RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Dog Town]

Clinton needs a new bogeyman!

Clinton Email Scandal: Hillary Needs A New Bogeyman

Vintage Clinton. They've never done anything wrong. And all those accusations? Just people out to get them.

In blaming congressional Republicans, Clinton's camp is hoping no one will notice that Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough, the first person to hold that relatively new position, is actually a President Obama appointment. This is the man Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said was "superbly qualified for this job" at his confirmation hearing and thought that he would be a "shoo-in" for it.

At the same hearing, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden said he was "looking forward to supporting" the nominee. Somehow McCullough, confirmed unanimously in 2011 by the then-Democratic Senate, went from an admired and honorable person among Democrats to Hillary's new bogeyman.

Man that right wing conspiracy is VAST!
http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-email-scandal-clinton-needs-new-bogeyman.htm

 

[TheL8Elvis]

She kept 100% of the documents. She found 0% of it to be classified. There is no nuance in this matter. It's quite binary.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you snipped my post, and only left only the above ...

At any rate, the state dept and the CIA/FBI/Someone disagree about what counts as classified and what doesn't, so I disagree with your assertion that it's binary.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No I am claiming that Hillary thought

You can read minds now ?

her emails stored on her cowboy server were immune from FOIA, and there is no doubt that she solicited a legal opinion from her lawyers that said just that.
She and her lawyers were wrong, of course.

Evidence required ( But I won't hold my breath waiting )

 

[ehcks]

If you are going to use the lack of an indictment as proof that Clinton has done no wrong, you can't turn around and state that Bush and Cheney broke the law because they also have not been indicted and be logically coherent.

Except you can. The difference is that Clinton has been investigated repeatedly over many months, with the constantly repeated result of no wrong-doing being found. There has been no similar investigation into Bush/Cheney.

This is a case of "We've found nothing, so that must mean she's hiding something."

 

[The Big Dog]

Except you can. The difference is that Clinton has been investigated repeatedly over many months, with the constantly repeated result of no wrong-doing being found. There has been no similar investigation into Bush/Cheney.

This is a case of "We've found nothing, so that must mean she's hiding something."

Uh no....

The investigation is not over and the investigation has shown that she had secret and Top Secret data on her server and now we know that there are several dozen emails containing classified data up to Top Secret/Sap, and we do know she is hiding something because she flat *********** admitted she destroyed over half of the documents.

 

[wareyin]

Except you can. The difference is that Clinton has been investigated repeatedly over many months, with the constantly repeated result of no wrong-doing being found. There has been no similar investigation into Bush/Cheney.

This is a case of "We've found nothing, so that must mean she's hiding something."

Indeed, there have been 11 recent investigations producing, what, 32 reports on Clinton. Not a one has resulted in an indictment, nor has one come close.
These current bombshells that the HDS brigade are crowing over sure appear to be nothing more than emails sent to Clinton containing published news articles.

 

[applecorped]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-had-human-intelligence-source-reporting.html


"At least one of the emails on Hillary Clinton's private server contained extremely sensitive information identified by an intelligence agency as "HCS-O," which is the code used for reporting on human intelligence sources in ongoing operations, according to two sources not authorized to speak on the record.
Both sources are familiar with the intelligence community inspector general’s January 14 letter to Congress, advising the Oversight committees that intelligence beyond Top Secret -- known as Special Access Program (SAP) -- was identified in the Clinton emails, as well the supporting documents from the affected agencies that owned the information and have final say on classification."

 

[shuize]

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.



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....

No, I wanted to know if she was really sticking with the "convenience" excuse. I suspect the truth has a lot more to do with the ability to shield email from freedom of information requests. However, even if we take her at her word, it is clear she believes her convenience trumps national security.

 

[The Big Dog]

who had the worst week in Washington?

Hillary Clinton, for watching history repeat itself, you had the worst week in Washington. Congrats, or something.

why?

Complicating those efforts is the news that broke midweek: The intelligence community’s inspector general confirmed that dozens of emails on the private server Clinton used while she was at the State Department contained extremely highly classified information.

Clinton continues to stick by her original line on the email controversy — that she never sent or received anything that was classified at the time — but the latest news is proof that the story and its reverberations are likely to dog her all the way through the campaign.

I suspect we will get an HDS in here explaining that Hillary is just gathering momentum or something....

 

[Newtons Bit]

I've seen comments from the Clinton camp that she's sticking to her original statement that she never sent anything that was classified at the time, or received anything that was marked classified. The latter is a bit farcical, as she has directed underlings to remove classified markings and send them to her unsecured in at least two occasions...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-had-human-intelligence-source-reporting.html


"At least one of the emails on Hillary Clinton's private server contained extremely sensitive information identified by an intelligence agency as "HCS-O," which is the code used for reporting on human intelligence sources in ongoing operations, according to two sources not authorized to speak on the record.
Both sources are familiar with the intelligence community inspector general’s January 14 letter to Congress, advising the Oversight committees that intelligence beyond Top Secret -- known as Special Access Program (SAP) -- was identified in the Clinton emails, as well the supporting documents from the affected agencies that owned the information and have final say on classification."

This was addressed in my Media Matters link above:

Politico: Government Official Suggests "Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strikes. A government official told Politico "some or all of the emails deemed to implicate 'special access programs' related to U.S. drone strikes" and explained the information was "'not obtained through a classified product,'" although "the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground":...

NBCNews.com: Senior U.S. Officials Say Clinton Emails Discussed One Of "The Worst Kept Secrets In Washington." According to NBCNews.com, senior government officials confirmed that the classified information in the Clinton emails included discussions about the well-known CIA drone strike program, "among the worst kept secrets in Washington" since at least 2009. Not only did the officials characterize the email discussions as "innocuous," NBCNews.com pointed out "various public web sites continue to keep track of each CIA drone strike":...

Top Democrat On The Senate Intelligence Committee: The Story Is "Nothing New." As reported by CBSNews.com, Senator Dianne Feinstein, senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, dismissed the FoxNews.com report as "nothing new" and warned "the inspector general was being used for 'baldly partisan attacks'":

et cetera

You've cited a Fox news story discredited by a half dozen other sources.

 

[shuize]

Complicating those efforts is the news that broke midweek: The intelligence community’s inspector general confirmed that dozens of emails on the private server Clinton used while she was at the State Department contained extremely highly classified information.

No, this can't be right. Clinton says it didn't happen.

 

[The Big Dog]

This was addressed in my Media Matters link above:
et cetera

You've cited a Fox news story discredited by a half dozen other sources.

Democrats spewing Hillary's talking points and collected on ridiculous propaganda site media matters.

Sounds legit skeptic ginger!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

You've cited a Fox news story discredited by a half dozen other sources.

Discredited? Fox 'news'? Surely not!

there have been 11 recent investigations producing, what, 32 reports on Clinton. Not a one has resulted in an indictment, nor has one come close.

This is getting ridiculous. Millions of emails and they can't find a single one to take her down? It's unbelievable - so unbelievable that only one conclusion can be drawn - they are in on it! I bet Hillary is paying all of them to throw their investigations...

 

[applecorped]

One almost gets the impression that an indictment should be rushed through as fast as possible and that by not doing this it is PROOF that nothing illegal has happened.


Spock would would find this thinking highly illogical.

 

[wareyin]

One almost gets the impression that an indictment should be rushed through as fast as possible and that by not doing this it is PROOF that nothing illegal has happened.


Spock would would find this thinking highly illogical.

One gets the impression that a lack of indictment is PROOF that Clinton has done something illegal for the poor HDS sufferers.

 

[sunmaster14]

One gets the impression that a lack of indictment is PROOF that Clinton has done something illegal for the poor HDS sufferers.

Not at all. It is the facts that have been revealed, many of the probative ones being undisputed, which have led to the claim by her detractors that she has done something illegal. Her detractors just don't consider the lack of an indictment (yet!) to be evidence of anything at all. The flacks defending Hillary, on the other hand, are the ones that think the lack of an indictment (so far!) is meaningful.

 

[shuize]

One almost gets the impression that an indictment should be rushed through as fast as possible and that by not doing this it is PROOF that nothing illegal has happened.

True. But in this case, if an actual indictment were to take place, all the Clinton supporters who've argued the lack of charges is proof of no wrongdoing will turn 180 degrees and argue the indictment is an "unfair rush to prosecute."

 

[Leftus]

Another failed analogy.

You seem to think outcome is irrelevant. A technical issue doesn't equate to actual corruption.

You still have not answered the question. In the moments before the cop has had the chance to write the ticket, have you committed the offense? Par for the course since none of the questions I've asked have you come in a country mile of answering.

You claim knowledge of the content of Bush Cheney emails without any evidence. You claim certainty that the contents proved corruption and guilt. But when it comes to Clinton, where we know what was in those emails and we can prove that there was classified information on that server because of redacted information, this somehow proves her innocence.

 

[Leftus]

Except you can. The difference is that Clinton has been investigated repeatedly over many months, with the constantly repeated result of no wrong-doing being found. There has been no similar investigation into Bush/Cheney.

This is a case of "We've found nothing, so that must mean she's hiding something."

1 - Classified information stored and shared without proper clearance.
2 - Zero compliance with FIOA and national record keeping acts.

Beyond that, so far, nothing public. But the FBI investigation is expanding. This is not something the FBI does when they find nothing.

Skeptic Ginger states that because Clinton has not been indicted and charged then she is clearly innocent. Bush Cheney were never indicted or charged either but are still in the eyes of SG clearly guilty. It's a double standard to say the least.

Again, I would have had no issues had various law enforcement agencies attempt to secure those lost emails from the GOP server. While I think it might not be as fruitful doing so today due to the pure passage of time, I would have absolutely no problem with a prosecution based on record keeping act violations.

I hold the FOIA to be that important to the function of our democracy. Nobody, and that includes Clinton or Bush, should be held exempt.