Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
RandFan said:
Get off your high horse. It's transparent that you are just trying to brow beat and not have a discussion. And when someone is honest and does not simply disapear when shown wrong but steps up to the plate to admit it, usually it's good form to acknowledge it.

The fact does not demonstrate that Clinton knowingly violated the law or even if she did if it is actionable given ALL of the evidence. Apparently not as the referral was NOT CRIMINAL. FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself

Are you willing to concede this point or is your ivory tower too tall to admit to facts?
Click to expand...

I am willing to admit that it is not a criminal investigation yet. That does not mean it won't be or even that it shouldn't be already. The unmitigated facts are not all in yet...

After all this is a Democratic Administration that is itself breaking laws already, so why would another one matter? (Rhetorical ?)
 
Reheat said:
I am willing to admit that it is not a criminal investigation yet. That does not mean it won't be or even that it shouldn't be already. The unmitigated facts are not all in yet...
Click to expand...
Thank you. I cannot disagree with any of this.

After all this is a Democratic Administration that is itself breaking laws already, so why would another one matter? (Rhetorical ?)
Click to expand...
Most administrations break the law. I doubt we will ever see the unprecedented number of laws broken by the Bush admin ever repeated. That isn't to excuse wrong doing. If Clinton has broken the law in an actionable way she should be punished regardless of what happened to Bush. It's just to note that the Dems are largely quiet when their president breaks the laws and the Republics likewise.

I don't personally have any reason to be outraged at these emails and I'm someone who wants there to be one. I don't want Hillary to win the primary. I don't want her to win the general. I honestly don't see a there, there. Now, that's not to say she won't be indicted. She might but I personally doubt it.

JMO.

Again, thanks.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
Yes, I am. If she disciplined or otherwise had someone charged, she would be shouting that from the rooftops just like you are doing in trying defend this incompetent and lying wench. The FBI isn't through yet, you know.
Click to expand...

To be clear, you are claiming that merely receiving an email confers guilt on the recipient? You actually think that Clinton is guilty because of someone else's actions? You can't see how ridiculous the notion is?


Reheat said:
The very fact that she hasn't commented on it is all the evidence that any sensible person needs. All she's done is comment on her personal actions and even those comments appear to be false based on the IG's findings. She's hoping that everyone is stupid and so far she's right at least among her ardent supporters.
Click to expand...

In other words, you have no evidence to support your claim.


Reheat said:
Yes, I did. Apparently, you didn't as the so called "specialists" are unnamed.
Click to expand...

If you had read it, why are you asking me who the author was referring to? Do you think I am Michael S. Schmidt or David E. Sanger?

Further, given that you are an anonymous internet poster, your claims of being a specialist are also "unnamed". Is there some reason I should trust you more than the NY Times, or the FBI?
 
RandFan said:
:rolleyes: Fallacious ad hominem. Either their sourced material is correct or it isn't. Can you find something that is incorrect?
Click to expand...

It's intentionally misleading. The question of sending classified information from a personal email account, which the IG states happened, is a different from the claim that nothing she sent had classified markings. She, and others, have moved that goalpost from "there was nothing classified" to "there was nothing marked as classified." Even if the latter is true, it's meaningless when it comes to the handling of classified material when you have a security clearance.

The inspector general has stated that the information was classified at the time it was sent and remains classified today.
 
wareyin said:
To be clear, you are claiming that merely receiving an email confers guilt on the recipient? You actually think that Clinton is guilty because of someone else's actions? You can't see how ridiculous the notion is?
Click to expand...

When you have a security clearance you are expected to handle classified documents correctly even if the documents themselves are mislabeled. It's a responsibility you take when getting that clearance. You are even legally obliged to follow some of the rules when you no longer have the clearance.

I point you to one of my favorite bloggers:

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2013/07/do-not-click.html

Before you look, I would caution that anyone with an active security clearance might want to avoid looking at the specific entry. Even if you had direct access and the right to know the information, you could lose your clearance by looking at confidential information on an unsecured site even if you just stumbled into it. If you do have a security clearance and do come across classified information you have to follow the rules on reporting it.
 
Leftus said:
When you have a security clearance you are expected to handle classified documents correctly even if the documents themselves are mislabeled. It's a responsibility you take when getting that clearance. You are even legally obliged to follow some of the rules when you no longer have the clearance.

I point you to one of my favorite bloggers:

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2013/07/do-not-click.html

Before you look, I would caution that anyone with an active security clearance might want to avoid looking at the specific entry. Even if you had direct access and the right to know the information, you could lose your clearance by looking at confidential information on an unsecured site even if you just stumbled into it. If you do have a security clearance and do come across classified information you have to follow the rules on reporting it.
Click to expand...

You seem to be talking about how to handle classified information after receiving it. Reheat seems to think that one is guilty merely by receiving an email, not what steps Clinton took after receiving email that she may not even have been aware contained classified information.
 
RandFan said:
Sounds like politics as opposed to criminality.
Click to expand...

Mishandling confidential material is a crime.

The problem is that we don't know the depth of the classified material. And it's likely we never will with it being all classified. On the depth of the issue I don't think we can take the words of Media Matters any more than we could take the word of Fox News because they have as much insight into the breadth and scope of the matter as you or I. Two IGs felt strong enough about it to refer the matter to the FBI after looking at a 0.13% of the total email volume.

As to the point that gets raised that it wasn't a criminal referral I would say that everything that gets referred to the FBI is criminal in nature. Assuming, of course, the FBI launches an investigation. One does not call the cops because they think their neighbors are behaving too lawfully nor do the police investigate someone for following the law. Of course, the FBI is not going call it as such to preserve objectivity and allow them to follow the evidence. They should be, and it appears that they are, following leads and securing what they need to get.
 
wareyin said:
To be clear, you are claiming that merely receiving an email confers guilt on the recipient? You actually think that Clinton is guilty because of someone else's actions? You can't see how ridiculous the notion is?
Click to expand...

Did you see the above evidence for how a pile of unclassified information can turn into a classified hot potato? The world of security clearances is not entirely sane.

In the instant example of receiving classified information, the answer is very much "it depends". If Clinton took sufficient precautions to prevent the release of the information, she's in the clear. If not, she's guilty through negligence. How that plays out exactly will be dependent on the investigators.

Here's a simpler example. You've got a clearance and you work at a secure facility. You grab your briefcase from its spot on top your desk and go home. Someone else had put a classified document into your briefcase without you knowing. Result: you've committed an infraction because you negligently didn't check your briefcase before leaving. On the other hand, if your briefcase was locked up you'd probably be OK because you took sufficient steps to prevent information from leaving the facility.

The long term result in all this will hinge on whether or not it was negligent to operate an email account which could plausibly receive classified information on a private server.
 
The ridiculous thing is that people want to excuse Hillary because she just "received" the emails (putting aside the fact that she gave the emails to her law firm, none of whom had security clearances).

Again, Hillary set up the cowboy sever system and required that her underlings use it.

Further, I note that during Hillary's entire tenure, the state department did not have an inspector general.

Transparency my ass.
 
Leftus said:
Mishandling confidential material is a crime.

The problem is that we don't know the depth of the classified material. And it's likely we never will with it being all classified. On the depth of the issue I don't think we can take the words of Media Matters any more than we could take the word of Fox News because they have as much insight into the breadth and scope of the matter as you or I. Two IGs felt strong enough about it to refer the matter to the FBI after looking at a 0.13% of the total email volume.

As to the point that gets raised that it wasn't a criminal referral I would say that everything that gets referred to the FBI is criminal in nature. Assuming, of course, the FBI launches an investigation. One does not call the cops because they think their neighbors are behaving too lawfully nor do the police investigate someone for following the law. Of course, the FBI is not going call it as such to preserve objectivity and allow them to follow the evidence. They should be, and it appears that they are, following leads and securing what they need to get.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the FBI has said Clinton isn't the target of their investigation, right?
 
wareyin said:
You seem to be talking about how to handle classified information after receiving it. Reheat seems to think that one is guilty merely by receiving an email, not what steps Clinton took after receiving email that she may not even have been aware contained classified information.
Click to expand...

That was not my reading of what was being discussed. Reheat was pointing out that the mishandling of the material which starts at receiving it.

Not being able to correctly identify the level of confidential material is one thing. If the reports are true that some of this came from the CIA, not being able to say "this might be a confidential document" seems suspect. She claims to be well versed in the rules of classification so to claim ignorance of them also seems suspect.

"I never sent anything that was marked as a secret" carries two flaws. The first is that it's largely immaterial to the rules around sending and receiving confidential documents. The second, if it turns out to be true, shows ignorance as to what is or is not a confidential document in a job that demands it.

If the story was "Clinton received improperly marked documents and properly resolved the violations" this would be a non-story on that angle. I'd still be bugged by the FOIA stuff, but her security clearance issues would be a non-starter.
 
Leftus said:
Mishandling confidential material is a crime.
Click to expand...
If actionable I hope she is prosecuted. If you want me to be outraged then I don't see how I can. Our nation has been mired in corruption and malfeasance that has lead to tens of thousand of dead and the torture of many, in the grand scheme of things, this just doesn't rise above politics IMO. We are talking about it because it has political utility. That's it.
 
wareyin said:
You seem to be talking about how to handle classified information after receiving it. Reheat seems to think that one is guilty merely by receiving an email, not what steps Clinton took after receiving email that she may not even have been aware contained classified information.
Click to expand...

I notice several people have mentioned this and if all she did was receive classified information it seems like her level of legal responsibility is less. As somebody that thinks some people are going a little nuts on trying to get Clinton in this thread, I'd say the fact that Clinton just received the possibly classified material and didn't propagate classified material is a problem for them.

For those who think that Clinton operated at the edge of legality and over the edge of stupidly this isn't much of a defense. It seems like there is still some legal exposure here. What did she do after she received the classified material? Was it reasonable for her to not be aware that the material was potentially classified and therefore ignorance is some sort of defense?

Regardless, was it reasonable for her to set up a system where State Department employees might send emails containing potentially classified material to their boss not realizing that this might be illegal because the Secretary of State was using a cowboy home brew server?

Still, I've been trying to get a feel for how this scandal is going to play out and it looks like most voters are ignoring this scandal except partisan Republicans of course who would never vote for Clinton anyway. If the Republicans weren't constantly beating the drums over fake and exaggerated scandals maybe the electorate might take their witch hunting a little more seriously when they uncover a real scandal.

For me, this is good news. The Republican party is going to go for a few more years with the center of their support from old war happy white guys until the center of their support dies off and non crazy Republican candidates might make it through a primary. If we can get through the next ten years without another Republican president the US might be able to extract itself from middle east mess that it created.
 
RandFan said:
this just doesn't rise above politics IMO. We are talking about it because it has political utility. That's it.
Click to expand...

That's mostly true, but I still think this is somewhat conversation worthy because it highlights the disparity between the "elites" and the common folk.

There was a guy at my national security site who took a laptop to china and went to federal prison for a year. There was no classified or even controlled information on the laptop. He didn't even have access to classified material.

If Clinton's case was being handled like that, would there be any hope for her campaign?

Edit: a government owned laptop.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Obviously, several people here are assuming she is the target. I'm merely pointing out that the FBI disagrees with them.
Click to expand...

Again, assume for a second she is the target. What would you expect them to say?

Clinton would be ill-advised to take the word of the FBI on not being a target. anyone whose actions are being investigated would be equally wise to seek specialized legal council.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the FBI are investigating?

My answer is "the mishandling of classified documents" and at the center of those actions stands Clinton. The statement that she is not a target is counter-evidenced by the fact they are investigating her actions.
 
Leftus said:
Again, assume for a second she is the target. What would you expect them to say?

Clinton would be ill-advised to take the word of the FBI on not being a target. anyone whose actions are being investigated would be equally wise to seek specialized legal council.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the FBI are investigating?

My answer is "the mishandling of classified documents" and at the center of those actions stands Clinton. The statement that she is not a target is counter-evidenced by the fact they are investigating her actions.
Click to expand...

You are using your assumption that they are investigating her actions as evidence that she is the target?

I agree that the FBI is investigating the potential mishandling of classified information. We have already been given evidence by the IGs that classified information was mishandled by the State Department, not Clinton, in June of this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom