Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnnyG said:
Although that may actually be true, it is not what I am saying. I'm saying that public knowledge of part of the information in an email does not invalidate the classified status of the entire email.

You have attempted to marginalize the classified nature of the emails because they "contained "classified information" that had already been broadcast on CNN". That argument rings hollow knowing some of the information was not broadcast.
Click to expand...

May be true? It is true, and because it is true, it renders your argument involving information not broadcast baseless.

The information that was broadcast was classified, and we have no claim other than yours that there was any other classified information in the email, and your claim is based on conjecture and/or an argument from incredulity.

However, the fact that the forwarded information was widely known certainly does minimize the impact of the 'threat to national security' rhetoric upthread.
 
wareyin said:
May be true? It is true, and because it is true, it renders your argument involving information not broadcast baseless.

The information that was broadcast was classified, and we have no claim other than yours that there was any other classified information in the email, and your claim is based on conjecture and/or an argument from incredulity.
Click to expand...

False. The CNN article that you posted specifically mentions additional classified data that was not published, and do not think that people have failed to note that you have repeatedly ignored the North Korea satellite data.
 
16.5 said:
The CNN article specifically destroys the spin put out by the Clinton Campaign, and in fact specifically notes that the email included substantial non-public data.
Further, why is it that the Clinton spinmeisters never mention the top secret data about North Korea that ended up on Hillary's cowboy server?
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
False. The CNN article that you posted specifically mentions additional classified data that was not published, and do not think that people have failed to note that you have repeatedly ignored the North Korea satellite data.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/28/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified/

Where does it say those things ? Quotes, please.
 
JohnnyG said:
Although that may actually be true, it is not what I am saying. I'm saying that public knowledge of part of the information in an email does not invalidate the classified status of the entire email.

You have attempted to marginalize the classified nature of the emails because they "contained "classified information" that had already been broadcast on CNN". That argument rings hollow knowing some of the information was not broadcast.
Click to expand...

<hypothetical> If she had hillary@state.gov, and got the same email there ... would it still be the same problem ? </hypothetical>
 
wareyin said:
May be true? It is true, and because it is true, it renders your argument involving information not broadcast baseless.

The information that was broadcast was classified, and we have no claim other than yours that there was any other classified information in the email, and your claim is based on conjecture and/or an argument from incredulity.

However, the fact that the forwarded information was widely known certainly does minimize the impact of the 'threat to national security' rhetoric upthread.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. The fact that some of the classified information is publicly known does not diminish the potential damage from leaking the remainder. The only time that would be true is if ALL of the information was out - but that was not the case. The article you linked references that there was additional information in the email.
 
ryu238 said:
I have a question, is what Hilary has done an example of espionage?
Click to expand...

well, i understand that the same team at the FBI that investigates potential crimes under the Espionage Act is investigating this fiasco so....
 
16.5 said:
The CNN article specifically destroys the spin put out by the Clinton Campaign, and in fact specifically notes that the email included substantial non-public data. Further, why is it that the Clinton spinmeisters never mention the top secret data about North Korea that ended up on Hillary's cowboy server?
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
False. The CNN article that you posted specifically mentions additional classified data that was not published, and do not think that people have failed to note that you have repeatedly ignored the North Korea satellite data.
Click to expand...

Hmm...

16.5 said:
Davis specifically attributes the information in his email to non-public sources, including a United States Africa Command assessment and the British government.

Davis also includes British analysis of how recent movement by Gadhafi forces from Sirte to Brega could foretell future attacks on Ajdabiya.

You are welcome
Click to expand...

Nope, that quote says neither of things you claim it does, which is pretty obvious when you put your claims in the same post with the actual quote.

I guess that's why you don't do do that :cool:
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Hmm...

Nope, that quote says neither of things you claim it does, which is pretty obvious when you put your claims in the same post with the actual quote.

I guess that's why you don't do do that :cool:
Click to expand...

What in the **** are you talking about?

THIS: Davis specifically attributes the information in his email to non-public sources, including a United States Africa Command assessment and the British government.

Davis also includes British analysis of how recent movement by Gadhafi forces from Sirte to Brega could foretell future attacks on Ajdabiya.

IS substantial non-public data/additional classified data that was not published at the time it was sent to Hillary's cowboy server.

Focus on reading comprehension for once, cripes I do not know why I bother replying to people like you....
 
TheL8Elvis said:
It's whatever problem you think exists now with the emails.

Classified material on an unclassified server, for starters.
Click to expand...

There are multiple problems, it would have helped some but not others. Beyond that, it's kind of hard to answer if you can't pose a clear question.
 
JohnnyG said:
There are multiple problems, it would have helped some but not others. Beyond that, it's kind of hard to answer if you can't pose a clear question.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem would be making clear what you find to be illegal and/or wrong with these emails....

What are the problems beyond classified data on on a non-classified server ?

Clearly, having a state department mail would not have changed that problem, right ?

What problems would it have changed ?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Part of the problem would be making clear what you find to be illegal and/or wrong with these emails....

What are the problems beyond classified data on on a non-classified server ?

Clearly, having a state department mail would not have changed that problem, right ?

What problems would it have changed ?
Click to expand...

Hillary's efforts to evade FOIA.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Part of the problem would be making clear what you find to be illegal and/or wrong with these emails....

What are the problems beyond classified data on on a non-classified server ?

Clearly, having a state department mail would not have changed that problem, right ?

What problems would it have changed ?
Click to expand...

You first.
 
16.5 said:
What in the **** are you talking about?

THIS: Davis specifically attributes the information in his email to non-public sources, including a United States Africa Command assessment and the British government.

Davis also includes British analysis of how recent movement by Gadhafi forces from Sirte to Brega could foretell future attacks on Ajdabiya.

IS substantial non-public data/additional classified data that was not published at the time it was sent to Hillary's cowboy server.

Focus on reading comprehension for once, cripes I do not know why I bother replying to people like you....
Click to expand...

The article specifically says the information in the email was known outside the government:

The email, originally sent to Abedin by another State Department employee, Timmy Davis, features information about an attack on the Libyan town of Adjabiya by forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi -- information Davis learned from government sources, but which was also known outside the government.
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_Email_1_296/HRCH1/DOC_0C05739666/C05739666.pdf

How do you conclude that data "which was also known outside the government" is substantial non-public data/additional classified data that was not published at the time" ?

You really think "the brits report qadafi forces are moving from sirte to briga" is TS classified information which would have put the US in grave danger if it got out ? And only the british knew it ... Unbelievable.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Part of the problem would be making clear what you find to be illegal and/or wrong with these emails....

What are the problems beyond classified data on on a non-classified server ?

Clearly, having a state department mail would not have changed that problem, right ?

What problems would it have changed ?
Click to expand...

JohnnyG said:
You first.
Click to expand...

If you can't articulate what you find wrong with this email, that's fine with me.

I don't find anything wrong with it.
 
Ziggurat said:
Hillary's efforts to evade FOIA.
Click to expand...

You haven't demonstrated she was actually attempting to evade any FOIA. She may not have been timely about it, but she did produce it.

Also every other person in that email chain was using state.gov email - it certainly should have been easy to find.

So - I award you partial credit, thanks for answering the question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom