Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[applecorped]

That's cute, pointing out that a poster has no evidence for his claim, and in fact shuns evidence is "off topic".

Off top again. Derail noted.

 

[The Big Dog]

From the article

“In the process of responding to congressional document requests pertaining to Benghazi, State Department officials recognized that it had access to relatively few email records from former Secretary Clinton,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement e-mailed to The Washington Post. “State Department officials contacted her representatives during the summer of 2014 to learn more about her email use and the status of emails in that account.”

Kirby added that the agency then recognized “that we similarly did not have extensive email records from prior Secretaries of State and therefore included them when we requested their records in October 2014.”

The State Department also realized it was not automatically preserving internal communications, with some other senior officials’ e-mails missing.

What contradiction do you see there ? They didn't ask for her emails until October, as she stated. They contacted "her representatives during the summer of 2014", not her.

Actually , it seems like the state department left hand has absolutely no clue what the state department right hand is doing ... it wasn't until October 2014 they pulled their heads out of their asses and realized they were not automatically preserving internal communications ?

WHOA! The Hillary Clinton fans are NOT going to like that post!

At best, she looks completely out of touch, and therefore raises the question that if she didn't "know" why in the name of god did she not know. Cheryl Mills didn't tell her? Hillary is running for President, and claiming ignorance might be just as bad as lying.

it wasn't until October 2014 they pulled their heads out of their asses and realized they were not automatically preserving internal communications

AMEN BROTHER! Who the hell was in charge of that place before 2014, they should answer for this outrage!

Oh wait.....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Off top again. Derail noted.

Try harder.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

WHOA! The Hillary Clinton fans are NOT going to like that post!

At best, she looks completely out of touch, and therefore raises the question that if she didn't "know" why in the name of god did she not know. Cheryl Mills didn't tell her? Hillary is running for President, and claiming ignorance might be just as bad as lying.

it wasn't until October 2014 they pulled their heads out of their asses and realized they were not automatically preserving internal communications

AMEN BROTHER! Who the hell was in charge of that place before 2014, they should answer for this outrage!

Oh wait.....

You didn't point out the contradictions ... probably because there aren't any.

As for what she didn't know ....

Clinton and her campaign on Tuesday continued to point to the State Department’s request for multiple former secretaries’ e-mails, even after The Post first reported online that the agency was providing a new account.

Asked about The Post’s report during a Des Moines Register interview, Clinton said: “You’re telling me something I don’t know....

Asked about the Post's reporting is too nonspecific ... what exactly did they ask/tell her ? If they just told her "the state department is now claiming XYZ ..." Then a response of :“You’re telling me something I don’t know...." seems perfectly appropriate.

More tempest in a teapot.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

Just when you thought the e-mail story couldn’t get worse for Hillary Clinton …After several weeks of relative dormancy, the story of Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server surged back into the news Tuesday night, with a trio of stories that suggest things are going to get worse before they get better (if they get better) for the former secretary of state's 2016 campaign.

1. The State Department has, on the record, disputed Clinton's claim that her handing over of her e-mails was standard operating procedure,

2. FBI is recovering emails Hillary tried to destroy

3. More never before seen e-mails related to the September 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, were turned over to the Republican-led congressional committee investigating Clinton's actions.

 

[The Big Dog]

You didn't point out the contradictions ... probably because there aren't any.

.

lolz, the article explains the contradictions in detail, your "defense" of her makes her look like an out of touch idiot. Not sure that is helping her, but I laughed.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Anyway, any comments about the fact that the State Department contradicted the nonsense story, or how Hillary claimed she didn't "know" about it?

Seems like Hillary has been making up stories, yes?

From the article

“In the process of responding to congressional document requests pertaining to Benghazi, State Department officials recognized that it had access to relatively few email records from former Secretary Clinton,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement e-mailed to The Washington Post. “State Department officials contacted her representatives during the summer of 2014 to learn more about her email use and the status of emails in that account.”

Kirby added that the agency then recognized “that we similarly did not have extensive email records from prior Secretaries of State and therefore included them when we requested their records in October 2014.”

The State Department also realized it was not automatically preserving internal communications, with some other senior officials’ e-mails missing.

What contradiction do you see there ? They didn't ask for her emails until October, as she stated. They contacted "her representatives during the summer of 2014", not her.

lolz, the article explains the contradictions in detail, your "defense" of her makes her look like an out of touch idiot. Not sure that is helping her, but I laughed.

No, it doesn't. Feel free to cut and paste what the contradiction is, if you can't manage to expain it in your own words.

Otherwise, as usual, you have nothing...

 

[The Big Dog]

No, it doesn't. Feel free to cut and paste what the contradiction is, if you can't manage to expain it in your own words.

Otherwise, as usual, you have nothing...

Cut and paste, AWAY:

The State Department has, on the record, disputed Clinton's claim that her handing over of her e-mails was standard operating procedure, according to reporting from The Washington Post. In fact, State contacted Clinton in the summer of 2014 upon learning that she had exclusively used a private server to conduct business during her time as the nation's top diplomat. Asked about the discrepancy in Iowa on Tuesday night, Clinton told the Des Moines Register: "I don't know that. I can't answer that."

I do think it is laughable that your no contradiction spin seems to be that State told her top aides, including Mills, but that Hillary has plausible deniability or something.

Assuming that is true, that makes Hillary Clinton look like a completely out of touch moron.

 

[WildCat]

They didn't ask for her emails until October, as she stated.

Because they didn't know she was using her own email server. If she had used the proper email they would not have had to ask, because they would have been automatically preserved.

Do you really think your spin is fooling anyone?

 

[davefoc]

Coming from the source I find this severely hypocritical. Don't let me stop you from posting that ridiculous Hillary campaign poster meme again though. I find it delightful when something like that happens and then your hypocrisy shows by lecturing me on partisan talking points.

FWIW, initially I thought the poster was funny but not completely fair, but I posted it anyway (I'm not a perfect human being). Then, it seemed that people were making the "not indicted yet" claim as a serious defense of Clinton. With that, I thought the poster was fair and still funny so I posted it again. Alas, I am afraid that posting it a third time wouldn't be all that funny so I feel a bit constrained by that but it is good to know that you don't want me to let you stop me.

No, she didn't. She used her server AND THEN some material got sent to her. The classification levels vary depending on which department you speak with.

I took statements like this to mean that Clinton both sent and received classified material:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

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.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hil...-released-contain-now-classified-info-n419031

Newly classified emails include correspondence Clinton had with an aide about an Iran speech she delivered at American University in 2010, and another from the minister counselor for public affairs in Pakistan with the subject "Facebook Freed in Pakistan."

The notion that Clinton only received classified material and didn't send any herself was discredited about a month ago I thought. Perhaps you meant that Clinton only received top secret material on her personal email account but didn't send any emails with top secret content?

Regardless, my view on this particular aspect of the scandal is that the degree that Clinton is in legal trouble about this is unknowable to the general public. The people that might know aren't talking and probably won't until the investigation is concluded.

 

[davefoc]

Which is none of their *********** business, and [possible incriminating information other than Benghazi stuff] has nothing to do with Benghazi, which is what all of this crap started over. However, you now made it clear what you're actually after, and what this actually is, a partisan witch hunt to expose anything about Hillary possible. Keepin' it classy.

Legally, the FBI might judge any evidence of a crime that they find as a result of a legal search "their *********** business". If police get a subpoena to search somebody's house because there is evidence they committed a robbery, they will still use evidence against that individual that is found as a result of that search to prosecute that individual for other unrelated crimes even if no evidence is found against that individual for the robbery that was the justification for the subpoena.

 

[davefoc]

No, it doesn't. Feel free to cut and paste what the contradiction is, if you can't manage to expain it in your own words.
...

I am with TheL8Elvis on this a bit. I read that article before it was linked to here trying to match the headline to the facts presented and I couldn't see that anything all that bad had been found.

Clinton was told a few months before the State Department asked for her emails that it had become aware of her personal server.

How does Clinton look any worse than she did before this fact was released?

Perhaps there is a suggestion of some additional incompetence here. The State Department made Clinton aware that her private email server had been noticed. At that point it seems like a competent Clinton would have realized that there was a serious problem and she needed to begin a process that looked she was operating under her own steam instead of doing nothing until she was forced to comply with rules that she was intentionally disregarding.

Overall, I didn't see much of importance with this new information. It was already obvious that Clinton's statement about voluntarily complying with the request was spin. She had intentionally violated rules and then only complied after she was caught.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

From the article

“In the process of responding to congressional document requests pertaining to Benghazi, State Department officials recognized that it had access to relatively few email records from former Secretary Clinton,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement e-mailed to The Washington Post. “State Department officials contacted her representatives during the summer of 2014 to learn more about her email use and the status of emails in that account.”

Kirby added that the agency then recognized “that we similarly did not have extensive email records from prior Secretaries of State and therefore included them when we requested their records in October 2014.”

The State Department also realized it was not automatically preserving internal communications, with some other senior officials’ e-mails missing.
What contradiction do you see there ? They didn't ask for her emails until October, as she stated. They contacted "her representatives during the summer of 2014", not her.

Actually , it seems like the state department left hand has absolutely no clue what the state department right hand is doing ... it wasn't until October 2014 they pulled their heads out of their asses and realized they were not automatically preserving internal communications ?

Because they didn't know she was using her own email server. If she had used the proper email they would not have had to ask, because they would have been automatically preserved.
Do you really think your spin is fooling anyone?

Please try to follow along better.

 

[WildCat]

Please try to follow along better.

How is what you quoted evidence I'm not following along? It shows exactly what I stated, the State Dept. had no idea Hillary was using a private server for government business.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Try to reconcile the hilited statements.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

duplicate post

 

[WildCat]

try to reconcile the hilited statements.

How do they contradict each other?

 

[The Big Dog]

I am with TheL8Elvis on this a bit. I read that article before it was linked to here trying to match the headline to the facts presented and I couldn't see that anything all that bad had been found.

Clinton was told a few months before the State Department asked for her emails that it had become aware of her personal server.

How does Clinton look any worse than she did before this fact was released?

Perhaps there is a suggestion of some additional incompetence here. The State Department made Clinton aware that her private email server had been noticed. At that point it seems like a competent Clinton would have realized that there was a serious problem and she needed to begin a process that looked she was operating under her own steam instead of doing nothing until she was forced to comply with rules that she was intentionally disregarding.

Overall, I didn't see much of importance with this new information. It was already obvious that Clinton's statement about voluntarily complying with the request was spin. She had intentionally violated rules and then only complied after she was caught.

"You're telling me something I don't know," Clinton said. "All I know is what I have said. What I have said is it was allowed. The State Department has confirmed that. The same letter went to, as far as I know, my predecessors, and I'm the one who said, 'Hey, I'll be glad to help.'

The fact is that the State Department had reached out to Hillary three months earlier, and Cheryl Mills had contacted the server company to get the emails off the cowboy server in July.

That moves the timeline three months earlier and Hillary's claim that she was contacted in October (and tripped all over herself to totally cooperate!) false.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

"You're telling me something I don't know," Clinton said. "All I know is what I have said. What I have said is it was allowed. The State Department has confirmed that. The same letter went to, as far as I know, my predecessors, and I'm the one who said, 'Hey, I'll be glad to help.'

The fact is that the State Department had reached out to Hillary three months earlier, and Cheryl Mills had contacted the server company to get the emails off the cowboy server in July.

“In the process of responding to congressional document requests pertaining to Benghazi, State Department officials recognized that it had access to relatively few email records from former Secretary Clinton,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement e-mailed to The Washington Post. “State Department officials contacted her representatives during the summer of 2014 to learn more about her email use and the status of emails in that account.”
Kirby added that the agency then recognized “that we similarly did not have extensive email records from prior Secretaries of State and therefore included them when we requested their records in October 2014.”

That moves the timeline three months earlier and Hillary's claim that she was contacted in October (and tripped all over herself to totally cooperate!) false.

She wasn't asked for her emails in july. In fact, she wasn't contacted, they reached out to her representatives.

She was asked for her emails in october, just as she claimed.

I don't see what you keep calling a contradiction.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How do they contradict each other?

The State Department also realized it was not automatically preserving internal communications, with some other senior officials’ e-mails missing.

If she had used the proper email they would not have had to ask, because they would have been automatically preserved.

If clinton was using state dept email, it would not have been automatically preserved, as you claim.