Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
Having that not happen ever in a large organization? Yes, that might be impossible. Not having it be the average behavior of employees? I think that's a bare minimum expectation.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Otherwise, what would be the point in labeling anything as "classified"?
 
Giz said:
Indeed. Otherwise, what would be the point in labeling anything as "classified"?
Click to expand...

There have been extensive studies of overclassification by the federal government. Many thousands of people have the authority to "classify" records, and several million people actually have clearances to access it at various levels. Matters that were public records have been classified after the fact. Newspaper stories have been classified. Often records are classified because the contents would embarrass officials, not because they contain defense or diplomatic secrets. Clinton did something she shouldn't have, and she compounded it with multiple insulting explanations, but it's just dishonest to pretend she was shipping nuclear secrets to the Russians. There's no evidence that she sent anything to anybody who wasn't entitled to get it, or that anything was intercepted by outside actors. Meanwhile, the drumbeat about her emails helped give us Trump.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...tate-has-massive-amount-of-overclassification
https://www.cjr.org/criticism/hillary_clinton_emails.php
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/...stem-of-classifying-government-documents.html
 
I'm sure a majority of Republicans in Congress would prefer 4 years of publicly berating Clinton than having to pretend to be on the side of Trump and his crazy, half-assed ideas.
 
Yeah, remember all that stuff Comey said about Huma forwarding hundreds and thousands of Clinton emails to her husband, with classified information?

Um, no...

https://www.propublica.org/article/..._twitter&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

The FBI is trying to figure out how to correct the record of his incorrect testimony.

According to two sources familiar with the matter — including one in law enforcement — Abedin forwarded only a handful of Clinton emails to her husband for printing — not the “hundreds and thousands” cited by Comey. It does not appear Abedin made “a regular practice” of doing so. Other officials said it was likely that most of the emails got onto the computer as a result of backups of her Blackberry.

It was not clear how many, if any, of the forwarded emails were among the 12 “classified” emails Comey said had been found on Weiner’s laptop. None of the messages carried classified markings at the time they were sent.
Click to expand...

So, only a handful of emails forwarded, and none of them marked classified when they were sent.

But other than that, I'm sure his testimony was spot on...
 
pgwenthold said:
Yeah, remember all that stuff Comey said about Huma forwarding hundreds and thousands of Clinton emails to her husband, with classified information?

Um, no...

https://www.propublica.org/article/..._twitter&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

The FBI is trying to figure out how to correct the record of his incorrect testimony.



So, only a handful of emails forwarded, and none of them marked classified when they were sent.

But other than that, I'm sure his testimony was spot on...
Click to expand...

Um, you really have not contradicted his testimony at all, and the fact that they were not marked classified is no defense to Hillary and her team.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I'm sure a majority of Republicans in Congress would prefer 4 years of publicly berating Clinton than having to pretend to be on the side of Trump and his crazy, half-assed ideas.
Click to expand...
Ted Cruz must have a dealer providing him with an ample supply of Impervious-To-Embarrassment pills, what with his line of questioning addressed to Sally Yates about Clinton's email on Wiener's computer. At a hearing about Russian meddling in US election.
 
The Big Dog said:
Um, you really have not contradicted his testimony at all, and the fact that they were not marked classified is no defense to Hillary and her team.
Click to expand...

Blown away at how much traction this Comey fake news story is getting.

There is no dispute that there were classified emails on Weiner's laptop, nor that there were hundreds or thousands of emails on the laptop (there were) the alleged misstatement seems to be that Huma did not personally forward all of them but rather most were automatically forwarded from her blackberry.

I cannot fathom what difference the Clinton apologists in the press thinks that makes.
 
The Big Dog said:
Blown away at how much traction this Comey fake news story is getting.

There is no dispute that there were classified emails on Weiner's laptop, nor that there were hundreds or thousands of emails on the laptop (there were) the alleged misstatement seems to be that Huma did not personally forward all of them but rather most were automatically forwarded from her blackberry.

I cannot fathom what difference the Clinton apologists in the press thinks that makes.
Click to expand...

Because when emails were classified is relevant to the level of improper behavior.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It isn't a false claim. It is about ethics, and the government doesn't get to decide what I think is ethical.
Click to expand...

It is about the law, and you don't get to decide what you think is legal for people that signed specific agreements to comply with the laws and regulations regarding the handling of classified data and they do not get a pass because they found it inconvenient.
 
The Big Dog said:
It is about the law, and you don't get to decide what you think is legal for people that signed specific agreements to comply with the laws and regulations regarding the handling of classified data and they do not get a pass because they found it inconvenient.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't about the law, and that seems to be one of your source's of misunderstanding people with different opinions on this subject.

There are a lot of issues that when I judge people I don't give two figs what the law is.
 
