RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Skeptic Ginger]

So essentially is your point that it should be acceptable for people in important decision making positions to define which policies are worth complying with because people think she knows better?

My point in that post was to note how blatantly wrong the claim was that the state department email system was secure.

When I see people claiming this one thing Clinton did, or that one statement Clinton made makes her unqualified to be POTUS, I think either that person has HDS or they have a confirmation bias that prevents them from looking at the actual qualifications Clinton has.

You're drinking the koolaid either foolishly or willfully. Clinton has a proven history of competence. So what she used her private email server? There is no there there.

 

[The Big Dog]

My point in that post was to note how blatantly wrong the claim was that the state department email system was secure.

that person has HDS or they have a confirmation bias

Face palm.

"secure fax system."

Plus, as we know, the Government has a classified communication system for emails too, which was of course not hacked. "A separate, closed email system was used by the State Department for the purpose of handling classified communications."

I'm guessing that HDS makes people impervious to facts, but eager to pass out bad uninformed opinions that actual Skeptics like me have to correct.

Oh well....

 

[shuize]

Faced with a problem sending a document over the secure system, Hillary instructs her underling to:

"If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

and thereby to intentionally skirt the State Department's secure communication system.

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Jan7thWeb/08635C6-8/DOC_0C05787519/C05787519.pdf

Remember when Hillary said no classified info had been sent? She lied.

I was pretty sure it was going to end up being something like this given the Clintons, their word games, and her insistence that she never handled any documents which were marked classified when sent.

Although, I am surprised they didn't destroy the evidence showing Clinton told people to strip the "classified" markings before sending documents nonsecure.

I'll have to ask my buddy in the State Dept. how things would work out for him if he tried this sort of thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was pretty sure it was going to end up being something like this given the Clintons, their word games, and her insistence that she never handled any documents which were marked classified when sent.

Although, I am surprised they didn't destroy the evidence showing Clinton told people to strip the "classified" markings before sending documents nonsecure.

I'll have to ask my buddy in the State Dept. how things would work out for him if he tried this sort of thing.

What was that excerpt supposed to mean? That Clinton had trouble getting a confidential fax so she had someone redact a document before emailing it?


That's not evidence.


Keep up this wishful thinking if it floats your boats.

 

[The Big Dog]

What was that excerpt supposed to mean? That Clinton had trouble getting a confidential fax so she had someone redact a document before emailing it?


That's not evidence.


Keep up this wishful thinking if it floats your boats.

Gee, anyone think SG read the actual e-mail we are talking about, before ruling that something "is not evidence."

Remember folks, State did not have secure systems for emails or faxes. SG told us so.

Oh well, she is the Typhoid Mary of misinformation.

HDS will do that to you.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I don't disagree with everything on that page. But I don't agree with everything either.

I don't think anybody cares about your inept lukewarm guilt-by-association diversion attempts.

 

[shuize]

Remember folks, State did not have secure systems for emails or faxes.

I'll be sure to ask my buddy in the State Dept. if he could use this excuse, too.

Buddy: "I didn't send any documents marked 'classified' through my home brew bathroom server."

Prosecutor: "Here is evidence you ordered your subordinate to send them."

Buddy: "Well, OK, but they weren't marked 'classified.'"

Prosecutor: "You ordered your subordinate to remove the 'classified' heading."

Buddy: "Well, OK, but State's system is not perfect so who cares if classified documents were sent through my home brew server."

 

[Childlike Empress]

These are emails written by Sydney Blumenthal to Clinton, not emails she authored. Do I have this right?

Yes, but it's about what she knew when (and what she did publicly at that time). The radio interview goes into a bit broader context than the article. The most damning details from the mails are backing the known assessment that Sarkozy and his French cronies were the drivers of this "campaign", but Mrs. Clinton played along quite eagerly.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You're drinking the koolaid either foolishly or willfully. Clinton has a proven history of competence. So what she used her private email server? There is no there there.

The point you're raising is that there are other factors to consider with respect to her being qualified or not which is a reasonable position but it's pretty difficult to weigh in on multiple pros and cons without being off topic in a thread that deals with one issue in specific and deals with people on the far opposite end of the spectrum from what you're arguing. The more reasonable respondents have long since been aware of this. It's an issue, and a rather important one IMO, but nowhere have I suggested that this should be used to gauge the totality of her qualification, and in a political culture where we have a lot of stupidity it might not rank among the most bombastic or surreal, but you guys seem interested in why people would criticize her over it and I made that point a long time ago in what I thought was a reasonable take on things.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'll be sure to ask my buddy in the State Dept. if he could use this excuse, too.

Buddy: "I didn't send any documents marked 'classified' through my home brew bathroom server."

Prosecutor: "Here is evidence you ordered your subordinate to send them."

Buddy: "Well, OK, but they weren't marked 'classified.'"

Prosecutor: "You ordered your subordinate to remove the 'classified' heading."

Buddy: "Well, OK, but State's system is not perfect so who cares if classified documents were sent through my home brew server."

Hard to see through all the straw....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The point you're raising is that there are other factors to consider with respect to her being qualified or not which is a reasonable position but it's pretty difficult to weigh in on multiple pros and cons without being off topic in a thread that deals with one issue in specific and deals with people on the far opposite end of the spectrum from what you're arguing. The more reasonable respondents have long since been aware of this. It's an issue, and a rather important one IMO, but nowhere have I suggested that this should be used to gauge the totality of her qualification, and in a political culture where we have a lot of stupidity it might not rank among the most bombastic or surreal, but you guys seem interested in why people would criticize her over it and I made that point a long time ago in what I thought was a reasonable take on things.

It's a ludicrous charge. Imagine any CEO who had every single detail of his life examined with a magnifying glass just trying to find an error. What do you think they would find? Perfection?

Hardly.

Put things in perspective. Use your head.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It's a ludicrous charge. Imagine any CEO who had every single detail of his life examined with a magnifying glass just trying to find an error. What do you think they would find? Perfection?

Hardly.

Put things in perspective. Use your head.

I get that this is your position on whether what she did was criminal and I don't particularly mind. But do you think these points apply or no? I'm interested in getting a better idea of how you're evaluating things.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I get that this is your position on whether what she did was criminal and I don't particularly mind. But do you think these points apply or no? I'm interested in getting a better idea of how you're evaluating things.

I think Clinton did a good job as Secretary of State which is being diminished with slogan marketing.

I think regardless of accusations about what could have happened it was just as likely leaks could have happened whether Clinton used her own server or not and nothing happened.

Get over it. She's a thousandfold more qualified than her competitors. End of story.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Get over it.

The thread's no big issue to me at this point. I was just curious if you were even going to address my argument and it's apparent I shouldn't be expecting that any time soon.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The thread's no big issue to me. I was just curious if you were even going to address my argument which clearly won't happen. Thanks for letting me know

What argument? As far as I can see it's no more than the same old crap.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What argument?

The one I linked in #837.
It's as if you're arguing that every critique of her is about putting her in jail or that every critic has a single issue on their mind. If you think shes still qualified, great. I only asked if you thought any of the issues I brought up should have any consideration at all since it's related to the thread topic.

 

[The Big Dog]

I think Clinton did a good job as Secretary of State which is being diminished with slogan marketing.

I think regardless of accusations about what could have happened it was just as likely leaks could have happened whether Clinton used her own server or not and nothing happened.

Get over it. She's a thousandfold more qualified than her competitors. End of story.

Is that slogan Isis's "death to America," Libya's "it is an anarchic hellhole" or syria's "last refugee out, please turn out the lights"?

She's a fraud who actively worked to hide her hypocritical incompetence by setting up a server that she thought would shield her from any oversight.

 

[Leftus]

Any charges yet?

You are expecting I agree with some internet forum sleuths who looked at news reports and dug up laws they believe apply to be credible. If it was so clear, why no charges?

Not yet? Fine, let me know when it happens.

Hand waving away facts? No, just no. Handwaving away partisan hacks in a forum, yes.

Of course you no doubt already have your meme, if there are no charges the game was rigged.

The game is already rigged. There is a well documented class system in the US. Some, the Black Lives Matter group as an example, will tell you it's rigged against them and towards the police as well. The entire argument of the BLM is that the game is rigged, but I bet you wouldn't roll your eyes at them.

But to argue that the items marked with redacted due to 1.4(B), relating to foreign government information, wasn't classified at the time of sending to the State Department you would have to argue that the targets weren't foreign governments at the time. It's that ludicrous of a claim.

Why hasn't she been charged yet? Let's call in the speed of government. The speed of the federal government is almost glacial. The FBI, especially when working on a politically sensitive case, expend a considerable amount of time making sure they have investigated every possible avenue.

The reason I mentioned the ongoing FBI investigation is because you state she hasn't been charged as this is proof of anything. This is like stating the coin landed on heads because it isn't showing tails while the coin is still in the process of being flipped.

Clinton has all the credentials of a proper Presidential candidate and without looking at policy choices, certainly the most experienced internationally in any party. She also intentionally violated the FOIA and security laws. Ray Rice is a hell of a running back. He also viciously beat his girlfriend now wife (charged but not convicted). Sometimes people commit acts that disqualify them from the jobs they seek.

 

[The Big Dog]

It has always seemed pretty clear that you can't set the bar any lower than:

"not charged with a crime yet," but that seems to be the standard applied by Hillary fans around here. Oh well....

State Department released an email in which Hillary asked an aide to send information on a non-secure system after attempts to send the document securely failed.

Sending it on the secure system was not "convenient," I guess....

 

[varwoche]

Yes, but it's about what she knew when (and what she did publicly at that time). The radio interview goes into a bit broader context than the article. The most damning details from the mails are backing the known assessment that Sarkozy and his French cronies were the drivers of this "campaign", but Mrs. Clinton played along quite eagerly.

Even at the time, it was clear that France was playing a leading role, and that the US was playing a supporting role.

It's irrational to lay anything on Clinton based on these emails written by Blumenthal. The commentator (and you) are using these innocuous emails to grind an axe. Now maybe that axe is worth grinding to begin with. Notwithstanding, these particular emails tell us nothing.