Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[jhunter1163]

Those would be the ones that weren't marked as classified, no?

It doesn't matter to the Repubs. They're looking desperately for something, anything, that could conceivably be construed as wrongdoing in order to try and distract attention from the clown car full of idiots that passes for the GOP presidential field. This will die down too, as all the other OMGskandalz!!!!one111!!!!eleventy!!! have.

 

[The Big Dog]

It doesn't matter to the Repubs. They're looking desperately for something, anything, that could conceivably be construed as wrongdoing in order to try and distract attention from the clown car full of idiots that passes for the GOP presidential field. This will die down too, as all the other OMGskandalz!!!!one111!!!!eleventy!!! have.

I don't think that the IG for Intelligence is a "repub."

 

[The Big Dog]

Huge day in the email investigation

Massive developments today, so let's take a look back and catch up.

1. Classified info CONFIRMED on Hillary's server.

2. Hillary caught in yet another lie.

3. Independent Inspector General refers Hillary cowboy server to justice Department and...

4. FBI on the case...

Don't let anyone tell you this does not matter or that it is a partisan thing.

That is partisan spin from the Hillary camp.

Tell them you are an avid reader. Now time to crack a few Three Floyds.

Cheers!

 

[fuelair]

“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material,” Clinton said in March. “I’m certainly aware of the classified requirements and did not send classified material.”

just another proven lie, Hillary.

Yawn.........

 

[fuelair]

Probable cause? It is undisputed that the private server had classified information on it.

Probable cause is determined by a court, not a forum or republicker boot lickers!!!*














*all are free to assume I politely substituted the lick recipients

 

[NoahFence]

Massive developments today, so let's take a look back and catch up.

1. Classified info CONFIRMED on Hillary's server.

2. Hillary caught in yet another lie.

3. Independent Inspector General refers Hillary cowboy server to justice Department and...

4. FBI on the case...

Don't let anyone tell you this does not matter or that it is a partisan thing.

That is partisan spin from the Hillary camp.

Tell them you are an avid reader. Now time to crack a few Three Floyds.

Cheers!

You still haven't accounted for those of us who think this is a partisan witch hunt, but are not in the hillary camp.

 

[wareyin]

You still haven't accounted for those of us who think this is a partisan witch hunt, but are not in the hillary camp.

Oh, we are miniscule compared to the vast, but silent horde of avid readers who lurk in this thread wearing their tin foil hats.

 

[Shalamar]

Oh, we are miniscule compared to the vast, but silent horde of avid readers who lurk in this thread wearing their tin foil hats.

And I've learned that is you need evidence, and are questioning the claims made against H. Clinton, you are a rabid partisan hack, who worships the ground she walks on.

If you believe that everything H. Clinton is wrong, accept it all as the Gospel Truth, you are an intelligent skeptic...

It is odd that Skeptics are claimed to be partisan hacks, while the partisan hacks claim themselves to be skeptics...

 

[Leftus]

You do understand that DOJ is under no obligation to actually proceed with a criminal investigation?

Yes, but when those responsible for checking that their agencies are following the law request that law enforcement check it out the situation then trying to dismiss this as a partisan witch hunt becomes less tenable.

With two known requests, it becomes harder for the DOJ to turn a blind eye.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, but when those responsible for checking that their agencies are following the law request that law enforcement check it out the situation then trying to dismiss this as a partisan witch hunt becomes less tenable.

With two known requests, it becomes harder for the DOJ to turn a blind eye.

absolutely, the IG's requests are a massive development. I seem to recall that for the vast majority of Hillary's term, the State Department had no inspector general. No surprise, the furtive Clintons move forward with a secret cowboy server unfettered by typical governmental checks and balances.

 

[Crossbow]

absolutely, the IG's requests are a massive development. I seem to recall that for the vast majority of Hillary's term, the State Department had no inspector general. No surprise, the furtive Clintons move forward with a secret cowboy server unfettered by typical governmental checks and balances.

It sure would be wonderful if more people actually cared about how those in high office followed the law and respected constitutional ideals.

 

[The Big Dog]

It sure would be wonderful if more people actually cared about how those in high office followed the law and respected constitutional ideals.

consider this a referendum then on whether Democrats value governmental transparency and honesty or massive secrecy and lies.

 

[DavidJames]

consider this a referendum then on whether Democrats value governmental transparency and honesty or massive secrecy and lies.

This is a perfect example and proof positive this is a partisan witch hunt because there hasn't been an administration in 50 years (because that's when I started paying attention) that hasn't lacked honesty and governed under secrecy and lies, NONE.

If someone is going to call out the Obama administration, to be taken seriously and judged as nothing more then a partisan witch hunt, they would have to show they've pursued previous administrations with the same zeal.

HA HA HA HA HA, ain't gonna happen.

We're talking imperfect human beings, flawed with the same negative attributes as we all possess but with a bigger stage to display them.

Having accepted that, I vote for those flawed people who I believe will best represent my views on how this country should be governed. I'm not naive enough to think they will accomplish much, but I'll accept slow progress.

It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to do nothing but tear down the opposition without making a positive contribution regarding who is the right person to lead us. There - now how about we have an honest discussion about where we want this country to go and who we believe best can get us there. Fishing expeditions, witch hunts, politics of destruction aren't helpful.

 

[Crossbow]

consider this a referendum then on whether Democrats value governmental transparency and honesty or massive secrecy and lies.

Well then kindly let us know when you actually care about "governmental transparency and honesty or massive secrecy and lies".

 

[The Big Dog]

Well then kindly let us know when you actually care about "governmental transparency and honesty or massive secrecy and lies".

I know this will shock people, but the referendum is not about 16.5.

That said, I think it is pretty clear that I care.

That makes ONE. Who else joins me in caring about Hillary's secrecy and lies?

 

[Crossbow]

I know this will shock people, but the referendum is not about 16.5.

That said, I think it is pretty clear that I care.

That makes ONE. Who else joins me in caring about Hillary's secrecy and lies?

Thanks much for that highly considered response.

 

[The Big Dog]

Kurt Eichenwald Embarrasses himself and Newsweek

or How "Kurt Eichenwald Bungled 'The New York Times' Bungled the Hillary Clinton Emails Story."

Take a few minutes to read this piece of over-heated rhetoric published in Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246

Here is the crux of the article:

They in no way discuss Clinton, her handling of emails or anything approaching those topics.

But by slapping those two paragraphs together and using the same words, the Times—again, either out of recklessness, ignorance or intentional deception—makes it seem as if the inspectors general are saying Clinton mishandled classified information. They didn’t.

As avid readers know, they absolutely did discuss the fact that Clinton and the State Department mishandled classified information.

Here is the damning quote:

The intelligence IG said at least four emails in question "were classified when they were sent and are classified now."

The referral is not limited to FOIA for pete's sake, it also includes the fact that classified data from the Intelligence Community was mishandled and ended up on Hillary Clinton's unsecured server!

Further, the errors in that piece are legion!

Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control.

that is utterly false, stunningly mind boggling false. we know that Clinton's emails sent to people outside the .gov system were not saved. Further, the 55000 emails they are looking at are the paper copies that Hillary gave the state department! I cannot imagine that someone would get such a basic issue so wrong.

So many many Hillary apologists getting so much so wrong.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The way I understood the stuff coming up this week is that some of the materials were retroactively deemed classified, either way... if jail time's not an option I'd rather she not get elected. The scandals have seemingly made for an effect on her trustworthiness already

 

[mgidm86]

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, but the whole "retroactively classifying" emails seems to go like this:

Some of Hillary's emails contained sensitive information that was classified at the time, but she didn't actually "mark" the emails themselves as classified, therefore, the emails are retroactively considered classified, though the information in them always was.

It's not like they're rubber stamping these as classified now and claiming, "See! It's classified It says so right there!", as some people seem to be claiming.

DavidJames
It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to do nothing but tear down the opposition without making a positive contribution regarding who is the right person to lead us.

The thread is about Hillary Clinton and this email scandal. Perhaps there are other threads that discuss possible alternatives.

 

[fuelair]

Oh, we are miniscule compared to the vast, but silent horde of avid readers who lurk in this thread wearing their tin foil hats.

Check for current active (posting) members and I think you will discover horde is unlikely and vast even less likely.............