Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[WildCat]

It is. Posters are incredulous she could have been SoS without having an secure email account to send and receive classified emails.

Being incredulous at the improper and possibly illegal actions of others is not a fallacy, nor is doubting the veracity of the ever-changing excuses of that other person.

 

[wareyin]

Powell isn't running for president. He also wasn't the recipient of millions of dollars in foreign donations while Secretary of State. Do you honestly not understand why this might make a legitimate difference in the level of scrutiny they receive?

I'm not sure if you realize it, but this bit right here is an admission that, for you at least, the breach of protocol isn't the issue, it's who breached protocol. In other words, double standards.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure if you realize it, but this bit right here is an admission that, for you at least, the breach of protocol isn't the issue, it's who breached protocol. In other words, double standards.

First, when standards differ for legitimate reasons, we do not call that difference a double standard. Second, some of the actual official protocols that Hillary violated changed between when Powell was secretary and when Hillary was secretary.

Third, my post was only part of an explanation for why there was a difference between Powell and Hillary. There are other differences as well. For example, Powell has never lied about his use of email, Hillary has. To my knowledge, Powell never tried to thwart FOIA requests, Hillary has. And Hillary use her private email for classified information, I haven't heard that Powell did. If you have evidence that Powell tried to avoid FOIA or had classified info on his private email, then I'd be happy to get more upset about Powell than I am right now. Furthermore, it is invalid to read that post as a summary of my feelings on the issue, and completely wrong to conclude that I'm not concerned about the breach of protocol itself.

Fourth, even if your position had any merit, it would still be a tu quoque fallacy. You will note that I'm not actually defending Powell. Go ahead, criticize him all you want. But no criticism of Powell can actually absolve Hillary.

 

[plague311]

First, when standards differ for legitimate reasons, we do not call that difference a double standard. Second, some of the actual official protocols that Hillary violated changed between when Powell was secretary and when Hillary was secretary.

Third, my post was only part of an explanation for why there was a difference between Powell and Hillary. There are other differences as well. For example, Powell has never lied about his use of email, Hillary has. To my knowledge, Powell never tried to thwart FOIA requests, Hillary has. And Hillary use her private email for classified information, I haven't heard that Powell did. If you have evidence that Powell tried to avoid FOIA or had classified info on his private email, then I'd be happy to get more upset about Powell than I am right now. Furthermore, it is invalid to read that post as a summary of my feelings on the issue, and completely wrong to conclude that I'm not concerned about the breach of protocol itself.

Source

Mr. Powell also “used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders.”

It's been claimed up and down that anything from Foreign leaders is classified. He might not have done it on purpose, but he still did it. We will all be awaiting your impending anger.

Fourth, even if your position had any merit, it would still be a tu quoque fallacy. You will note that I'm not actually defending Powell. Go ahead, criticize him all you want. But no criticism of Powell can actually absolve Hillary.

Ah, the tu quoque again. Convenient how that's busted out when it comes to stuff like this. I made the same claim and 16.5 wasn't having it. It's pretty much *********** useless to argue about. No one is dismissing what Hillary did because Powell did it. At least no one I see. I believe everyone is just asking for a little more consistency on who receives the outrage.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's been claimed up and down that anything from Foreign leaders is classified.

No, it hasn't. Here is what's been claimed:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423038/hillary-clinton-email-scandal

"To underscore that point, Reuters reported that at least 30 email threads from documents already publicly released through FOIA contained information provided in confidence to U.S. officials by foreign-government counterparts — the disclosure of which is presumed to harm national security under governing Executive Orders. Those e-mails, containing sensitive discussions about confidential communications with British, German, and other foreign leaders, were presumptively classified under federal law from their inception."​

Did Powell receive any information in confidence? Your source doesn't make that claim.

Ah, the tu quoque again. Convenient how that's busted out when it comes to stuff like this.

If you wouldn't keep making tu quoque arguments, people wouldn't keep pointing it out.

 

[wareyin]

First, when standards differ for legitimate reasons, we do not call that difference a double standard.

I agree. However, the different standards you are applying are clearly not for legitimate reasons, so it remains a double standard.

Second, some of the actual official protocols that Hillary violated changed between when Powell was secretary and when Hillary was secretary.

Cite? I've seen that the standards changed after Clinton, not that they changed before. Regardless, the State Dept still maintains that Clinton did not violate protocols, so your point is moot.

Third, my post was only part of an explanation for why there was a difference between Powell and Hillary. There are other differences as well. For example, Powell has never lied about his use of email, Hillary has. To my knowledge, Powell never tried to thwart FOIA requests, Hillary has. And Hillary use her private email for classified information, I haven't heard that Powell did. If you have evidence that Powell tried to avoid FOIA or had classified info on his private email, then I'd be happy to get more upset about Powell than I am right now. Furthermore, it is invalid to read that post as a summary of my feelings on the issue, and completely wrong to conclude that I'm not concerned about the breach of protocol itself.

Sadly, the right wing disinformation machine strikes again. Clinton receiving 2 forwarded emails does not constitute "using her private email" for classified information.

Fourth, even if your position had any merit, it would still be a tu quoque fallacy. You will note that I'm not actually defending Powell. Go ahead, criticize him all you want. But no criticism of Powell can actually absolve Hillary.

Pointing out your selective outrage is not a tu quoque. Until charges are filed, there is nothing to absolve Clinton of. When 2 of the 3 SoS to that date treated email the same, but you're only bothered by one, that weakens your claim that this is a big deal.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Allowed by whom? Who do you imagine was actually going to stop her from breaking policy?

Allowed by the law. Allowed by the president.

If you want to claim "she wasn't supposed to use her own personal server to begin with," , I don't know how else to interpret supposed to other then "allowed".

But she can control what happens next. She did not take appropriate action in response to receiving classified email on an unclassified network.

I agree, she failed to recognize that someone sent her email that had a few sentences which contained information which a different agency might consider to be classified material.

And as I keep pointing out, and no one disagrees with, that would have happened even if she used a state.gov email. And as was pointed out earlier in the thread, apparently happens all the time.

So it's not incompetence, it's a mistake that happens frequently, and has nothing to do with having her own email server.

Really? You still don't know? Damn, elvis, you're behind the times.

She lied about why she set up the server. She claimed it was because she didn't want to carry multiple devices, but in fact she did carry multiple devices.

FALSE - Carrying multiple devices later does not affect the truth of the reason given for setting up the server years earlier.

She claimed to have used only one address while at State, but used multiple addresses.

FALSE - She used one address.
https://www.gop.com/contradicting-past-claims-clinton-used-multiple-personal-email-addresses/

She claimed she never sent or received classified information. When classified emails were found, her defense was that it wasn't classified when it was sent. When emails were found with info that was classified at the time it was sent, she resorted to claiming that they weren't marked classified. That last line of "defense" might be true, but it's not good enough, and it's also quite a retreat from her original claims.

FALSE - read her statements:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ssified-material-on-her-private-email-system/
Note that in her statements that Clinton has been careful to emphasize that she personally did not send “classified material” on her nongovernment account. She has been less definitive about receiving classified material. In her March news conference, she was silent on that issue. In her August news conference, she carefully said she “did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified.”

Of course, you can just link to where she said "she never sent or received classified information" without the caveats, and prove me and the Washington post wrong.

Hmm. Maybe I am not the one behind the times, as you put it ?

Of course you don't see why. You'd have to admit the one thing you can't stand to admit.

 

[Ziggurat]

Allowed by the law. Allowed by the president.

She violated Obama's policies regarding email. Those policies don't have the force of law, but she violated them all the same.

If you want to claim "she wasn't supposed to use her own personal server to begin with," , I don't know how else to interpret supposed to other then "allowed".

Then she wasn't allowed to.

I agree, she failed to recognize that someone sent her email that had a few sentences which contained information which a different agency might consider to be classified material.

Wow. That's a pretty desperate (and inaccurate) representation of the contents in question.

So it's not incompetence, it's a mistake that happens frequently, and has nothing to do with having her own email server.

A mistake that happens frequently can't be incompetence? Yeah, no.

FALSE - She used one address.
https://www.gop.com/contradicting-past-claims-clinton-used-multiple-personal-email-addresses/

Bwahahahaha! Your source explicitly contradicts you. Hell, it's even in the very title: "Contradicting Past Claims, Clinton Used Multiple Secret Email Addresses". Are you paying any attention here?

FALSE - read her statements:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ssified-material-on-her-private-email-system/
Note that in her statements that Clinton has been careful to emphasize that she personally did not send “classified material” on her nongovernment account. She has been less definitive about receiving classified material. In her March news conference, she was silent on that issue. In her August news conference, she carefully said she “did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified.”

Of course, you can just link to where she said "she never sent or received classified information" without the caveats, and prove me and the Washington post wrong.

From your own source: "I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material."

That hilighted part has no caveats. Unless you want to get into a debate about what the meaning of "is" is (where have we seen that before?), readers or listeners would rightly conclude that this means she received no classified material, because if she did, then there is classified material in her email.

Finally, since YOU chose to rely on WP, not me, let's see what else they say:

"At The Fact Checker, we judge statements through the perspective of an ordinary citizen. The classification rules are complex but, legal technicalities aside, the question is whether classified information was exchanged over her private e-mail system. Never mind the IG’s concerns. According to the State Department redactions of the released e-mails, the answer is yes. Clinton earns Two Pinocchios for excessively technical wordsmithing."

In other words, your own source which you used to claim she told the truth actually thinks she's lying.

Hmm. Maybe I am not the one behind the times, as you put it ?

No, you definitely are.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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)[/QUOTE]

She violated Obama's policies regarding email. Those policies don't have the force of law, but she violated them all the same.
Then she wasn't allowed to.

OK, she violated Obama's guidance/policies regarding email. What conclusion should we draw from it ?

Wow. That's a pretty desperate (and inaccurate) representation of the contents in question.
A mistake that happens frequently can't be incompetence? Yeah, no.

I think it's neither desperate or inaccurate.

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.

Bwahahahaha! Your source explicitly contradicts you. Hell, it's even in the very title: "Contradicting Past Claims, Clinton Used Multiple Secret Email Addresses". Are you paying any attention here?

I know what the title says, and what the article says. It says the NYT and the select committee were wrong when they claimed HRC used multiple email addresses, and explains why.

Why did the Select Committee announce that she used multiple email
addresses during her tenure?

In fairness to the Committee, this was an honest misunderstanding. Secretary
Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of
her first weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had
previously used). In March 2013, a month after she left the Department, Gawker
published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the
address on her account.
At the time the printed copies were provided to the Department last year, because it
was the same account, the new email address established after she left office
appeared on the printed copies as the sender, and not the address she used as
Secretary. In fact, this address on the account did not exist until March 2013. This
led to understandable confusion that was cleared up directly with the Committee
after its press conference.

From your own source: "I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material."

That hilighted part has no caveats. Unless you want to get into a debate about what the meaning of "is" is (where have we seen that before?), readers or listeners would rightly conclude that this means she received no classified material, because if she did, then there is classified material in her email.

Finally, since YOU chose to rely on WP, not me, let's see what else they say:

"At The Fact Checker, we judge statements through the perspective of an ordinary citizen. The classification rules are complex but, legal technicalities aside, the question is whether classified information was exchanged over her private e-mail system. Never mind the IG’s concerns. According to the State Department redactions of the released e-mails, the answer is yes. Clinton earns Two Pinocchios for excessively technical wordsmithing."

In other words, your own source which you used to claim she told the truth actually thinks she's lying.

No, they think she is avoiding answering "the question is whether classified information was exchanged over her private e-mail system."

So you can't provide a quote for what you claimed, which was "She claimed she never sent or received classified information"

Your claim that "at every stage she's failed to tell the truth about it." fails.

 

[mgidm86]

Several people, who would never have voted for Clinton anyway, have convinced themselves through conjecture, suspicion, and hyperbole, but not a single fact, that they were right all along. While this is a stunning example of critical thinking, please do get back to me when the relevant authorities agree with your conjecture.

Not a single fact? Okay. The only conjecture I mentioned was that the FBI gave her the chance to turn in her server without making an official, and embarrassing, request. She obviously was pressured into doing so, seeing as she'd previously stated that she would never do it, and I'm sure she reads the polls and the news.

Do you disagree that there was pressure for her to turn over the server in a sudden desire to be forthcoming?

It is not conjecture that the FBI is involved, nor that she ignored FOIA requests for years, nor that classified data was found, and is still being found, in her emails.

Not conjecture - she turned in half of her emails after deciding for herself what was valid and destroying the rest. She didn't keep them handy just in case. Who knows, maybe some of those would have cleared her of something later.

Months later, she turns over her server that has been wiped clean.

It is not conjecture that the decision to use her own server was stupid because of the reason quoted below...

That, along with the fact that you can't control what everyone sends you, when someone accidentally mis-classifies one piece of information that is included in an email.

This is a great reason not to use an outside server as SoS, is it not?

Please, anybody, give us one reasonable explanation, besides incompetence and/or deceit, as to why she would use her own server.

Part of critical thinking is deducing a reasonable conclusion from available information - see Occam's Razor. Which way would the blade cut at this point?

 

[wareyin]

Not a single fact? Okay. The only conjecture I mentioned was that the FBI gave her the chance to turn in her server without making an official, and embarrassing, request. She obviously was pressured into doing so, seeing as she'd previously stated that she would never do it, and I'm sure she reads the polls and the news.

Do you disagree that there was pressure for her to turn over the server in a sudden desire to be forthcoming?

You have never stated that you would never do something, only to change your mind later? Or seen someone else do so? You think changing one's mind is evidence that one was pressured into doing so? I know a guy that loves to drink heavily on occasion. He's been heard to claim he'll never drink again on more than one Sunday morning. Did the FBI pressure him into drinking the next Saturday night?

It is not conjecture that the FBI is involved, nor that she ignored FOIA requests for years, nor that classified data was found, and is still being found, in her emails.

It is conjecture that the FBI is investigating Clinton, and it is conjecture that the classified data you claim is being found is anything but retroactively classified material, with the exception of 2 forwarded emails containing "classified information" that had already been broadcast on CNN a day before it was sent.

Not conjecture - she turned in half of her emails after deciding for herself what was valid and destroying the rest. She didn't keep them handy just in case. Who knows, maybe some of those would have cleared her of something later.

Conjecture that she had any duty to turn over personal emails, or that any of the destroyed emails were not personal.

Months later, she turns over her server that has been wiped clean.

Finally, an honest claim.

It is not conjecture that the decision to use her own server was stupid because of the reason quoted below...



This is a great reason not to use an outside server as SoS, is it not?

Please, anybody, give us one reasonable explanation, besides incompetence and/or deceit, as to why she would use her own server.

Part of critical thinking is deducing a reasonable conclusion from available information - see Occam's Razor. Which way would the blade cut at this point?

You don't have enough valid information to use Occam's Razor.

 

[Fudbucker]

More drips:

"The State Department has deemed roughly 150 more of Hillary Clinton's email messages to be classified, a move certain to fuel the roiling controversy over her use of a private email server instead of an official government account when she served as secretary of state.

...

The new classified designations came as the State Department prepared to post more than 7,000 additional pages of Clinton's emails online. The records were expected to go up on the agency's website at about 9 p.m. Monday."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/clintonemail-batch4-213164#ixzz3kRYAaZTH

 

[Ziggurat]

OK, she violated Obama's guidance/policies regarding email. What conclusion should we draw from it ?

That she doesn't think she has to follow the rules like everyone else.

And as president, she would undoubtedly feel the same way.

I think it's neither desperate or inaccurate.

It is both. Appealing to the commonality of incompetence at State doesn't make the incompetence any better.

I know what the title says, and what the article says. It says the NYT and the select committee were wrong when they claimed HRC used multiple email addresses, and explains why.

Why did the Select Committee announce that she used multiple email
addresses during her tenure?

In fairness to the Committee, this was an honest misunderstanding. Secretary Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of her first weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously used). In March 2013, a month after she left the Department, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account. At the time the printed copies were provided to the Department last year, because it was the same account, the new email address established after she left office appeared on the printed copies as the sender, and not the address she used as Secretary. In fact, this address on the account did not exist until March 2013. This led to understandable confusion that was cleared up directly with the Committee after its press conference.

You are doubling down on failure. Your quote is not from the authors of the article, it is from Clinton's office. The purpose of showing the quote is not to prove or claim that she only used one address, but to prove that she lied about only using one address.

Clinton claimed that she had only used hdr22@clintonemail.com as secretary of state, and that the hrod17@clintonemail.com account was not created until after she left office. Your link demonstrates that she also used hrod17@clintonemail.com as secretary of state, by showing emails from that account as secretary of state.

No, they think she is avoiding answering "the question is whether classified information was exchanged over her private e-mail system."

Why would they think that, when that wasn't the question she was answering? WaPo knows what the actual question was, they've even got a transcript of the whole thing online. In fact, her response doesn't answer the actual question at all. You can find the actual question, if you care to, but since she didn't actually answer it, it doesn't really matter. We have to read that statement on its own.

So you can't provide a quote for what you claimed, which was "She claimed she never sent or received classified information"

I just did. You simply refuse to believe the plain meaning of the quote. Perhaps the meaning of the word "is" is in dispute. Again.

 

[davefoc]

From a Clinton press release dated March 10, 2015

Was classified material sent or received by Secretary Clinton on this email address?

No. A separate, closed system was used by the Department for the sole purpose of handling classified communications which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system, including to outside email accounts.

 

[Dog Town]

From a Clinton press release dated March 10, 2015

Not that I doubt this, but link, or source?

 

[Ziggurat]

Not that I doubt this, but link, or source?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4TmOsB6u-OQeldCanBpSGZWaE0/view?pli=1

 

[Dog Town]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4TmOsB6u-OQeldCanBpSGZWaE0/view?pli=1

Found it, but not in this form.Thank you!

 

[plague311]

More drips:

"The State Department has deemed roughly 150 more of Hillary Clinton's email messages to be classified, a move certain to fuel the roiling controversy over her use of a private email server instead of an official government account when she served as secretary of state.

...

The new classified designations came as the State Department prepared to post more than 7,000 additional pages of Clinton's emails online. The records were expected to go up on the agency's website at about 9 p.m. Monday."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/clintonemail-batch4-213164#ixzz3kRYAaZTH

Those 150 pages were still released in the email dump though. There was some redacted information that was retroactively classified.

 

[jhunter1163]

From Fudbucker's link:

All the new classifications were at the "CONFIDENTIAL" level, the lowest tier in the U.S. classification system.

No "secret" or above.

 

[shuize]

I asked a friend working in the State Department what would happen if he handled information as Clinton did.

His short answer: "Prison."