Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[wareyin]

"White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel HAD TO ASK her staff for it and they had to ask Hillary for permission to give it to him."
Just don't think I have ever seen such pathetic reading comprehension in my entire life.

I mean, talk about cherry picking, oh dear.

I ordered a pizza to be delivered the other day, and Domino's had to ask for my address. By your logic, I have a secret lair.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, I picked the 50% of your post that was not true. Oh dear indeed.

That is.... the very definition of cherry picking...

You took something in isolation and claim in isolation it is not true...

That is truly amazing. And you are proud of that post, despite ignoring the actual next sentence that that Hillary's Boss's chief of staff had to actually go out and ask for the email and Hillary's staff had to ask Hillary's permission to give the only email address she had to her Boss's chief of staff?

I gotta tell you, one learns something new just about every day when dealing with the Hillary 2016 crew.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That is.... the very definition of cherry picking...

You took something in isolation and claim in isolation it is not true...

The problem is it's not true in context, either.

There is not evidence she kept her email address secret, as I pointed out.

The only evidence provided was hat Emmanuel didn't know her email address, and had to ask for it.

IE - You don't know my email address and would have to ask for it, yet it's not secret.

You would think someone with 1000's of posts on a skeptic board would understand this stuff....
Actually, I think you do and are being deliberately obtuse.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, seeing as how the cherry picking festival has seemingly run its course, avid readers will recall that expert skeptics called shenanigans on Hillary's claim that “f I had not asked for my emails all to be made public, none of this would have been in the public arena,”

Here's a fairly comprehensive update demolishing Hillary's silly spin

avid readers knew this first.

 

[The Big Dog]

The problem is it's not true in context, either.

.

See, we agree!

Say, that egregious cherry picking is fine, just fine.

 

[WildCat]

It's not simply people with their "Cop of the Gaps" stating that she is not the target ... it's the FBI.
(I understand you think this somehow means she actually is the target)

Ah, but how do they define "target"? I'm getting deja vu here...

Scott Lassar, the United States Attorney in Chicago, has said workers in a driver license office took $150,000 in bribes to give trucker licenses. Federal agents also say that some of that money ended up in a campaign fund for Mr. Ryan. The prosecutor has said Mr. Ryan is not a target of the investigation.

Some years later...

George Ryan, the former governor of Illinois who drew international notice by emptying his state's death row, was convicted today of all charges brought against him in a sweeping federal corruption case.

You see, they don't have "targets", they just go where the investigation leads them.

I don't know if they suspect Hillary did anything illegal but a statement that she "wasn't the target of the investigation" is pretty meaningless.

 

[The Big Dog]

Judge says Hillary Clinton's private emails violated policy

During a hearing on a Freedom of Information Act case, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said the actions had complicated the State Department’s ability to respond to requests for the agency’s records on various topics.

“We wouldn’t be here today if this employee had followed government policy,” Sullivan said, apparently referring to Clinton.

Link here.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

During a hearing on a Freedom of Information Act case, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said the actions had complicated the State Department’s ability to respond to requests for the agency’s records on various topics.

“We wouldn’t be here today if this employee had followed government policy,” Sullivan said, apparently referring to Clinton.

Link here.

Sullivan did not say precisely how he believed Clinton had violated government policy, but he repeatedly referred to the State Department’s obligation to preserve its records under the Federal Records Act of 1950.

I'm not saying how , but I am sure she did ...

 

[The Big Dog]

Sullivan did not say precisely how he believed Clinton had violated government policy, but he repeatedly referred to the State Department’s obligation to preserve its records under the Federal Records Act of 1950.

I'm not saying how , but I am sure she did ...

Uh oh, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, you just got totally roasted!

Who the **** does he think he is? A judge or something?

Solid post Thel8Elvis, you sure gave that Federal Court Judge what for!

 

[Leftus]

Did you read this article ?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/disputed-clinton-emails-identified/

It contained what Davis believed to be sensitive but unclassified information from U.S. Special Envoy to Libya Christopher Stevens -- "(SBU) Per Special Envoy Stevens," according to the email. The email mentioned the diplomat's concerns about departing from Benghazi and also detailed the "phased checkout" of Stevens' envoy delegation from the area.

The document, which is entirely unredacted, also includes references to military intelligence. "AFRICOM reported Qadhafi's forces took the eastern and western gates of Adjabiyah, with 5 vehicles at the eastern gate and 50 at the western gate," the email reads. "More Qadhafi forces are heading to Ajdabiyah from Brega." A government official with knowledge of the investigation tells CBS News that this was the section of the email that intelligence officials believe should have been marked "Classified" at the time it was sent.
...

...The government official says that doesn't change the fact that his email, which was eventually forwarded to Clinton, contained military intelligence that should have been marked "classified." "SBU" is a generic State Department classification level that is not used by the rest of the intelligence community.

The government official acknowledged that this kind of mistake is not unusual for the State Department when officials are discussing information gleaned from both intelligence and local sources.

The question "was it classified?" is not answered with "mistakes happen all the time." Her statement that there was no classified on her server is objectively false.

It's not simply people with their "Cop of the Gaps" stating that she is not the target ... it's the FBI.
(I understand you think this somehow means she actually is the target)

Maybe you will answer what others have refused. If Clinton was actually the target of the investigation, what would you expect the FBI to say?

I'm not stating that the denial is in and of itself proof that she is the target. I am stating that taking the word of the FBI on this issue is meaningless. You get the same answer if she is or is not the target. It can't be used one way or the other.

On the other hand, you can look at the actions of the FBI to determine where their focus is. They have secured the thumb drives as well as the server. All of the focus seems to be at her actions.

People stated this was just a partisan affair in the Congress. And to be fair, it is. But then the IG got involved and his findings were dismissed, as partisan. And they are not. Two separate IGs refer this issue to the FBI, and this is dismissed because the FBI doesn't, apparently, investigate crimes.

If the FBI, or any police agency, tell you that you aren't under suspicion for the action you took - lawyer up. It's foolish to do otherwise.

 

[Ziggurat]

At every stage of this scandal, her defenders have claimed that there's nothing to the story, that what was known at the time was the entirety of the situation, that the story was over already. But it keeps getting worse. At every step, the excuses fall apart. And it will continue to get worse.

The latest development is that there are probably now dozens of emails which were classified from the start:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

"Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters."

So, information which was classified at the time it was sent, and Hillary sent it.

Everything she says is a lie.

 

[plague311]

At every stage of this scandal, her defenders have claimed that there's nothing to the story, that what was known at the time was the entirety of the situation, that the story was over already. But it keeps getting worse. At every step, the excuses fall apart. And it will continue to get worse.

The latest development is that there are probably now dozens of emails which were classified from the start:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

"Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters."

So, information which was classified at the time it was sent, and Hillary sent it.

Everything she says is a lie.

Well, since Reuters is quoting an actual prosecutor, FBI agent, or other government agent then I see no reason to second guess it.

What's that? They aren't? They're just basing it off of their opinion and reading of the law (much like the lawyers in this thread)?

Oh, then I guess I'll just wait for a more official word.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, since Reuters is quoting an actual prosecutor, FBI agent, or other government agent then I see no reason to second guess it.

What's that? They aren't? They're just basing it off of their opinion and reading of the law (much like the lawyers in this thread)?

Oh, then I guess I'll just wait for a more official word.

Indeed, you should wait to be told what to believe. That role suits you perfectly.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Well, since Reuters is quoting an actual prosecutor, FBI agent, or other government agent then I see no reason to second guess it.

What's that? They aren't? They're just basing it off of their opinion and reading of the law (much like the lawyers in this thread)?

Oh, then I guess I'll just wait for a more official word.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

Next time, RTFA.

 

[plague311]

Indeed, you should wait to be told what to believe. That role suits you perfectly.

Oh snap, Ad hom from Zigg for a change. That was a total blind side. I forgot in your world that waiting for someone qualified to file charges or move forward is being told what to do. For stupid.

Next time, RTFA.

How about you learn to RTFA the first time, properly? This guy doesn't work for the government, does he Newton? Did he work for the government during Clinton's tenure? Is he just giving his "opinion" or is he giving a statement from the *********** government?

If you're going to attempt to be an *******, at least be right when you do it. The State Department contests the claim, and no government official, at least as of now, is claiming the same thing as this article.

Good work, fine trolling there.

 

[sunmaster14]

Indeed, you should wait to be told what to believe. That role suits you perfectly.

It is amazing how the Hillary defenders keep insisting that it's presumptuous of her detractors to analyze the facts and read the regulations and the statutes and argue for themselves that Hillary has broken the law. Instead they insist that there is something magical about the law and only a bona fide magician (aka a lawyer) could possibly understand it and tell us what it means. It is like they believe the inverse of the argument from authority fallacy: If a person is not an authority, then what he says cannot be true.

It makes one wonder why they are participating in a forum dedicated to critical reasoning.

 

[plague311]

It is amazing how the Hillary defenders keep insisting that it's presumptuous of her detractors to analyze the facts and read the regulations and the statutes and argue for themselves that Hillary has broken the law. Instead they insist that there is something magical about the law and only a bona fide magician (aka a lawyer) could possibly understand it and tell us what it means. It is like they believe the inverse of the argument from authority fallacy: If a person is not an authority, then what he says cannot be true.

It makes one wonder why they are participating in a forum dedicated to critical reasoning.

I'm so sick of this "if you agree with what I say you're a skeptic, if you don't you have no room being on a critical thinkers forum" argument.

Waiting for those in authority to confirm information what is being released by news sites doesn't display a lack of critical thinking. Just like in every investigation some people decide to wait for the evidence to be released. Which strikes me as funny considering I would bet money I could look in any of the police shooting threads, or other threads referring to investigations, and I could find a post from the Zigg, Newton, and Sunmaster preaching patience for all the evidence to come out.

Not in this thread though. Fry the Clinton!

Yeah, talk to me about Critical thinking and who belongs here.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh snap, Ad hom from Zigg for a change. That was a total blind side. I forgot in your world that waiting for someone qualified to file charges or move forward is being told what to do. For stupid.

Well, since the post you responded to made no claim about (or even mention of) criminal charges, then yes, waiting for criminal charges before making any judgement is indeed waiting to be told what to believe.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which strikes me as funny considering I would bet money I could look in any of the police shooting threads, or other threads referring to investigations, and I could find a post from the Zigg, Newton, and Sunmaster preaching patience for all the evidence to come out.

Is that a tu quoque I see? Why, yes, yes it is.

 

[plague311]

Well, since the post you responded to made no claim about (or even mention of) criminal charges, then yes, waiting for criminal charges before making any judgement is indeed waiting to be told what to believe.

Just so I'm understanding this correctly. You posted that news article just for educational purposes and in no way to promote the accusation that Clinton broke the law? You just wanted the information available? No agenda?