RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really? Everyone or no one? Nothing in between?
Was a law broken or not? Which law? Did the law say you can't have your own server? Or did it say certain emails should not be on your server? Doesn't that same law apply to the others who did the same thing?
 
No doubt the statute of limitations applies to many current and former State Department officials, including Colin Powell. In any case, one has to look at aggravating factors, which in Hillary Clinton's case are present. The fact that she set up a private server, and archived documents there which were available nowhere else at State is a huge aggravating factor. Hillary's defenders will argue of course that a regular State Department email account would also have been unsecured and inappropriate for classified information. However, an official State Department account would have been available for monitoring by various people at State. It is not only much more likely that classified material would have been discovered on an official account (it was impossible of course to discover it on Hillary's private server since nobody else had access to it, except maybe the Russians and Chinese) and thereby removed, but also any security breaches due to outside hacking were more likely to be discovered.

Remember, it's bad enough to have classified information fall into the hands of our enemies. But it's much worse for it to happen and got our government not to know about it for many years. That second problem is definitely on Hillary, and it wasn't an accident either.

Care to point out that statute of limitations, I don't recall that's been brought up. And the other are as current as Clinton's.


Remember, the State Dept email was hacked, Clinton's wasn't.
 
Care to point out that statute of limitations, I don't recall that's been brought up. And the other are as current as Clinton's.

The statute of limitations for Federal crimes is five years, unless specified otherwise (which it isn't for the Federal laws at issue).

Interestingly, the statute of limitations may actually run out for some of Hillary's aides who forwarded her classified materials. Once an aide emailed the information, presuming he/she then deleted it, the clock started running. Since Hillary was maintaining the information on a private server, out of the control of the Federal government, her SOL clock didn't start running until she turned the server over to the FBI. With no SOL, she could be SOL.

Remember, it is known when and how the State Dept email was hacked, it is not known if Clinton's was or wasn't.

FTFY.

The damage done by a hack of Hillary's server could be immense because the government was not aware of the breach in a timely manner.
 
The damage done by a hack of Hillary's server could be immense because the government was not aware of the breach in a timely manner.

To be fair, though, the alleged hackers could simply have read the New York Times for the same information for far less effort, and the government might never know if they had.
 
Thanks. Jason Leopold, the investigative reporter that issued the foia requests, and sued to have them enforced, just was awarded a major honor for his efforts to promote governmental transparacy.

It is nice that you took the time to say something.

:thumbsup:
Yes, learning how officials speak about Tubman if the point of foi. Gotcha.

Just to be clear, I wouldn't vote for Hillary if a gun was to my head, and I have, at times, been worried about this "scandal" turning out to be a real thing, buy the more I read your posts, the more sure I am this is a witch hunt. 16.5, you are making the strongest pro- Hillary case in this thread.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
The statute of limitations for Federal crimes is five years, unless specified otherwise (which it isn't for the Federal laws at issue).
Still leaves half the State Department.


FTFY.

The damage done by a hack of Hillary's server could be immense because the government was not aware of the breach in a timely manner.
No, you didn't fix that for anyone but your personal imaginary world. Because by that measure, Clinton could have had her email hacked had she used the State Department servers.

We've gone over all this bull. you guys want it to be a crime, chances are more than better there will be no charges.
 
Yes, learning how officials speak about Tubman if the point of foi. Gotcha.

Just to be clear, I wouldn't vote for Hillary if a gun was to my head, and I have, at times, been worried about this "scandal" turning out to be a real thing, buy the more I read your posts, the more sure I am this is a witch hunt. 16.5, you are making the strongest pro- Hillary case in this thread.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

a witch hunt. Jason Leopold is on a witch hunt.

My post was a link to an article summarizing the latest court ordered release of her emails that was occasioned by her sneering contempt for governmental transparency.

But I'm the bad guy here.

'k.

Hillary 2016, because 16.5 won't leave her alone!

:rolleyes:

/by the way, you have been making the same nonsense claims since this thread was first posted. A couple more posts, and you'll be getting the Shillary Honor Medal, with Merit.
 
Last edited:
In my previous exchanges with TheL8Elvis, he has argued that there was at least a procedural breach, but disagrees that it crosses the line of criminal. I find that angle somewhat weak, but not by any means impossible... it would depend on the loopholes she took advantage of to use the separate system.

I don't think she should have been able to separate her emails like that in the first place. The vast majority of jobs, particularly where the role of work is this important there's usually a standard involved that bars this sort of activity. But you're dealing with a position that's elected, meaning she could very well keep her job (or as in this case become POTUS) provided she's not indicted and all.

Again though... I say this fully aware we have scandals from the Republicans on similar precedent. I can get behind people who at least agree what she did should not have happened as long as it can push measures to prevent or highly discourage either party from doing it in the future. I just wonder if that's a realistic expectation in general... nothing against people I've already gotten into some level of agreement with.

It was full-on illegal based upon my knowledge of such things. If Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute it, and if Hillary somehow becomes President, expect impeachment hearings almost immediately from the GOP on this specific matter.
 
It was full-on illegal based upon my knowledge of such things. If Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute it, and if Hillary somehow becomes President, expect impeachment hearings almost immediately from the GOP on this specific matter.
Yawn....

Sour grapes much Ben?
 
The FBI's Investigation of Clinton's Emails Makes Bernie Sanders the True Democratic Front-Runner

The article includes five reasons Hillary Clinton's email server harmed national security. The issue will very likely propel Bernie Sanders towards the White House, and the FBI could put the finishing touches before the summer.

The sooner the better, FBI.

Recycled talking points. *yawn*

It is amusing to see you carrying Bernie Sanders water, though.
(omg i hope that's not also a pretend racist idiom I am unaware of)

Carry on.
 
Recycled talking points. *yawn*

It is amusing to see you carrying Bernie Sanders water, though.
(omg i hope that's not also a pretend racist idiom I am unaware of)

Carry on.

Wait... didn't you say you were a supporter of sanders and not a fan of Clinton, or am I thinking of someone else?
 
Here is Jason Leoplod's latest summary of last Friday's tranche:

https://news.vice.com/article/south-carolina-primary-hillary-clinton-emails-are-released

We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his yeoman work enforcing the Freedom of Information Act
Yes. He continues (one can only assume intentionally) to conflate "Confidential as marked by Blumenthal but without any weight in regard to US classification" and "Confidential as deemed by the US government."

In fact, the one link to a "Confidential Memo" is specifically that, and the confidential items in it are a discussion of an article in Time Magazine.
 
Wait... didn't you say you were a supporter of sanders and not a fan of Clinton, or am I thinking of someone else?

Not a huge fan of clinton, but not a sanders supporter either.

As far as what you were thinking ... not sure I ever know what you are thinking. :D
 
Yes. He continues (one can only assume intentionally) to conflate "Confidential as marked by Blumenthal but without any weight in regard to US classification" and "Confidential as deemed by the US government."

In fact, the one link to a "Confidential Memo" is specifically that, and the confidential items in it are a discussion of an article in Time Magazine.

No actually he does not.

The State Department marked 88 more documents as "confidential." The ones that Blumenthal alone marked confidential are not included in that tally, and any suggestion to the contrary is dishonest.
 
Not a huge fan of clinton, but not a sanders supporter either.

As far as what you were thinking ... not sure I ever know what you are thinking. :D
Isn't it obvious? "Clinton bad!"

No matter the question or situation:
"What should we have for lunch today?"
"Clinton bad!"

"I heard that Leonardo DiCaprio won an Oscar."
"Clinton bad!"
 
No actually he does not.

The State Department marked 88 more documents as "confidential." The ones that Blumenthal alone marked confidential are not included in that tally, and any suggestion to the contrary is dishonest.
You do not know that they are not included, and the indications are that they are. Even Blumenthal's emails that he stamps "Confidential" have "UNCLASSIFIED" headers and footers in the server, and there is nothing to suggest that those are not included.
 
Re-reading our exchange, I think we may be talking at cross-purposes, and it's likely my fault for not being clearer. I will try again.

There are 88 emails marked in the server as UNCLASSIFIED which have been deemed to contain CONFIDENTIAL material. This is not in contention.

Some (not all, and possibly not even most) of those 88 include emails that Blumenthal sent and marked Confidential but which remained officially marked UNCLASSIFIED (this, in itself, is not an issue because Blumenthal had no classification authority). While I do not know of a particular instance in this batch of 88 that fit the category, there is at least one in the last batch of 60+ which does, so it's reasonable to conclude some happen here. Whether they do or not, though, is not my point.

My bit about the author of your link conflating the two was in his intentional vagueness regarding Blumenthal's confidential markings as opposed to the later, official, elevation to Confidential. He specifically links to one of Blumenthal's emails which Blumenthal has marked Confidential, and he titles the link "Confidential Memo." Given that he has been talking about the emails elevated officially to Confidential, one would think that the link led to an example when, in fact, it does not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom