Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[davefoc]

You do know no law was broken, right?

Or did you miss the memo?

I missed the memo. Please expand.

There seems to have been quite a bit of material on her server that was classified after it was turned into the state department. It seems that she sent and received material that was deemed classifiable after it was turned into the state department. There is a leak to the effect that some material on her server qualified for a top secret designation.

All of this puts her at legal risk. No one knows that is posting in this thread whether a chargeable crime was committed as a result of the above. Clinton's defense is that she didn't know the stuff on her server qualified as classifiable material. Given the quantity of the material on her server that qualified as classified in some form it seems plausible that she knowingly violated laws with respect to the handling of classified material.

When I was a young engineer I had a secret clearance and I handled material designated as confidential. It was at a time before email, but it is absolutely clear to me that if I handled confidential material or material that was confidential by inference in a way that Clinton seems to have I would have lost my job and perhaps suffered legal consequences.

As an aside. It is unlikely that a Republican will be nominated that I would favor over a Democrat. In short, I wanted Clinton to win. It may not be apparent to the strong Democratic partisans that are participating in this thread but Clinton is significantly wounded as a result of this scandal and perhaps other revelations that have come out recently and her chances of winning in the swing states appear to be significantly lower now than they were a few months ago. Perhaps it is time for the partisans to think more seriously about Clinton alternatives. Even the guy sitting next to Sailor Moon in the picture that Ziggurat posted is beginning to look good to me.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

While I'm still on the fence on the crime thing...
I would just like to trademark the saying: "FOIA? Screw the FOIA process."
Also, I'll take one order of: "Protocol and procedure? Screw protocol and procedure at the job"

Speaking of... while I cannot speak for others, I'm not so much bothered by disagreement over whether she broke laws (I'll let due process run its course for bad or for worse), as much as I am some of the basic stuff she did indicates she doesn't give much attention to doing her job with proper decision-making in mind. That stuff can be just as damaging.

 

[Leftus]

You do know no law was broken, right?

Or did you miss the memo?

It's basically a rule that the distance the goalposts move is in direct opposition to the evidence provided. We went from "show me the laws" past the "they don't apply" without even a friendly nod, to a non-existent memo. Constructed in fantasy, stored in the cloud, misclassified, unreachable by the common man.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I missed the memo. Please expand.

There seems to have been quite a bit of material on her server that was classified after it was turned into the state department. It seems that she sent and received material that was deemed classifiable after it was turned into the state department. There is a leak to the effect that some material on her server qualified for a top secret designation.

All of this puts her at legal risk. No one knows that is posting in this thread whether a chargeable crime was committed as a result of the above. Clinton's defense is that she didn't know the stuff on her server qualified as classifiable material. Given the quantity of the material on her server that qualified as classified in some form it seems plausible that she knowingly violated laws with respect to the handling of classified material.

When I was a young engineer I had a secret clearance and I handled material designated as confidential. It was at a time before email, but it is absolutely clear to me that if I handled confidential material or material that was confidential by inference in a way that Clinton seems to have I would have lost my job and perhaps suffered legal consequences.

As an aside. It is unlikely that a Republican will be nominated that I would favor over a Democrat. In short, I wanted Clinton to win. It may not be apparent to the strong Democratic partisans that are participating in this thread but Clinton is significantly wounded as a result of this scandal and perhaps other revelations that have come out recently and her chances of winning in the swing states appear to be significantly lower now than they were a few months ago. Perhaps it is time for the partisans to think more seriously about Clinton alternatives. Even the guy sitting next to Sailor Moon in the picture that Ziggurat posted is beginning to look good to me.

First, she complied with the law at the time. People keep citing laws that weren't in effect.

Second, there was nothing particularly sensitive in the emails, just some stuff classified only on second review. There were even emails of Clinton telling people not to send classified stuff and how instead they were to get it to Clinton if they needed to.

As for "quite a bit" I think you are mistaken. Relatively very little material so far has been reclassified. There is more to be reviewed but if there was something incriminating there, so far anyway, you know the GOP would have blasted that fact all over the media.

There's no evidence anything was mishandled with harm resulting. It's an inconvenient fact the GOP keeps obfuscating.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's basically a rule that the distance the goalposts move is in direct opposition to the evidence provided. We went from "show me the laws" past the "they don't apply" without even a friendly nod, to a non-existent memo. Constructed in fantasy, stored in the cloud, misclassified, unreachable by the common man.

Show me laws that were broken does not include laws that weren't broken because they weren't in effect.

You call that goal post moving? Good grief!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... as much as I am some of the basic stuff she did indicates she doesn't give much attention to doing her job with proper decision-making in mind. That stuff can be just as damaging.

With all due respect, do you really know what all went into the decision to have the one email?

Is it possible some very intelligent choices were made given the circumstances?

A lot of the outrage is completely contrived and if it wasn't this, there would be something else. The GOP's standard operating procedure is to take any gaffe or potential gaffe and jam it down the public's throat.

It's not that the Democrats haven't also benefitted from the tactic, but usually that's when there is an actual gaffe as opposed to a trumped-up-outrage one.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is it possible some very intelligent choices were made given the circumstances?

No, it isn't. Even Hillary herself isn't trying to peddle that line.

A lot of the outrage is completely contrived and if it wasn't this, there would be something else. The GOP's standard operating procedure is to take any gaffe or potential gaffe and jam it down the public's throat.

Yup. Dave is totally a GOP operative. You've pierced the veil.

 

[davefoc]

First, she complied with the law at the time. People keep citing laws that weren't in effect.
...

Really? My point was that nobody participating in this thread knows that. I fail to see how you could know that.

This Politifacts.com article (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...10/hillary-clintons-emails-classified-or-not/) gives something of a balanced overview of the issue and it doesn't come to a conclusion. Do you have knowledge that the authors of that article are unaware of?

From the article:

Of the several thousand emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server that have been released to the public, more than 180 have been redacted, meaning they contain information deemed classified. But State Department officials decided only in the past few months that this information should be classified.

180 seems like a big number to me and there were 45,000 emails left to be released publicly at the time the article was written. On the other hand the article makes it clear that Clinton routinely used the appropriate system for clearly classified material.

As others have noted above, even if what Clinton did doesn't rise to the level of a chargeable crime, the existence of so much sensitive material in her emails underscores what seems obvious to most of us participating in this thread, cyber security for the SoS is a big deal and it defies common sense for the SoS to use a private server for their email communications.

And of course it defies common sense for somebody to attempt to avoid complying with the email archiving regulations when so much controversy had arisen from missing emails during the Bush administration. And even without that, blatantly thumbing her nose at regulations designed to promote openness in government looks very bad as well.

As an aside, I just noticed that Jim Webb is closer to announcing a run for the Democratic nomination as well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Really, my point was that nobody participating in this thread knows that. I fail to see how you could know that.

This Politifacts.com article (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...10/hillary-clintons-emails-classified-or-not/) gives something of a balanced overview of the issue and it doesn't come to a conclusion. Do you have knowledge that the authors of that article are unaware of?

From the article:

180 seems like a big number to me and there were 45,000 emails left to be released publicly at the time the article was written. On the other hand the article makes it clear that Clinton routinely used the appropriate system for clearly classified material.

As others have noted above, even if what Clinton did doesn't rise to the level of a chargeable crime, the existence of so much sensitive material in her emails underscores what seems obvious to most of us participating in this thread, cyber security for the SoS is a big deal and it defies common sense for the SoS to use a private server for their email communications.

And of course it defies common sense for somebody to attempt to avoid complying with the email archiving regulations when so much controversy had arisen from missing emails during the Bush administration. And even without that, blatantly thumbing her nose at regulations designed to promote openness in government looks very bad as well.

As an aside, I just noticed that Jim Webb is closer to announcing a run for the Democratic nomination as well.

Most everything that the government releases under the FOIA act includes redactions. How is that even a big deal?

You have to look at the sources when deciding what to believe about broken laws. There are many people out there making claims, some partisan, some better informed than others.

NPR has a an analysis of the legal issues. Politifact specifically addresses "the rules" whatever that means.
Here's Politifact's wording:

Let’s cut to the chase: We interviewed several experts on government transparency and records preservation. While Clinton might be able to put together a case that she "complied" with the rules, experts said her actions are nevertheless hard to defend.

Hard to defend to whom? The public? The Benghazi committee? The question is were laws broken, not, was Clinton a saint.

From the NPR article:

"A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history."

The law was changed after she left office.

And there is past case law.

What's more, the Supreme Court held that the Kissinger documents did not have to be turned over under FOIA — even though they were notes taken while Kissinger was at State — because State did not have possession of them.

Kerry was the first Sec of State not using private email.

"For some historical context, Secretary Kerry is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov email account."

Back to the Politifact article:

"While Clinton may have technical arguments for why she complied with each of these and the other rules that have been discussed in the news, the argument that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law is unsustainable," said Douglas Cox, a law professor at City University of New York who studies records preservation.

Do you think there are law professors who would disagree with this? There's no question legal opinions can be found on both sides of this issue.

Look at the language Cox and Politifact couch their opinions in.

So it seems she didn’t break a rule simply by using a personal email to conduct business. Rather, by using personal emails exclusively, she skirted the rules governing federal records management, Cox said.

Didn't technically break the law but... ? Laws are either broken or they're not.

Partisan or not the DOJ says no laws were broken.
Hillary Clinton Did Not Break Law In Deleting Emails, DOJ Says

"There is no question that Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision - she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server," Department of Justice lawyers told a judge.

U.S. Justice Department lawyers told a federal court Wednesday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email account was not against the law, nor was it illegal for her to unilaterally determine which messages were considered work-related and necessary to return to the State Department for record keeping.

So, on the one hand you have hundreds of opinions all over the map, and on the other you have the DOJ reporting in a legal brief that no laws were broken.

 

[applecorped]

Cherrypicking Fail. Same article from above:


"The government watchdog group Judicial Watch, which has at least 16 active lawsuits against the State Department seeking emails from Clinton or her top aides, said the Obama administration is clearly ignoring its internal guidelines in an attempt to clear Clinton of any wrongdoing.

Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, was also found to have sent a number of emails containing classified information, which security experts say was most likely stolen by numerous foreign governments. The FBI's top investigators are currently conducting a criminal investigation into that matter, as HNGN previously reported."

 

[tsig]

IOW, you can't cite any actual crimes.

Crime? We don't need no steenkin' crime, off with her head!

 

[applecorped]

Cherrypicking Fail. Same article from above:


"The government watchdog group Judicial Watch, which has at least 16 active lawsuits against the State Department seeking emails from Clinton or her top aides, said the Obama administration is clearly ignoring its internal guidelines in an attempt to clear Clinton of any wrongdoing.

Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, was also found to have sent a number of emails containing classified information, which security experts say was most likely stolen by numerous foreign governments. The FBI's top investigators are currently conducting a criminal investigation into that matter, as HNGN previously reported."

link

http://www.hngn.com/articles/128198/20150910/hillary-clinton-break-law-deleting-emails-doj.htm

 

[Leftus]

Show me laws that were broken does not include laws that weren't broken because they weren't in effect.

You call that goal post moving? Good grief!

I call that claim incorrect.

5 USC 522 as quoted was passed in 1996.
44 USC 3101 as quoted was passed in 1968.
18 USC 793 as quoted was passed in 1996.

 

[WildCat]

I call that claim incorrect.

5 USC 522 as quoted was passed in 1996.
44 USC 3101 as quoted was passed in 1968.
18 USC 793 as quoted was passed in 1996.

But Hillary was born in the 1940s so those laws don't apply!

 

[The Big Dog]

So, on the one hand you have hundreds of opinions all over the map, and on the other you have the DOJ reporting in a legal brief that no laws were broken.

already been covered, that was an ARGUMENT that Justice Department lawyers were making to a Judge while representing their client the State Department.

of course, you stated that FOIA wasn't in effect when Clinton was in office which takes a breathtaking misunderstanding of the facts and law.

 

[The Big Dog]

With all due respect, do you really know what all went into the decision to have the one email?

Is it possible some very intelligent choices were made given the circumstances?

A lot of the outrage is completely contrived and if it wasn't this, there would be something else. The GOP's standard operating procedure is to take any gaffe or potential gaffe and jam it down the public's throat.

It's not that the Democrats haven't also benefitted from the tactic, but usually that's when there is an actual gaffe as opposed to a trumped-up-outrage one.

Wait, Hillary said that "she didn't give it any thought." Skeptic Ginger? was she lying about that too?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

At 1% personal, no problem doing her job. At 99% personal, big problem keeping track of work emails and responding effectively.

51% personal? I think it matters. Her personal business was clearly intruding on her work space. Your opinion may differ.

How much of her inbox do you think could be personal without affecting job focus?

I'm not going to presume that I can translate my 9-5 private sector work experiences into understanding a unique job like SoS.

Your argument is nothing but an argument from incredulity.

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.

Well, since we don't know what company you worked for, or positions you have held, your anecdotal data seems irrelevant.

But, since we are just tossing out anecdotal ********, most companies I am aware of, where you have a desk and email, they allow you to check your email and receive personal calls at work.

I've never experienced any company that doesn't give it's employees a work email address.

This is a non sequitur.

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.

And ? Hillary wasn't really SoS becuase she didn't have an @state.gov email address ?

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.

You sound like the crotchety old person in line at city hall, shaking their fist and yelling "you hurry up, I pay your salary !!"

Do you have some evidence she didn't focus on her job because she was so busy dealing with her personal email?

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.

Who is us ? Were you elected thread spokesperson, and I missed it ? I opined 70 pages back that she used clintonemail to keep control her email.

You can argue that she used it to avoid the state dept having control, but that argument fails against the fact that she sent emails to everyone at state dept, thus giving state dept a copy. If she wanted to avoid record keeping - she could just pick up the phone, which I am sure she did.

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).

She only used 1 email address as SoS @clintonemail. I haven't seen any evidence that she used any other during that time.

 

[mgidm86]

Well, since we don't know what company you worked for, or positions you have held, your anecdotal data seems irrelevant.

But, since we are just tossing out anecdotal ********, most companies I am aware of, where you have a desk and email, they allow you to check your email and receive personal calls at work.

Okay.

This is a non sequitur.

No, it isn't.

And ? Hillary wasn't really SoS becuase she didn't have an @state.gov email address ?

You sound like the crotchety old person in line at city hall, shaking their fist and yelling "you hurry up, I pay your salary !!"

Ad homs, exactly what I was talking about in my request to clean up the thread.

Do you have some evidence she didn't focus on her job because she was so busy dealing with her personal email?

I never said it did. The companies that frown on people dealing with personal matters at work did. You argue that companies don't do that, so that's fine.

However, in the last paragraph below you say that she handled all of her emails from a single account. This means she had to somehow sort which emails were personal and which were business, and which were classified.

If she had around 55,000 emails on her server to search and sort through, then yes, that could cause problems at work. It's an incredibly inefficient and stupid way to set up email.

Who is us ? Were you elected thread spokesperson, and I missed it ? I opined 70 pages back that she used clintonemail to keep control her email.

She absolutely did.

You can argue that she used it to avoid the state dept having control, but that argument fails against the fact that she sent emails to everyone at state dept, thus giving state dept a copy. If she wanted to avoid record keeping - she could just pick up the phone, which I am sure she did.

She sent and received emails with a lot of people outside the sate dept. But aside from that, she has exercised her control by not relinquishing her emails when she has been required to do so.

We've all answered your questions over and over again, but I have yet to see this one answered:

Give me a reasonable explanation as to why she would bother doing this when using a government address like everyone else would have been so much easier.

Critical thinking involves logic and reason. It is not always a path laid out with stepping stones of absolute facts.

I mentioned Occam's Razor earlier and "wareyin" (I apologize if I misspelled the name, I can't scroll and see it anywhere as I type this) said there weren't enough facts or information available to apply it, which is incorrect.

So again, we need a reasonable explanation as to why she would bother doing this when using a government address like everyone else would have been so much easier. Politically it has been a disaster for her.

She only used 1 email address as SoS @clintonemail. I haven't seen any evidence that she used any other during that time.

Sending and receiving emails about yoga and wedding plans with, not only the same domain name but the same actual email address as the one you communicate with foreign leaders and swap classified data, is incredibly inefficient, especially considering the volume of emails in question. Do you agree?

I think it qualifies as incredibly stupid as well.

Again - anyone (including Hillary), please provide a reasonable explanation besides corruption, arrogance, stupidity, or any combination of the three, for not simply using the government email system.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I call that claim incorrect.

5 USC 522 as quoted was passed in 1996.
44 USC 3101 as quoted was passed in 1968.
18 USC 793 as quoted was passed in 1996.

So you claim laws were broken while the DoJ says none were?

As for "lawsuits" that applecorped is referring to, those are FOIA requests.

Let me know when Clinton is indicted. This argument is useless to have with Clinton haters.

 

[The Big Dog]

So you claim laws were broken while the DoJ says none were?

As for "lawsuits" that applecorped is referring to, those are FOIA requests.

Let me know when Clinton is indicted. This argument is useless to have with Clinton haters.

Doj lawyers were making an argument. Explained already.

The lawsuits are lawsuits. Explained already.

I agree that this argument is worthless to have with zealous Hillary Clinton supporters.