The Big Dog said:
False

See here among dozens of other articles about it

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...cret-security-clearance-knows-or-should-know/
Click to expand...

The author of your link was himself fired (later "allowed to retire") for misconduct. Maybe not the best source.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...1/gIQAiXNSCS_blog.html?utm_term=.6ed4c41814b7

His claim is that everyone should know that something should be classified, even if it's not. That's quite a stretch, and it's one of the things that leads to ridiculous overclassification.
 
BobTheCoward said:
No, it isn't about the law, and that seems to be one of your source's of misunderstanding people with different opinions on this subject.

There are a lot of issues that when I judge people I don't give two figs what the law is.
Click to expand...

Well of course it is about the law, it is absurd to discuss the legalities of classification without examining what the law requires. I could not give "two figs" what one's "opinion" is if it disregards what the law requires.
 
Bob001 said:
The author of your link was himself fired (later "allowed to retire") for misconduct. Maybe not the best source.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...1/gIQAiXNSCS_blog.html?utm_term=.6ed4c41814b7

His claim is that everyone should know that something should be classified, even if it's not. That's quite a stretch, and it's one of the things that leads to ridiculous overclassification.
Click to expand...

That is what is known as an ad hominem fallacy, and investigating the matters further, he was "fired" for writing a book?

I see you do not understand, it is classified even if not marked.
 
The Big Dog said:
Well of course it is about the law, it is absurd to discuss the legalities of classification without examining what the law requires. I could not give "two figs" what one's "opinion" is if it disregards what the law requires.
Click to expand...

Then you are trying not to understand what difference it makes to certain apologists.

You: I don't understand position X.

Me: It is premised on position Y.

You: I reject premise Y.

Me: I do not reject premise Y.
 
The Big Dog said:
That is what is known as an ad hominem fallacy, and investigating the matters further, he was "fired" for writing a book?

I see you do not understand, it is classified even if not marked.
Click to expand...

If he's presenting himself as an expert on procedures, it is relevant that he was terminated for violating procedures.

And here's a different perspective about classification after the fact:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/...john-kerry-condeleezza-rice-colin-powell.html
 
BobTheCoward said:
Then you are trying not to understand what difference it makes to certain apologists.

You: I don't understand position X.

Me: It is premised on position Y.

You: I reject premise Y.

Me: I do not reject premise Y.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't care what difference its makes to certain apologists if it is objectively wrong.
 
Bob001 said:
If he's presenting himself as an expert on procedures, it is relevant that he was terminated for violating procedures.

And here's a different perspective about classification after the fact:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/...john-kerry-condeleezza-rice-colin-powell.html
Click to expand...

No it is still an ad hominem.

Not sure that is a different view:

It is against the law to have classified information outside a secure government account.
Click to expand...

I have constantly advocated putting Colin Powell in a cell right next to Hillary.
 
The Big Dog said:
Blown away at how much traction this Comey fake news story is getting.

There is no dispute that there were classified emails on Weiner's laptop, nor that there were hundreds or thousands of emails on the laptop (there were) the alleged misstatement seems to be that Huma did not personally forward all of them but rather most were automatically forwarded from her blackberry.

I cannot fathom what difference the Clinton apologists in the press thinks that makes.
Click to expand...

Nailed it: See for example:

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/862049327384064002

propublica owes us a huge apology.
 
Hillary Clinton does not get It

Hillary continues to reveal how she managed to lose to Donald Trump, by spewing more brain dead excuses about how the media was after her and her email server scandal was no big deal, and more nonsense about misogyny.

here is a taste if you have a strong stomach:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...email-server-scandal-like-it-was-pearl-harbor

Hillary? It was about your lying, and you can't stop even now?
 
The Big Dog said:
Hillary continues to reveal how she managed to lose to Donald Trump, by spewing more brain dead excuses about how the media was after her and her email server scandal was no big deal, and more nonsense about misogyny.

here is a taste if you have a strong stomach:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...email-server-scandal-like-it-was-pearl-harbor

Hillary? It was about your lying, and you can't stop even now?
Click to expand...

Any politician who blames the media for their troubles doesn't get it. Dealing with the press and managing the message through the media is part of the job. She should quite whining about negative covfefe.
 
Meadmaker said:
Any politician who blames the media for their troubles doesn't get it. Dealing with the press and managing the message through the media is part of the job.
Click to expand...
That's right. Anything the media does is OK by definition. It's always your fault if they promulgate lies about you. :rolleyes:

But the characterization of her criticism being "brain dead excuses about how the media was after her" is wrong.

she said that it was a "mistake" that she wishes she could take back... And she also said at the time that she takes "absolute personal responsibility" for her election loss.
Click to expand...

Does that sound like someone who is blaming the media for all their troubles?

Clinton accused Republicans of using the email server "very effectively for adverse political reasons," lamenting Comey's decision to effectively reopen the investigation in the final days of the race before later announcing that he found nothing new in freshly obtained emails. And ... she criticized the paper's handling of the situation.

"They covered it like it was Pearl Harbor," she said.
Click to expand...

One could argue that all this was to be expected - since Republicans are scum and Comey is one of them, and the media are more interested in profit than honest reporting - but she's not wrong.
 
It's predictable given the 'everything has to be a scandal' media business model, but it's getting tiring that instead of looking at the actual reasons Clinton lost (there were many), every story has to be about whether she is taking the appropriate amount of responsibility or whether she is blaming everyone else.

I think she's absolutely right, Comey unethically skewed the election at the last minute. The DNC hacked data was used not just by Trump, but also by Paul Ryan in his campaign. Could she have countered these influences? In hindsight, sure.


Re the supposed 33,000 missing emails, they weren't all missing. That number is false. Read the transcript of Comey's testimony about his last minute letter in the Senate after the election.
Anthony Weiner's laptop that had been seized in an unrelated case. What they could see from the metadata was that there were thousands of Secretary Clinton's emails on that device, including what they thought might be the missing emails from her first three months as secretary of state.

We never found any emails from her first three months. She was using a Verizon BlackBerry then and that's obviously very important, because if there was evidence that she was acting with bad intent, that's where it would be in the first three months....
Click to expand...
What that says very clearly is the emails Comey never found were only those from the first 3 months as SoS and it was because she was using her blackberry during that time.

What the ass doesn't say but which is obvious, he was convinced Clinton was guilty but he just couldn't find any evidence.

Are we supposed to believe some nefarious illegal crap took place but only in Clinton's first 3 months? That's absurd.

Like I posted up-thread, a dozen Benghazi hearings, an incredibly thorough investigation by the FBI whose director had a confirmation bias Clinton was guilty of something, if only he could find evidence of it, whatever it was, and they couldn't find a single thing.

Gawd! The Clinton's must be geniuses. All those years being investigated and for Bill they found evidence of entrapped perjury. For Hilary they never found more than some workplace errors that happen thousands of times every day at worksites all over this country and only extremely rarely is anyone ever prosecuted for breaking those workplace regulatory laws.

Yes, Comey's last minute letter was unethical and disgusting, much worse than a few classified emails on a private server that was never breached.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Re the supposed 33,000 missing emails, they weren't all missing. That number is false. Read the transcript of Comey's testimony about his last minute letter in the Senate after the election.What that says very clearly is the emails Comey never found were only those from the first 3 months as SoS and it was because she was using her blackberry during that time.

What the ass doesn't say but which is obvious, he was convinced Clinton was guilty but he just couldn't find any evidence.
Click to expand...

Utterly false. the 33,000 were the ones she destroyed on the fraudulent basis that they were personal.

The first three months include ALL her emails and are IN ADDITION to the 33,000.

I have explained this repeatedly, at this point it seems to be an attempt to deliberately mislead people.
 
The Big Dog said:
Utterly false. the 33,000 were the ones she destroyed on the fraudulent basis that they were personal.
The first three months include ALL her emails and are IN ADDITION to the 33,000.

I have explained this repeatedly, at this point it seems to be an attempt to deliberately mislead people.
Click to expand...

pot/kettle/black
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I missed the actual evidence in your article of fraud, or any actual crime. Can you quote the parts of the article that you think prove your point ?
Click to expand...

Yes, the point where it says that Hillary deliberately destroyed 33,000 emails.

It was literally in the headline.

But you claim to have missed it.

And so it goes folks....
 
The Big Dog said:
Yes, the point where it says that Hillary deliberately destroyed 33,000 emails.

It was literally in the headline.
But you claim to have missed it.

And so it goes folks....
Click to expand...

So, as usual for this thread, you don't have actual evidence for your assertions.

Par for the Big Dog course.

Boom :rolleyes:
 
The Don said:
That doesn't address the question of whether she did anything illegal. :confused:

You've claimed that she deleted them fraudulently but provided no evidence to support the fraudulent part.
Click to expand...

That she did illegal things is incontrovertible: the law required her to turn over her emails for archiving and record keeping, which she did not do.

You're probably trying to ask if she did anything criminal. That is a subjective evaluation of her actions that the tribes of the USA will never agree on anything with regard to it.
 
Last edited:
Your case is that the person who lost the election may have done shady things. She was investigated by the FBI and by Congress. Nothing proved. Now, I am sure you support a thorough investigation of the potentially shady dealings of many people in the team that won that election. I am not claiming anything about their actions yet, but surely they should be investigated at least as thoroughly as Mrs Clinton was? I am sure you agree with that TBD, unless you are something of a hypocrite?
 
How many concurrent life sentences is world's foremost uber criminal serving?
Or did trump just string along his tiny minded supporters who use emails in defence of his high treason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom