Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
Is there any actual evidence that email plays a vital role in the day-to-day activities of the secretary of state ?
Click to expand...

Why is that relevant? She used it for state department activities and communication. Therefore, the problem of security and access to any classified communication already became an issue. That's the thrust of the arguments against her use of the server that I'm reading here. Whether she broke policy or laws may be a separate part of the discussion, but it's the same problem whether she did it, Jeb Bush did it, or Santa Claus.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Why is that relevant?
Click to expand...

It may not be. Perhaps it's just idle curiosity.

Much of this email brouhaha seems to be about benghazi, and FOI email requests, so I am just curious what kinds of things are in these emails that would be damning. Perhaps some of it is simply my lack of imagination, but I don't imagine the Secretary of State sending intentionally sending out anything in email that would be potentially damning. I guess the focus would be on those things that were unintentional/overlooked. I earlier linked to lindsay graham, who has been a senator for over a decade, and hasn't ever sent an email - that leads me to believe much of what happens at a higher level in government is not conducted by something as banal as email.

I'm also wondering, and now maybe davefoc and others are also wondering, how after all these years and FOI requests, how is it that her email address has not come up before ??? If she exclusively used @clintonemails, am I supposed to believe none of the FOI have ever previously included results from that email domain ? If so, does that not imply that the committee investigating benghazi, for example, had ZERO emails from HRC ? She was SOS for years, but until a few months ago that had ZERO emails from her ?


Grizzly Bear said:
She used it for state department activities and communication. Therefore, the problem of security and access to any classified communication already became an issue. That's the thrust of the arguments against her use of the server that I'm reading here. Whether she broke policy or laws may be a separate part of the discussion, but it's the same problem whether she did it, Jeb Bush did it, or Santa Claus.
Click to expand...

She has already claimed that she send no classified documents from email, so I hardly see how the security of her server is relevant. Especially considering how craptacular the we know the state dept network is (for example)

The main 'thrust' of this thread is very much that she broke policy or laws. Because there is ZERO evidence that there are leaked emails or anything that caused a security problem, at least as far as I am aware. It's all about "show me your emails" because we want to dig through them and find something bad.
 
There seems to be a bit of confusion regarding why the people asking for documents did not discover that the State Department was not turning over Hillary's e-mails.

First of all, that seems to be a bit of a case of blaming the victim.

more importantly, it seems that the main reason was because the State Department wasn't turning over anything.

The AP sought records on the employment status of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. In response, the State Department turned over NOTHING.

Pretty difficult to discover that Hill and Huma were using her cowboy server to communicate.

Witch Hunt, Day 14, Leave Hillary Alone!
 
Witch Hunt, day 1279: After our 17th Bengazi investigation turned up nothing, and our email scandal fizzled, things began to look bleak. Surely there is evidence out there that Clinton did something wrong, somehow, sometime. Looks like we'll have to find something else to gin up as a scandal.

ETA: Good news, there are unconfirmed reports that Clinton once jaywalked on an empty street! Time for a new hearing!
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Witch Hunt, day 1279: After our 17th Bengazi investigation turned up nothing, and our email scandal fizzled, things began to look bleak. Surely there is evidence out there that Clinton did something wrong, somehow, sometime. Looks like we'll have to find something else to gin up as a scandal.

ETA: Good news, there are unconfirmed reports that Clinton once jaywalked on an empty street! Time for a new hearing!
Click to expand...

In other White House news, Hillary Clinton brought down the house at the Correspondents Dinner when she joked that her "administration was dedicated to transparency." On a greener note, the White House received a new furnace, which will heat the entire facility using only emails and FOIA requests, which is a huge step up from the Administration's previous practice of stuffing them in old storage boxes from the Rose Law Firm.
 
Sherkeu said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/17/politics/2016-elections-boehner-clinton-emails/

Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said Tuesday that the department "did not have any record" of Clinton signing a separation statement and that her failure to do so is "not a violation of any rule.

"We are fairly certain that she didn't [sign the form] or we would have record of it," Psaki said, but added recent secretaries of state hadn't signed the form either.

"We did not locate any record of either of her immediate predecessors signing this form," she said."

So, if none of her predecessors signed it, I don't think she violated either rule or protocol.
 
http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/7/71/450332/hillary-clinton-dominates-new-poll

The poll shows not only does she maintain a stranglehold on the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential race, but she also has a double-digit lead against her closest GOP contender in a head-to-head matchup.

It also backs up a poll from Pew Research Center showing few people, especially Democrats, care about the Clinton email scandal.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
"We did not locate any record of either of her immediate predecessors signing this form," she said."
Click to expand...

Wonderful. The problems at Foggy Bottom aren't simply Clintonian, they're institutional.

I feel so much better now.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/7/71/450332/hillary-clinton-dominates-new-poll

The poll shows not only does she maintain a stranglehold on the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential race, but she also has a double-digit lead against her closest GOP contender in a head-to-head matchup.

It also backs up a poll from Pew Research Center showing few people, especially Democrats, care about the Clinton email scandal.
Click to expand...

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public, especially Democrats." :D

I assume they might start to care when Hillary is testifying before Congress while solid candidates like Martin O'Malley are stumping in Iowa.
 
16.5 said:
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public, especially Democrats." :D

I assume they might start to care when Hillary is testifying before Congress while solid candidates like Martin O'Malley are stumping in Iowa.
Click to expand...

Yes, ignore the polls and go with your assumptions ...
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Yes, ignore the polls and go with your assumptions ...
Click to expand...

Yes, I'll go with the polls, infallible predictors of American Politics.

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to lead the pack of Democratic presidential hopefuls, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday.

Clinton has a lead of about 15 percent, followed by Sen. Barack Obama in second place and former Vice President Al Gore and John Edwards tied for third.

If Gore sticks to his decision not to run, Clinton's lead would grow even larger, poll results show."

lolz, John Edwards.
 
16.5 said:
Yes, I'll go with the polls, infallible predictors of American Politics.

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to lead the pack of Democratic presidential hopefuls, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday.

Clinton has a lead of about 15 percent, followed by Sen. Barack Obama in second place and former Vice President Al Gore and John Edwards tied for third.

If Gore sticks to his decision not to run, Clinton's lead would grow even larger, poll results show."

lolz, John Edwards.
Click to expand...

Not infallible. Just less fallible than 16.5 :D
 
DavidJames said:
In fairness...The Republican slime machine can hold hearing after hearing and keep whoever they decide is a threat to them tied up in their slime. They don't need facts to hold the hearing, CT level jaqing off.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and constant mention of Congressional Hearings on a politician can lead to a public perception that that politician is sleazy, even when said politician did nothing wrong. Then, because people think the politician is sleazy, they demand more hearings, because of course this politician must be guilty of something, I don't trust them. This leads to manufactured controversy over politicians not turning over personal emails, which leads to more hearings, which continue to turn up nothing. But obviously this politician is untrustworthy, look at all the investigations into them! Therefore, they can't be trusted to be President!!


At least, that appears to be the Republican hope on how this will play out.
 
wareyin said:
Indeed, and constant mention of Congressional Hearings on a politician can lead to a public perception that that politician is sleazy, even when said politician did nothing wrong. Then, because people think the politician is sleazy, they demand more hearings, because of course this politician must be guilty of something, I don't trust them. This leads to manufactured controversy over politicians not turning over personal emails, which leads to more hearings, which continue to turn up nothing. But obviously this politician is untrustworthy, look at all the investigations into them! Therefore, they can't be trusted to be President!!


At least, that appears to be the Republican hope on how this will play out.
Click to expand...

Or, you know, in the case of Hillary, she is, ya know, sleazy
 
Shalamar said:
Guilty until proven guilty?
Click to expand...

Hell, even her BFF James Carville inadvertently admitted over the weekend on ABC's This Week that Hillary Clinton probably used a private email address and server in order to avoid Congressional oversight or scrutiny.

"I suspect she didn’t want Louie Gohmert rifling through her emails," Carville said.

But being a world class slimebag is not a crime, and probably won't disqualify her from running for the Presidency.

And whereas in most professions being a slimebag would be a considerable drawback, in in democratic elections they are a positive boon.
 
wareyin said:
Indeed, and constant mention of Congressional Hearings on a politician can lead to a public perception that that politician is sleazy, even when said politician did nothing wrong. Then, because people think the politician is sleazy, they demand more hearings, because of course this politician must be guilty of something, I don't trust them. This leads to manufactured controversy over politicians not turning over personal emails, which leads to more hearings, which continue to turn up nothing. But obviously this politician is untrustworthy, look at all the investigations into them! Therefore, they can't be trusted to be President!!


At least, that appears to be the Republican hope on how this will play out.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This has just become another Benghazi HDS thread. The method of "debate" is exactly the same. If I want to read such "logic" I'll read the 911 forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom