RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
I take that back, change it to an IDK.

Generally speaking, network access is tightly controlled. That doesn't necessarily mean she couldn't get to her email from a laptop, but IDK for sure.
Click to expand...

Ok, I got the impression by the article that it was actually forbidden to access servers once inside one of those facilities. That didn't make much sense to me, but I guess that's why I don't have a high security clearance.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Evidence required for the hilited.
Click to expand...

Both partisan sides play stupid when their homeboys are being looked at.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
Click to expand...

I understand the pretense: pretending that you want people to source claims.

Well sure, if I say something with even the slightest doubt. Something so widely reported, if you are not operating with a confirmation-bias filter, is an expectation of a reasonably informed person.

But partisanship has us play the game of stupid first: I am too stupid to look up something that reflects negatively on my idol. Then

- kill the messenger, poison the well: the source is biased
- it hasn't been proven in court
- Tu Quoque
- etc.


I expect my ex-presidents to make a lot of money doing speeches, writing books, whatever - these are some of the top people in our country.

But if this is legal - our politicians can amass multibillion dollar fortunes this way. I don't care if they are republicans or democrats - look who is behind the biggest money.

Saudi Arabia for example. Members of that royal family financed the September 11 attacks. It is a bizarre kingdom that has a agreement with the biggest engine of radical muslim terrorists in the world: The Wahabbis.

This century-old alliance was how the House of Saud conquered that part of the old Ottoman Empire, with the support of the head-choppers, the Wahabbis. This is 1901. They cut off 40,000 heads by some estimates and another 350,000 limbs. ISIS is Wahabbist. Saudi Arabia is the source of Wahabbism, the religious source of ISIS.

Since 1901 the House of Saud has kept power by financing Wahabbi mosques both inside, but more importantly outside Saudi Arabia, instilling this extreme radical Sunni dark ages philosophy into the most decisive terrorism in the world.

This is just one example of both parties having been bought off by Saudi Arabia to look the other way when this is supposedly the entire reason for the war on terror. The media shrieks about ISIS doing it and we all agree how horrific it is. But the Saudis do the same things. They are the source of ISIS, who is dutifully following their example. All going back to this 1901 alliance of head-choppers and House of Saud.

I don't want Hillary and Bill Clinton bought off by the Saudis, and I don't want Bush bought off by the Saudis. But both parties are bought off so the 19 pages of the 9/11 report is happily censored, just like the bipartisan war crime paper trail in Hillary's emails is being censored right now. John McCain and Hillary Clinton bear the key responsibility for having armed and funded what became ISIS, acting as allies to Saudi Arabia.

I don't hear either set of partisans wanting to know about what both democrats and republicans were up to in Libya and Syria especially, but they're up to bad things all over the region and our bipartisan blindness is not serving our country well in the place we are fighting an expanding war, meaning across ever more countries.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I take that back, change it to an IDK.

Generally speaking, network access is tightly controlled. That doesn't necessarily mean she couldn't get to her email from a laptop, but IDK for sure.
Click to expand...

But apparently she could check her email from a laptop, had she used one, at least according to this article:
http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/

And that seemed dubious to IAD since there was no problem with Ms. Clinton checking her personal email inside her office SCIF. Hers, like most, had open (i.e. unclassified) computer terminals connected to the Internet, and the secretary of state could log into her own email anytime she wanted to right from her desk.

But she did not want to. Ms. Clinton only checked her personal email on her Blackberry: she did not want to sit down at a computer terminal. As a result, the NSA informed Secretary Clinton in early 2009 that they could not help her. When Team Clinton kept pressing the point, “We were politely told to shut up and color” by IAD, explained the state security official.

The State Department has not released the full document trail here, so the complete story remains unknown to the public...

After that, the CT starts ...
 
Last edited:
CT.

She could.

But did not.

Demanded an accomodation

Hmmm, no Ct needed. Hillary didn't want to leave any tracks. Rats like to hide in the dark.
 
I suggest as always if she is not indicted or otherwise, that some push is made to prevent this from happening again so that the plausible deniability or otherwise cannot be used as an excuse to conduct government affairs that way in the future. Regardless of whether she broke the law, she took a risk with the set up that was completely uncalled for and I'm tired of politicians getting away with this crap. If the tu quoque aspect is so important apply the same standard to everyone
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
CT.

She could.

But did not.

Demanded an accomodation

Hmmm, no Ct needed. Hillary didn't want to leave any tracks. Rats like to hide in the dark.
Click to expand...

How can she not want to leave tracks, and also want to hide in the dark, when the first thing she did was ask the NSA for phones from them? Something that had been done with previous SoS offices. I don't even understand how you can logically say that given the available information. Also, she didn't demand accomodation(sic), she asked for BB's. I don't see anything saying she was demanding. She went through the proper channels to request something that would be useful for her office, and was denied.

Again, labeling anything and everything she does as inherently evil really degrades your argument.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
But apparently she could check her email from a laptop, had she used one, at least according to this article:
http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/
Click to expand...


Quite an interesting article. I like how the author, who seems to have excellent connections to the NSA, kind of promises "... if the DoJ declines to prosecute after the Bureau recommends doing so, a leak-fest of a kind not seen in Washington, D.C., since Watergate should be anticipated."

Also, they have Sid on the radar:

John R. Schindler said:
[...] Now, over two months later, I can confirm that the contents of Sid Blumenthal’s June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clinton, sent to her personal, unclassified account, were indeed based on highly sensitive NSA information. The agency investigated this compromise and determined that Mr. Blumenthal’s highly detailed account of Sudanese goings-on, including the retelling of high-level conversations in that country, was indeed derived from NSA intelligence.

Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified “Top Secret / Special Intelligence.” Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her “unclassified” emails.

Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt that Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from their reports. “It’s word-for-word, verbatim copying,” one of them explained. “In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report” that was classified Top Secret / Special Intelligence.

How Mr. Blumenthal got his hands on this information is the key question, and there’s no firm answer yet. The fact that he was able to take four separate highly classified NSA reports—none of which he was supposed to have any access to—and pass the details of them to Hillary Clinton via email only hours after NSA released them in Top Secret / Special Intelligence channels indicates something highly unusual, as well as illegal, was going on. [...]
Click to expand...
 
Childlike Empress said:
Quite an interesting article. I like how the author, who seems to have excellent connections to the NSA, kind of promises "... if the DoJ declines to prosecute after the Bureau recommends doing so, a leak-fest of a kind not seen in Washington, D.C., since Watergate should be anticipated."

Also, they have Sid on the radar:
Click to expand...

You might want to do some research on the author before taking much of what he says at face value.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
You might want to do some research on the author before taking much of what he says at face value.
Click to expand...
Yow. That guy is whackadoodle.

Former NSA Official Thinks A Blog Containing Nothing But His Own Tweets Is 'Defamatory'

from the hilariously,-falsely-accusing-someone-of-defamation-is-defamatory dept

"Many people have varying ideas as to what exactly composes defamatory content. Some mistake statements of opinion ("this product sucks") for defamation. Some feel anything that doesn't describe their products or services in glowing terms is defamatory. Some feel any sort of criticism is defamation, even if the criticism is based on known facts.

But John Schindler (whose strange foray into Wikileaks/Snowden conspiracy theories we've covered here previously), former NSA officer and holder of a PhD in history (just ask him!) has gone far beyond any of these misperceptions. According to him, things he actually said are defamatory if published by a third party.

I have no idea how someone as self-assuredly brilliant as John Schindler would make this error but here's the chain of events. Schindler routinely berates anyone who questions his claims, calling them "stupid" and refusing to advance the argument past endless appeals to his own authority (the aforementioned PhD). Someone took notice of Schindler's tactics and crafted a Tumblr blog containing nothing but screenshots of actual Schindler tweets.

Here's a few of the tweets just to give you an idea of both Schindler's "conversational" patterns and the blog's content. "

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ng-nothing-his-own-tweets-is-defamatory.shtml

Another story about him tweeting out pics of his penis took me on a weird and creepy ride.
 
plague311 said:
How can she not want to leave tracks, and also want to hide in the dark, when the first thing she did was ask the NSA for phones from them? Something that had been done with previous SoS offices. I don't even understand how you can logically say that given the available information. Also, she didn't demand accomodation(sic), she asked for BB's. I don't see anything saying she was demanding. She went through the proper channels to request something that would be useful for her office, and was denied.

Again, labeling anything and everything she does as inherently evil really degrades your argument.
Click to expand...

No answer to this 16.5? Just going to ignore it and keep rolling with the "everything Hillary does is evil by nature"?
 
Clinton emails show bizarre relationship between Google, Hillary and the State Department.

http://sfist.com/2016/03/22/hillary_clinton_emails_show_weirdly.php

{A google senior exec} was discussing a “defection tracker” with Clinton's team in 2012, which would be an online tool to "publicly track and map the defections [from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government] in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from."
Click to expand...

Hillary's buddy called it a "a pretty cool idea" when forwarding it to Hillary.

Hillary replied "pls print" because she is old.

This might explain why google news serves up pro-hillary, garbage propaganda like "media matters" without mentioning that it is propaganda.
 
16.5 said:
Clinton emails show bizarre relationship between Google, Hillary and the State Department.

http://sfist.com/2016/03/22/hillary_clinton_emails_show_weirdly.php



Hillary's buddy called it a "a pretty cool idea" when forwarding it to Hillary.

Hillary replied "pls print" because she is old.

This might explain why google news serves up pro-hillary, garbage propaganda like "media matters" without mentioning that it is propaganda.
Click to expand...

What a jumble of nonsense.

CT Forum is --->
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom