which this witch hunt has been pursued that nobody thought to request Clinton's emails around the time of Benghazi.

 

[The Big Dog]

Lolz, you made up the ridiculous 3 minutes claim.

It would have taken Hillary zero time not to destroy those documents.

Zero.

 

[The Big Dog]

An interesting question. I haven't worked regularly as an engineer for more than ten years now, but when I did emails were the principle means of formal communication both inside and outside the company. I had assumed that ten years later that this would have been standard practice for most professions. But maybe the state department is different? Maybe significant communications are carried out through some sort of very secure link? Perhaps there are rules against even using email for significant international discussions? Maybe that's why that nobody thought to ask for Clinton emails. They just wouldn't have expected to find much of substance in them with regard to Benghazi or anything else. Still, it seems a little odd given the number of investigations and the tenacity with which this witch hunt has been pursued that nobody thought to request Clinton's emails around the time of Benghazi.

Kind of difficult when you call a basic request into governmental activities a "witch hunt" to take you seriously.

But to answer your question, the actual evidence shows that the people involved in the talking points memo, just for an example, were emailing constantly.

And the administration fraudulently withheld emails about the talking points.

Call it a witch hunt again.

/by the way, subpoenas covering her emails were issued. Basic facts are hard?

 

[davefoc]

Kind of difficult when you call a basic request into governmental activities a "witch hunt" to take you seriously.

But to answer your question, the actual evidence shows that the people involved in the talking points memo, just for an example, were emailing constantly.

And the administration fraudulently withheld emails about the talking points.

Call it a witch hunt again.

It's off topic, but Benghazi is as close to a partisan witch hunt as there is, so I stand by that.

/by the way, subpoenas covering her emails were issued. Basic facts are hard?

What seems strange to me is that in all these years of investigation no one ever thought to ask for Clinton's emails around the time of Benghazi? She seems to be the prime suspect in this witch hunt, why wouldn't the prime suspects emails have been reviewed by some one investigating this. And if they weren't produced why wasn't a bigger deal made out of it at the time? And if they did see Clinton's emails, didn't anybody notice that she was using her own server?

 

[The Big Dog]

It's off topic, but Benghazi is as close to a partisan witch hunt as there is, so I stand by that.



What seems strange to me is that in all these years of investigation no one ever thought to ask for Clinton's emails around the time of Benghazi? She seems to be the prime suspect in this witch hunt, why wouldn't the prime suspects emails have been reviewed by some one investigating this. And if they weren't produced why wasn't a bigger deal made out of it at the time? And if they did see Clinton's emails, didn't anybody notice that she was using her own server?

While it is impossible to take anyone serious who claims that an inquiry into a catastrophic terrorist attack is a "which hunt," the burden is on the producing party, not the requesting party, to produce the requested documents.

Type witch hunt again, tho.

 

[davefoc]

...burden is on the producing party, not the requesting party, to produce the requested documents.

So you think that the state department was asked to turn over all communications relevant to Benghazi, nobody noticed that none of these relevant communications were emails from Clinton's email account, and that Clinton really did make communications via her private email accounts that were relevant to Benghazi and she has now destroyed them?

Assuming that I have guessed what you think correctly, I think you are probably wrong. It is not clear right now that Clinton was using her email account for sensitive communications, I suspect she wasn't, but if she was any communication within the US government would still be retrievable from other people's accounts except of course people that used private email servers. If somebody can find a Clinton email to somebody in the US government related to Benghazi that Clinton has not turned over her situation may decline significantly.

ETA: Almost forgot:

Type witch hunt again, tho.

witch hunt

 

[Shalamar]

Witch Hunt.

Partisan Cess Pool witch hunt.

 

[The Big Dog]

So you think that the state department was asked to turn over all communications relevant to Benghazi, nobody noticed that none of these relevant communications were emails from Clinton's email account, and that Clinton really did make communications via her private email accounts that were relevant to Benghazi and she has now destroyed them?

Assuming that I have guessed what you think correctly, I think you are probably wrong. It is not clear right now that Clinton was using her email account for sensitive communications, I suspect she wasn't, but if she was any communication within the US government would still be retrievable from other people's accounts except of course people that used private email servers. If somebody can find a Clinton email to somebody in the US government related to Benghazi that Clinton has not turned over her situation may decline significantly.

ETA: Almost forgot:

witch hunt

Problem, the state department and the rest of the Obama administration have failed to cooperate with Congress, so much so that Kerry was scheduled to come before Congress and testify solely about their failure to produce documents.

So, puzzle me this, how were the people looking for documents supposed to figure just why the State Department was withholding documents?? I'm guessing cowboy server was not on the radar.

New York Times, Washington Post, Ap all witch hunting!

Leave Hillary alone, she told us she was ready and stuff.