RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
And the fact that the State Department's emails were hacked? How does that figure in to this judgment that Clinton's server was somehow riskier?
Click to expand...

I very seldom go the lengths to call arguements made by people at the level of being shillery. But this trend of arguing she was completely in the right to hold her server meets the criteria. She broke protocol and very basic business practice for her level of responsibility. For having been a lawyer at one point it is dumbfounding to suggest that she didnt kniw this... and completely stupid to suggest that the objective rule should apply selectively because someone views every "attack" on the individual a political ploy. Most of the people i disagree with in this thread have atleast indicated an understanding of this degree.

Suggesting she had the 100 percent absolute right to "privacy" among other things is nothing short of the fast track nethod of getting your arguments auto dismissed
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Yet another in-depth analysis that covers why Clinton is not likely to be indicted.

Much more insightful, I might add, than "because the fix is in"

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Should Clinton be indicted?
Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.
Click to expand...

Lempert has been calling no harm no foul for almost a year now, although I find his suggestion that Hillary's aides might get indicted for sending classified info to her cowboy server but she won't intriguing.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Yet another in-depth analysis that covers why Clinton is not likely to be indicted.

Much more insightful, I might add, than "because the fix is in"

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Should Clinton be indicted?
Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.
Click to expand...

Unpersuasive. It fails to address some of the arguments presented in this thread (e.g. the fact that Clinton's private email setup delayed discovery of a potential compromise of classified information by many years and therefore represented a far greater security threat than keeping classified emails on an unsecured State Department server), and it even fails to address adequately some of the points it raises itself (e.g. whether Clinton "knowingly remove[d] such … materials without authority and with the intent to retain such … materials at an unauthorized location").

His claim that Clinton, as Secretary of State, had the authority to declassify information originally classified by the State Department, is completely irrelevant. Aside from the fact that there are reports of plenty of classified information in her emails that was owned by other agencies, she, presumably, would have to indicate an intention to declassify classified information in order actually to declassify it. If the State Department still considers that information classified today, then it means she hadn't declassified it. Information doesn't just get magically declassified retroactively for the sole purpose of exonerating an agency head's mishandling of that information. There has to be a reason for its declassification, and it presumably should stay declassified for everybody, until such time that it is reclassified.

Finally I'll note that there are times when the author gets pretty tendentious:

I also cannot help observing that it is the party that regularly declares that government doesn’t work that tells us that when it comes to computer security we can trust the government more than the private sector to get things right.
Click to expand...

I'll therefore take his thinly supported conclusions with a large grain of salt.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I very seldom go the lengths to call arguements made by people at the level of being shillery. ...
Click to expand...
The point addresses the ludicrous notion this put the country at risk, that it rises to the level of criminal, that it showed outrageously poor judgement and all other manner of bollocks exaggerations over the actual offense here.

So right back at you.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The point addresses the ludicrous notion this put the country at risk, that it rises to the level of criminal, that it showed outrageously poor judgement and all other manner of bollocks exaggerations over the actual offense here.

So right back at you.
Click to expand...

I'm not certain that doubling down was the solution
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The point addresses the ludicrous notion this put the country at risk, that it rises to the level of criminal, that it showed outrageously poor judgement and all other manner of bollocks exaggerations over the actual offense here.
Click to expand...
You've expressed on record basically dismissing the fact that she broke protocol multiple times and put her department in a bind by not being able to comply with FOIA for the duration that this issue was not public. That is an established fact regardless of whether or not the FBI determines it rises to the level of criminal. You even went as far to argue that she has a right to determine how the rules apply to her in how she conducts her job for the sake of privacy from the Republicans that "always look for dirt" on her. Forget about what 16.5 and others contend about her committing a crime, you've yet to even acknowledge in your arguments that what she did was at minimum very poor judgement, which doesn't require a wall o' text to point out. That being said

Skeptic Ginger said:
So right back at you.
Click to expand...

...is paper thin bluster that is not going to work as a counter argument.
 
Last edited:
State and Judicial Watch hammer out an agreed order, with deps of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Bryan Pagliano to be scheduled, and limitations put in place regarding the FBI investigation and classified data.

According to the proposed joint order, Judicial Watch will be granted discovery regarding “the creation and operation of clintonemail.com for State Department business.”

It can also explore “the State Department’s approach and practice for processing FOIA requests that potentially implicated former Secretary Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s emails and State’s processing of the FOIA request that is the subject of this action.”
Click to expand...

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/16/f...ation-of-hillarys-email-system/#ixzz46ISAzeV3
 
This isn't a skeptic board.

The name-calling, i.e. "haters" is just so tiresome and says so much more about the person hurling the insult than who the insult is levied at.


I served in office. I only recall one substantive vote that entire time where it was unanimous. I sat next to the Mayor, who was from the opposite end of the political spectrum. You could count on our votes being a near perfect 1:1 negative correlation.

I do not recall the word "hater" ever uttered in all of those years. I really liked the mayor personally. We had a great time sitting next to each other and sometimes gave each other's speeches for fun at the breaks - knowing what the other person was going to say. Sometimes the radio broadcast was still rolling and people told us after we both stepped down that it was some of the funniest stuff they ever heard.

The anonymity of the internet really does make ******** out of us and there is self-selection bias at work too. Antisocial people are shunned in public. Nobody would speak this way in front of the Council. Even in cases where extremely grave issues of embezzlement of public funds, corruption in the Police Department, lawsuits with contractors in the tens of millions $ - nobody spoke this way to each other.

I am not immune from it. I am just commenting that this kind of medium, with the rules we have, is dying for good reason. If you can't go through a post that is well constructed otherwise and yet cannot help yourself with "hater, hater, hater" then this forum should rightfully go the way of the dinosaurs.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
This isn't a skeptic board.

The name-calling, i.e. "haters" is just so tiresome and says so much more about the person hurling the insult than who the insult is levied at.


I served in office. I only recall one substantive vote that entire time where it was unanimous. I sat next to the Mayor, who was from the opposite end of the political spectrum. You could count on our votes being a near perfect 1:1 negative correlation.

I do not recall the word "hater" ever uttered in all of those years. I really liked the mayor personally. We had a great time sitting next to each other and sometimes gave each other's speeches for fun at the breaks - knowing what the other person was going to say. Sometimes the radio broadcast was still rolling and people told us after we both stepped down that it was some of the funniest stuff they ever heard.

The anonymity of the internet really does make ******** out of us and there is self-selection bias at work too. Antisocial people are shunned in public. Nobody would speak this way in front of the Council. Even in cases where extremely grave issues of embezzlement of public funds, corruption in the Police Department, lawsuits with contractors in the tens of millions $ - nobody spoke this way to each other.

I am not immune from it. I am just commenting that this kind of medium, with the rules we have, is dying for good reason. If you can't go through a post that is well constructed otherwise and yet cannot help yourself with "hater, hater, hater" then this forum should rightfully go the way of the dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
Nominated
 
I said something similar many months back, in this very thread I believe, and got slammed for it - the nicest thing said being "that's politics". After some reflection, I decided everyone was right and a political forum is the last place one should go in search of fine examples of critical thought.

After my rant I visited some other political forums that I used to visit occasionally and they are much worse, some vulgar.

I sometimes think that it's odd, and maybe some type of addiction, that I post in Politics (particularly politics and maybe current events). I mean I came to this site via the Paranormal section many moons ago and I never dared tread in Politics, at least not for years. I came here to debunk John Edward! :thumbsup:

I can think of several reasons why I post in Politics. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the subject. I often think of starting a thread asking why other members do it.
 
Last edited:
FOIA Advocate Takes on DoJ for Classified Filing in Clinton Email Scadal Case

Attorneys for Vice News reporter Jason Leopold are taking the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice to task after the feds filed a classified declaration supposedly providing more information to the court about the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s private email server.
Click to expand...

not only is the “information being submitted to the court classified, but its really more than that, it is information that if revealed there exists ‘reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.'”

Here is the whole story about the FBI's investigation
 
Tony Stark said:
Has she been indicted yet? LOL
Click to expand...

Tony Stark said:
Not particularly clever. But it is fun mocking you people.

When is Hillary getting indicted again? LOL.
Click to expand...

Tony Stark said:
Sure.

Please estimate when Hillary will be indicated. I guess never.
Click to expand...

Tony Stark said:
So when do you think Hillary is going to be indicted. LOL.
Click to expand...

Tony Stark said:
So she is never going to be indicted. Yeah, I know.
Click to expand...

Tony Stark said:
Has Hillary been indicted yet?

lol
Click to expand...

Tony Stark said:
Is today the day that Hillary will finally be fogmarched to prison? LOL.
Click to expand...

Tony Stark said:
Has Hillary been indicted yet? lol
Click to expand...

That is some next level spam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom