Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
Oh, so Powell's SoS term was in the past, so that has no bearing on Clinton being SoS today? Gosh, you're totally correct. How could I have thought Clinton's term was history?


Oh, wait, email practices 12 years ago aren't that different from email practices 6 years ago, and this is just another pitiful attempt to pretend there's something there, here?
Click to expand...

I'm just going to assume at this point that literally nothing will change your mind about Clinton. Even if she were indicted and convicted, I think you would still support her.

So we respectfully disagree on this.
 
davefoc said:
I think you completely missed Fudbucker's point. If it hadn't been Benghazi it would have been some other issue that would have been grossly exploited by the Republicans in an effort to damage prominent Democratic candidates. This strategy obviously works or they wouldn't do it, but mostly the largely manufactured scandals are of no importance to the partisan Democratic voters and of importance to only a small subset of the non-aligned moderate voters.

This scandal is different because there is actual and significant malfeasance underlying it. That is not to say the malfeasance isn't exaggerated and exploited by the Republicans for their purposes, but in the case of the email scandal somebody really intentionally did something wrong. It is that fact that makes it so that it will affect a wider range of the electorate than the manufactured and exaggerated scandals that the Republicans usually find it necessary to rely on for attacking their political opponents.

My guess is that this scandal has a lot to do with why Clinton's standing in the Democrat polls has declined steadily of late. I don't think it's because all of a sudden the electorate has fallen in love with Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...

Nicely put!
 
davefoc said:
I think you completely missed Fudbucker's point. If it hadn't been Benghazi it would have been some other issue that would have been grossly exploited by the Republicans in an effort to damage prominent Democratic candidates. This strategy obviously works or they wouldn't do it, but mostly the largely manufactured scandals are of no importance to the partisan Democratic voters and of importance to only a small subset of the non-aligned moderate voters.

This scandal is different because there is actual and significant malfeasance underlying it. That is not to say the malfeasance isn't exaggerated and exploited by the Republicans for their purposes, but in the case of the email scandal somebody really intentionally did something wrong. It is that fact that makes it so that it will affect a wider range of the electorate than the manufactured and exaggerated scandals that the Republicans usually find it necessary to rely on for attacking their political opponents.

My guess is that this scandal has a lot to do with why Clinton's standing in the Democrat polls has declined steadily of late. I don't think it's because all of a sudden the electorate has fallen in love with Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...

You admit it, you're just guessing, aren't you? Don't try to back track now, you don't knooooOOOOOooooow, anything really wrong happened, dooooo youuuu?
Her numbers could be down for any number of other reasons besides this made up email "scandal", you know, like, say, pants suits aren't in this year, or something...
That'd knock her numbers down right quick like, wouldn't it? Yep. That's what I'd go with, it's a fashion problem, and who hasn't suffered that embarrassment themselves before?

:thumbsup:;)
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
I'm just going to assume at this point that literally nothing will change your mind about Clinton. Even if she were indicted and convicted, I think you would still support her.

So we respectfully disagree on this.
Click to expand...

There is a well known saying about assumptions that you might do well to heed. If something were to actually come out of this trumped up nonsense, I would change my mind. The problem is that I recognize the likelihood of something coming out of this as near nill, as do Republicans, while you appear unable to.
 
davefoc said:
I think you completely missed Fudbucker's point. If it hadn't been Benghazi it would have been some other issue that would have been grossly exploited by the Republicans in an effort to damage prominent Democratic candidates. This strategy obviously works or they wouldn't do it, but mostly the largely manufactured scandals are of no importance to the partisan Democratic voters and of importance to only a small subset of the non-aligned moderate voters.

This scandal is different because there is actual and significant malfeasance underlying it. That is not to say the malfeasance isn't exaggerated and exploited by the Republicans for their purposes, but in the case of the email scandal somebody really intentionally did something wrong. It is that fact that makes it so that it will affect a wider range of the electorate than the manufactured and exaggerated scandals that the Republicans usually find it necessary to rely on for attacking their political opponents.

My guess is that this scandal has a lot to do with why Clinton's standing in the Democrat polls has declined steadily of late. I don't think it's because all of a sudden the electorate has fallen in love with Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...

We all know that the electorate hasn't fallen in love with Sanders. Despite your claims, Clinton still polls better than every Republican and every Democrat in national polls. Yes, some low information or gullible Democrats are gullible ebough to fall for this Republican smear campaign, but most voters are too smart to be taken in by this.
 
Fudbucker said:
False equivalence. Email practices 12 years ago are much different than today. In 2002, less than 40% of people had an internet connection at home, and dial-up connections were far more numerous than broadband.
Click to expand...

First, clinton was 6 years ago, not today.

And they still had SIPRNet and classified email 12 years ago, when Powell was in office.

And GMAIL was probably less secure then. It certainly wasn't SSL by default.

So, I think it's fair to compare their practices.
 
wareyin said:
Yes, some low information or gullible Democrats are gullible enough to fall for this Republican smear campaign, but most voters are too smart to be taken in by this.
Click to expand...
I can understand the sentiment that she's often a scandal magnet and her scandals have been blown out of proportion for political reasons, but I would have thought that her discretion with not following her job procedures fittingly would have raised an eyebrow or two. You think the calls for her imprisonment are a smear campaign.... we can't eliminate that idea completely... this is politics.

Ironically I've made this same charge on the racism threads... some people are willing to forego due process for the sake of seeing her campaign sink in a gigantic ball of fire... nevertheless charges that she:
  • Used a third party system for work related matters
  • Did not have a consistent security standard
  • Exposed classified or private SOS content to unnecessary risk
  • Dodging questions on what objectively could been resolved more easily earlier on with proper handling

Seem to be valid concerns. We can worry about the criminal aspects if/when there's a stronger chain of evidence... but from an eligibility standpoint she has shown an incapacity to make good judgement calls and people have been trending on not trusting her over this.

Sure, some of those not trusting her may vote for her anyway in a general election setting... but when the criticism is bipartisan as it is now... the conspiratorial argument thrown around like this is a purely right wing CT falls flat on its face.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
:) Really, you think the FBI is going to ignore emails sent by Clinton containing classified material because all they're looking for is information about who sent her emails with classified material.

This seems to be too silly an idea about what you meant so I assume it isn't what you meant, but the notion still made me smile.
Click to expand...

Yes, all the the emails with with exception of the 2 TS sent to clinton will be ignored by the FBI.

Because they all contain at best confidential information.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/02/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0R22C120150902

It is not clear if Clinton approached classified information differently than other secretaries of state before or after.

Several career diplomats, who joined the department before Clinton's tenure, also sent foreign government information through their unclassified .gov email accounts, the marked redactions on Clinton's emails show, suggesting that the regulations may be commonly ignored in favor of speedier communications.

Asked whether John Kerry, the current secretary of state, has sent such information via unsecured channels, a State Department spokesman declined to say either way.

The department declined to say whether Clinton adhered to the relevant regulations and laws while she was in charge, or whether the secretary of state is even bound by the department's regulations.

The department has said the information in some of Clinton's emails is being newly classified now, but it has also said it cannot know for sure whether the information should have been handled as classified all along.

This all smacks of business as usual. If the FBI started auditing everyones email, it's starting to look like they could arrest half the state dept for sending something someone could consider classified. All this people didn't have cowboy/homebrew email servers, yet they were all busy sending "confidential" information on insecure state.gov email servers that have been hacked multiple times. The sky is falling. :cool:
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Seems clear to me wareyin is referring to those 2 emails, not claiming that didn't happen.

Thanks for trying though.
Click to expand...

Fail 4 you!
Of course W was talking about two emails. Saying that's all there was. Seems by what the F.B.I. is investigating that there is more, and not so mundane!

Done with you!
NEXT!
 
Last edited:
Dog Town said:
Fail 4 you!
Of course W was talking about two emails. Saying that's all there was.
Click to expand...

Wait, what ? You quote claimed that

Dog Town said:
F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.
Click to expand...
Wait...what? I thought this didn't happen? Well it's a good thing for somebody, she wiped this with like a cloth or something!:dl:
Click to expand...

And you admit those 2 emails , the only 2 emails we know about that contain TS information, are the same 2 emails that wareyin was talking about.

Yet somehow that means he thought it didn't happen ...:eye-poppi

Dog Town said:
Seems by what the F.B.I. is investigating that there is more, and not so mundane!

Done with you!
NEXT!
Click to expand...

Uhm, OK. This was eerily reminiscent of tryin to have a rational exchange with certain other posters on this board.

Next.... :rolleyes:
 
Mike! said:
Could this be true?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/emails-clinton-private-server-sale-report-article-1.2347762

If it is, it'd fit quite nicely in the, 'Bad Thing' column, right?
Click to expand...

It certainly seems to be in the plausible range. Some of the issues all along here were who was in charge of her server, how many people had access to it physically and how many people had access to it remotely. This thing is a flaming mess for her. Maybe the I-take-the-fifth-guy was involved in providing access to the server.

Right now the main reason this story is important is because it highlights one of the many reasons this roll your own server idea was a really bad idea. If the story turns out to be true, it will be a significant step up in the level of the scandal from a few days ago when davefoc said he thought the scandal had plateaued.
 
wareyin said:
Other than dishonestly adding "and from", you appear to have it correct.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that they're ignoring emails originating from her server? FFS even other people within the State Department were using that server to email Clinton.
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
...
This all smacks of business as usual. If the FBI started auditing everyones email, it's starting to look like they could arrest half the state dept for sending something someone could consider classified. All this people didn't have cowboy/homebrew email servers, yet they were all busy sending "confidential" information on insecure state.gov email servers that have been hacked multiple times. The sky is falling. :cool:
Click to expand...

Even if this was business as usual Clinton is not looking good here. She was in charge. What did she do to make it not business as usual for State Department people to use standard email for material subject to classification? It appears that she not only did nothing, she added an extra layer of risk with her HCS.

If your point here is that there are some things that can be said in her favor about all this that mitigates a bit of what appears to be some pretty incompetent decision making by her then I don't have an argument. If you're trying to support what seems to be wayerin's argument that this is all just another manufactured Republican scandal then we disagree. Clinton's judgment was horrible on this and it looks like she relied on the recommendation of people whose judgment was horrible on this. This is very troubling stuff for somebody that might be president.

Of course, it all pales beside the traitorous behavior of the senators that signed the letter to Iran or the goofy self serving machinations of Ted Cruz who led a government shut down for no particular reason. So yeah, if the choice is between a wacky land Republican or Clinton, I'm going to vote for Clinton. But I'm going to be honest with myself. There are reasons to believe the person I'm voting for may have flaws that could have serious repercussions on her ability to be a successful president.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
Even if this was business as usual Clinton is not looking good here. She was in charge. What did she do to make it not business as usual for State Department people to use standard email for material subject to classification?.
Click to expand...

well of course it is not business as usual. Between 2009 and 2014 Hillary's cowboy server caused the State department to violate FOIA, it caused State to violate court orders, it caused State to compromise Congressional investigations all based on Hillary's sneering disregard for Governmental transparency. She set up the server to avoid transparency, and the frivolous attacks on Colin Powell do not in any way set the standard for business as usual.

but hell, why argue it? put both of them in *********** jail.
 
davefoc said:
Even if this was business as usual Clinton is not looking good here. She was in charge. What did she do to make it not business as usual for State Department people to use standard email for material subject to classification? It appears that she not only did nothing, she added an extra layer of risk with her HCS.
Click to expand...

After much evidence has been provided that (other than the server) these practices started well before Clinton was SoS, and were done by much of the State Dept before and during Clinton's tenure, now you decide it looks bad for Clinton to have not fixed things? Your complaint when you thought it started with Clinton was how suspicious it was that she did what her predecessors and contemporaries did. Now that you know it is/was business as usual, it suddenly is bad that she didn't change things?

davefoc said:
If your point here is that there are some things that can be said in her favor about all this that mitigates a bit of what appears to be some pretty incompetent decision making by her then I don't have an argument. If you're trying to support what seems to be wayerin's argument that this is all just another manufactured Republican scandal then we disagree. Clinton's judgment was horrible on this and it looks like she relied on the recommendation of people whose judgment was horrible on this. This is very troubling stuff for somebody that might be president.
Click to expand...

You have my argument correct, but my name wrong.

davefoc said:
Of course, it all pales beside the traitorous behavior of the senators that signed the letter to Iran or the goofy self serving machinations of Ted Cruz who led a government shut down for no particular reason. So yeah, if the choice is between a wacky land Republican or Clinton, I'm going to vote for Clinton. But I'm going to be honest with myself. There are reasons to believe the person I'm voting for may have flaws that could have serious repercussions on her ability to be a successful president.
Click to expand...

Sadly, there is never going to be a perfect politician. We are stuck picking the lesser of 2* evils.




* or more, I'm really hoping for a Trump 3rd party fiasco!
 
Newtons Bit said:
Do you really think that they're ignoring emails originating from her server? FFS even other people within the State Department were using that server to email Clinton.
Click to expand...

The cute thing is that I provided that quote because someone was accusing me of reading into the FBI's statements. Now look at this attempt to shoe-horn more into what was actually claimed.
 
Mike! said:
Could this be true?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/emails-clinton-private-server-sale-report-article-1.2347762

If it is, it'd fit quite nicely in the, 'Bad Thing' column, right?
Click to expand...

From the Hacker article at http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-emails-sale/ Not the most news worthy site, I know. But the dirt comes low.
Radar has learned that some of the topics discussed in the email appear to include everything from Benghazi to the Algerian hostage crisis — with subject lines such as:

“H Libya security latest. Sid” (with attachment)
“H FYI, best analysis so far of hearing Sid,’ about the latest security
in Libya”
“H Algeria latest French Intel on Algeria hostage Sid”
“H Latest French Intel in Algeria hostage Sid” (with attachment)
“H Latest Libya intel internal govt discussions high level” (with
attachment)
“H HIGHLY IMPORTANT! Comprehensive Intel Report on (with attachment)”


Warns the insider, “If these emails get out to the public domain, not only is Hillary finished as a potential Presidential nominee, she could put our country’s national security at risk.”
Click to expand...

Hmmm...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom