Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
... I didn't ramp up anything, unless you want to quibble that she was doing her job effectively, but just 'at a reduced level.'
Click to expand...

I would quibble since my exact point was that mixing her private and SoS emails didn't disable her ability to do her job, but it probably diminished her ability to focus on work and thereby the quality of her work was reduced. But I'm not going to quibble because mgidm86 expressed exactly my take on this and I will thus put forth his post as a stand in for my quibbling.

mgidm86 said:
Most big companies agree with you.

Companies I've worked for in the past didn't want us dealing with our personal email at work. I've never experienced any company that doesn't give it's employees a work email address.

I can't recall anyone from the cable guy to my attorney giving me a business card that said joe@gmail.com, or joe@joeiscool.com.

Seeing as Hillary was working for me (and the rest of us taxpayers), I'd prefer she concentrated on her job. It's kinda the way things are done everywhere else.

Most of us here have come to the same, or similar, conclusions as to why she did this. This thread drags on for the few that have not.

Come to think of it, I don't remember this being mentioned here: Did she have multiple email addresses on the server, or did she only use a single email address on it? If the former then she could keep them separate, at least on her devices or within an email client (like Outlook).
Click to expand...
 
shuize said:
"The Chinese will never guess my totally secret password: 'Hillary2016'"
Click to expand...
Is there any evidence at all Clinton's emails were hacked? I don't recall that information.

Is there evidence the State Department's servers have been compromised **cough-Snowden-cough**?
 
Ziggurat said:
That's because there is no information. The question is a black hole. That should concern you. Obviously it does not.
Click to expand...

It is a black hole in the sense that there is no information available to the public. Among things we don't know:
1. Was the server controllable remotely?
2. If it was controllable remotely who had access to the server via the remote link?
3. Were any steps taken to reduce the possibility that data stored on the computer wasn't just dumped to a USB port.
4. How were backups done and where was the media stored?
5. When the computer was transferred to the data center who had access to it in the data center?
6. What happened to the physical media where backups were stored if the server was backed up on physical media.
7. What special precautions were taken to be able to detect attempts to hack into the server?
8. Who was Eric Hoteham and what role did he play in the decisions about the server and the setting up of the server?
9. Why did Clinton's IT guy take the fifth with regard to the server?
10. Are Clinton's private emails actually available for sale?

Overall there are two problems with the nothing-bad-happened argument:

1. It is not knowable whether the security of the server was breached or even what security was in place to make it difficult to hack into the server and to detect it if it happened.
2. It is the weakest possible defense of Clinton. The claim is that Clinton did something bizarrely stupid, not that her strangely stupid actions caused a problem. We can't know whether they did or not. We can only know that Clinton's actions were very stupid.
 
davefoc said:
It is a black hole in the sense that there is no information available to the public.
Click to expand...

And not just the public. With Hillary's IT guy taking the 5th, it's not like the government knows what went on either.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's because there is no information. The question is a black hole. That should concern you. Obviously it does not.
Click to expand...
And we are back full circle, no evidence of a crime, no evidence of harm, but attack Clinton anyway because there might be something there we don't know about.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And we are back full circle, no evidence of a crime, no evidence of harm, but attack Clinton anyway because there might be something there we don't know about.
Click to expand...

You have indeed circled back around, to the same nonsensical confusion of a priori and a posteriori reasoning that Elvis has been using, along with the farcical assertion that as long as no crime was committed, everything must be fine.
 
Ziggurat said:
You have indeed circled back around, to the same nonsensical confusion of a priori and a posteriori reasoning that Elvis has been using, along with the farcical assertion that as long as no crime was committed, everything must be fine.
Click to expand...

What crime occurred here?

What harm resulted?

By all means, let's start there.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Who knows what that is about. You guys can't even come up with a theory of the crime that could have occurred.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. We know exactly what crime occurred to make her IT guy plead the fifth: he failed to disclose his outside income to the State Department while employed there.

Skeptic Ginger said:
What crime occurred here?

What harm resulted?

By all means, let's start there.
Click to expand...

I don't accept the premise of your questions. Not everything bad is illegal, and not every bad decision leads directly to harm. So there's no reason we need to start there, rather than starting with whether or not her actions were a huge mistake and revealed very, very bad judgment. But since you can't actually defend Hillary's actions, this is the best you can do.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Nonsense. We know exactly what crime occurred to make her IT guy plead the fifth: he failed to disclose his outside income to the State Department while employed there.



I don't accept the premise of your questions. Not everything bad is illegal, and not every bad decision leads directly to harm. So there's no reason we need to start there, rather than starting with whether or not her actions were a huge mistake and revealed very, very bad judgment. But since you can't actually defend Hillary's actions, this is the best you can do.
Click to expand...

The "what crime did Hillary commit" brigade has set the bar so low they have buried it in the earth's mantle. Hell, I can live with the likelihood that Hillary is not going to be convicted of a felony, which of course does not mean that she is not the sleaziest politician since Dick Nixon.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nonsense. We know exactly what crime occurred to make her IT guy plead the fifth: he failed to disclose his outside income to the State Department while employed there.
Click to expand...
Link?



Ziggurat said:
I don't accept the premise of your questions. Not everything bad is illegal, and not every bad decision leads directly to harm. So there's no reason we need to start there, rather than starting with whether or not her actions were a huge mistake and revealed very, very bad judgment. But since you can't actually defend Hillary's actions, this is the best you can do.
Click to expand...
To quote you, nonsense.

I've been very straight forward re: this matter. I want elected officials to be transparent, this wasn't. But on a scale of things it's minor. I find it much more troubling that Obama has gone after whistle blowers and reporters. That's an issue. Clinton who has very reason to maintain as much privacy as possible, not so much.

As for all the BS about bad judgement, nonsense. If you were Clinton it was a very reasonable position. And if it wasn't this, I'm sure the GOP would just be harping on some other faux outrage.
 
16.5 said:
The "what crime did Hillary commit" brigade has set the bar so low they have buried it in the earth's mantle. Hell, I can live with the likelihood that Hillary is not going to be convicted of a felony, which of course does not mean that she is not the sleaziest politician since Dick Nixon.
Click to expand...
IOW, you can't cite any actual crimes.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What crime occurred here?
Click to expand...

Plural.

5 USC 552 commonly known as the FOIA.
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:

(3)

(B) In making any record available to a person under this paragraph, an agency shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format. Each agency shall make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are reproducible for purposes of this section.
(C) In responding under this paragraph to a request for records, an agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic form or format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency’s automated information system.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the term “search” means to review, manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose of locating those records which are responsive to a request.

She also broke the Federal Records Act 44 U.S. Code § 3101 since, as the head of an agency she failed to do this for her and everyone else on her server:

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Because she gave her lawyer copies of classified information (and when it was classified doesn't matter) and may not have wiped her server fully 18 U.S. Code § 793:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


What harm resulted?
Click to expand...

Not required, but the various lawsuits and the fees to cover such actions as A.P. Vs. Department of State. Also does harm to the very concept of an open government if we allow people who are supposed to play by the FOIA requirements to ignore them so fully.
 
Leftus said:
Plural.

5 USC 552 commonly known as the FOIA.
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:

(3)

(B) In making any record available to a person under this paragraph, an agency shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format. Each agency shall make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are reproducible for purposes of this section.
(C) In responding under this paragraph to a request for records, an agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic form or format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency’s automated information system.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the term “search” means to review, manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose of locating those records which are responsive to a request.

She also broke the Federal Records Act 44 U.S. Code § 3101 since, as the head of an agency she failed to do this for her and everyone else on her server:

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Because she gave her lawyer copies of classified information (and when it was classified doesn't matter) and may not have wiped her server fully 18 U.S. Code § 793:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.




Not required, but the various lawsuits and the fees to cover such actions as A.P. Vs. Department of State. Also does harm to the very concept of an open government if we allow people who are supposed to play by the FOIA requirements to ignore them so fully.
Click to expand...

You do know no law was broken, right?

Or did you miss the memo?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom