RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails
State Department officials have determined that classified information was sent to the personal email accounts of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the senior staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, NBC News has learned.

In an interview with NBC News, Powell challenged the conclusion, saying nothing that went to his personal account was secret. Rice did not initially respond to an interview request.

In a letter to Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy dated Feb. 3, State Department Inspector General Steve Linick said that the State Department has determined that 12 emails examined from State's archives contained national security information now classified "Secret" or "Confidential." The letter was read to NBC News.
Click to expand...

And another bogus charge against Clinton bites the dust.
 
16.5 said:
Uh, not sure that gets Hillary off the hook. Hell Powell (who denies it by the way) can have the jail cell next to Hillary.
Click to expand...

It's funny that people <snip> think (and I use that word somewhat loosely) this makes Hillary look better. It only serves to make State look worse.


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DavidJames said:
Not only that but, based on current information, her decision resulted in better security then the alternative.
Click to expand...

Skip and Jeff are hanging out at a bar. Skip is drunk, Jeff is sober. They both drive home. Jeff gets in an accident.

Are we to conclude from this that Skip made the right choice by driving drunk? Because that's what you're suggesting. Note also that I haven't even said whether or not Skip got into an accident, because to make this situation a parallel, we don't even know. And yet you're still saying that Skip made the right choice.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Skip and Jeff are hanging out at a bar. Skip is drunk, Jeff is sober. They both drive home. Jeff gets in an accident.

Are we to conclude from this that Skip made the right choice by driving drunk? Because that's what you're suggesting. Note also that I haven't even said whether or not Skip got into an accident, because to make this situation a parallel, we don't even know. And yet you're still saying that Skip made the right choice.
Click to expand...

To make your analogy more precise, Jeff's car has a collision alert system, so that an ambulance is called immediately. He is taken to the hospital quickly and sustains only minor damage due to the quick medical response. Skip hasn't been heard from since, although the police did find some skid marks near a cliff that look somewhat ominous.
 
Ziggurat said:
Skip and Jeff are hanging out at a bar. Skip is drunk, Jeff is sober. They both drive home. Jeff gets in an accident.

Are we to conclude from this that Skip made the right choice by driving drunk? Because that's what you're suggesting. Note also that I haven't even said whether or not Skip got into an accident, because to make this situation a parallel, we don't even know. And yet you're still saying that Skip made the right choice.
Click to expand...

That's a terrible analogy.
 
sunmaster14 said:
To make your analogy more precise, Jeff's car has a collision alert system, so that an ambulance is called immediately. He is taken to the hospital quickly and sustains only minor damage due to the quick medical response. Skip hasn't been heard from since, although the police did find some skid marks near a cliff that look somewhat ominous.
Click to expand...
No, a more accurate analogy would be more like this: Skip routinely drives 3mph over the speed limit on a flat, straight stretch of highway. A few people who really, really hate Skip spend years and millions of dollars investigating Skip to find something he has done wrong. The best they can do is this 3mph over the posted speed limit. So they start a huge hissy fit about Skip breaking the law, and endangering the security of a town 30 miles away.
Rational people begin to point out that every single person who has driven through that stretch of highway has driven 3mph over, no one was endangered, and it wasn't a big deal. Suddenly, we hear cries of 'tu quoque'
 
Ziggurat said:
Yet you can't say why. Perhaps it's only terrible insofar as it points to a conclusion you don't like.
Click to expand...

Sure, I could say why. I choose not to, as I see no purpose in arguing over an analogy regarding basically an aside. We can just disagree and you can draw whatever conclusion you would like.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I'm loving how tu quoquery is now official US State Department policy. They actually had to go fishing for evidence of classified information from a decade ago in order to try to burnish Hillary's sorry ass? What possible reason could they have for doing this, except partisan politics?
Click to expand...
You sooo missed the point, along with your comrades. Not that I'm surprised.

It's not tu quoque. It's Powell saying the claims of "classified" are greatly exaggerated.
"I wish they would release them," Powell said, "so that a normal, air-breathing mammal would look at them and say, 'What's the issue?'"

Powell said he has read the two messages in question, having been made aware of the letter. The messages originated with ambassadors -- one in the Philippines, the other in Europe. He said they were first circulated on unclassified State Department systems, and sent to his personal account by his assistant.

"They were unclassified at the time, and they are, in my judgment, still unclassified," he said.
Click to expand...
Sound familiar?
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
No, a more accurate analogy would be more like this: Skip routinely drives 3mph over the speed limit on a flat, straight stretch of highway.
Click to expand...

No. Hillary endangered people's lives with her reckless actions. Your assertion to the contrary is simply wrong.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Sure, I could say why. I choose not to, as I see no purpose in arguing over an analogy regarding basically an aside. We can just disagree and you can draw whatever conclusion you would like.
Click to expand...

But it's not an aside. The fact that it is wrong to break the law and endanger people's lives regardless of whether the risk turns into actual damage is at the center of this, and you have taken the wrong side.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You sooo missed the point, along with your comrades. Not that I'm surprised.

It's not tu quoque. It's Powell saying the claims of "classified" are greatly exaggerated.

Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

Sure, and our jails are filled with innocent people, if you believe what the prisoners tell you. Why is it so remarkable that a person accused of wrongdoing should proclaim his or her innocence? It means nothing.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. Hillary endangered people's lives with her reckless actions. Your assertion to the contrary is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Was this when she requested her own Talking points, or when she wanted the public statement made by Tony Blair that she then told reporters the very next day?
 
It is fascinating to see people in this thread are arguing essentially that Hillary can do whatever she wants as long as her risk taking doesnt result is any material harm. It makes russian roulette sound like a perfect sane risk to take just for the hell of it.

In that case screw the rules... and for that matter... screw teamwork in tge department for that matter... screw working standards for the sake of expediency.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
It is fascinating to see people in this thread are arguing essentially that Hillary can do whatever she wants as long as her risk taking doesnt result is any material harm. It makes russian roulette sound like a perfect sane risk to take just for the hell of it.

In that case screw the rules... and for that matter... screw teamwork in tge department for that matter... screw working standards for the sake of expediency.
Click to expand...

I don't really care much about Hillary, though I tend to look down on the obvious witch hunts (like anything started by Issa), but in this case my feelings are more resigned: way too many people in the government make stupid computer security decisions. At this point I don't care what the consequences are for her or if she gets off scott free, as long as maybe some of the agencies start taking a bit more care about their security.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
It is fascinating to see people in this thread are arguing essentially that Hillary can do whatever she wants as long as her risk taking doesnt result is any material harm. It makes russian roulette sound like a perfect sane risk to take just for the hell of it.

In that case screw the rules... and for that matter... screw teamwork in tge department for that matter... screw working standards for the sake of expediency.
Click to expand...

You want to see something even more funny? Take a comparison of the names of people that are damning Hillary in this thread. Talking about how she "risked people lives with her carelessness" and how now everyone around here is concerned about the lives of others. Then take those names and head over to the threads about Edward Snowden, and watch those same people defend him by saying that nothing he leaked could have cost people their lives.

I'm too lazy to do it, and really don't care. The people in this thread know who they are and the double standard is, not only pathetic, but transparent. I, for the most part, bailed out of this thread because the arguments against Hillary are garbage. It succeeded though. The Republicans got exactly what they wanted. They made enough noise where Hillary is starting to have a real problem with the voters and the polls. The problem with that? Oh yeah, Bernie Sanders is going to be the next person in line. What's the problem with that? Oh yeah, they can't do this same **** to Bernie because he doesn't have the problem. What's the problem with that? The Republicans, despite doing their best to take down Hillary, are still marching out the *********** scum of the party.

This has all been an effort in futility because all the Republicans have done is open a path for a different presidential candidate to go up against the, literal, trash they're throwing out now.
 
plague311 said:
You want to see something even more funny? Take a comparison of the names of people that are damning Hillary in this thread. Talking about how she "risked people lives with her carelessness" and how now everyone around here is concerned about the lives of others. Then take those names and head over to the threads about Edward Snowden, and watch those same people defend him by saying that nothing he leaked could have cost people their lives.
Click to expand...
Really? I would have thought it was the opposite. Not that Clinton supporters are all Snowden supporters, but I can't picture any right wingers as Snowden supporters.


Now I'm curious.
 
Last edited:
elbe said:
I don't really care much about Hillary, though I tend to look down on the obvious witch hunts (like anything started by Issa), but in this case my feelings are more resigned: way too many people in the government make stupid computer security decisions. At this point I don't care what the consequences are for her or if she gets off scott free, as long as maybe some of the agencies start taking a bit more care about their security.
Click to expand...

I don't care much either... the entire point behind my snark is that in the eyes of partisanship you cannot have a realistic conversation because people will come up with any reason to state that a politician was perfectly justified in an action irrespective of how the real world treats it in any other situation. I'm sorry that people do not like my bluntness on the matter.


plague311 said:
You want to see something even more funny? Take a comparison of the names of people that are damning Hillary in this thread. Talking about how she "risked people lives with her carelessness" and how now everyone around here is concerned about the lives of others. Then take those names and head over to the threads about Edward Snowden, and watch those same people defend him by saying that nothing he leaked could have cost people their lives.

I'm too lazy to do it, and really don't care. The people in this thread know who they are and the double standard is, not only pathetic, but transparent. I, for the most part, bailed out of this thread because the arguments against Hillary are garbage. It succeeded though. The Republicans got exactly what they wanted. They made enough noise where Hillary is starting to have a real problem with the voters and the polls. The problem with that? Oh yeah, Bernie Sanders is going to be the next person in line. What's the problem with that? Oh yeah, they can't do this same **** to Bernie because he doesn't have the problem. What's the problem with that? The Republicans, despite doing their best to take down Hillary, are still marching out the *********** scum of the party.

This has all been an effort in futility because all the Republicans have done is open a path for a different presidential candidate to go up against the, literal, trash they're throwing out now.
Click to expand...

You already know hopefully that I find the Benghazi stuff laughable and we have had this discussion before in one form or another. My commentary was on something much more simple, in that no matter how much of the political angle you try to eliminate from the critique, partisanship finds a way to legitimize something. I was referring to the Hillary defense going as far as even ignoring simple matters that actually took place independently of the wishful thinking that Benghazi gates were chasing... but if you want I have no problem pointing out that people calling for her to go to jail should be waiting on more evidence. I might find the email comments worthy of not considering her for election, but I have yet to see confirmed information that warrants putting her in the slammer.

Since you've already explained your position to me once before sufficiently I have little else to point out unless you want me to clarify on anything.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
I don't care much either... the entire point behind my snark is that in the eyes of partisanship you cannot have a realistic conversation because people will come up with any reason to state that a politician was perfectly justified in an action irrespective of how the real world treats it in any other situation. I'm sorry that people do not like my bluntness on the matter.
Click to expand...

Also, pointing out how the real world has treated it in other situations gets a response of 'tu quoque'
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Really? I would have thought it was the opposite. Not that Clinton supporters are all Snowden supporters, but I can't picture any right wingers as Snowden supporters.


Now I'm curious.
Click to expand...

I am a Snowden supporter. However we can judge both Clinton and Snowden each according to the moral worth of their actions, even if what both of them did was illegal. Snowden may have put lives in danger. It's true. But he also exposed that a secret court made a secret ruling that no one is allowed to challenge that resulted in the government gaining carte blanche power to spy on Americans online. What Clinton's actions was for own convenience. Judge them as you will.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
I don't care much either... the entire point behind my snark is that in the eyes of partisanship you cannot have a realistic conversation because people will come up with any reason to state that a politician was perfectly justified in an action irrespective of how the real world treats it in any other situation. I'm sorry that people do not like my bluntness on the matter.
Click to expand...

Partisan snark on my JREF ISF? Well I never!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Really? I would have thought it was the opposite. Not that Clinton supporters are all Snowden supporters, but I can't picture any right wingers as Snowden supporters.


Now I'm curious.
Click to expand...

As Newton showed fairly clearly. It doesn't matter because they've already found a way to differentiate between them. Edward, while risking lives and bringing about really nothing new, is to be recognized as a hero. Hillary, while risking no lives (at least none shown here), is to be vilified, and degraded. Couple those with stupid faux campaign slogans, and ridiculous memes, and you have the anti-Hillary machine!
 
wareyin said:
Was this when she requested her own Talking points, or when she wanted the public statement made by Tony Blair that she then told reporters the very next day?
Click to expand...

You haven't been paying attention to the news, have you? There are emails on Hillary's server which contain information so sensitive that they will not be released to the public even in redacted form, information which includes the identities of human sources. It's the kind of stuff that can get people killed if it's compromised.
 
Ziggurat said:
You haven't been paying attention to the news, have you? There are emails on Hillary's server which contain information so sensitive that they will not be released to the public even in redacted form, information which includes the identities of human sources. It's the kind of stuff that can get people killed if it's compromised.
Click to expand...
Those were the claims made by that one opinion piece in a far right rag, right? Any mainstream evidence? Because these far right opinion pieces have quite a history in this thread of false claims. Remember the guy claiming he had copies of all the deleted emails for sale?
 
Where is the crime?
National Law Journal: "An Analysis Of Classified Information Laws Shows It Takes Intentional Disclosure To Get An Indictment." The National Law Journal's Laurie Levenson noted in a September 21, 2015 piece that most criminal statutes involving classified information require "a knowing or intentional disclosure or mishandling" of the classified information. Levenson further pointed out "it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures":

Thus, in sorting out Hillary Clinton's actions, there are at least two critical questions: First, to what extent was using a private email server an "unauthorized" handling of classified information. Second, did Clinton ever knowingly mishandle classified information or act in a grossly negligent manner that led to information being lost, destroyed or stolen?

Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after "leakers," but not bunglers. Twenty years ago, John Deutsch found himself in hot water and the target of a DOJ investigation for transferring classified materials to his government-owned computer at home -- a computer that he used to access a wide range of Internet searches. He was never charged; President Bill Clinton pardoned Deutsch on his last day as president. It remains to be seen what will happen in Hillary Clinton's case. [National Law Journal, 9/21/15]
Click to expand...
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297
 
Curiously enough, while the Hillary camp is all excited about 2 Powell emails containing confidential data (as opposed to Hillary's which is up to over 1300 emails) perhaps they are overlooking the fact that:

THE FBI TALKED TO COLIN POWELL ABOUT HIS EMAILS.

Hmmmm, wonder if the FBI is gonna have a word with Hillary and her aides?
 
wareyin said:
Those were the claims made by that one opinion piece in a far right rag, right? Any mainstream evidence? Because these far right opinion pieces have quite a history in this thread of false claims. Remember the guy claiming he had copies of all the deleted emails for sale?
Click to expand...
The "far right" source is the State Department.
The State Department announced Friday that it will not release 22 emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because they contain "top secret" information, the highest level of government classification.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
Perhaps initially (don't know, don't care).



Yes.
Click to expand...

We know they're being marked as top secret. The question is whether the classification is overkill, the material not that sensitive as Clinton insists and Colin Powell apparently concurs at least with the charge much of this stuff is over-classified.
 
What is extra hilarious is that Hillary's campaign was just complaining about the leeakiest leakers ever, and now they are wetting themselves over two classified on Powell's email (as opposed to the 1300 plus on Hillary's)

He added that there was a difference between his email situation and that of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who used a personal email server that was found to have received classified information.

"It's a lot different from what the rest of us were doing and what Mrs. Clinton is doing," Powell said.

I think they both ought to be in jail. Powell gets two days for his two emails and Clinton gets a month for each of the top secret/SAPs and 1300 days for each lower level classified.

That sound fair?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom