RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
Yes, technically she may be in the wrong. For now, based on what we know, I'll stand by my earlier assessment about how I think it will turn out.
Click to expand...

Technically correct, the best kind of correct

If the reports are true that the FBI added 50 special agents and signed NDAs for top secret clearance I'm pretty certain that somebody is going to jail. Multiple somebodies. The FBI doesn't add agents to a nothing investigation. Again, if the reports are true.
 
cmikes said:
Media Matters? Really? Why not just go straight to the source and quote the Hillary campaign directly? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The right wingers would love to equate Media Matters to Breitbart. It doesn't fly. Media Matters may post about Progressive causes, but they do it with supporting evidence, not made up lies.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Some people never got over Clinton not losing his office, I suppose that includes you?

If you don't see Starr in the same light as Issa and Gowdy, well, whatever. Anyone who isn't partisan against the Clintons can see it.

Oh such horrid crimes, my god, thank goodness Starr routed out that den of iniquity.
Click to expand...



I notice you dodged the question. I'll ask again. Do you believe that fifteen convictions, including the sitting governor of Arkansas and some of the Clinton's closest friends and business partners is "not finding anything"? The most charitable explanation of the Whitewater scandal is that Bill and Hillary Clinton were surrounded by, investing with, and profiting from conmen and swindlers and yet were too dumb to realize it. How likely is that, particularly with the fact that the Rose Law firm billing records prove that Hillary was an integral part of the swindle? Was she blindfolded while preparing the contracts?

To answer your dodge, yes, I "got over" the Senate's jury nullification of Clinton's impeachment decades ago. But I stand by my position that a President that perjures himself, suborns perjury by others and obstructs justice should be removed from office. I don't see that as controversial position. I also supported Nixon's impeachment, or I would of if I had been old enough to be politically active at the time. How about you? Or is only Democrats that get a free pass? Or let's take politics out of it entirely. Hypothetically, if a Fortune 500 CEO was sued in civil court for sexual harassment, would it be acceptable for him to perjure himself, suborn perjury and obstruct justice? Why or why not?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
"Nuclear Bombshell": Right-Wing Media Hype Old, Disputed Claim That Clinton's Emails Mentioned Classified Information
Documentation of the media distortions of the facts, trying to hype the outrage follows.
Click to expand...

media matters! Bwhhaahhahaaa!!

Actual propaganda run through the Clinton family! Can you guess who was on the payroll of both the Clinton family foundation and media matters AND was sending Hillary dubious biased intelligence and mocking Obama AND was prohibited from working for the State Department all at the same time?

SID BLUMENTHAL!

Media matters! Hee hee! *********** garbage

It goes without saying that everything said in that reprehensible web site is a *********** lie.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
"Nuclear Bombshell": Right-Wing Media Hype Old, Disputed Claim That Clinton's Emails Mentioned Classified Information
Documentation of the media distortions of the facts, trying to hype the outrage follows.
Click to expand...

I don't see how your link helps your case:

"In one case, according to media reports, one of Clinton's potentially classified e-mail exchanges is nothing more than a discussion of a newspaper story about drones. That such a discussion could be classified underlines the absurdity of the current system. But that is the system that exists, and if and when the agencies determine that she sent or received classified information through her private server, Clinton will be accused of mishandling national-security secrets."

Breaking laws that one thinks are stupid is still law-breaking. If Hillary was receiving emails about classified programs (e.g., drone strikes) on an unsecure private server, the FBI is going to recommend she be charged. It now appears likely that many such emails were found on her server.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Yes, you must have missed it. Start reading here

And starting out your question with the dishonest premise that her server was in a bathroom (which is both irrelevant and wrong) leads me to believe you don't want to have an honest discussion.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link back to the first page. However, I'd prefer not to read through all 28 pages. That's why I asked for Clinton supporters to give legitimate reasons why, as Secretary of State, she would need to set up her own private, non-secure server in place of the government system.

This doesn't seem like an unreasonable question: What was her reason for using a private, non-secure server that justifies the security risks involved?
 
Last edited:
cmikes said:
I notice you dodged the question. I'll ask again. Do you believe that fifteen convictions, including the sitting governor of Arkansas and some of the Clinton's closest friends and business partners is "not finding anything"? The most charitable explanation of the Whitewater scandal is that Bill and Hillary Clinton were surrounded by, investing with, and profiting from conmen and swindlers and yet were too dumb to realize it. How likely is that, particularly with the fact that the Rose Law firm billing records prove that Hillary was an integral part of the swindle? Was she blindfolded while preparing the contracts?

To answer your dodge, yes, I "got over" the Senate's jury nullification of Clinton's impeachment decades ago. But I stand by my position that a President that perjures himself, suborns perjury by others and obstructs justice should be removed from office. I don't see that as controversial position. I also supported Nixon's impeachment, or I would of if I had been old enough to be politically active at the time. How about you? Or is only Democrats that get a free pass? Or let's take politics out of it entirely. Hypothetically, if a Fortune 500 CEO was sued in civil court for sexual harassment, would it be acceptable for him to perjure himself, suborn perjury and obstruct justice? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
15 convictions of what? Some financial shenanigans that didn't include the Clintons?

Susan McDougal was treated as collateral damage, refusing to go along with the Starr's persecution of the Clintons she spent a year and a half in jail.

I fail to be outraged at the Clintons because Starr's behavior was so much more egregious.
 
shuize said:
Thanks for the link back to the first page. However, I'd prefer not to read through all 28 pages.
Click to expand...

Oh, no. That was the link to the part 1 - you have 80-something pages to read there before you get to the 28 pages of this thread.

shuize said:
That's why I asked for Clinton supporters to give legitimate reasons why, as Secretary of State, she would need to set up her own private, non-secure server in place of the government system.

This doesn't seem like an unreasonable question: What was her reason for using a private, non-secure server that justifies the security risks involved?
Click to expand...

You've already been given the reason, multiple times:

“When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted, for convenience, to use my personal email account,” Clinton said at the United Nations in New York, following a scheduled appearance on a panel for International Women’s Day. “I thought it would be easier to carry just one device.” As a pair of unnamed State Department employees had previously explained to Business Insider during interviews arranged by Clinton’s allies, State Department policy at the time prevented Clinton from having multiple email addresses on her BlackBerry. Clinton also conceded that in hindsight, her decision was a mistake. “Looking back it would have been probably, you know, smarter to have used two devices.”


But clearly you don't like it, and want a different reason.

Also, your question is loaded. No one (including you) has demonstrated her server was any more or less secure than systems at the state department.

No one (including you) has demonstrated that there were any additional security risks involved in using her server vice the state departments.

In fact, there hasn't been any evidence presented that the content of any of her emails sent to/from her on her HBC server would present any actual security risks. Just dozens (hundreds?) of posts asserting she didn't follow the rules, or how she lied about sending classified documents. It's all been about how "she's a congenital liar" , "Sid Blumenthal !!!11" etc. Not anything to do with any actual security repercussions. Because there haven't been and aren't any.

Honestly - IDGAF if she technically broke some rules in the course of doing business as SOS, if those rules are things similar to what we are hearing, that people set her emails that the CIA considers classified because they mention drone strikes, even though the contents were from a news article ? OMG, she didn't immediately flag it and alert the spooks ! eleventy !! And what about her phone calls, texts, notes, conversations ? Maybe she accidentally said something "insecure" in those ? Where are the concerns about that ? It's a witch hunt to see if she broke any rules - because her email is a paper trail that can be put under a microscope and dissected. And people can say "see, she broke the rules, right here - she's a megalomaniac !!11

And speaking of security, we have gems like this from self-proclaimed "cyber security guy" ben burch:
BenBurch said:
Believe what you wish. But if you believe that the Chinese are not in every single important system in the USA,*you're a fool.
Click to expand...
So really, who cares about clintons insecure emails - the Chinese already know all of our secrets, right ?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Oh the horror of it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Open records being accessible timely is an important function of the government. Look at another item in the news:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fl...ailures-resistance-flint-water-crisis-n499901

An EPA water expert, Miguel Del Toral, wrote an internal memo in June 2015 that said the situation was a "major concern" and that Flint's testing methods could underestimate the amount of lead in the water.

The memo was leaked by the ACLU, prompting an EPA administrator to apologize to state environmental officials, and spurring the state Department of Environmental Quality to bash Del Toral as a "rogue employee."
Click to expand...

FOIA is the only way that we as citizens can know what is going on behind the scenes. Government, well even people, first reaction is to cover things up and pretend there is no issue. Allowing governments to keep secrets not related to actual safety and security is a mistake.

There is no reason that Clinton should be allowed to be the sole possessor of information, no matter how mundane you may find it, that belongs to the people. If you would allow her to hide everything for 2 years then you forfeit any outrage or complaint of the fact the EPA knew Flint was poisoning children for the better part of a year and took no action because you forfeit the right to that knowledge for another year.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Honestly - IDGAF if she technically broke some rules in the course of doing business as SOS, if those rules are things similar to what we are hearing, that people set her emails that the CIA considers classified because they mention drone strikes, even though the contents were from a news article ?
Click to expand...

What is the difference between breaking the rules and technically breaking the rules? She absolutely and positively broke the rules too if she broke them in a technical manner. Is there a way to break the law in a manner that would be non-technical?

Would you support someone who technically broke drunk driving laws because their BAC was above the legal limit but demand no punishment because they got home safe?

You can't technically break the law and not actually for real break the law at the same time. The only difference is if you get caught. Hillary got caught. And had she complied with the FOIA requirements of making records available as soon as practical, she would have been caught in real time.
 
Leftus said:
Open records being accessible timely is an important function of the government. Look at another item in the news:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fl...ailures-resistance-flint-water-crisis-n499901



FOIA is the only way that we as citizens can know what is going on behind the scenes. Government, well even people, first reaction is to cover things up and pretend there is no issue. Allowing governments to keep secrets not related to actual safety and security is a mistake.

There is no reason that Clinton should be allowed to be the sole possessor of information, no matter how mundane you may find it, that belongs to the people. If you would allow her to hide everything for 2 years then you forfeit any outrage or complaint of the fact the EPA knew Flint was poisoning children for the better part of a year and took no action because you forfeit the right to that knowledge for another year.
Click to expand...
Your analogy is missing one key ingredient: harm done.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
“When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted, for convenience, to use my personal email account,” Clinton said at the United Nations in New York, following a scheduled appearance on a panel for International Women’s Day. “I thought it would be easier to carry just one device.” As a pair of unnamed State Department employees had previously explained to Business Insider during interviews arranged by Clinton’s allies, State Department policy at the time prevented Clinton from having multiple email addresses on her BlackBerry. Clinton also conceded that in hindsight, her decision was a mistake. “Looking back it would have been probably, you know, smarter to have used two devices.”
Click to expand...

That excuse is so laughably specious, I am astonished that anyone defending Hillary's egregious misconduct would roll that out.

He know what the excuse is, it was clearly indicated in Huma's email to Stephen D. Mull, the executive secretary of the State Department. Mull offered to prepare two Blackberries for Clinton, one of which would include “an operating State Department email account” that “would mask her identity” but “would also be subject to FOIA requests.”

Huma rejected that saying that “doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

Compliance with FOIA does not make a lot of sense.
 
Leftus said:
What is the difference between breaking the rules and technically breaking the rules? She absolutely and positively broke the rules too if she broke them in a technical manner. Is there a way to break the law in a manner that would be non-technical?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's called the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.

ETA: this particular side issue is a red herring, at any rate

Leftus said:
Would you support someone who technically broke drunk driving laws because their BAC was above the legal limit but demand no punishment because they got home safe?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, depending on the circumstances. What if they drove 1 foot and endangered absolutely no one ? Still broke the law, right ?

Leftus said:
You can't technically break the law and not actually for real break the law at the same time. The only difference is if you get caught. Hillary got caught. And had she complied with the FOIA requirements of making records available as soon as practical, she would have been caught in real time.
Click to expand...

Has it never occurred to you that some laws are outdated, unjust, incorrectly administered/enforced or just plain stupid?

Perhaps being SOS is more nuanced than a binary yes/no ?
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
That excuse is so laughably specious, I am astonished that anyone defending Hillary's egregious misconduct would roll that out.
<>
Click to expand...

Says you.

Your argument , such as it is, is laughable.

Make a case that is more than HDS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom