Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[RandFan]

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.

Can't find anything to disagree with.

 

[Reheat]

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?

If this weren't a serious issue I'd be ROTFLMAO at the total ignorance of the pontificating defenders here. I have other more interesting things to do, but I'll address this nonsense once and get on with my day.

Someone sends a classified email either marked or unmarked as classified to an unclassified computer and the receiver of that email does nothing but read it. The receiver of that email is storing classified email on unclassified media and BOTH parties have committed a security breach. Get it? In addition, the receiver of that email in this case was the MFWIC of that department, which constitutes added responsibility to take further action.

For the receiver of that classified email to be exonerated that person would need to notify the individuals responsible for security at that organization and determine what action is appropriate, otherwise BOTH parties are guilty of a security breach.

Whether you think this is a silly notion is irrelevant and simply continues to show your ignorance. If this is browbeating, so be it..

Several here who do know what they're talking about have tried to explain it obviously to no avail. Have a good day. I'm outta here.

 

[wareyin]

If this weren't a serious issue I'd be ROTFLMAO at the total ignorance of the pontificating defenders here. I have other more interesting things to do, but I'll address this nonsense once and get on with my day.

Someone sends a classified email either marked or unmarked as classified to an unclassified computer and the receiver of that email does nothing but read it. The receiver of that email is storing classified email on unclassified media and BOTH parties have committed a security breach. Get it? In addition, the receiver of that email in this case was the MFWIC of that department.

For the receiver of that classifieded email to be exonerated that person would need to notify the individuals responsible for security at that organization and determine what action is appropriate, otherwise BOTH parties are guilty of a security breach.

What is your evidence that this did or did not occur?

Whether you think this is a silly notion is irrelevant and simply continues to show your ignorance. If this is browbeating, so be it..

Several here who do know what they're talking about have tried to explain it obviously to no avail. Have a good day. I'm outta here.

I think it's anonymous internet bluster, rather than browbeating.

 

[Reheat]

What is your evidence that this did or did not occur?

Are you denying that the IG said there were classified emails on the server out of a small sample? And that he called the cops to investigate it? Why were they there AFTER she let the State Department? How many hundreds if not thousands more WERE there before she wiped it?

I think it's anonymous internet bluster, rather than browbeating.

Sure you do. I would have expected nothing less...

 

[wareyin]

For the receiver of that classified email to be exonerated that person would need to notify the individuals responsible for security at that organization and determine what action is appropriate, otherwise BOTH parties are guilty of a security breach.

What is your evidence that this did or did not occur?

Are you denying that the IG said there were classified emails on the server out of a small sample? And that he called the cops to investigate it? Why were they there AFTER she let the State Department? How many hundreds if not thousands more WERE there before she wiped it?

This is not evidence for or against the scenario that you proposed.

Sure you do. I would have expected nothing less...

Good, you may be learning how this forum operates. An argument from anonymous self proclaimed authorities holds no weight.

 

[RandFan]

Someone sends a classified email either marked or unmarked as classified to an unclassified computer and the receiver of that email does nothing but read it. The receiver of that email is storing classified email on unclassified media and BOTH parties have committed a security breach. Get it?

Yeah, I get it, big ******* deal.

The outrage machine churns on.

 

[logger]

Yeah, I get it, big ******* deal.

The outrage machine churns on.

No big deal here!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/16/number-of-hillary-clintons-emails-flagged-for-clas/

The Times only proof here is an "official" so no big deal. Libs continue with your heads in the sand or up something else.

 

[Leftus]

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.

I'll ask again, for the third time, assume for a second she is the target. What would you expect them to say about Clinton being a target?

Wait, whose emails were they looking at? The State Department doesn't send out emails. The State Department also doesn't mishandle information. People at the State Department do. And this all started with 1 person. Clinton. Documents don't mishandle themselves.

Documents were mishandled, and it appears you've accepted that much. The IG identified those documents exclusively looking at Clinton's emails. To say that Clinton isn't at the center of this takes more cognitive dissidence than I can muster. Also, your timeline is way off. They may have been alerted in June of this year but that is not when the mishandling took place.

If Clinton is not at the center of the issue, why are they after her old server and the thumb drives (somebody made copies that perhaps they shouldn't have) that contained the information they are seeking?

If Clinton doesn't see herself as the target of this investigation she is, at best, very naive. I don't think anyone believes she is that naive. She was there when they told Sandy Berger he wasn't a target.

 

[Reheat]

The State Department also doesn't mishandle information. People at the State Department do. And this all started with 1 person. Clinton. Documents don't mishandle themselves.

You do realize that it's been declared a BFD and they obviously got on that server by osmosis or some'm like that. The Internet is full of people who really don't give a **** about much of anything except posting crap on some obscure Internet Forum supporting their convoluted liberal progressive agenda.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, I get it, big ******* deal.

The outrage machine churns on.

face palm.

at least rand fan checked into to tell us that he does not understand the significance of what the thread is about.

maybe he will mention that he voted for bush

 

[wareyin]

I'll ask again, for the third time, assume for a second she is the target. What would you expect them to say about Clinton being a target?

I'll answer, for the third time, that I understand you want me to assume Clinton is the target, as you obviously are doing.

Wait, whose emails were they looking at? The State Department doesn't send out emails. The State Department also doesn't mishandle information. People at the State Department do. And this all started with 1 person. Clinton. Documents don't mishandle themselves.

Documents were mishandled, and it appears you've accepted that much. The IG identified those documents exclusively looking at Clinton's emails. To say that Clinton isn't at the center of this takes more cognitive dissidence than I can muster. Also, your timeline is way off. They may have been alerted in June of this year but that is not when the mishandling took place.

Apparently, you are not informed on the facts.
"The department is now reviewing some 55,000 pages of emails. A first batch of 3,000 pages was made public on June 30.

In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.

In a second memo to Mr. Kennedy, sent on July 17, the inspectors general said that at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information. The inspectors general did not identify the email or reveal its substance."

The emails released by the State Department on June 30th involved at least one email containing classified information. Is that mishandling of classified information by the State Department?

If Clinton is not at the center of the issue, why are they after her old server and the thumb drives (somebody made copies that perhaps they shouldn't have) that contained the information they are seeking?

If Clinton doesn't see herself as the target of this investigation she is, at best, very naive. I don't think anyone believes she is that naive. She was there when they told Sandy Berger he wasn't a target.

You really want Clinton to be the target that the FBI denies she is. I understand. That doesn't make it true.

 

[logger]

maybe he will mention that he voted for bush

Twice Lol

 

[RandFan]

No big deal here!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/16/number-of-hillary-clintons-emails-flagged-for-clas/

The Times only proof here is an "official" so no big deal. Libs continue with your heads in the sand or up something else.

No one has their heads in the sand on this side. Nothing will come of this and you will pretend not to have been involved, right? I look forward to that.

 

[sunmaster14]

True. At the time she sent and received them they were not classified.

Utterly false. It has already been reported that some of Hillary's emails had materials which were classified as top secret at the time. Whether or not they were marked as classified is completely irrelevant. Many kinds of information are classified as top secret at the moment they are created, even before there has been time to add markings to it. Arguably, any opinions of the Secretary of State relevant to her job are classified, so the moment Hillary expresses a thought or makes a decision in an email, that email is classified, whether or not she has added a marking to indicate that.

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"

It is unknown if this is a FACT since the FBI is still going through her emails (and of course roughly half of them have already been deleted). I rather doubt it is a FACT frankly. Regardless, as explained above, it is a red herring to focus on whether or not a document was labeled as classified.

FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton's Server Use

A dishonest "FACT" that tries to insinuate the word "retroactive" in there to confuse and distort the issue. And, no, questions might not have occurred as long as classified materials remained on secure servers.

FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton's Email Use And David Petraeus' Crimes

A useless "FACT" since it misuses the word "debunked" and refers to one so-called expert in the plural and implies that there is unanimity among experts. In fact, what Petraeus did had lower potential for causing damage to national security. All he did was give his diaries to his biographer to use as a source, and his biographer, being an intelligence officer in the US Military Reserve, actually had a high enough security clearance to review the documents, although perhaps not a need to know. She also mishandled that classified information, although that is technically her responsibility not Petraeus'. In any case, there was good reason to believe that the information was contained as it was always in the hands of people who had security clearances and who therefore had the legal obligation to protect that information. In Hillary's case, the information was on an unprotected server, hooked up to the internet, for years. Plus, any foreign intelligence agency worth a damn, would probably have figured out from 60,000 emails worth of traffic over 4 years that the US Secretary of State was using a private server and not one protected and monitored by the US government. On top of that, she gave her emails to people, indeed an entire law firm, who had no legal obligation to protect classified information.

FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself

This is a nice rebuttal to this so-called FACT.

McClatchy’s Anita Kumar, who helped break the story that two of the e-mails were top secret, felt compelled to step on her own scoop. She said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that “there are several investigations into her conduct, not into her, but into her use of personal e-mail and a personal server.” Go ahead and try parsing the difference between an “investigation into her conduct” and an investigation “into her.”

Clinton, in violation of State Department rules, guidelines from the White House, and all common sense, used her own unsecured stealth server. She sent classified material on it. But it’s the server that’s being investigated?

Hopefully the server will one day be able to testify on its own behalf: “I was just following orders.”

In fairness to the press, even the FBI is publicly toeing this line, saying that the investigation isn’t into Clinton. But on background, federal officials sing a different tune. “It’s definitely a criminal probe,” a government source told the New York Post. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.”

 

[Mike!]

Hillary Clinton: "It's NOT a criminal investigation!"

Richard Nixon: "I'm not a crook."

 

[DavidJames]

Is she wrong?

 

[sunmaster14]

Is she wrong?

Of course she's wrong. What's your definition of a criminal investigation?

 

[Leftus]

I'll answer, for the third time, that I understand you want me to assume Clinton is the target, as you obviously are doing.

The assumption is only for the purposes of answer the question so I'll ask again, for the fourth time - What would you expect them to say about Clinton being a target if she was actually a target?

Apparently, you are not informed on the facts.
" The department is now reviewing some 55,000 pages of emails. A first batch of 3,000 pages was made public on June 30.

Just because the issue was found in June and raised in July doesn't mean it happened in those months. In fact, it happened years earlier.

In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.

In a second memo to Mr. Kennedy, sent on July 17, the inspectors general said that at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information. The inspectors general did not identify the email or reveal its substance.[/URL]"

The emails released by the State Department on June 30th involved at least one email containing classified information. Is that mishandling of classified information by the State Department?

The referrals to the FBI predate that incident. They key to knowing that is the phrase "second memo." It means there was a first. The fact they found other violations only serves to expand, not refocus, any investigation.

You really want Clinton to be the target that the FBI denies she is. I understand. That doesn't make it true.

Again, and let's just call this #4b, what would you expect them to say were she the target? It's a simple question and one you keep avoiding. I've pointed out a number of examples where people were told they weren't a target and actually were.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary Clinton: "It's NOT a criminal investigation!"

Richard Nixon: "I'm not a crook."

Bob Woodward compares Clinton emails to Nixon tapes

I can't believe that people cite media matters which is nothing more than a propaganda wing of the Clintons.

Christ, we have actual emails to Hillary from one of the sleazier members of the Clinton inner circle crowing about getting some propaganda placed there.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Utterly false. It has already been reported that some of Hillary's emails had materials which were classified as top secret at the time. Whether or not they were marked as classified is completely irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, because:"I never sent classified material on my email and I never received any that was marked classified," Clinton said, repeating a claim she's made repeatedly

Many kinds of information are classified as top secret at the moment they are created, even before there has been time to add markings to it.

I agree, it has been established emails are still classified even if not correctly marked.

Arguably, any opinions of the Secretary of State relevant to her job are classified, so the moment Hillary expresses a thought or makes a decision in an email, that email is classified, whether or not she has added a marking to indicate that.

You made that part up, didn't you?

It is unknown if this is a FACT since the FBI is still going through her emails (and of course roughly half of them have already been deleted). I rather doubt it is a FACT frankly.

It is a fact right now, based on the IG's statement.

It may change in the future, after all the emails are reviewed, and any sort of statement regarding them is issued.

Regardless, as explained above, it is a red herring to focus on whether or not a document was labeled as classified.

No, it's still relevant to the discussion. Especially for those wanting to crow about how HRC "lied" when it so far appears she did not.

<snip>

This is a nice rebuttal to this so-called FACT.

Yes, it's a rebuttal that says the FBI publicly says the same thing, except for "unnamed sources" who say otherwise.