RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
It's not turning them over because she deleted them.
Click to expand...
You continue to assume facts not in evidence. She deleted what she says were personal emails.
TheL8Elvis said:
I....And I'm not arguing that "technically" she didn't do it. I'm simply pointing out that it sounds disingenuous to claim "she turned over all her emails"
Click to expand...
And I think it's disingenuous to assume her personal emails included work related emails.

Again, this isn't FOIA. This is now an FBI investigation security review. At this point, what's in your trash can is completely relevant, to use your analogy.
Click to expand...
A separate issue from turning over your work related emails.

You have a broader definition of "all" than I was using. Does "all" include any email Clinton ever sent or received her entire life?

They (being the FBI) did it all on their own, AFAIK. Do you have evidence to the contrary ?
Click to expand...
The whole thing was triggered by the Benghazi committee asking for anything they could get their hands on to comb through for dirt on Clinton. The security review came when the State Department did their routine redaction review subsequent to the FOIA requests. Without those there would be no security review.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
The FBI had a tape of him confessing. He also lied to them.

What are the odds that the FBI has a tape of Hillary confessing? My guess is 0%.
Click to expand...

Among other differences such has he specifically gave said confidential information to a non-government employee for non-work related reasons.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You continue to assume facts not in evidence. She deleted what she says were personal emails.
And I think it's disingenuous to assume her personal emails included work related emails.

A separate issue from turning over your work related emails.
Click to expand...

I am not assuming "facts not in evidence."

I have never claimed she deleted anything other than her work emails, or that she had to turn anything over under FOIA than her work emails.

Skeptic Ginger said:
You have a broader definition of "all" than I was using.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. So does any normal person using the english language. That's what I'm trying to explain to you if you would stop arguing long enough and just process what I am saying.

When you say all her emails .. that means ... all her emails. Not just her work emails.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Does "all" include any email Clinton ever sent or received her entire life?
Click to expand...

No, that would be ridiculous. It would not be ridiculous, however, to assume all her emails means "all the emails in her inbox, in her account, on her computer"

If you choose to keep claiming "she turned over all her emails" without any qualifier, you'll keep causing confusion.

Skeptic Ginger said:
The whole thing was triggered by the Benghazi committee asking for anything they could get their hands on to comb through for dirt on Clinton. The security review came when the State Department did their routine redaction review subsequent to the FOIA requests. Without those there would be no security review.
Click to expand...

That's not evidence that the FBI didn't request the emails all on their own after they became aware of the circumstances.

What is the relevance of whether they did or didn't anyway ?
 
You are hung up on semantics yet again. I explained what I meant by "all". It's tedious to write out full sentences with multiple caveats.

Feel free to continue fussing. Next time you see me write all emails, if you aren't sure, ask what I mean.

Same with the FBI vs Benghazi vs the State Dept. We're on the same page, stop being such a pedant. I can't see any facts we disagree on except your pedantic issues.

Life's too short as it is.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You are hung up on semantics yet again. I explained what I meant by "all". It's tedious to write out full sentences with multiple caveats.

Feel free to continue fussing. Next time you see me write all emails, if you aren't sure, ask what I mean.

Same with the FBI vs Benghazi vs the State Dept. We're on the same page, stop being such a pedant. I can't see any facts we disagree on except your pedantic issues.
Click to expand...

The onus is on you to communicate your arguments clearly.

When people on both sides of the argument keep telling you that you are not ...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The whole thing was triggered by the Benghazi committee asking for anything they could get their hands on to comb through for dirt on Clinton. The security review came when the State Department did their routine redaction review subsequent to the FOIA requests. Without those there would be no security review.
Click to expand...

Actually Gawker issued a FOIA request to State seeking her emails, the Benghazi committee requested them, Jason Leopold issued a FOIA request and then the New York Times wrote an article about it.

There is no "security review." That is a Hillary lie. The Intelligence Community Inspector General made a counterIntelligence referral to the FBI when they discovered top secret data from the CIA and the NGSA in her emails. The FBI is now conducting a "law enforcement" investigation that is so sensitive they will not release the identity of the Agent who submitted an affidavit about the status.

Security review, are you kidding me?
 
16.5 said:
Actually Gawker issued a FOIA request to State seeking her emails, the Benghazi committee requested them, Jason Leopold issued a FOIA request and then the New York Times wrote an article about it.

There is no "security review." That is a Hillary lie. The Intelligence Community Inspector General made a counterIntelligence referral to the FBI when they discovered top secret data from the CIA and the NGSA in her emails. The FBI is now conducting a "law enforcement" investigation that is so sensitive they will not release the identity of the Agent who submitted an affidavit about the status.

Security review, are you kidding me?
Click to expand...
Obama is going to have to pardon Hillary to keep her out of prison? Are you kidding me? If not, surely you are willing to make a bet over it. $100 that Obama does not pardon Hillary.
 
16.5 said:
Actually Gawker issued a FOIA request to State seeking her emails, the Benghazi committee requested them, Jason Leopold issued a FOIA request and then the New York Times wrote an article about it.

There is no "security review." That is a Hillary lie. The Intelligence Community Inspector General made a counterIntelligence referral to the FBI when they discovered top secret data from the CIA and the NGSA in her emails. The FBI is now conducting a "law enforcement" investigation that is so sensitive they will not release the identity of the Agent who submitted an affidavit about the status.

Security review, are you kidding me?
Click to expand...

Evidence for the hilited required.

Also, you have no information why will not release the identity of the Agent who submitted an affidavit about the status. For all we know it's just becuase they don't want you to know.

Unless, of course, you have some evidence ?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
The onus is on you to communicate your arguments clearly.

When people on both sides of the argument keep telling you that you are not ...
Click to expand...

No, the onus is on me to give a rip about your pedantics and I don't. But I like you, and on much we agree.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, the onus is on me to give a[n]...
Click to expand...
argument that is reasonably accurate. Otherwise people will point it out and rightfully so. Much like you argue that her actions were completely legitimate in the context where most reasoned people understand that not everything she did was correct. The only major item in disagreement is if it rises to the level of "criminal" and well... as serious as that can be it's another matter from whether her handling of the emails themselves was ever the right way to begin with. I've criticized this numerous times in the months that this thread has been active. And you seem to want to over look it because well, apparently there's something about Hillary that deserves godly exemption from the rules that people have previously argued need to apply to everyone (I'm sure the enormous focus on HER directs the convo a fair amount from the problem as an abstract but most fair people register that).
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one that considers it ironic that had she used the DoS's system for her work emails that they would have been compromised by hackers because their system actually got hacked into, yet we're basically being told that what she did was terrible for having a private server because the Government can make a more secure system than a private company can, even though the Government's one was breached. Even more ironically, her server was using encoded communications, the DoS's wasn't.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Among other differences such has he specifically gave said confidential information to a non-government employee for non-work related reasons.
Click to expand...

His mistress was a DOD certified journalist, a major (I think) in the US Army reserves, and had a top secret security clearance. She was working on his authorized biography/hagiography, which the DOD had an obvious interest in encouraging and facilitating.

What was Petraeus' purpose in giving her access to his diaries? To get into her pants? He was no doubt rummaging around in there anyway. I imagine he was trying to help her write a more accurate biography, which is at least a noble goal.

What was Hillary's purpose in setting up a private server from which to do all of her government work? Was it noble? No it was not. It was corrupt from the get-go.

Hillary's crimes are worse.
 
sunmaster14 said:
His mistress was a DOD certified journalist, a major (I think) in the US Army reserves, and had a top secret security clearance. She was working on his authorized biography/hagiography, which the DOD had an obvious interest in encouraging and facilitating.

What was Petraeus' purpose in giving her access to his diaries? To get into her pants? He was no doubt rummaging around in there anyway. I imagine he was trying to help her write a more accurate biography, which is at least a noble goal.

What was Hillary's purpose in setting up a private server from which to do all of her government work? Was it noble? No it was not. It was corrupt from the get-go.

Hillary's crimes are worse.
Click to expand...
You can't even prove that Hillary committed a crime. On the other hand, the FBI had Petraeus on tape confessing. And then he lied to them about it.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
You can't even prove that Hillary committed a crime. On the other hand, the FBI had Petraeus on tape confessing. And then he lied to them about it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've already proved it many times in this thread, and only from the information that is publicly available.

As for Petraeus' confession, can you give me a transcript? I've never seen it. I know that he accepted a plea bargain, but who knows why or how. The poor guy was completely humiliated, and his ego was crushed. On top of that he had to go back to his potato sack of a wife after having a mind-blowing affair with a very fit and appealing woman, 20 years his junior, who worshiped the ground he walked on. I'm surprised he didn't beg for jail time, or even a firing squad.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Actually, I've already proved it many times in this thread, and only from the information that is publicly available.
Click to expand...

LOL

As for Petraeus' confession, can you give me a transcript? I've never seen it. I know that he accepted a plea bargain, but who knows why or how. The poor guy was completely humiliated, and his ego was crushed. On top of that he had to go back to his potato sack of a wife after having a mind-blowing affair with a very fit and appealing woman, 20 years his junior, who worshiped the ground he walked on. I'm surprised he didn't beg for jail time, or even a firing squad.
Click to expand...

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, “I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.”

When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. As Mukasey also highlighted, the key element is that Petraeus’ conduct was done “knowingly.” That is, when he stored his journals containing “highly classified” information at his home, he did so knowingly. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly.
Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/wlna/opinio...versy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

He's lucky he didn't go to prison. If he wasn't a four star general and former director of the CIA, he probably would have.
 
Tony Stark said:
LOL





http://www.usatoday.com/wlna/opinio...versy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

He's lucky he didn't go to prison. If he wasn't a four star general and former director of the CIA, he probably would have.
Click to expand...

That article is your answer? Let me quote another part from it, since you were too lazy or embarrassed to do so:

In sharp contrast, Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly.

Indeed, the State Department has confirmed that none of the information that has surfaced on Clinton’s server thus far was classified at the time it was sent or received. Additionally, the Justice Department indicated that its inquiry is not a criminal one and that Clinton is not the subject of the inquiry.
Click to expand...

Oh, and if that wasn't enough to shatter completely the article's credibility, there is this:

Anne M. Tompkins is a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and former United States attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. She is a donor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
You can't even prove that Hillary committed a crime. On the other hand, the FBI had Petraeus on tape confessing. And then he lied to them about it.
Click to expand...

So that's your criteria, huh? Hillary will never confess to anything. She's a congenital liar and will never confess to anything in contrast to honorable people such as Petraus. Hillary has no morals, not even a hint of any. She has proven that over and over again that she is willing to say or do anything to obtain or keep her version of power. That fact is well documented and refutable.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/...st-news-possible-presidential-campaign-video/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/30/the-clinton-files-is-hillary-a-crook/

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/09/22/hillary-clinton-sick-elderly-crook/

There are hundreds more....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom