RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Garrette said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course I know what is included, I have read the emails, I have read the State Department's comments that have accompanied the releases, and the numerous claims that what the State Department has deemed classified/confidential were not so marked at the time of the release.

The only one intentionally conflating the issues is you.
 
16.5 said:
Of course I know what is included, I have read the emails, I have read the State Department's comments that have accompanied the releases, and the numerous claims that what the State Department has deemed classified/confidential were not so marked at the time of the release.

The only one intentionally conflating the issues is you.
Click to expand...
Does this post help?
 
16.5 said:
Of course I know what is included, I have read the emails, I have read the State Department's comments that have accompanied the releases, and the numerous claims that what the State Department has deemed classified/confidential were not so marked at the time of the release.
The only one intentionally conflating the issues is you.
Click to expand...
The part I have highlighted is where you are missing the mark. Here is the same email that your source linked.

Do you see that big "CONFIDENTIAL" in the middle of the page? It's Blumenthal's marking, and it bears no relation to whether the content is officially classified or not.

Now look at the top and bottom of each page where it says "UNCLASSIFIED."

That's what the State Department is referring to when it says the emails were not marked classified at the time. You know this; I know this; Blumenthal knew this; and your source knows this.

My point is that your source -- not the State Department -- is intentionally muddling the distinction between Blumenthal's unofficial CONFIDENTIAL marking with the official later elevation to CONFIDENTIAL of emails officially marked UNCLASSIFIED.
 
Garrette said:
The part I have highlighted is where you are missing the mark. Here is the same email that your source linked.

Do you see that big "CONFIDENTIAL" in the middle of the page? It's Blumenthal's marking, and it bears no relation to whether the content is officially classified or not.

Now look at the top and bottom of each page where it says "UNCLASSIFIED."

That's what the State Department is referring to when it says the emails were not marked classified at the time. You know this; I know this; Blumenthal knew this; and your source knows this.

My point is that your source -- not the State Department -- is intentionally muddling the distinction between Blumenthal's unofficial CONFIDENTIAL marking with the official later elevation to CONFIDENTIAL of emails officially marked UNCLASSIFIED.
Click to expand...

everything you just said in that post is wrong. The "unclassified" marking is a legend that is automatically inscribed as part of the FOIA production. There are 88 documents that the state department deemed to contain confidential level classified information. The Blumenthal memo you are linking is not one of them.

For Pete's sake... you are the only one getting this wrong.
 
16.5 said:
everything you just said in that post is wrong. The "unclassified" marking is a legend that is automatically inscribed as part of the FOIA production. There are 88 documents that the state department deemed to contain confidential level classified information. The Blumenthal memo you are linking is not one of them.

For Pete's sake... you are the only one getting this wrong.
Click to expand...
It is frustrating when you (you, specifically) actually have some merit to your argument but are so incensed by it that you cannot admit to any error.

I am not wrong in any specific in what you quoted. None.

Look at my link (which is from the link you gave) and tell me specifically what I got wrong. You will find nothing.

The CONFIDENTIAL marking is from Blumenthal. The UNCLASSIFIED bits are appended automatically as a header and footer. When the State Department (or any other governmental agency) says the emails were upgraded to CONFIDENTIAL, they are not talking about the Blumenthal marking.

This is so incredibly clear -- just as what I was saying in the Benghazi thread was so incredibly clear -- that it is amazing that you do not see it.

Step back. Calm down. Read what is actually in front of you and admit that someone can point out an issue with a portion of your comments (or your link's comments) and not be attacking your central point.
 
sunmaster14 said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...
Newspapers claims are very different from affirmations made by top government officials . The one is gossip. The other is intelligence. Getting the Secretary of State to confirm a newspaper reference to classified information is a much more significant find than simply reading the newspaper and wondering if the stories are even accurate. That's why it's not permitted to discuss classified information even if it's been published by a third party. How is this not obvious to you?
 
Garrette said:
It is frustrating when you (you, specifically) actually have some merit to your argument but are so incensed by it that you cannot admit to any error.

I am not wrong in any specific in what you quoted. None.

Look at my link (which is from the link you gave) and tell me specifically what I got wrong. You will find nothing.

The CONFIDENTIAL marking is from Blumenthal. The UNCLASSIFIED bits are appended automatically as a header and footer. When the State Department (or any other governmental agency) says the emails were upgraded to CONFIDENTIAL, they are not talking about the Blumenthal marking.

This is so incredibly clear -- just as what I was saying in the Benghazi thread was so incredibly clear -- that it is amazing that you do not see it.

Step back. Calm down. Read what is actually in front of you and admit that someone can point out an issue with a portion of your comments (or your link's comments) and not be attacking your central point.
Click to expand...

Garrette said:
The UNCLASSIFIED bits are appended automatically as a header and footer.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi That is what I just explained.

here is what you said:

Now look at the top and bottom of each page where it says "UNCLASSIFIED."

That's what the State Department is referring to when it says the emails were not marked classified at the time.
Click to expand...

That was Wrong, on every conceivable basis.

You are the only person baffled by this. When the state department marks something as classified they mark it: CLASSIFIED, with an express statement of the reason why in a box, like I have shown.

Your defamatory claim that Leopold is " intentionally muddling" something is based on a profound misapprehension of the six month history of the production.

I never claimed that anyone besides Blumenthal said it was classified. There is a CONFIDENTIAL marking in the middle which I specifically said, more than once, has no official weight.
Click to expand...

Blumenthal did not say it was "classified." :rolleyes:

Have you actually seen a document marked classified in this production? I suspect not because no one who had done so would make a claim that Leopold was muddling anything.

Like the "benghazi" thread, do a bit of actual research before wasting the my time further and the time of the avid readers who are actually looking to learn something.
 
16.5 said:
:eye-poppi That is what I just explained.

here is what you said:



That was Wrong, on every conceivable basis.

You are the only person baffled by this. When the state department marks something as classified they mark it: CLASSIFIED, with an express statement of the reason why in a box, like I have shown.

Your defamatory claim that Leopold is " intentionally muddling" something is based on a profound misapprehension of the six month history of the production.



Blumenthal did not say it was "classified." :rolleyes:

Have you actually seen a document marked classified in this production? I suspect not because no one who had done so would make a claim that Leopold was muddling anything.

Like the "benghazi" thread, do a bit of actual research before wasting the my time further and the time of the avid readers who are actually looking to learn something.
Click to expand...
You really have a reading comprehension issue.


The messages were marked UNCLASSIFIED. The State Department said "they were marked UNCLASSIFIED."

I said they were marked UNCLASSIFIED. I also said the State Department said they were marked UNCLASSIFIED.

And that's wrong?

It is precisely this sort of inability to comprehend the basics that leads people to overlook when you have valid points. I am rapidly being pushed into that group.
 
theprestige said:
Newspapers claims are very different from affirmations made by top government officials . The one is gossip. The other is intelligence. Getting the Secretary of State to confirm a newspaper reference to classified information is a much more significant find than simply reading the newspaper and wondering if the stories are even accurate. That's why it's not permitted to discuss classified information even if it's been published by a third party. How is this not obvious to you?
Click to expand...

I don't know. wareyin's claims are very different from those made by sunmaster14.
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.

How is this not obvious to you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Garrette said:
And that's wrong?

It is precisely this sort of inability to comprehend the basics that leads people to overlook when you have valid points. I am rapidly being pushed into that group.
Click to expand...

Yes. That is wrong.... summon patience.....

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DO...-2015-08632FEB26/DOC_0C05784890/C05784890.pdf

Upper left corner "UNCLASSIFIED."

Next line "RELEASE IN PART"

Quarter of the way down the page:

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 02/26/2016 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL
— Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D), B1 — Declassify on: 05/24/2036
Click to expand...

Followed by redactions.

That is how the State Department releases documents that contain classified info: they redact them, and designate the remainder as Unclassified. The Unclassified version of the document is what you are looking at.

And to think you claim that I have reading comprehension issues. I cannot dumb this down any further.
 
16.5 said:
Yes. That is wrong.... summon patience.....

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DO...-2015-08632FEB26/DOC_0C05784890/C05784890.pdf

Upper left corner "UNCLASSIFIED."

Next line "RELEASE IN PART"

Quarter of the way down the page:



Followed by redactions.

That is how the State Department releases documents that contain classified info: they redact them, and designate the remainder as Unclassified. The Unclassified version of the document is what you are looking at.

And to think you claim that I have reading comprehension issues. I cannot dumb this down any further.
Click to expand...
And now I am eating crow. You were right, and I was wrong. My apologies.
 
16.5 said:
Yes. That is wrong.... summon patience.....

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DO...-2015-08632FEB26/DOC_0C05784890/C05784890.pdf

Upper left corner "UNCLASSIFIED."

Next line "RELEASE IN PART"

Quarter of the way down the page:



Followed by redactions.

That is how the State Department releases documents that contain classified info: they redact them, and designate the remainder as Unclassified. The Unclassified version of the document is what you are looking at.

And to think you claim that I have reading comprehension issues. I cannot dumb this down any further.
Click to expand...
And yet you missed a key date in that email: "Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 02/26/2016 "

IOW, long after it was sent/received by Clinton as is common with many FOIA documents redacted before released.
 
Last edited:
There are 1800 Reasons why the Clinton Email battle is far from Over

Actually, there are tens of thousands of reasons, but the attached article is a hell of place to get up to speed on the issues.

By the way, Hillary's Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda good buddy David Brock called the FOIA effort "legal terrorism" in a typically reasonable and rational response on behalf of the Hillary campaign...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And yet you missed a key date in that email: "Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 02/26/2016 "

IOW, long after it was sent/received by Clinton as is common with many FOIA documents redacted before released.
Click to expand...

I missed a "key" date that I quoted? :rolleyes:

As discussed previously, the "marked when sent" red herring is, of course, no defense. In 2010, Thomas Drake, a former senior National Security Agency official, was indicted under the Espionage Act for keeping an agency email printout at home that was not marked as classified.

The example I used was foreign government source intell, which is classified whether marked or not, which someone with Hillary's "experience" should have known.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom