Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[TheL8Elvis]

Petraeus got 2 years probation and a 100,000 fine for a smaller leak. I'm having a hard time imagining that Hillary will get out of this without at least the same. After that, her presidential run is going to have serious problems. A conviction for mishandling government secrets is going to make a primary run exceptionally difficult for her.

Sharing classified material with the biographer you are having an affair with does not seem particularly analogous with turning over all your emails (none of which appear to have been explicitly marked as classified) to your attorney to turn over to the govt.

I'm not having any problem imagining that there is not much here at all, really.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sharing classified material with the biographer you are having an affair with does not seem particularly analogous with turning over all your emails (none of which appear to have been explicitly marked as classified) to your attorney to turn over to the govt.

I'm not having any problem imagining that there is not much here at all, really.

The IG clearly said that the intelligence from the Intelligence Community was classified as Secret when it was sent to State.

the fact that the Secret data was not marked as Secret when it was sent to Hillary's cowboy server is part of the problem, not a mitigating factor, it is an aggravating factor.

 

[wareyin]

The New York Times is embarrassed over the inaccurate claims in their original article. Hard right partisans take no notice that their claims of scandal, once again, have no basis in reality.

 

[DavidJames]

The New York Times is embarrassed over the inaccurate claims in their original article. Hard right partisans take no notice that their claims of scandal, once again, have no basis in reality.

Meh, NYT is a liberal rag. Only when they say something negative about HRC can they be trusted.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Sharing classified material with the biographer you are having an affair with does not seem particularly analogous with turning over all your emails (none of which appear to have been explicitly marked as classified) to your attorney to turn over to the govt.

Her attorney's reviewed the emails to determine what could be deleted and what was in the public domain. They don't hold security clearances. The breach is clear and obvious.

 

[The Big Dog]

None of this should be used to deny the importance of The Times’s reporting on the subject of Mrs. Clinton’s email practices at the State Department, a story Mr. Schmidt broke in March. Although her partisans want the focus shifted to these errors, the fact remains that her secret email system hamstrung possible inquiries into her conduct while secretary of state both by the news media and the public under the Freedom of Information Act and by Congress. And her awarding to herself the first cull of those emails will make suspicion about what they contained a permanent part of the current campaign.

It wasn't directed at Hillary it was directed at the use of a private unsecured server by Hillary. It wasn't a "criminal" referral it was a "counterintelligence referral indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Secretary Clinton's emails."

So much better!

 

[sunmaster14]

The New York Times is embarrassed over the inaccurate claims in their original article. Hard right partisans take no notice that their claims of scandal, once again, have no basis in reality.

Mishandling classified information is a crime. It is extremely likely that the DOJ interpreted the referral as a criminal referral initially, and that it was accurately reported at the time by the NY Times as such (their source was at the DOJ). If it wasn't for the political implications, it would probably still be called a criminal referral today. I suspect the Hillary campaign asked Obama to lean on the DOJ to retract what they told the NY Times and start calling it something else. The NY Times was thrown under the bus in the process, but being the liberal rag that it is, I'm sure its editors were only too happy to be underbussed for the greater good.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It wasn't directed at Hillary it was directed at the use of a private unsecured server by Hillary. It wasn't a "criminal" referral it was a "counterintelligence referral indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Secretary Clinton's emails."

So much better!

The correction by the government is a pretty obvious indication that the investigation is broader than just Hillary herself and includes non-criminal subjects (probably the law firm she hired).

 

[wareyin]

Mishandling classified information is a crime. It is extremely likely that the DOJ interpreted the referral as a criminal referral initially, and that it was accurately reported at the time by the NY Times as such (their source was at the DOJ). If it wasn't for the political implications, it would probably still be called a criminal referral today. I suspect the Hillary campaign asked Obama to lean on the DOJ to retract what they told the NY Times and start calling it something else. The NY Times was thrown under the bus in the process, but being the liberal rag that it is, I'm sure its editors were only too happy to be underbussed for the greater good.

I do love a good conspiracy theory!

 

[The Big Dog]

Mishandling classified information is a crime. It is extremely likely that the DOJ interpreted the referral as a criminal referral initially, and that it was accurately reported at the time by the NY Times as such (their source was at the DOJ). If it wasn't for the political implications, it would probably still be called a criminal referral today. I suspect the Hillary campaign asked Obama to lean on the DOJ to retract what they told the NY Times and start calling it something else. The NY Times was thrown under the bus in the process, but being the liberal rag that it is, I'm sure its editors were only too happy to be underbussed for the greater good.

In fact, the DoJ themselves called it a "criminal" referral when they were contacted by other media organizations, but soon thereafter began walking it back when Hillary's agents started screaming about it.

Now the DoJ calls it a "counterintelligence referral indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Secretary Clinton's emails" and says that the FBI will make the determination whether it is criminal.

What a stunning Pyrrhic victory for "her partisans"!

 

[sunmaster14]

I do love a good conspiracy theory!

I'm not sure you understand what a conspiracy theory is. What I've described is simply politics plus a politicized DOJ, and the DOJ is well known to have been thoroughly politicized over the last six years.

 

[wareyin]

In fact, the DoJ themselves called it a "criminal" referral when they were contacted by other media organizations, but soon thereafter began walking it back when Hillary's agents started screaming about it.

Now the DoJ calls it a "counterintelligence referral indicating there is a potential compromise of classified national security information in former Secretary Clinton's emails" and says that the FBI will make the determination whether it is criminal.

What a stunning Pyrrhic victory for "her partisans"!

Fixed that for you, with the highlighted. I'm sure you didn't mean to give the impression of fact, or certainty, with your unfortunately inaccurate statement. Pro-tip: When using quotation marks, it appears dishonest to drop key words or phrases from a sentence.

 

[sunmaster14]

In fact, the DoJ themselves called it a "criminal" referral when they were contacted by other media organizations, but soon thereafter began walking it back when Hillary's agents started screaming about it.

Exactly, this has been confirmed by numerous media outlets.

 

[fuelair]

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.

Stating/claiming something is not explaining, nor is it an indicator that the statement/claim/ "explanation" has any validity. A lot of people confuse that!!!

 

[wareyin]

I'm not sure you understand what a conspiracy theory is. What I've described is simply politics plus a politicized DOJ, and the DOJ is well known to have been thoroughly politicized over the last six years.

What you have described is your personal theory about a conspiracy among high ranking officials in the US government to protect Clinton. That is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.

 

[fuelair]

Also, paying for something behind a pay wall is a very bad idea. If it is of any importance, someone somewhere will also have it out where no payment is needed.

 

[The Big Dog]

Fixed that for you, with the highlighted. I'm sure you didn't mean to give the impression of fact, or certainty, with your unfortunately inaccurate statement. Pro-tip: When using quotation marks, it appears dishonest to drop key words or phrases from a sentence.

Your change was a blatant lie:

"The letter IC IG sent to FBI earlier this month was a counterintelligence referral indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Sec. Clinton's emails. The emails exist on a at least one private server and thumb drive and that was the counterintelligence information concern we referred to the FBI," said spokesman Andrea Williams in an email.

Don't do that again, it is blatantly dishonest.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...fied-info-in-hillary-clinton-s-email-20150724

 

[Newtons Bit]

Stating/claiming something is not explaining, nor is it an indicator that the statement/claim/ "explanation" has any validity. A lot of people confuse that!!!

If you're wondering what the actual law is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

 

[sunmaster14]

What you have described is your personal theory about a conspiracy among high ranking officials in the US government to protect Clinton. That is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I made no claim that high ranking officials did what they did to protect Clinton. They might have done what they did to stop her from whining and bitching at them. In fact, that's what I really think.

 

[wareyin]

Your change was a blatant lie:

"The letter IC IG sent to FBI earlier this month was a counterintelligence referral indicating there is a compromise of classified national security information in former Sec. Clinton's emails. The emails exist on a at least one private server and thumb drive and that was the counterintelligence information concern we referred to the FBI," said spokesman Andrea Williams in an email.

Don't do that again, it is blatantly dishonest.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...fied-info-in-hillary-clinton-s-email-20150724

But later in the day, the Justice Department and the inspectors general said that the request was not a “criminal referral” but rather a “security referral,” meant to alert the F.B.I. about a potential mishandling of classified information. It was not clear how the discrepancy arose.



eta:The two investigators did not say whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received the emails. If she received them, it is not clear that she would have known that they contained government secrets, since they were not marked classified. The inspectors general did not address whether they believed Mrs. Clinton should have known such information was not appropriate for her personal email.
and
Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, is “purported” to also have copies of the 30,000 emails on a thumb drive, according to Mr. McCullough.
and finally
The inspectors general said late Friday that it was a “security referral” intended to alert authorities that “classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession.”