RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
We have certainly seen examples of over classification. Just look at all the hay made of the "Top Secret" New York Times drone article that was forwarded to Clinton. But, the CIA classifies all drone info as SAP, so it was born Classified, according to some, and enough to convict, according to a few.

Eta: the claim has been made in this thread that out of that 1666 that 16.5 claims, 22 were Top Secret, if you were honestly questioning whether the vast majority were over classified or "when will I get to the Hamptons" secret.
Click to expand...

Have you seen that email about drones or are you just blowing smoke? I know, but do you?

Please tell us how you know something is over classified. What are your credentials to determine ANYTHING AT ALL regarding classification? That's a rhetorical question, so don't bother with an answer. I already know.
 
Reheat said:
Have you seen that email about drones or are you just blowing smoke? I know, but do you?

Please tell us how you know something is over classified. What are your credentials to determine ANYTHING AT ALL regarding classification? That's a rhetorical question, so don't bother with an answer. I already know.
Click to expand...

Yea, Hillary claims that it's just a forwarded NYTimes article, and yet there is no proof of that assertion.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Yea, Hillary claims that it's just a forwarded NYTimes article, and yet there is no proof of that assertion.
Click to expand...

You never hear Hillary explaining the Top Secret intelligence from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency that ended up on her server
 
Reheat said:
Have you seen that email about drones or are you just blowing smoke? I know, but do you?

Please tell us how you know something is over classified. What are your credentials to determine ANYTHING AT ALL regarding classification? That's a rhetorical question, so don't bother with an answer. I already know.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is that you are questioning my credentials, while touting your own. Yet, you have made obviously false comments about retroactive classification being unlikely. We've already seen that even Powell's innocuous communications get retroactively classified . Heck from this source, over 1500 of 16.5's amazing classified emails were only confidential, which, as I stated, constitute the vast majority.

Further, we have the recipient of the emails, Clinton, telling us what they are. We have absolutely zilch coming from anyone else involved, yet HDS sufferers think they can throw out Clinton's claims and substitute any wild conspiracy theory bull from any no-name, no-credibility far right wing wing-nut with a blog.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Or are you with the rest of the people in this thread who refuse to actually say that you think she will be indicted ?

Based on what we know so far, my guess is she won't be. You ?
Click to expand...


I have said previously that based on what we know she SHOULD be indicted. If she isn't it will be because of political reasons, not legal.

You seem to have total confidence in unnamed "Offficials" in addition to only reading in the articles what you agree with and not the entire analysis by a news organization.

I realize some think she is so important that normal rules don't apply. Why do you think the State Department redacted so much in many of the emails? The State Department is carrying water for her, but they redacted an enormous amount of information, so far. Why do you think they did that? Do you suspect they might lose in an argument over classification by the CIA or NSA?

Hillary doesn't get to decide what's classified and neither do you or anyone else who is defending her actions. As far as I'm concerned it is a SLAM DUNK. I guess we'll see in the end who's right and how much politics play in this stupid ordeal. Without that home brewed server there may not have been a problem, but the facts are what they are. She is not above the law, no matter how much she believes she is...
 
Newtons Bit said:
Yea, Hillary claims that it's just a forwarded NYTimes article, and yet there is no proof of that assertion.
Click to expand...

Yes, they should declassify it and publish so we have proof. Convenient for those who just want us to trust that the CIA is not simply overcalssifying and lying to us yet again that they won't...

Of course, like most of this thread, we already covered this before. You asserted:
Newtons Bit said:
They're claiming tt was just some article published by a news agency that was being circulated about by other State employees. Hillary was only a recipient.

No mention of which news agency published it though. Honestly, it doesn't pass the smell test. Why would the IG care about a news article?
Click to expand...

And then this article was posted:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985#ixzz3xpGImmze

The source noted that 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. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”
...
The Central Intelligence Agency is the agency that provided the declarations about the classified programs, another U.S. official familiar with the situation told POLITICO Wednesday.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.[/I]​

That's as close to an admission as you are likely to get that it was a news article about drones that the CIA got its panties in a bunch about it and started crying "classified/SAP"
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Yea, Hillary claims that it's just a forwarded NYTimes article, and yet there is no proof of that assertion.
Click to expand...

She will claim anything that is politically expedient. She's gotten away with so much criminal activity in the past that she considers herself not vulnerable. It's time to stop that.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
The source noted that 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. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”​
Click to expand...


So, now I understand your contrived logic. Even tho' the rules listed above apply to everyone in Government service Hillary is somehow absolved from following those same rules. It's only the little people that have to follow those rules, not Hillary.

I think we can end this thread now as that seems to be the prevalent opinion for some of her defenders. Others defending her don't have a clue and defend her for .....reasons. She is so important that she doesn't have to following rules that apply to everyone else. Now, I get it...​
 
Reheat said:
I have said previously that based on what we know she SHOULD be indicted. If she isn't it will be because of political reasons, not legal.
Click to expand...

How very convenient for you. When she's not indicted, you simply keep claiming she "should be" and it's politics.

Reheat said:
You seem to have total confidence in unnamed "Offficials" in addition to only reading in the articles what you agree with and not the entire analysis by a news organization.
Click to expand...

No, I'm simply looking at different claims that are being made, and weighing them accordingly.

I do have confidence that if there was really some sort of smoking gun in her email, we would know about it by now.

For the ...idk, hundredth time .... WTF are 150 FBI agents doing that takes 6 months ??? Circle jerking ? Seriously - they have her email. They read them. WTF are they waiting for ?

Reheat said:
I realize some think she is so important that normal rules don't apply. Why do you think the State Department redacted so much in many of the emails? The State Department is carrying water for her, but they redacted an enormous amount of information, so far. Why do you think they did that? Do you suspect they might lose in an argument over classification by the CIA or NSA?
Click to expand...

Sure, I suspect the state dept might lose an argument to a spy agency whose whole purpose is to keep everything they do secret from their own citizens who they are spying on.

Does that mean over-classification doesn't exist ? No. It CLEARLY exists.

And yes, I don't think they same rules apply to the boss as to the worker bee. They never have before - why should they suddenly now ?

Reheat said:
Hillary doesn't get to decide what's classified and neither do you or anyone else who is defending her actions. As far as I'm concerned it is a SLAM DUNK. I guess we'll see in the end who's right and how much politics play in this stupid ordeal. Without that home brewed server there may not have been a problem, but the facts are what they are. She is not above the law, no matter how much she believes she is...
Click to expand...

"If she isn't it will be because of political reasons" ... makes like you believe she might be above the law ...
 
Reheat said:
So, now I understand your contrived logic. Even tho' the rules listed above apply to everyone in Government service Hillary is somehow absolved from following those same rules. It's only the little people that have to follow those rules, not Hillary.

I think we can end this thread now as that seems to be the prevalent opinion for some of her defenders. Others defending her don't have a clue and defend her for .....reasons. She is so important that she doesn't have to following rules that apply to everyone else. Now, I get it...
Click to expand...

It's a shame it would never happen - but I am willing to bet if the CIA went through every senators and representatives email every damn one of them would have something in their email the CIA considers "classified".

But sure, they all follow the same rules. :rolleyes:
 
wareyin said:
Further, we have the recipient of the emails, Clinton, telling us what they are. We have absolutely zilch coming from anyone else involved, yet HDS sufferers think they can throw out Clinton's claims and substitute any wild conspiracy theory bull from any no-name, no-credibility far right wing wing-nut with a blog.
Click to expand...

Taking the word of the party being investigated would be silly even for a minor potential crime by a no name nobody. When it's top secret information handled improperly by the former secretary of state now running for president...

Seriously?
 
The_Animus said:
Taking the word of the party being investigated would be silly even for a minor potential crime by a no name nobody. When it's top secret information handled improperly by the former secretary of state now running for president...

Seriously?
Click to expand...

When the alternative is taking the word of someone who has not even read the emails involved, which do you find more credible?
 
The_Animus said:
Taking the word of the party being investigated would be silly even for a minor potential crime by a no name nobody. When it's top secret information handled improperly by the former secretary of state now running for president...

Seriously?
Click to expand...

If it was something we would only ever have her word on, then of course her self -interest could potentially be in conflict with her honesty.

However, I am taking her word for something that can be (relatively) easily verified by a unbiased third party.

That makes the likelihood of her lying about the content much lower, IMO.
 
Reheat said:
She will claim anything that is politically expedient. She's gotten away with so much criminal activity in the past that she considers herself not vulnerable. It's time to stop that.
Click to expand...
Can you explain the part I placed in bold in more detail. Specifically, what she did that was criminal, evidence she did it and your explanation as to why she's "gotten away" with it.

Please be specific and cite your sources.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
For the ...idk, hundredth time .... WTF are 150 FBI agents doing that takes 6 months ??? Circle jerking ? Seriously - they have her email. They read them. WTF are they waiting for ?
Click to expand...

My question to this is yet again why the length of time they take have any bearing on the issue? Dont their as yet to be announced findings have more weight than what we perceive in the length of time they investigate? Not singling you out... but i have seen this brought up by a few people already
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
My question to this is yet again why the length of time they take have any bearing on the issue? Dont their as yet to be announced findings have more weight than what we perceive in thr length of time they investigate?
Click to expand...

You should be commended for your patience in responding.

Of course the FBI did not have all her emails. She destroyed them, and the FBI has had to jump through numerous hoops to recreate them. It would have been a straightforward process, but Hillary chose to provide paper, not electronic copies, to destroy all electronic copies and then to have the server, as her lawyer said, deleted of all recoverable data.

So the FBI had to track down Platte River and through them Datto and then track down all the emails that were on the emails of her senior staff, and then track down all the top secret intelligence that was on the systems of those that were also copied on the emails. and then run forensics to see if and when they were hacked without anyone knowing.

And Hillary's IT guy has taken the Fifth and Hillary's pals in Congress are actively running interference for her.

Gee, what is taking so long? Hillary said she was the very picture of cooperation, and heavens knows, we always to take the perps word for it!

Hillary 2016, Leave Hillary alone!
 
From the State Department
It is routine to upgrade information to classified status during the FOIA process. This happens frequently about several times every month. This is part of the process.
Click to expand...


THE SHOCKING TRUTH: COLIN POWELL’S EMAILS DON’T MATTER
The shocking truth about the last two Republican secretaries of state has finally come out: Colin Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice trafficked in classified information on their personal email accounts. This is an enormous scandal!

Oh, wait. No, it’s not.

This news involving Powell and Rice is meaningless except that it sets up a rational conversation (finally) about the Hillary Clinton bogus “email-gate” imbroglio. Perhaps the partisans on each side will now be more willing to listen to the facts. From the beginning, the “scandal” about Clinton using a personal email account when she was secretary of state—including the finding that a few documents on it were retroactively deemed classified—has been a big nothing-burger perpetuated for partisan purposes, with reports spooned out by Republicans attempting to deceive or acting out of ignorance. Conservative commentators have raged, presidential candidates have fallen over themselves in apoplectic babbling, and some politicians have proclaimed that Clinton should be in jail for mishandling classified information. The nonsense has been never-ending, and attempts to cut through the fog of duplicity have been fruitless.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
My question to this is yet again why the length of time they take have any bearing on the issue?
Click to expand...

Because I find the length of time to appears to be unreasonable, especially based on the perceived tasks.

Clearly, I don't know any more than any one else, and it's just my opinion.

I have yet to hear what I find to be a reasonable explanation for the length of time.

I don't understand, if there is an investigation, why it's not possible to say what specifically is being investigated, what is being done etc. Why can't they clearly say whether HRC is a target of the investigation or not ?

Grizzly Bear said:
Dont their as yet to be announced findings have more weight than what we perceive in the length of time they investigate?
Click to expand...

Only up to a certain point. After that, it has the opposite effect, at least for me.

Grizzly Bear said:
Not singling you out... but i have seen this brought up by a few people already
Click to expand...

It's fine, I've brought up the issue, i'm happy to discuss it.

16.5 is trying hard to justify why it's taking so long, but failing. Clearly she kept soft copies. She provided hard copies because that's what was asked for,a and is SOP, according to the state Dept, as discussed in the previous thread.

I'm sure "tracking down" Platte River and Datto must have taken ... hours at least.

And whatever private emails they recovered .. again - how long does it take to read emails ?

Certain posters are quite foaming at the mouth regarding how long it took Clinton to produce emails, but apparently simply reading them for an investigation takes much longer ?

At the end of the day - there's this whole thing where she's also running for the democratic nomination for POTUS ? One would think that would be an important consideration in the speed of the investigation, in order to have a fair election. Unless, of course, the goal is to derail her campaign at some point ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom