RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Newtons Bit said:
Knowingly giving classified documents to people with neither a need-to-know or a security clearance? No. It's not. When regular people do it they go to jail.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the spoiled Queen of Privilege will escape jail, but O' the drip...drip...drip of scandal! I'm starting to think, she really is a maroon!
Although, arrogance is pretty far up on the list! They aren't mutually exclusive, however!:D:thumbsup::p:eye-poppi
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I think you might be conflating the initial costs which were incurred to set the server up when she began her 2008 campaign for POTUS with what was spent later to use a different email address after the POTUS campaign ended.

...
Click to expand...

I may have been. I had assumed the $5000 was spent to set the server up to create the private email account for Clinton. It is possible that the $5000 was spent to set the server up initially for Clinton's campaign.

It appears that the WashingtonPost is the primary source for this reporting and their article said this:

The Clintons paid Pagliano $5,000 for “computer services” prior to his joining the State Department, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in April 2009.
But even after arriving at State in May 2009, Pagliano continued to be paid by the Clintons to maintain the server, which was in their Chappaqua, N.Y., home, according to the campaign official and another person familiar with the arrangement. That person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is under investigation.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3ab23e-530c-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

I'd say the situation is not clear. It certainly seems plausible that Pagliano was paid $5000 to set the server up initially and then more money to maintain it as Clinton used it during her SoS tenure.

How does Platte River fit into this? Did they do work on the server at the same time as Pagliano or did responsibility move from Pagliano to Platte River? I wonder why the change.
 
16.5 said:
'k



Amen: a bunch of private lawyers who owe a duty only to their client (Hillary) go through her communications as SoS (without security clearances, of course) and figure out what they want to produce and what they don't want to produce, and Hillary not only does not check their work, she didn't even look at it.

Yet she's been telling everyone who will listen that she turned over all emails related to the work of the Government. You see, her lawyers told her!

This knucklehead is running for president????
Click to expand...

If David Kedall is who you speak of you are wrong. He has TS!
In July, State Department officials installed a safe at the office of attorney David Kendall after the government determined some of Clinton's emails may have contained classified information

Kendall has a top secret security clearance.
Click to expand...

There are other issues, however. I got to get out the door now, though. Here's the article.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-clinton-email-storage-safe-not-secure-messages-201044962--election.html
 
16.5 said:
HAD. Had a TS, to help Hillary prepare for her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Not sure that means that Hillary can just expand that willy nilly because she is ready....
Click to expand...

Not sure where you are getting "had". Did you read article? Can you explain?

This is interesting though.
In July, State Department officials installed a safe at the office of attorney David Kendall after the government determined some of Clinton's emails may have contained classified information. But it said last week the safe wasn't suitable for so-called top secret, sensitive compartmented information, known as TS/SCI, which the government has said was found in some messages.

Assistant Secretary of State Julia Frifield wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley on Sept. 22 that "while the safe was suitable for up to (top secret) information, it was not approved for TS/SCI material" because the material wasn't held in a facility set up for discussing highly secret information, known as a SCIF, or sensitive compartmented information facility.

Those questions were not an issue at the time the safe was installed because "there was no indication that the emails might contain TS or TS/SCI material," Frifield wrote in the letter obtained by The Associated Press. Kendall has a top secret security clearance.
Click to expand...

Drip...drip...drip...
 
Last edited:
Dog Town said:
Not sure where you are getting "had". Did you read article? Can you explain?

This is interesting though.


Drip...drip...drip...
Click to expand...

he had one in 2013.... he claims that the state department gave him one in November 2014 "unrelated to the 30,490 e-mails provided to the State Department on December 5, 2014; none of those e-mails was classified," Kendall wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Sure David....
 
16.5 said:
he had one in 2013.... he claims that the state department gave him one in November 2014 "unrelated to the 30,490 e-mails provided to the State Department on December 5, 2014; none of those e-mails was classified," Kendall wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Sure David....
Click to expand...
From the article I posted:http://news.yahoo.com/us-clinton-email-storage-safe-not-secure-messages-201044962--election.html
This July, unless I'm mistaken, is when the State Department installed the safe.
That would imply he had clearance then.
I'm having difficulties following you.:confused:
 
The Benghazi panel is a scandal of a committee

While I do not agree with every point here, it is well written.
The committee has Clinton’s e-mails — some of them, anyway — and it has in the finest Washington tradition leaked them. Thus we know she has been e-mailed by Sidney Blumenthal, a former White House aide and, in the required journalistic redundancy, a close confidant. So what? Blumenthal is not a felon or a foreign agent, and since he was and remains a private citizen, the contents of his e-mails were not in the least way classified. Why is it our business?

I understand that Clinton has botched this entire e-mail controversy. (I ask people about that, too.) She should never have used a private server in the first place, but it was apparently legal to do so. Nonetheless, her explanations have been all over the place, beginning with her reasons for doing so — not wanting to carry two devices. (What are aides for, anyway?)
...
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a1f7c2-6602-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html
 
Dog Town said:
While I do not agree with every point here, it is well written.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a1f7c2-6602-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html
Click to expand...

Our reactions were similar, but I liked it perhaps a little less than you did. The Benghazi nonsense is what it is. Politics is a dirty cynical business and the Benghzi exploiters are playing it in the cesspool. But they aren't running for president, Clinton is and her decision process that led to this mess and her bizarre inability to handle this well put in question her overall fitness to be president. It is just amazing to me how poorly she has handled this. I thought that there was no one on the planet that could have handled a controversy like this better than her. I was wrong. There are so many missteps along the way that the article glosses over that in total the article is not a very good summary of the situation, IMO.

ETA: To some degree the Clinton defenders in this thread have a point. A lot of what has gone on here can be deflected with comparisons to others that have done similar things, the probability that no actual security breaches will be identified, and the fact that she did comply with the archiving requirements, excluding perhaps a few missteps. I agree that these kinds of defenses gloss over the problems but they would have carried more weight if Clinton had gotten out in front of this. Explained the full range of the issues and had started a proactive effort to rectify the issues under her own steam. Now every day we get one or two little reveals or new spins on old issues. Why the heck is there any issue with her aides providing their emails to the state department. Why wasn't that done as part of an effort to get in front of this when Clinton was told that the State Department was aware of her private email server? What is this little group of Clinton advisers thinking? Now they lawyer up and turn the routine release of their emails back to the State Department into another news story? Did no one in Clinton's sphere of advisers have enough computer insight to discuss the issue of "wiping" a hard disk with her so she didn't look like a lameo when that question was brought up? This is not a mess that would have happened to Obama and even if it had he would have handled it massively better.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
This is not a mess that would have happened to Obama and even if it had he would have handled it massively better.
Click to expand...

The only card his enemies had to play was the absurd birther crap! He laughed that one off, and well should have. The Clinton's stumble around creating their own issues, at their peril. Only arrogance creates issues like the Clinton's face, and or faced! Huge difference! I'm going to miss Barack!
 
Dog Town said:
While I do not agree with every point here, it is well written.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a1f7c2-6602-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html
Click to expand...

This is head slappingly silly:

The committee has Clinton’s e-mails — some of them, anyway — and it has in the finest Washington tradition leaked them. Thus we know she has been e-mailed by Sidney Blumenthal, a former White House aide and, in the required journalistic redundancy, a close confidant. So what? Blumenthal is not a felon or a foreign agent, and since he was and remains a private citizen, the contents of his e-mails were not in the least way classified. Why is it our business?
Click to expand...

He wasn't a close confidant, he was an employee, and was running a rogue intelligence operation, passing on unvetted intelligence to Hillary from various sources, some of whom wanted to do business under the State Department's auspices, some of whom were honest to goodness foreign agents, and Hillary slavishly passed on this hokum to her staff for analysis and comment. Sounds like a "private" person.:rolleyes:

This was AFTER Obama sent Rahm Emmanuel to tell Hillary that she could not hire Sid Blumenthal because everyone on his staff knew he was a god damn snake.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
This is head slappingly silly:
He wasn't a close confidant, he was an employee, and was running a rouge intelligence operation, passing on unvetted intelligence to Hillary from various sources, some of whom wanted to do business under the State Department's auspices, some of whom were honest to goodness foreign agents, and Hillary slavishly passed on this hokum to her staff for analysis and comment. Sounds like a "private" person.:rolleyes:

This was AFTER Obama sent Rahm Emmanuel to tell Hillary that she could not hire Sid Blumenthal because everyone on his staff knew he was a god damn snake.
Click to expand...

I note none of your rant against blumenthal actually address the points made in the article. Color me surprised. :rolleyes:
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I note none of your rant against blumenthal actually address the points made in the article. Color me surprised. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah except for the 1. not a foreign agent (he was passing along intelligence from foreign agents) 2. not a private person (he was an employee of numerous various Clinton associated entities) who had a direct line to the SoS; 3. his emails were not "private" (she was passing them along to her staff).

So except for basically destroying the various bogus claims in the paragraph I quoted, huh pal?

By the way, his emails were hacked AND there were several FOIA requests for his emails with Hillary AND they are being released on the State Department's website due to Judge's orders...

Poor Sid Blumenthal, all he tried to do was destroy Obama, why are people being SO mean to him!
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Yeah except for the 1. not a foreign agent (he was passing along intelligence from foreign agents)
Click to expand...

Following your logic, if someone passes along intelligence from terrorists, that makes them a terrorist. :rolleyes:

He wasn't a foreign agent.

16.5 said:
2. not a private person (he was an employee of numerous various Clinton associated entities who had a direct line to the SoS;
Click to expand...

He is a private citizen, not subject to FOIA etc.

Nothing you wrote above makes him 'not a private citizen'. :rolleyes:

16.5 said:
3. his emails were not "private" (she was passing them along to her staff).
Click to expand...

The committee has Clinton’s e-mails — some of them, anyway — and it has in the finest Washington tradition leaked them. Thus we know she has been e-mailed by Sidney Blumenthal, a former White House aide and, in the required journalistic redundancy, a close confidant. So what? Blumenthal is not a felon or a foreign agent, and since he was and remains a private citizen, the contents of his e-mails were not in the least way classified. Why is it our business?

See where it says the emails were private ????? I don't either. Nice strawman.

16.5 said:
So except for basically destroying the various bogus claims in the paragraph I quoted, huh pal?
Click to expand...

Sure, buddy ....

16.5 said:
By the way, his emails were hacked AND there were several FOIA requests for his emails with Hillary AND they are being released on the State Department's website due to Judge's orders...

Poor Sid Blumenthal, all he tried to do was destroy Obama, why are people being SO mean to him!
Click to expand...

Red herring and strawman.

Keep up the good work !! :thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom