RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

Sounds to me like they should have just faxed everything.

Yes they should have sent the classified intelligence in a fashion other than in unsecured emails that ended up in Hillary's unsecured server!

BREAKTHROUGH!!!

 

[applecorped]

Excellent. Second double standard across the two threads we've seen. First was the bit about someone else's mistake invalidating everything they did but not for you. This one is about you doing all the "HEE HEE" childishness as if it has substance but can't take condescension when you refuse to admit your own misreadings and errors.

No loss, though. Have a good day yourself (that part's not condescending).

 

[WildCat]

SHil noun 1.
an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

Words have meanings. If you didn't intend to convey the pejorative connotation, you could simply have pointed out that it was a campaign spokesman, but that's not what you chose to do.

Why yes, yes they do! Let's see how Merriam-Webster defines it!

Full Definition of shill
1: to act as a shill
2: to act as a spokesperson or promoter

Looks like the dictionary definition of a shill to me!

 

[Dog Town]

...is that the fax is relevant because its demonstrated and proper use for secure communications indicates that inappropriate use of the email server for classified info was less likely...

Actually, it can easily be seen as she knew better, but chose to ignore it for convenience. YMMV!

 

[sunmaster14]

It was intentionally condescending and shall remain such so long as your posts retain the low quality they have. Any shifting goalposts were on your side.

Here is my entire statement:

"I am not agreeing with Skeptic Ginger (nor am I disagreeing). I am pointing out that your criticism falls short. Her point as I understand it (and I could well be wrong) is that the fax is relevant because its demonstrated and proper use for secure communications indicates that inappropriate use of the email server for classified info was less likely and that this is strengthened by the fact (according to SG) that such inappropriate use has so far not been demonstrated, though it has been strongly implied and lately specifically alleged."

Note that I haven't even yet pointed out that I was stating my thoughts on what SG meant, not on what I believed (something that a slower reading might have helped you catch).

Here is your statement that you claim my statement meant I was denying:

Did classified intelligence get into her unsecured email? YEP:

""The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP."

Let's paraphrase to make it clear:

Me: I think SG is saying X about the documents on the server at the time it was being used

You: The documents were later upgraded to classified

Me: Did I deny that?

You: Yes, because you said SG is saying X about the documents on the server at the time it was being used


Key characteristics of my statement: (1) Representative of SG's thoughts as I understood them, and (2) at the time of active use of the server

Key characteristics of your statement: (1) Relied upon my thoughts which remain unstated, and (2) at a time after active use of the server

No goalposts moved. No denial (no agreement, either).

You continue to miss nuance, so the condescension remains in place.

I don't quite understand why you are trying to explain SG's reasoning with "facts" you believe SG alleges, even though we all know that those "facts" are wrong. What's the point?

There is simply no reasonable doubt that vast amounts of classified information resided on Hillary's server, where it did not belong. And it did so for many years, even for two years after she was no longer employed by the US government. It wasn't gremlins who put that information on the server and allowed it to remain there, but actual human beings.

That there is evidence that, from time to time, Hillary's underlings tried to use secure communications channels to send her classified information doesn't in fact provide any evidence that there hasn't been a severe breach of protocol. We know this because if there hadn't been a severe breach of protocol - by a human being, not gremlins - there wouldn't be any classified information on her server.

Now SG appears to be holding out hope that every shred of classified information on Hillary's server was unclassified at the time it was put there, and as it resided there, but has only become classified now because of intervening events that, by some miracle, made the information extremely sensitive. That strikes me as extremely unlikely for any piece of information, let alone for every one of the 1,300 emails on her server that contained classified information.

 

[Fudbucker]

I don't quite understand why you are trying to explain SG's reasoning with "facts" you believe SG alleges, even though we all know that those "facts" are wrong. What's the point?

There is simply no reasonable doubt that vast amounts of classified information resided on Hillary's server, where it did not belong. And it did so for many years, even for two years after she was no longer employed by the US government. It wasn't gremlins who put that information on the server and allowed it to remain there, but actual human beings.

That there is evidence that, from time to time, Hillary's underlings tried to use secure communications channels to send her classified information doesn't in fact provide any evidence that there hasn't been a severe breach of protocol. We know this because if there hadn't been a severe breach of protocol - by a human being, not gremlins - there wouldn't be any classified information on her server.

Now SG appears to be holding out hope that every shred of classified information on Hillary's server was unclassified at the time it was put there, and as it resided there, but has only become classified now because of intervening events that, by some miracle, made the information extremely sensitive. That strikes me as extremely unlikely for any piece of information, let alone for every one of the 1,300 emails on her server that contained classified information.

This. If there are classified emails on her server that were of the "born classified" nature (and the IG has stated there are) A) what were they doing on her private server? B) how did they get there? and C) did Clinton send them to other people?

There is no story Clinton can tell here that doesn't make her look bad. Either she's incompetent, and didn't know how to handle classified info (bad) or deliberately mismanaged classified info (worse). The "but he did it too" defense doesn't work (try it on a cop next time you get pulled over for speeding). Yeah, it might suck they're picking on Hillary while Powell and Bush got away with this, but that doesn't excuse her own behavior; it just makes them look as guilty as her.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why yes, yes they do! Let's see how Merriam-Webster defines it!


Looks like the dictionary definition of a shill to me!

Wow...

Do you need me to explain the difference between a noun and a verb to you ??



Thanks for reinforcing my point, though.

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/shill

—n.
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

—v.i.
to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.

—v.t.
to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This. If there are classified emails on her server that were of the "born classified" nature (and the IG has stated there are) A) what were they doing on her private server? B) how did they get there? and C) did Clinton send them to other people?

We're 2000 posts into this thread and you still don't understand the basics of what's going on ?

There is no story Clinton can tell here that doesn't make her look bad. Either she's incompetent, and didn't know how to handle classified info (bad) or deliberately mismanaged classified info (worse). The "but he did it too" defense doesn't work (try it on a cop next time you get pulled over for speeding). Yeah, it might suck they're picking on Hillary while Powell and Bush got away with this, but that doesn't excuse her own behavior; it just makes them look as guilty as her.

False dilemma.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't quite understand why you are trying to explain SG's reasoning with "facts" you believe SG alleges, even though we all know that those "facts" are wrong. What's the point?

There is simply no reasonable doubt that vast amounts of classified information resided on Hillary's server, where it did not belong. And it did so for many years, even for two years after she was no longer employed by the US government. It wasn't gremlins who put that information on the server and allowed it to remain there, but actual human beings.

That there is evidence that, from time to time, Hillary's underlings tried to use secure communications channels to send her classified information doesn't in fact provide any evidence that there hasn't been a severe breach of protocol. We know this because if there hadn't been a severe breach of protocol - by a human being, not gremlins - there wouldn't be any classified information on her server.

Now SG appears to be holding out hope that every shred of classified information on Hillary's server was unclassified at the time it was put there, and as it resided there, but has only become classified now because of intervening events that, by some miracle, made the information extremely sensitive. That strikes me as extremely unlikely for any piece of information,let alone for every one of the 1,300 emails on her server that contained classified information.

Argument from personal incredulity.

The fact that you would characterize events that cause inter-departmental re-classification of data as akin to "a miracle" should tell everyone all they need to know about how much credence to lend to your position.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

strongly implied and lately specifically alleged

Consider the source.

Per NPR interview with Clinton who is a first hand witness:

In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Clinton told host David Greene she was "absolutely not" putting top secret information at risk with her private email setup. "I took the handling of classified materials very seriously," Clinton said. "The emails that I received were not marked classified. Now there are disagreements among agencies on what should have been perhaps classified retroactively, but at the time that doesn't change the fact that they were not marked classified."

Clinton's press secretary has said the real problem is a dispute among Obama administration agencies over what should be considered secret, a phenomenon he calls "overclassification run amok."

Colin Powell said something similar.

NBC News

"I wish they would release them," Powell said, "so that a normal, air-breathing mammal would look at them and say, 'What's the issue?'"

BTW:
Here's the latest from today's FOIA hearing:
Court Orders Government To Explain The Holdup With 7,000 Clinton Emails

 

[WildCat]

Wow...

Do you need me to explain the difference between a noun and a verb to you ??



Thanks for reinforcing my point, though.

Let's stick to Webster, the authoritative source for American English, shall we? Here's the noun:

a : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler)

b : one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter

Once again, your source fits the dictionary definition of a shill.

 

[The Big Dog]

Consider the source.

Per NPR interview with Clinton who is a first hand witness:
Colin Powell said something similar.

NBC News



BTW:
Here's the latest from today's FOIA hearing:
Court Orders Government To Explain The Holdup With 7,000 Clinton Emails

It was yesterday, I linked an article about it, and the delay was caused by the fact that numerous other agencies have to review them for classified data.

Miss a little miss a lot.

By the way, quoting Hillary as an authoritative witness?

Hee hee! Good joke!!

 

[Fudbucker]

We're 2000 posts into this thread and you still don't understand the basics of what's going on ?

Wrong. The essence of the story is that over a thousand classified emails have so far been found on Clinton's private server. That is prima facia a problem, enough to get the FBI involved, and they are currently devoting huge resources to get to the bottom of this. They wouldn't bother doing that if there wasn't a suspicion of wrong-doing.

Maybe suspicion is all there is, but with every batch of emails released, it just gets worse for her. Now we know some were Top Secret, some contained references to undercover agents, according to the Inspector General some contained information that was "born classified", some aides maybe were instructed to remove headings and bypass government servers (that one we don't know for sure).

Clinton herself has handled the situation terribly, with her evolving explanations and won't apologize/ apologizing:

March, 2015 “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements.”

Sept. 2015 "I did not send or receive any information marked classified. I take the responsibilities of handling classified materials very seriously and did so,” Mrs. Clinton said

A day after again declining to apologize for her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton told an interviewer Tuesday that the arrangement was a mistake and that she is "sorry" for it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...izes-for-e-mail-system-i-take-responsibility/

I know you're a Hillary supporter, but even you have to acknowledge this has been a disaster for her: Asked which of the two candidates is honest and trustworthy, nearly half said they thought only Sanders is, and nearly all of them voted for him. Few voters said only Clinton is honest and trustworthy while about 4 in 10 said both of the Democrats had those traits.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/exit-polls-new-hampshire-democrats-trust-sanders/

False dilemma.

LOL.

 

[Fudbucker]

"At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.

The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy and others. There is no public evidence they were authorized to receive the intelligence some of which was beyond Top Secret.

A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-also-handled-top-secret-intel-on-server.html

We'll see if this one also gets picked up by the mainstream media.

 

[Fudbucker]

"Hillary Clinton's top national security and foreign policy staffer Jake Sullivan was one of the authors of messages that appeared on several Hillary Clinton email chains recently labeled "top secret" by the State Department, according to multiple intelligence sources who have seen the correspondence."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...ail-jake-sullivan-secret-219013#ixzz3zpOF735i

The investigation seems to be moving up the chain of command.

 

[bytewizard]

While the blame will soon be moving down the chain of command.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Wrong. The essence of the story is that over a thousand classified emails have so far been found on Clinton's private server. That is prima facia a problem, enough to get the FBI involved, and they are currently devoting huge resources to get to the bottom of this. They wouldn't bother doing that if there wasn't a suspicion of wrong-doing.

Yes, it's taken them 6 months and 150 agents to read emails. They'll be getting to the bottom of this any day now....

Maybe suspicion is all there is, but with every batch of emails released, it just gets worse for her. Now we know some were Top Secret, some contained references to undercover agents, according to the Inspector General some contained information that was "born classified", some aides maybe were instructed to remove headings and bypass government servers (that one we don't know for sure).

Suspicion of what, exactly ?

Clinton herself has handled the situation terribly, with her evolving explanations and won't apologize/ apologizing:

March, 2015 “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements.”

Sept. 2015 "I did not send or receive any information marked classified. I take the responsibilities of handling classified materials very seriously and did so,” Mrs. Clinton said

A day after again declining to apologize for her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton told an interviewer Tuesday that the arrangement was a mistake and that she is "sorry" for it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...izes-for-e-mail-system-i-take-responsibility/

I don't think she's handled it so great either, tbh. Yet here she is, running for candidate for president and looking to win right now ...

I know you're a Hillary supporter, but even you have to acknowledge this has been a disaster for her: Asked which of the two candidates is honest and trustworthy, nearly half said they thought only Sanders is, and nearly all of them voted for him. Few voters said only Clinton is honest and trustworthy while about 4 in 10 said both of the Democrats had those traits.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/exit-polls-new-hampshire-democrats-trust-sanders/

I'm not that much of a hillary supporter. I just don't think she's guilty of doing much wrong in this scenario. It's a partisan witch hunt. *shrugs*

LOL.

I don't know why you are laughing, there are other options than either she was incompetent or covered it up.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

"Hillary Clinton's top national security and foreign policy staffer Jake Sullivan was one of the authors of messages that appeared on several Hillary Clinton email chains recently labeled "top secret" by the State Department, according to multiple intelligence sources who have seen the correspondence."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...ail-jake-sullivan-secret-219013#ixzz3zpOF735i

The investigation seems to be moving up the chain of command.

Wow, it's like they read the emails they have ...

 

[Dog Town]

Wow, it's like they read the emails they have ...

Correct...for once! And that is the problem! Thanks for playing, though!

 

[Leftus]

Let me ask you again: once the FBI began investigating Clinton's server, for you, is there any possible situation that is not a negative for Clinton? Because you seem to claim that every possible situation is bad for her, interviewed or not, slow investigation or not, etc.

Those would be hypothetical and take facts not in evidence so I see no point in answering those for you in keeping with you refusing to answer any of mine. I'm trying to explain how it is, not how it could have gone.

The characterization that this is a slow investigation, however, is based in ignorance around how fast the FBI moves as I have shown.