Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Leftus]

Also from sunmaster14's link, my bolding:
"McCullough said in the letter that he found that one of State’s public releases of emails in recent months under the Freedom of Information Act resulted in disclosure of classified information."

and

"McCullough’s letter does not allege specifically that Clinton sent classified information from her private account."

So, not mishandled by HRC but by the State Dept's recent release, and also no claims by the IG that Clinton sent classified info.

One does not exclude the other. It's quite possible that they both mishandled the documents. Of the 40 emails in the sample, the IG identified 4 that were classified at the time they were sent and are classified still today.

Also, according to the IG, Hillary provided a copy of all of those emails to her lawyer on a thumb drive. This would also be a security violation.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...s-general-over-email-use-at-state-120571.html

 

[wareyin]

It was classified, it was classified when it was sent by the intelligence agencies and received by State and sent to Hillary's cowboy server. The release of the classified information was made when it was sent to Hillary's server.

The only one claiming there was a dispute about it is Hillary, which shows she knew it was classified. I personally believe she is simply lying about any dispute, because she does not realize that actually makes her look worse!

Conspiracy theory? LOLZ! You think the IGs' referrals to the FBI is a conspiracy theory?

You may need to reread the bolded part of this quote again:
"McCullough said in the letter that he found that one of State’s public releases of emails in recent months under the Freedom of Information Act resulted in disclosure of classified information."

McCullough stated the classified information was disclosed in the State's release of those emails, not when it was sent to Clinton's server.

 

[wareyin]

One does not exclude the other. It's quite possible that they both mishandled the documents. Of the 40 emails in the sample, the IG identified 4 that were classified at the time they were sent and are classified still today.

Also, according to the IG, Hillary provided a copy of all of those emails to her lawyer on a thumb drive. This would also be a security violation.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...s-general-over-email-use-at-state-120571.html

It is possible that they both mishandled documents. However, that is not being claimed by the Inspectors General.

 

[The Big Dog]

You may need to reread the bolded part of this quote again:
"McCullough said in the letter that he found that one of State’s public releases of emails in recent months under the Freedom of Information Act resulted in disclosure of classified information."

McCullough stated the classified information was disclosed in the State's release of those emails, not when it was sent to Clinton's server.

You are incorrect. As noted, the illegal transmission occurred when it was sent to Hillary's server and later when sent to hillary's lawyer on a thumb drive.

This has been explained to you a dozen times. Please stop giving out bad information.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/investigation-sought-into-hillary-clintons-emails-1437714369

Might be behind a paywall, I suggest that you pay it.

 

[wareyin]

You are incorrect. As noted, the illegal transmission occurred when it was sent to Hillary's server and later when sent to hillary's lawyer on a thumb drive.

This has been explained to you a dozen times. Please stop giving out bad information.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/investigation-sought-into-hillary-clintons-emails-1437714369

Might be behind a paywall, I suggest that you pay it.

Hmm, shall I believe you, or the Inspector General?

 

[Reheat]

Hmm, shall I believe you, or the Inspector General?

WRONG again. You seem to believe the only crime committed here was the disclosure. It wasn't as defined by Federal Law. You need to get over the fact that your sweetie is not fit to be POTUS. She is a Felon, but yet to be charged because she is being protected, so far by her cronies... All stemming from the fact that she wanted to hide her incompetence from the American people by keeping her Official email on a private unsecured server.

 

[uke2se]

WRONG again. You seem to believe the only crime committed here was the disclosure. It wasn't as defined by Federal Law. You need to get over the fact that your sweetie is not fit to be POTUS. She is a Felon, but yet to be charged because she is being protected, so far by her cronies... All stemming from the fact that she wanted to hide her incompetence from the American people by keeping her Official email on a private unsecured server.

And that's what this is about. It's a partisan witch-hunt about making people think HRC isn't fit for the presidency, truth be damned.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

One doesn't need phony scandals or criminal charges to point out Hillary's trust levels are in the pits, and for someone who's been in the public eye for so long... that's usually not the most ideal case....

 

[uke2se]

One doesn't need phony scandals or criminal charges to point out Hillary's trust levels are in the pits, and for someone who's been in the public eye for so long... that's usually not the most ideal case....

Obviously it's needed. Otherwise this thread would have died a long time ago.

 

[wareyin]

One doesn't need phony scandals or criminal charges to point out Hillary's trust levels are in the pits, and for someone who's been in the public eye for so long... that's usually not the most ideal case....

The phony scandals are what the Republicans need to try to push Clinton's trust levels down.

 

[The Big Dog]

And that's what this is about. It's a partisan witch-hunt about making people think HRC isn't fit for the presidency, truth be damned.

You know that was a weak argument before the nonpartisan IGs made the referral to the FBI, now it is pure desperation.

HRC decided to use a cowboy server and lie about it.

She gambled and lost, and she'll be lucky to stay out of jail.

 

[NoahFence]

Obviously it's needed. Otherwise this thread would have died a long time ago.

You think partisan hacks are going to allow this thread to die?



Right.

 

[DavidJames]

The phony scandals are what the Republicans need to try to push Clinton's trust levels down.

One simply needs to read this forum to understand Republican tactics like this and why they exist.

Try and find a positive thread by Republicans and what they are doing in Congress or state politics. Good luck. Admittedly, there aren't many about Democrats, but there is one each on ACA, HRC supporting PP, the Iran treaty and restoring relations with Cuba.

The only threads started by conservatives/Republicans are negative against their opponents. They have nothing they want to support. It's been the Republican way since Obama was elected. They are bankrupt of ideas. Their only hope of victory is to lower the votes of their opponents.

 

[The Big Dog]

Obviously it's needed. Otherwise this thread would have died a long time ago.

Well in that case one would hope that a skeptic would have started a new thread to discuss last Thursday's referral of Hillary's use of a private server to the FBI.

As it so happens, the cowboy server scandal has not been far from the front pages since it burst on to the scene in March.

Did you see her comments? "It must be getting hot out there."

Yeah, it tends to get warm under the collar when you have mishandled secret level intelligence on your own private server and the FBI is sniffing around.

Cripes, she is tone deaf, ain't she?

/I do enjoy the posts that whine that mean old posters on iSKEP are being mean to Hillary by starting threads about her glaring ethical failings. Good stuff!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Obviously it's needed. Otherwise this thread would have died a long time ago.

I'm sympathetic to the idea of not beating a horse to a bleeding pulp. But do you think her email shenanigans should simply be forgotten?

Their only hope of victory is to lower the votes of their opponents.

Granted, sometimes it's difficult to discern which is worse.... brash partisanship, or believing in empty promises. These things happen all the time and whilst I tend to follow the idea a thread like this beats a dead horse over and over, I seem to recall a 2008 campaign in which similar issues came up but voters ate them up hook, line and sinker without batting an eye. These political discussion are certainly rich educational material on the psychology of politics.

 

[uke2se]

I'm sympathetic to the idea of not beating a horse to a bleeding pulp. But do you think her email shenanigans should simply be forgotten?

I think they shouldn't be blown out of proportion or simply invented out of thin air. I also don't think a political witch-hunt run by elected officials is a serious way of combatting wrong doings.

 

[The Big Dog]

I think they shouldn't be blown out of proportion or simply invented out of thin air. I also don't think a political witch-hunt run by elected officials is a serious way of combatting wrong doings.

I don't think the IGs are elected officials, in fact they were both appointed by Obama.

The Judge that ordered the disclosure of the Hillary emails was not elected either.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think they shouldn't be blown out of proportion or simply invented out of thin air.

Fair enough. My earlier point is that this isn't the biggest scandal ever... but part of a series of smaller issues that have put Clinton's trust levels in the pits. That said, I can only speak for current figures considering the elections are still a political century away and predictions based on current trends are fairly useless

 

[uke2se]

Fair enough. My earlier point is that this isn't the biggest scandal ever... but part of a series of smaller issues that have put Clinton's trust levels in the pits. That said, I can only speak for current figures considering the elections are still a political century away and predictions based on current trends are fairly useless

I'd say Clinton's trust levels among the general population are more or less unaffected by this and any other perceived scandal. That is, those who hate her have found more reason to hate her, and everyone else just don't care.

 

[plague311]

I'd say Clinton's trust levels among the general population are more or less unaffected by this and any other perceived scandal. That is, those who hate her have found more reason to hate her, and everyone else just don't care.

This, in it's entirety. Those that hated Clinton before this started, now hate her more. Those that liked her, still do, because they take this at face value. A witch hunt designed to attack Hillary and nothing more. This "Benghazi Committee" couldn't possibly give a **** less about Benghazi and they haven't for awhile. This all about Clinton. If it was about Benghazi we'd be hearing from people in the Military, people that made certain calls, there would be a series of different interviews of different people. Again, this is about Hillary, and it won't change from this point on. Just look at the multiple articles that openly state Gowdy has been purposefully dragging this out to get it closer to the election time. Get every drop of blood that they possibly can.

No matter what I'm voting Sanders for as long as he is in the race, but no matter what I would vote for Clinton over any of these garbage, idiotic Republicans that are in the race.