RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[TheL8Elvis]

I really don't mind being corrected by someone who knows what they're talking about, on the other hand..

It would have been more easily understood what the original poster was talking about (which is YOUR assumption that poster did know) if NIPERNET or SIPERNET had been used.

Perhaps you should try to convince the media to use the correct terminology, as they are the one being quoted.

I'm simply trying help you understand the point you missed, especially the difference between "insecure" and "unsecure" , especially as being used by said media.

In the future please play your silly semantic games with someone who gives a rat's ass about an opinion of my qualifications.

I thought that's what I was doing ... are you saying not even you gives a rat's ass about an opinion of your qualifications

 

[Reheat]

 

[Newtons Bit]

You haven't been paying attention at all.

You missed this post or completely missed the point of it.

So... FOIA retroactively classifies several times a month normally. Hillary, by herself, is averaging over 200/month. That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So... FOIA retroactively classifies several times a month normally. Hillary, by herself, is averaging over 200/month. That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

You can't be serious? Look up the definition of denominator when comparing two proportions. Hint, it's numbers of emails looked at, not the time frame you looked at them in.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You can't be serious? Look up the definition of denominator when comparing two proportions. Hint, it's numbers of emails looked at, not the time frame you looked at them in.

The government releases millions of documents each year through the FOIA, Hillary's ten's of thousands are a tiny blip on that radar.

 

[applecorped]

non concession smiley

 

[sunmaster14]

The germane quote from the article: I know such technicalities have never bothered Republicans when accusing Democrats.

In other words, when you've got nothing you throw **** against the wall and hope it sticks. At the very least, the willful ignorant will lap it up and repeat it.

Benghazi...
Cowboy Server...

You asked for an example of a crime that she committed and got away with. Don't you think it is something of a fallacy to reject my example on the basis that she got away with it?

 

[The Big Dog]

You asked for an example of a crime that she committed and got away with. Don't you think it is something of a fallacy to reject my example on the basis that she got away with it?

 

[The_Animus]

I guess Participating in a reasonable discussion an unreasonable discussion must be too difficult a waste of time for some posters.

Ftfy

 

[wareyin]

Ftfy

It must be frustrating when people point out the lack of critical thinking in automatic assumptions of Clinton guilt, especially after your admonitions of "wait and see what the investigation reveals", when the investigation absolutely does not support your claims. Sorry!

 

[wareyin]

You asked for an example of a crime that she committed and got away with. Don't you think it is something of a fallacy to reject my example on the basis that she got away with it?

Evidence that Clinton committed a crime, rather than was merely accused of a crime with no substantiating evidence?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The government releases millions of documents each year through the FOIA, Hillary's ten's of thousands are a tiny blip on that radar.

Link with actual numbers... ? Not to mention numbers that are on the level of Secretary of State communications?

 

[sunmaster14]

Evidence that Clinton committed a crime, rather than was merely accused of a crime with no substantiating evidence?

The wiki article I linked references an analysis which shows that Clinton's run of good luck in cattle futures trading was statistically impossible. The probability that she was allocated winning trades at the end of the day in order to transfer money to her is at the "stake my life" level of certainty. Whether or not there was a quid pro quo (which is required for a charge of bribery), she certainly participated in a fraud. Her only defense is that she was too stupid to realize it. I don't buy that though. Hillary is many things, but she's not stupid.

 

[WildCat]

The wiki article I linked references an analysis which shows that Clinton's run of good luck in cattle futures trading was statistically impossible. The probability that she was allocated winning trades at the end of the day in order to transfer money to her is at the "stake my life" level of certainty. Whether or not there was a quid pro quo (which is required for a charge of bribery), she certainly participated in a fraud. Her only defense is that she was too stupid to realize it. I don't buy that though. Hillary is many things, but she's not stupid.

Come on, she's the world's smartest woman and can turn a $5K investment in cattle futures into $100K overnight like there's nothing to it! She only got out of the market to spare other investors the embarrassment of looking incompetent by comparison!

 

[wareyin]

The wiki article I linked references an analysis which shows that Clinton's run of good luck in cattle futures trading was statistically impossible. The probability that she was allocated winning trades at the end of the day in order to transfer money to her is at the "stake my life" level of certainty. Whether or not there was a quid pro quo (which is required for a charge of bribery), she certainly participated in a fraud. Her only defense is that she was too stupid to realize it. I don't buy that though. Hillary is many things, but she's not stupid.

One analysis claims statistically impossible, several others don't. Not a whole lot of evidence a crime was committed. Anything else?

 

[sunmaster14]

One analysis claims statistically impossible, several others don't. Not a whole lot of evidence a crime was committed. Anything else?

No, the other analyses were not statistical. The odds of turning $1,000 into $100,000 in cattle futures trading over the time period in question was trillions to 1. This is way, way, way beyond reasonable doubt levels. It is a certainty that fraud was committed to transfer Hillary $99,000 in cash. She must have known about it too. She's not an idiot. Oh, she also didn't pay taxes on a sizable portion of her winnings. I guess it's always a difficult decision whether or not to pay taxes on bribes. At some level, it just doesn't seem like the government deserves a cut, right?

 

[wareyin]

No, the other analyses were not statistical. The odds of turning $1,000 into $100,000 in cattle futures trading over the time period in question was trillions to 1. This is way, way, way beyond reasonable doubt levels. It is a certainty that fraud was committed to transfer Hillary $99,000 in cash. She must have known about it too. She's not an idiot. Oh, she also didn't pay taxes on a sizable portion of her winnings. I guess it's always a difficult decision whether or not to pay taxes on bribes. At some level, it just doesn't seem like the government deserves a cut, right?

Trillions to one is extremely unlikely, but not impossible. Anything else?

Man defies 1 in 2.6 trillion odds of winning lottery and getting struck by lightning
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-...nning-lottery-and-getting-struck-by-lightning

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Not from what I've seen you post in this thread. Two examples are you take Hillary's word as truth ...

I've already explained that it's more than simply taking someones word as truth:

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.

and I've already provided what evidence we have to date that it was a likely a newspaper article:

<>
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"

and you act like she isn't being investigated, just the server.

Because that's what has been stated:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-form...hillary-clintons-email-server?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

"FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server"

and I also quoted from yesterday a very right-wing-critical-of-clinton site that also concurs with this:

From a right wing blog today:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...l_chain_exposed_cia_asset_in_afghanistan.html
As these revelations keep dribbling out, you can sense the noose tightening around Clinton. But there is still no indication that Clinton herself is the target of an FBI investigation, although the use of her unsecure server is.

So you can feel free to explain why it's in Clintons benefit to lie about something that can and has been easily verified, or provide some evidence that the FBI is actually investing Clinton - perhpas the date when they interviewed her ?

Or I guess you can simply handwave it all away ...

 

[wareyin]

I've already explained that it's more than simply taking someones word as truth:

​

and I've already provided what evidence we have to date that it was a likely a newspaper article:

​

Because that's what has been stated:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-form...hillary-clintons-email-server?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

"FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server"

and I also quoted from yesterday a very right-wing-critical-of-clinton site that also concurs with this:

​

So you can feel free to explain why it's in Clintons benefit to lie about something that can and has been easily verified, or provide some evidence that the FBI is actually investing Clinton - perhpas the date when they interviewed her ?

Or I guess you can simply handwave it all away ...

You don't have to do that critical thinking stuff like waiting for the results of an investigation if you believe Clinton is guilty.

 

[The Big Dog]

From an actual letter from the actual FBI:

the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

This has been settled for two weeks....