RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Tero]

The release to the public is one thing. Analysis of security issues is another. Some FBI department head will summarize findings. Some prosecutor carefully chosen, or a Senator, will get to see most of it. Not all.

All this is rather low priority compared to active FBI or CIA operations. But someone was assigned to look at these historical documents.

 

[wareyin]

Not to mention the HDS folks just can't seem to consider that any high level communication (meaning between a cabinet member and her staff) will end up with redactions when released for a FOIA request. That does not mean people are throwing classified emails around right and left, it means everything someone thinks should be redacted is not necessarily something that was illegal to send in an email.

Indeed. Out of the 1700+ that posters like 16.5 are so impressed with, 22 contained "top secret". Those 22 emails were actually 7 emails sent in chain form (forwards, ccs, replies, etc). Clinton has stated that they were discussions of a New York Times article on drone strikes, which the CIA admits would be flagged as "top secret". So far, the worst the HDS sufferers have been able to find have been Clinton asking for her itinerary, Clinton asking for a public statement by Tony Blair, and Clinton asking for her own talking points. Yet we're all supposed to be outraged by this.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I started out claiming liberals love to defend terrorist, example would be whining and crying about them have a little water up the nose.

You didn't get it, again. Go read it again.

I understand what you said. You offered no evidence to support your contention that liberals agreed with Bush's torture policy. Since that was your supposed proof, you've failed miserably yet again.

You don't know what "most liberals" believe or support.
As evidenced from the linked poll, you don't know what "most Americans" believe or support.

We are left with the obvious conclusion that you have no idea what you're talking about. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as otherwise we'd give credence to the coming armed uprising of conservatives when a supreme court justice gets appointed by a dastardly librul.

Get the impression that the world is just passing you by?

 

[sunmaster14]

I understand what you said. You offered no evidence to support your contention that liberals agreed with Bush's torture policy. Since that was your supposed proof, you've failed miserably yet again.

You don't know what "most liberals" believe or support.
As evidenced from the linked poll, you don't know what "most Americans" believe or support.

We are left with the obvious conclusion that you have no idea what you're talking about. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as otherwise we'd give credence to the coming armed uprising of conservatives when a supreme court justice gets appointed by a dastardly librul.

Get the impression that the world is just passing you by?

You have completely misunderstood what logger was saying. I saw this immediately from your first reply, but I figured you would catch on quickly. I was wrong I guess.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yes, but the libs are addicted to defending the evil among us. Most will not fault Bush for this, they realize what is at stake.

You have completely misunderstood what logger was saying. I saw this immediately from your first reply, but I figured you would catch on quickly. I was wrong I guess.

No. Wrong. (ETA: Well, right in that you guessed you were wrong, but we all know that was rhetorical as you've never been wrong.)

I saw what he said. There it is, right up there so you can inform yourself.

"Most (libs) will not fault Bush for this...."

This is wrong. Period.

 

[logger]

Get the impression that the world is just passing you by?

I get the impression your comprehension skills are lacking. Shall I explain it to you again?

 

[Foolmewunz]

I get the impression your comprehension skills are lacking. Shall I explain it to you again?

Yes, please do.

 

[sunmaster14]

No. Wrong. (ETA: Well, right in that you guessed you were wrong, but we all know that was rhetorical as you've never been wrong.)

I saw what he said. There it is, right up there so you can inform yourself.

"Most (libs) [people] will not fault Bush for this...."

This is wrong. Period.

FTFY.

 

[Foolmewunz]

FTFY.

Most do fault Bush for it and most Americans are against torture. I linked to a poll. Is that what you're on about. Sentences have no antecedent/precedent. He wrote two sentences in one paragraph. One has an expectation that they are related.

But, as I said, even if he is implying (people) - the poll shows that it doesn't apply to "most Americans". Are we discussing Turkmenistan?

 

[logger]

No. Wrong. (ETA: Well, right in that you guessed you were wrong, but we all know that was rhetorical as you've never been wrong.)

I saw what he said. There it is, right up there so you can inform yourself.

"Most (libs) will not fault Bush for this...."

This is wrong. Period.

Did I put "libs" in parentheses, I don't think I did, imagine that. Most being most people, remember the poll you put up where you couldn't see 49% as most, remember Mr comprehension genius, read it again.

You have real problems with the flow of conversation, why would I write a post that says most (libs) would not fault Bush, it is clear they do. Anyone can see I was referring to most people in this country. Even after I spelled it out for you twice, you're still doubling down.

 

[logger]

But, as I said, even if he is implying (people) - the poll shows that it doesn't apply to "most Americans". Are we discussing Turkmenistan?

Your poll says 49%, you don't think most fits in the margin of error, its still more than the whiny 36% who are against it.

 

[sunmaster14]

Most do fault Bush for it and most Americans are against torture. I linked to a poll. Is that what you're on about. Sentences have no antecedent/precedent. He wrote two sentences in one paragraph. One has an expectation that they are related.

But, as I said, even if he is implying (people) - the poll shows that it doesn't apply to "most Americans". Are we discussing Turkmenistan?

He claimed most [people] don't fault Bush for [waterboarding prisoners]. I think you should be adding the 49% to the 15% who didn't express an opinion one way or the other, don't you? The 15% who can't decide if torture is justified or not, probably aren't going to fault Bush for it, right? Well at least 2% of those 15%, right?

ETA: This is particularly interesting:

Those who have heard or read a lot about the [Senate] report [on the CIA enhanced interrogation program] are even more likely than Americans overall to say these tactics are justified.

 

[Foolmewunz]

He claimed most [people] don't fault Bush for [waterboarding prisoners]. I think you should be adding the 49% to the 15% who didn't express an opinion one way or the other, don't you? The 15% who can't decide if torture is justified or not, probably aren't going to fault Bush for it, right? Well at least 2% of those 15%, right?

ETA: This is particularly interesting:

You did the polling analysis for Karl Rove on election night in 2012? All the undecided, it depends, don't know... count them on our side of the ledger.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Did I put "libs" in parentheses, I don't think I did, imagine that. Most being most people, remember the poll you put up where you couldn't see 49% as most, remember Mr comprehension genius, read it again.

You have real problems with the flow of conversation, why would I write a post that says most (libs) would not fault Bush, it is clear they do. Anyone can see I was referring to most people in this country. Even after I spelled it out for you twice, you're still doubling down.

I've explained about how grammar works. A pronoun (which is what "most" functions as in your sentence) has a relationship to an antecedent. So, no, "anyone" cannot see what you intended to say. And since you have a history of saying foolish generic things about libruls, a reasonable person can make the mistake of not understanding your poorly verbalized thoughts.

See how that works? One can mis-read something. I'll concede that you meant "most people". I will not concede that you were right, though, because you were wrong.

You had no idea, though, that the percentage was actually as low as the poll? Did you? Your vision of what Americans thinks is somewhat divorced from reality.

 

[logger]

I've explained about how grammar works. A pronoun (which is what "most" functions as in your sentence) has a relationship to an antecedent. So, no, "anyone" cannot see what you intended to say. And since you have a history of saying foolish generic things about libruls, a reasonable person can make the mistake of not understanding your poorly verbalized thoughts.

I'll concede my grammar isn't what it ought to be, but only an incredibly dense person could not figure out what I was saying, especially after explaining it twice.

See how that works? One can mis-read something. I'll concede that you meant "most people". I will not concede that you were right, though, because you were wrong.

Yeah its usually how you work.

You had no idea, though, that the percentage was actually as low as the poll? Did you? Your vision of what Americans thinks is somewhat divorced from reality.

Its one poll of many and 49% is very close to being most. Whats more telling is 36% against, doesn't do much for your argument.

 

[Foolmewunz]

"Very close".

Yes!!!! I'm going to start arguing stats with "very close". Works in horseshoes (and if you have to refer an election to a stacked Supreme Court, the only time in the past two decades your team has won the White House).

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Last thought: I find the argumentation over whether or not she is the target to be highly tedious and equivalent to grasping semantic straws. Officially and technically she may very well not be the target of the investigation,

I agree, it is tedious that we get the same claims over and over that she is the subject of the investigation, when, as you say, officially and technically she may very well not be the target of the investigation.

Once posters stop doing that, then other posters (like me) will not feel like they ought to correct theses incorrect claims.

but that changes absolutely nothing about the conduct of the investigation in this instance. All findings will be weighed in regard to her actions, both taken and not taken, regardless if she is called the target of the investigation or not. There is simply no non-political way around that.

It's like saying that when the FBI starts investigating all the deposits to and withdrawals from my bank account that they are not investigating me. Maybe they aren't; maybe I'm the unwitting conduit for a bunch of international money-launderers, but that is a determination after the fact, not during.

I'm not sure how you can claim that it changes absolutely nothing about the conduct of the investigation in this instance. If Clinton is the subject, you claim she'll be interviewed last. If the server is the subject, will they also wait until the end to examine it ?

I agree with your point that the investigation will have consequences for Clinton, whether she is "Officially and technically" the subject of the investigation of not.

And if people would argue about what they think those consequences are/will be, that would be much more intersting than a semantic argument about the target.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Not until the very end of the investigation process.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/05/465688707/hillary-clintons-emails-5-questions-answered

Clinton told a CNN interviewer last month that she had not yet been interviewed by FBI agents. That step typically comes near the end of an investigation.

The longer it goes, the more likely she is the target.

I find the word "yet" to be misleading. It was in the question, not the answer.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-not-interviewed-email/2016/01/17/id/709794/

"In terms of the status of the FBI investigation into your private e-mail server, have you been interviewed by the FBI yet?" asked Jake Tapper at the close of an interview for CNN's "State of the Union."

"No," Clinton said, shaking her head.

"You haven't," Tapper confirmed as Clinton continued shaking her head and Tapper closed out the interview.

Five weeks ago ...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm not sure how saying that her odds of being the target of the investigation increases over time without an interview is an absolute statement. I did not say that because she has not been interviewed by now that she is the target, just that the odds of being the target increase. However, I would say that if she hasn't been interviewed by now she is not on the witness list. If you aren't on that list by now, I would suggest that you might be wise to consider yourself a potential target.

What odds would you put on Clinton not being interviewed? I have it fairly close to zero. If the reports that Huma, Mills and Sullivan have been served with notices from the FBI about an interview, then the fact that Clinton doesn't have one of this lowers the chances that she isn't the target.

The investigation has a target and it's not an inanimate object.

Reports ? The only "report" I am aware of is Ed Klein saying this is so.

http://edwardklein.com/hillarys-feeling-the-bern-from-fbi-director-james-comey/

Prosecutors at the Justice Department and managers in Hillary's presidential campaign tell ED KLEIN CONFIDENTIAL that the FBI has zeroed in on three people in Hillary's inner circle.

These three — Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan — have been notified by the FBI that they should prepare to testify under oath about their involvement in the handling of classified national security secrets on Hillary's homebrew email system


What other "reports" ? Kudos for prefacing with "if"

 

[The Big Dog]

Comprehensive Update Regarding latest Tranche

Here is an interesting and very comprehensive update regarding the latest emails production from Hillary.

https://news.vice.com/article/state...y-clinton-emails-hours-before-nevada-caucuses

The author of that is Jason Leopold that person who issued the FOIA requests and sued State to obtain these documents and who we all owe deep gratitude.

By the way, you will see that Hillary's back door National Intelligence Adviser was trying to stab Obama in the back, claiming that Obama was throwing the CIA under the bus.

Sid's source? Larry Johnson. Who was Larry Johnson? a former CIA analyst who was a staunch supporter of Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign against Obama.

What else is Larry notorious for? Where is the Whitey Tape, Larry Johnson?

Yup, Larry was part of the racist dirty tricks campaign Hillary ran against Obama in 2008.

And there he was with Sid asking Hillary for a favor.